>I should not have responded at all to the discussion of the phrase,
>"welfare state." I really cannot see why the topic ever came up. The
>general thread (though the subject line is bad) is important, but the
>quibbling over the meaning of "welfare state" is really silly. Why in
>the world would anyone, ever, want to call a socialist state a welfare
>state.
>
>I'll stick with my d? in the margin on this part of the debate.
Gotta admire your firm principles, Prof Cox (Ret).
You seem to have a pretty worked-out idea of what a socialist state would look like, despite your fondness for quoting Marx on the pointlessness of inventing recipes for the cookshops of the future. So it wouldn't have welfare state elements? How, then, would it work?
Doug