Would/should anarchists accept social security payments like unemployment and housing benefits?
This is money from the State that is 'extorted' from the people. So would I be right in saying that an anarchist should be opposed to receiving any kind of social security?
Social security etc exist to contain the disaffection of working class people by co-opting similiar institutions created outside the control of the state by the unions and co-operative movement. Benefits can be seen as a reaction to working class gains made over the last century, an attempt to curtail more revoluntionary aims by the almoeriating the worst exesses of the system. The welfare state was partly created to satisfy the demands of returning disaffected soliders and the metropolian working class communities devasated by the war. Basically if radical (for the times) reforms were not impletemented, the ensueing social unrest could lead to an insurrectionary situation, this had to prevented.
Plus, its very useful to get a cheque from Uncle Tony to fund your ket habit if your facial tattoos are preventing you from getting a job...I mean, if you're too busy with the revolution to get a job 
Social security etc exist to contain the disaffection of working class people by co-opting similiar institutions created outside the control of the state by the unions and co-operative movement. .....
Sorry Jason, I'm not very good at understanding political jargon.
Just to clarify -- what you're saying is that social security is just another way of keeping the working class oppressed by bribing them with money; that the welfare state was put in place to prevent a revolution/The Revolution?
The money that goes into social security comes from taxation which at least in part is taken from working class people while they're working. So if you're not working and able to get some of that money back, then fucking get it. the NHS is run by the state as well, but I don't see anyone lining up to take out Bupa on this board, nor should there be some quasi-Christian Scientist position- "we'll work for revolution while you're dying but don't accept bourgeios healthcare..
OK, so you're saying that since it was taken from you in the first place, then do what you can to get it back?
But by accepting social security payments, aren't you justifying the need for a welfare state and giving credibility to the government? The signal you're giving off is that the government is necessary to support the people when times are bad. You're also showing that there's a need to tax people since people are taking out benefits.
The only reason Government can stay in power is if it can maintain its legitimacy. Accepting handouts from the State helps to justify its reason for existing.
Yeah but aside from the actual political reason why they exist (a compromise to the working class), Jack's point is that as they exist we should take advantage of them as gains of the labour movement, and also because a lot of us would starve without them. Claiming benefits doesn't justify the state's existence any more than buying a can of coke justifies the existence of multinationals.
Oh and by the way it's capitalism, not the state that's your main enemy. All the cool anarchists know it's class.
Jack's point is that as they exist we should take advantage of them as gains of the labour movement, and also because a lot of us would starve without them.
If it is true that social security is a way of keeping the working class oppressed, then it cannot be seen as a gain for the labour movement. If a pimp gives free drugs to a crack whore, you can't see it as a gain for the whore.
Of course, it is up to each individual to decide what they need to survive. I'm not saying that it's somehow immoral to accept the social security benefits or the crack.
Claiming benefits doesn't justify the state's existence any more than buying a can of coke justifies the existence of multinationals.
Sorry to split hairs here, but buying a can of coke does justify the existence of multinationals. Multinationals, or any company, can only exist where there is a market. If you buy a coke you create the demand and therefore create the conditions for the company's existence.
Oh and by the way it's capitalism, not the state that's your main enemy.
Can you explain this? What I've read about anarchism indicates that capitalism and the state work together to oppress the working class.
All the cool anarchists know it's class.
Why?
samjam wrote
Sorry Jason, I'm not very good at understanding political jargon.
Sorry if i laspe into jargonese, bit of a bad habit, when writing.
It can be differcult to get complex ideas across in this type of forum format, for me anyway. Because for the brevitity's sake you have to simplify.
what you're saying is that social security is just another way of keeping the working class oppressed by bribing them with money
No. The 'working class' has forced various concessions from the 'ruling class' over the last century. Some of these concessions are health and safety regulations; insurance at work; social housing and social security benefits.
These are not a "bribe", but represent the balance of power between the two classes.
You shouldn't see things in isolation. We all exist in the world as it is (an historically created present). The state, labour forms, 'capital' are not things in of themsleves, but concrete expressions of social relations.
This is money from the State that is 'extorted' from the people. So would I be right in saying that an anarchist should be opposed to receiving any kind of social security?
By your analogy because anarchists are against capitalism they should refrain from having any invovlment with capitalism. But capitalism is everywhere around; when i shop; where i live;at work and outside of it, i can't avoid being invovled in it's daily reproduction.
