With that note out of the way, let me explain my question.
We technically don't need welfare anymore, we MIGHT have UBI, (which could be used to for services like Skillshare), and even if we don't we have plenty of information on how to repairs and how to cook. The main purpose of welfare is to numb the worker from doing an actual revolution to overthrow the capitalists. If we do overthrow the capitalists, would we no longer welfare or the welfare state? I ask because in order to achieve full communism, we have to make less dependent on the state (and the capitalists).
Would there be a welfare state under pure socialism?
With that note out of the way, let me explain my question.
Other urls found in this thread:
There would not be a state at all.
The only way "socialism" can work is to eliminate money. No matter what kind of government system humans have tried, there are always the parasitic few who rise to the top. In human-run socialism, some socialists are more equal than others. In the Star Trek timeline, Earth is one one of the planets that does not use currency of any kind. It is a post-scarcity economy. They get to this point after a nuclear WWIII, which sobers the population after a third of it is wiped out.
Without money, the individual would actually have to work, to produce something useful, or to perform essential services. No freeloading parasite class could exist. No more speculating on the value of commodities, gambling on futures, etc.
You would not need a welfare state under communism.
Welfare state is a capitalist construct.
Neolibs forgot that it's not handed out by the state out of the goodness of their heart. It's a "please do not revolt against us" fee which they are willing to pay less and less for.
So masses of workers starve to death or executed every time a machine's invented that can do their jobs? Also what happens when people want more than vital services and how do you define them as such?
Ideally it would not be necessary, and any welfare would only serve to close living standard gaps that can't be dealt with in other ways.
I can't even tell you how hard I cringe whenever I see leftists unironically cite fucking Star Trek to make a political point.
How is that any kind of reply to the text that you quoted? None of it follows at all.
Nope. We’re gonna cut off all the parasites and quickly eliminate the surplus populations under the beginning stages of socialism, re-implementing a struggle for existence which ensures the survival of the fittest. Socialism has nothing to do with handouts such as healthcare, the “right to a home”, education or the inherent value of life. As long as the state controls the means of production all is right in the world
What about it don't you understand?
Oh bullshit, I'm tired of hearing this. It's always from some softie suburbanite landed burger who's pussy ass parents were apart of the "white flight" from the cities that helped weaken worker solidarity in the first place. They're someone who's never gone hungry in their whole life. Suffering doesn't bring out class consciousness, it actually pretty fucking reliably brings fascism.
Western EU has a welfare state 10 times larger than the US and the US if more fucking fascist. He have literal fucking slavery in the form of prison labor.
The part where it responds in any way to the text that you quoted. It appears to be a complete non sequitor.
While it is correct that reforms have historically been an attempt to placate the proletariat, you are correct in that misery breeds fascism more than revolution without a strong workers' movement. The past workers' movements struggling for wage increases and other benefits should be evidence enough that waiting around waiting for people to radicalize because of how miserable they are, instead of organizing to force concessions, is idiotic.
Fuck off, retard.
Fascism is not created by misery. It is installed by a particular segment of the ruling class in a time of crisis to stave off revolution.
Which workers' movements are evidence of what?
It has an oddly consistent occurrence of showing up in misery rather than prosperity then.
And does this particular segment conjure it from the air or do they take advantage of an existing movement or ideologically inclined group?
The struggles against capitalism, such as the soviets/worker's councils and (syndicalist) unions, that all existed within capitalism and fought for power/concessions before revolutions occured.
That as a method of organization pushing for concessions is useful because it requires those involved to have a material interest in organizing, as opposed to just ideologically agreeing with the tenants of an organization. We would be dumb to dismiss all such concessions won as getting paid off by the bourgeoisie, because often it is the other way around and because such thinking gets you do nothing spontaneity that only succeeds in getting imprisoned or killed when that particular segment of the bourgeoisie decides it's time to give the reactionaries some power.
Nog an ardumint
Economic crises do tend to be miserable.
A little of both. They spin some new myth around a supposedly ancient but actually entirely new collective identity, and they invite the ever-present traditionalist factions into an alliance which is then solidified by electoralism.
Such appeasements are only ever had by way of the imminent threat of open rebellion, as was the case in your examples.
The soviets themselves were the very image of sponteneity. They arose by accident more than by design, which is why they initially took Lenin by surprise. Your examples work better for the contrary position than they do for your own.
Neither was the dumb shit that it was replying to.
No. Every worker would have autonomy and there would be absolute democracy, but no gibs whatsoever. Gibs is a liberal concept to stall the revolution.
This. Under full communism, everything would be free.
It was responding to one of my posts that was responding to a shitty argument saying that yet another post (not one of mine) was an adhom which it wasn't. Suburbanite turds are usually the ones against wellfare, as is Shitlery Cunton.
is indeed just a long argumentum ad hominem. Your posts are bad, and you should feel bad.