>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
The welfare state funded by progressive taxation rests upon private production largely independent of the state, the existence of most jobs and a tax base (profits and wages) being consequently dependent on profit rates and individual private investors' willingness to invest in production at home (not abroad), all determined by the market. Yoshie
That is why I never have and never will discuss socialism on this list.
Carrol
This assumes YOU get to define the term "welfare state" so as not to include socialism. You incorrectly assume that because you have done this the issue is settled. What amazing arrogance. From now on I will check with Bill, Carrol, and Yoshie for specific and rigid definitions of fluid terms like "welfare state" "economic security" and "administrative reform". I notice that people who insist on claiming "welfare state" cannot apply to socialism are using the term "THE welfare state" and defining it as what currently exists. People who are not holding to that rigid definition are using the term "A welfare state" loosely defined as a state that maximizes the welfare of its citizens and makes no comment on who owns the means of production. The original quote was "A welfare state". The term welfare state has a long history of being used this way. See Robert Levy's "A Welfare State For Aggrieved Market Losers". Try www.welfarestate.com The Welfare State for the Rich. If you really have nothing better to do than argue that someone has misused the term welfare state in a hypothetical discussion that's kind of sad.
John Thornton