While supporting Bush's efforts in Iraq we should not forget to credit him for his other major project, namely weakening the momentum of conservative forces in the US.

First there is his total failure to implement the conservative agenda of those who got out the votes for him in 2000 and 2004.

I'm curious what parts of the 'conservative' agenda you are opposed to? As a conservative I see the greatest failings as comprehensive tax reform, reduction of the entitlements in the government, and social security reform.  There's also the failings in border security, and his poor communications but those aren't really liberal/conservative issues.

The former and the latter he attempted, but was not successful at.  I can see you being opposed to the first since it would mainly involve eliminating/reforming/changing the progressive income tax; but why are you opposed to reducing entitlements and reforming/fixing social security? I actually see these traditionally conservative goals as actually better preparing the population for the eventual transformation you guys are looking for.

The entitlement mentality (welfare, medicare, social security etc.) obviously is an obstacle to the type of societal duty that you are hoping will somehow be imbued in every person once your system takes over.  Welfare obviously makes people think that they are entitled to a living wage whether they work or not; if it is your goal to have EVERYONE take out the garbage (as presented in another thread, for the few jobs of that type that still exist) then how are you going to get people to do that if they feel they should get paid whether they work or not.

Social security reform is a no-brainer the way I see it.  The way it is right now the system WILL go into bankruptcy at some point; therefore it WILL need to be reformed at some point AND the longer you wait, the more radical the reformation will have to be.  The alternatives here are pretty much to cover your ears and scream NO NO NO like the democrats here have done; or you can acknowledge that there is a problem and try to make sure that my generation will have something when we get to retirement age.

This seems like a good topic for a new thread if one of the admins wants to open one up.

The society you have described as I understand it requires every person to desire to achieve merely for the sake of achievement.  Which is closer to that; a system in which you are PUNISHED for achievement; or a system in which you are REWARDED for achievement.
Think of how you train an animal; you associate positive behavior with a reward; eventually the animal associates the behavior as good even when the reward is removed.  Certainly that's a simplification; but the point still stands.

Keza writes:

"But its an intrinisc part of a system based on wage labour. Capitalism needs it."

If so, and the welfare state is a creation of the capitalist class, why does it vary between non-existent in some capitalist countries to well deveoped in others?

There is another way of looking at this which is terms of the "social wage". The social wage consists of a package of benefits including  education,  health care,  legal aid,  libraries, subsidised public transport, housing  etc.  Of course the political right try to minimise the cost of the social wage to keep taxes down, and profits up, whereas the political left push to maximise the social wage and emphasise the egalitarian nature and wealth sharing aspects of it.

Where the workers movement is strong, eg Western Europe,  the social wage tends to be higher. Where it is weak, eg the USA, the social wage is lower, the social wage being essentially a product of the class struggle. In recent years, in many countries, the capitalist class has been on the offensive and the social wage has been eroded. When I was a youngster, I paid nothing for education, in fact I was paid to study. I also paid nothing for  health care. That is no longer the case for the present younger generation even though the level of production and profits is much greater now than it used to be.

Michael Moore has just released an interesting film "Sicko" on the lack of socialised medicine in the USA. What is the LS position on socialised medicine? Are you in favour of it? Is it worth fighting for as a class issue?

Cyberman, I think there would be general agreement that the "welfare state" arose after the second world war that armed the workers in most countries. The ruling class was terrified and made big concessions to buy off the possibility of revolutionary overthrow.

Now that the ruling class no longer sees a threat  from any form of organised working class we are rapidly returning to the 19th century.

Imperial adventure is on the go again, but now the Imperialists hide behind a "democratic" smokescreen where once the "white mans burden" sufficed.

The same system of imperial rule exists now as it has for millenia; for example: on this day the supine Government of Australia paid a tribute to its Imperial masters by giving them control of the "future fund" - make what you will of that.

Dalek.

PS I meant to say something about unemployment benefit, which is also part of the social wage. This is probably one area where I do agree with you, to some extent. It can lead to a cycle of dependency if workers stay on long term benefits for too long. Its a difficult problem and you are probably right in saying that the capitalist class do need a pool of unemployed. I think that Comrade Tomb said in one of his postings that there wouldn't be any work after the revolution! For most people there would be less work, but for some people there would be more , because everyone would be expected to contribute according to their abilities,  and shirkers would not be tolerated.

I don't agree with you about workers not wanting to do their best in their jobs though. It's been my experience that people, with very few exceptions,  only behave badly at work when they themselves are treated poorly.

PS I'm definitely not the same person as Dalek or Davros.

I don't want to hide behind a pseudonym. My name is Peter Martin

email address peter_martin_2001@hotmail.com

 You've opened up a new thread but I would have thought that that this could fit into the 'capitalist welfare state thread'. Not that I agree with the title. My line on all this is that the welfare state, for all its faults, is essentially the creation of the left and the principle of socialised medicine is no different.

 I don't agree with you about workers not wanting to do their best in their jobs though. It's been my experience that people, with very few exceptions,  only behave badly at work when they themselves are treated poorly.

Well I must admit I wasn't thinking of telemarketing. I couldn't do that job-no way!

I guess what you are saying is something along the lines of : Reform and revolution are a contradiction.  Reform and revolution are united because they are both parts of the workers' struggle against capitalism. But reforms are to improve capitalism; revolution is to destroy it. Therefore reform and revolution are mainly in conflict.

I would say that another way to look at this is as a unity from the conflict of opposites.  If you look at Marx's approach in the Communist Manifesto , you can see the measures that he proposed were reformist in nature. These reforms were aimed not at improving capitalism but establishing the political program of the working class. If a revolution against capitalism  happens soley because the working class are totally disaffected with the capitalist sytem, without a clear idea or program of what needs to be done, the outcome is going to be unpredictable, at best. We may end up with a form of religiously based fascism.

I think you had it right in your 'Dave Hill' thread when you said  " I don't want to write off the need to fight short-term battles. We need to win people over, and that means helping to solve their everyday problems, not trying to convert them to revolution - at least not at first."

But later in the same thread,  you seemed to have a problem with the concept of defending workers' rights. In any conflict there is a period when gains are to be made and another period when it is is necessary to defend what has been gained previously, or at least try to minimise any losses. I can't see why anyone should have a problem with that. If we don't defend worker's rights now then the welfare state and Medicare will be the next to go.

But later in the same (Dave Hill) thread,  you seemed to have a problem with the concept of defending workers' rights.

However, I think I am correct in saying he referred to the Congress (I) Party, not the Marxist party. His point was that the restrictions and hedges on Indian capitalism in the days of the 'licence raj', when Congress (I) dominated, were something to be aspired to.