It strikes me that a an addtional question is what form of welfare state should socialists support. I think the hyper individualizing, poverty reproducing form it takes in the US and Canada needs to be jettisoned in favour of something that actually allows those who make use of the welfare state to do so more as citzens with rights and a role to play in the organization and delivery of those services they use. That is, the left might want to think about articulating an alternative framework for welfare state reform.
Travis
> AN wrote:
>
>
> 1) is the welfare state worth defending?
> 2) is it OK for socialists to talk about defending it
> when they mean the capitalist welfare state>
> 3) Or as euphemism for some of socialism
> 4) Would socialism involve a sort of welfare state?
>
> 1) Yes. It is also worthy of criticism.
>
> 2) Yes. Because communists are part of the left, they
> defend any claims and gains that the working class has
> managed to wrest from Capital.
>
> 3) Social ownership of the means of production under
> democratic control of the producers. Classless,
> non-political society. Production of goods and
> services for use and need. ( I leave "profit" out
> here because social ownership negates profit, unless
> we're talking "market socialism"--I'm not.)
>
> 4) Socialsim would funnel ALL not just some of the
> wealth workers create in their common efforts, back to
> the control/ownership of the producers themselves.
>
> Best,
> Mike B)
>
> =====
> "Whenever morality is based on theology,
> whenever right is made dependent on
> divine authority, the most immoral,
> unjust, infamous things can
> be justified and established."
>
> - Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)
>
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk