Is Welfare Possible for Marx Under the Capitalist Mode of Production
In discussing is welfare possible for Marx under the capitalist mode of production there is some debate that the welfare state have been guided through by questions, one is that the salience of the class diminish with the extension of social citizenship? Or can welfare state fundamentally transforms capitalist society? And finally what are the causal forces behind welfare- state development? (Esping-Andersen, 1989). But as you can guess these questions aren’t recent, as they were established in the 19th century by political economists, it doesn’t matter whether they are liberal, conservative or even Marxist. This is because they were preoccupied due to the relationship of capitalism and welfare.
The ‘logic of capitalism’ perspective help invites difficult questions. As if Przeworski (1980) has argued, working-class consent is assured on the basis of material hegemony, that is, self-willed subordination to the system, it is difficult to see why up to 40 percent of the national product must be allocated to the legitimating activities of a welfare state. A second problem is to derive state activities from a ‘mode of production’ analysis. Eastern Europe may perhaps not qualify as socialist, but neither is it capitalist. Yet there we find ‘welfare states too. Perhaps accumulation has functional requirements no matter how it proceeds? (Skocpol and Amenta, 1986; Bell, 1978).
The welfare state was almost made possible by the rise of modern bureaucracy as a rational, universalist, and efficient form of organisation. This meant that managing collective goods would be the centre of power in its own right. It would then be inclined to help promote its own growth. This kind of reasoning had formed the so-called ‘logic of industrialism’ perspective. Though according to the welfare stateit seem to emerge as the modern industrial economy destroys traditional social institutions (Flora and Alber, 1981; Pryor, 1969). From the thesis it had difficulties try to explain why
The ‘logic of capitalism’ perspective help invites difficult questions. As if Przeworski (1980) has argued, working-class consent is assured on the basis of material hegemony, that is, self-willed subordination to the system, it is difficult to see why up to 40 percent of the national product must be allocated to the legitimating activities of a welfare state. A second problem is to derive state activities from a ‘mode of production’ analysis. Eastern Europe may perhaps not qualify as socialist, but neither is it capitalist. Yet there we find ‘welfare states too. Perhaps accumulation has functional requirements no matter how it proceeds? (Skocpol and Amenta, 1986; Bell, 1978).
The welfare state was almost made possible by the rise of modern bureaucracy as a rational, universalist, and efficient form of organisation. This meant that managing collective goods would be the centre of power in its own right. It would then be inclined to help promote its own growth. This kind of reasoning had formed the so-called ‘logic of industrialism’ perspective. Though according to the welfare stateit seem to emerge as the modern industrial economy destroys traditional social institutions (Flora and Alber, 1981; Pryor, 1969). From the thesis it had difficulties try to explain why