We can only resist, subvert, play and attempt to create a movement capable of it's transcedence.
In our daily lives we have to get our hands dirty, our politics are no different. You cannot be 'pure' unsullied, there is no outside objective untainted viewpoint.
I will post something about the post-war settlement soon as i have time.
I wonder what would happen if social security was just taken away along with the rest of the liberal-inspired 'welfare state'? Just a thought...
I would guess a revolutionary situation - only a wild guess though. Poll tax shmoll tax.
Workers care about beer, bum & baccy and there is much in abundance at the moment. But this will change...
Joe
God, now I'm replying to myself, so much for anarchists and as I suspected...
I wonder what would happen if social security was just taken away along with the rest of the liberal-inspired 'welfare state'? Just a thought...
There was a study done years ago that reached the conclusion that the unemployed would be rioting and looting within weeks of benefits being stopped. Probably the reason why any changes to the benefit sytem are introduced gradually.
samjam as promised a little something on the post war settlement. 
In post war Britain, there was widespread unrest due to an number of reasons; poor housing, mass homelessness, high unemployment and rampant poverty. Many de-mobbed soldiers were destitute and a new word appeared 'handicapped' due to the common sight of ex-servicemen who had losted a limb, begging cap in hand. The biggest squatting movement in centuries devoloped with ex- servicemen and their families occuppying disused airbases and barracks. This combined with high expectations of the population after defeating the 'common enemy' (a clearly Idealogical opponent) created an explosive mixture.
This has to be seen in the context of the attempt to solve the boom and bust cycle of capitalism after the stock market crash. Keynes ideas around public (state) investment enabling a stable ecomony and regulated workforce were highly influential. State intervention into to both private and public arenas thoughout the war, intensified this process and made it far easier to implement. This all culminated in a raft of legislation that created, what became of known as the welfare state. this social-democratic pact lasted until the mid 70s and has been unravelling ever since.
Also, hundreds of thousands of armed and trained working class soldiers returning from the war would be expecting something ... or else.
The welfare state was indeed a way of heading off at the pass a much more serious state of affairs.
Workers care about beer, bum & baccy and there is much in abundance at the moment.
Hmmm...dubious. I don't care about any of those...and I'm a part-time librarian. 8)
I don't think you count then...
Just to make a point that basically the state's entire welfare bill comes out of (I hope i'm right here) VAT and NI contributions, NOT income or corporation tax, so basically any benefit you get you will pay back and you are not really being subsidised by higher earners.
Totally understand the points about benefits (and I'm on them at the mo
and don't intend to work for another month) but they are nessecsery.
We live in a statist-capitalist society not a communist one or a neo-liberal one.People, to an extent, don't have to work if they don't want to/ can't
(not too sure where I stand!) but obviously the targeting "welfare scroungers" takes the target off the rich tax scroungers and landlords.
Of course we don't need to work if we don't want to (on a minimal existence, as agreed by TB & govt), but that is the point really. Keeps everyone pretty docile (along with the drugs), apart from those who are motivated to use their time out there in activity (very few).
Also, it doesn't really matter where the money comes from, it's all creamed off workers anyway one way or another via our old favourite, surplus value, whilst the rich avoid taxes in various scams and tax havens.
There's never been a revolutionary situation as far as know where this situation has pertained, which is my point really. (as mentioned by another poster; this is why changes to social security are introduced gradually). Sacrifices are sometimes necessary for gains.
JH
Don't grass your own class
.............................................. well what can i say on this ........... well i consider my self as an anarchist/squatter ... and i am on the the old giro ... i am taking back every single penny that i kno that they owe all of us threw over goverment spending or the olympics or the iraq war i didnt want thaat too happen and for them to bump every 1 in england and were just laying on our backs and taking it well its just really sad that brittish people have just lost there back bone and our individualality as a country so i say yaa to taking every thing off this snide goverment well just another thing why even compare having benifits and being an anarchist its still rebelion in its forms even tho times have changed we should al stand up and have our say !!!! much love
On the sources and functions of the welfare state, I reccomend Regulating the Poor by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. Also Class Struggle and Social Welfare, ed Mooney and Lavalette.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short account of the West Siberian uprising against the Bolsheviks.
Michael Heinrich argues that Marx was not after a “Marxism” as an identity-defining “truth.” Rather, he was more interested in the critical business of undermining certainties.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Why?