>This is why I'm glad I subscribe to this list. I always suffered
>under the delusion that a socialist state could be categorized as a
>welfare state but now I see that I was mistaken. Thanks for proving
>me wrong.
Welfare benefits for the poor are not the same as economic security for all. The former presupposes a large and permanent section of society who are poor, the latter would of course preclude the existence of any such underclass.
Not to mention that one of the fundamental premises of the welfare state is the separation of the poor into "deserving" and "undeserving" categories. The "undeserving" are permitted no more than subsistence existence, while the undeserving are denied this.
(In fact the history of the welfare state demonstrates that denying subsistence to the "undeserving" poor is a far more important objective than providing subsistence to the "deserving" poor.
Clearly this is a long way from the concept of economic security for all, as in socialism. This is how it must be under capitalism, an economic system which requires a class of people live in the shadow of poverty.
A welfare state is one that provides a subsistence existence to the poor. A capitalist economy must have many poor. To abolish poverty would be to sign the death warrant of capitalism. Just as universal economic security is incompatible with a capitalist economy, poverty is incompatible with a socialist economy. So it follows that a welfare state cannot be a socialist state.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas