Capitalism can’t support Socialist Welfare State

“The idea that a capitalist economy can support a socialist welfare state is collapsing before our eyes.”

I agree very much with Janet Daley’s analysis in today’s Telegraph (LINK), but it doesn’t go deep enough.

Socialist ideals (notwithstanding their opportunistic exploitation by socialist politicians and welfare scroungers) are based ultimately on the state’s claim to representing our NATION, which as an extension of our original TRIBE, has an obligation of care towards all its members.

When Britain’s welfare state was founded in the aftermath of WW2, there was a strong sense of national identity and a huge amount of social solidarity to base it on. Apart from a few rouge individuals, my parents’ generation wouldn’t have dreamed of exploiting it inappropriately, as in the meantime millions – in fact, the vast majority – have become accustomed to doing.

The question is, why is the welfare state now seen as something to be exploited, rather than used responsibly? It’s because the sense of national identity (except in sport and war) and of social solidarity, on which it was originally based, are long gone, although we –especially our politicians – are obliged to maintain the pretence.

Why, notwithstanding that many still cling to its symbols and as an abstraction, did we lose our sense of national identity and social solidarity?

The madness of mass immigration (into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country) and multi-ethnic society is partly to blame, but there is a much older and more fundamental reason than this, which is the example set by society’s wealthy and ruling elites, who have always considered it their God given right to

exploit the rest of society to their own advantage. What the welfare state did, was give those at the other end of the social hierarchy the opportunity to do the same, not in the same style as those at the top, but nevertheless.

We need to stop going round in circles (in fact a rapidly descending spiral) blaming each other (the Left the Right, and the Right the Left) and develop a much deeper understanding of our situation, which is essentially, believe it or not (and it’s high time that we did!), DARWINIAN.

Human nature is a product of Darwinian evolution and adapted to an environment which existed long before any kind, let alone modern industrial, civilization arose. We can’t help but see “society” as an environment to be exploited to our own advantage (i.e. that of our own little tribe or family). And this, in fact, is what the STATE (and the economy) developed over the centuries to facilitate (while posing as our TRIBE or NATION), to the advantage, of course, of those in a position to shape the power structures of its institutions. Initially, these were just members of the aristocracy and clergy, but over the centuries others (bankers, merchants, industrialists, and numerous professions) got in on the act (of exploitation), creating favourable niches for themselves. Until, with advent of universal suffrage, even the poor and disadvantage were able to exert influence as the clients of politicians in need of their votes.

Why STATE Welfare will always be Exploited

There is a fundamental reason why the welfare STATE will always be exploited. Not because of flaws in the system (which government is vainly attempting to correct), but because it's what the state's original and still primary purpose is: to facilitate society's self-exploitation.

That sounds absurd, I know, but only because we have been brain-washed, for centuries, into believing the opposite, i.e. that the state exists to SERVE society.

It does serve society, of course, and we all depend on it, but as a shepherd serves his flock. Which isn't primarily for the flock's sake (notwithstanding any genuine concern for a lost or injured lamb), but for his own and/or his employer's sake, for the meat and wool the flock provides and can be exchanged at market for money.

The primary purpose of the STATE is to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation, as an artificial human ENVIRONMENT. This is what it was created for, back in the Middle Ages, by a coalition of aristocracy and clergy. Not consciously, of course, but subconsciously, in pursuit of a misplace and perverted Darwinian drive for POWER and all the advantages that go with it.

Things have moved on since the Middle Ages, with the aristocracy and clergy being largely displaced by other, more numerous and diverse, “self-interest groups”, but the fundamental purpose of the state's power structures remain the same: to facilitate “society's” self-exploitation as an artificial human ENVIRONMENT.

It is in this context that the problems of the welfare state (along with most other issues) are to be understood, once we have overcome the misunderstandings and confusion caused by the STATE posing as our NATION, which most of us unthinkingly equate it with.

Just as the rich and powerful have always used their wealth and power to exploit society to their own advantage, now, thanks to the welfare system, ordinary citizens are able to as well.

When the welfare system was first created, most people still believed in Britain being a NATION, which they had been intensely proud to serve during the war, and wouldn't have dreamed taking unnecessary or unfair advantage of.

However, 60 years of consumer capitalism (which sees people primarily as a “human resource” or “market”) and mass immigration (which has undermined the natural, ethnic basis of nationhood) have between them strongly eroded our sense of national identity and solidarity.

We see millions of immigrants coming here to exploit the freedoms and opportunities unavailable in their countries of origin (and who can blame them?), with the state and capital in turn exploiting their cheap labour, along with the power-political advantage of being able to claim the spurious “moral high ground” associated with “colourblindness” and the virtues of “multi-ethnic society”. We see mind-boggling income differentials between those at the bottom, or even in the middle, and those at the top of the income scale, as those who can take as much as they can (and then do all they can to avoid paying tax on it). We see MPs taking advantage of their expenses, encouraged, no doubt, by those, less worthy than themselves, they see taking far more.

Those at the lower end of the social hierarchy look up and think to themselves: if those at the top are exploiting the system for all they can get out of it, why shouldn't I do the same? They don't have the opportunities that the powerful, wealthy, privileged and “talented” have, so they use the opportunities that are available - such as exploiting the welfare system.

Welfare Nation vs. Welfare State

This is my response to an article in today’s Telegraph by Ian Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, “It’s time to end this addiction to benefits

The problem lies far deeper than with the welfare-state, which is just 60 years old, having been created at a time, following years of exceptionally strong national unity and purpose in the struggle against Nazism, when there was still a very strong sense of national identity and solidarity.

This basis of national identity and solidarity, on which the welfare-state was founded, has since been massively eroded by mercenary consumer-capitalism, on the one hand (in which people serve primarily as a “human resource” and “market”, rather than as members of a nation), and mass immigration (of cheap foreign labour) and the creation of a multi-ethnic (effectively, multi-national) society, on the other, thereby destroying the natural ethnic basis of our national identity.

This was justified and enforced by the state adopting a internationalist, left-wing ideology, which, not coincidentally, was the exact, but equally extreme, opposite, of Nazi racial ideology, and condemned the natural ethnic basis of national identity as “racist”. The STATE and its ideology, rather than the people themselves, would define national, or rather, "pseudo-national" identity; but of course, when things are imposed from above and directed from the top down, they don't work very well.

While a welfare-NATION can be organised to work well, a welfare-STATE cannot. In other words, Ian Duncan Smith is flogging a dead horse.

The welfare-state is "Socialism" implemented by the STATE and financed by a capitalist economy.

No wonder things are in such a MESS!

The natural basis of Socialism is the NATION, which is characterised by the shared identity and solidarity of its members. When the STATE, which only "poses" as our nation, attempts to implement Socialism (social services and welfare) from above, it can only make a mess of things: witness 60 years of Britain as a welfare STATE . . !

But I'm on dangerous ground here, bringing together the ideas “Socialism” and the “Nation”. Just one step further and you get “National Socialism”, which, because of its Nazi associations, is the very epitome of evil.

So why did the Nazis call themselves National Socialists? Because they wanted everyone to know how evil they were? Hardly. It was because at the time it was a very positive and popular concept, combining as it did the ideas of nationhood (and nationalism) with those of socialism (and the Nazis were supreme propagandists). In the meantime, of course, both concepts have been thoroughly discredited and demonised; nationalism by the Left, which it equates with “racism”, and socialism by the Right, which it equates with statism. And because the Nazis combined the two, nationalism (racism) and socialism (statism), the concept of National Socialism is abhorred by all.

But the fact remains that the basis of viable socialism (by which I mean all the POSITIVE aspects of social services and welfare, which even the most callous libertarian wouldn't deny the value of) has to be a genuine nation.

The Nazis deserve to be abhorred, but the concept of “national socialism”, which they hijacked and dragged into the abyss with their nasty selves, needs to be recovered, cleansed of its evil Nazi associations, and re-examined.

It's going to be difficult and painful process, I know, because words and their associations (especially those surrounding “nationalism”, “socialism” and “national socialism”) can be extremely powerful and difficult to separate form each other, not just intellectually, but also emotionally. But we cannot allow the Nazis, so long after their demise, to continue their ownership of such a vitally important concept. An ownership which continues to be confirmed and reinforced even today by the political Left and Right, who have incorporated it, i.e. their opposition to it, into their own tribal identities.

Britain now being a multi-ethnic, i.e. multi-national society, the concept we need to be looking at is “multi-national socialism”.