Resulting from these shortcomings of reformist welfare, one can derive three simple facts; reformist welfare fails to provide long term, revolution must be realized in order to cease its harm, and the conditions for such a revolution must not be found within State-programs. These consequences define the way in which the struggle should be approached in the modern era of capitalism, in opposition to its methods of its implementation before (which were largely against colonialism or feudalism).
Rosa Luxembourg, in her book “Reform or Revolution,” says plainly, “At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Can the social democracy be against reforms? Can we counterpose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not.“ This kind of blatant refusal for reform is what is required again in this modern era; as time and time again reform has proven to be fruitless, especially in how it regards the Welfare State.
In these previous sections I outlined how welfare enables the commodification of labour, how welfare entrenches socio-economic classes farther, and how welfare has failed historically, devolving into a system of control. Yet I wish to provide another key piece in understanding the failure of welfare; the reason the capitalists allow it in the first place. One may wonder if it is due to the commodification effect, which although contributes, is far from the primary reason such programs are allowed. Instead, the primary reason can be found under the idea ‘false-consciousness’- being that these programs act as a sedative for the working class.
The idea of giving a little to take a lot is nothing new, the entire phrase ‘give them an inch and they’ll take a yard’ is an expression of this idea1. But beyond this it shows up time and time again, across multiple disciplines (including yes, capitalism1). It can, in its most elementary form, be observed in fencing, and of which will grant a more vivid analogy to understand how welfare allows for such a process. There are two techniques in fencing which outline this the most clear; the feint, and the fool’s guard.
The feint refers to the technique in which you act as though you are going to make one attack, so you can take advantage of your opponents reaction to do a separate one instead. In a slightly more complex form, however, the feint can refer to the process of acting as though you will retreat in order to bring your opponent closer, allowing for an easier attack2. The latter is the form of feint which most closely resembles the effect that welfare has within capitalism; it allows for the people to come closer to the State and the capitalist system as a whole, just for them to be crushed as soon as it is strategically viable.
The fool’s guard on the other hand involves falsely lowering your guard in order to provoke an attack- and this is the closest analogue for false-consciousness under capitalism. Welfare programs, much like the fool’s guard, is designed to make the less radical individuals of our population believe that the State and capitalism is going down, to draw out a premature action that can be used to stop any wide-spread revolution prior to it forming a popular base of support.
And it is thus that revolution must be required in order to realize a more equal future; without absolute and total revolution3, the State will continue to placate the people through programs like the ones I discussed here. However, conditions much be recognized, achieved, and utilized in order to allow for the absolute revolution required. And those conditions are simple; knowledge, will, and narrative.
For one, the general population must be educated- they must recognize their suffering, and as such be taught how to use it. Once being taught how to use it, the general population must have the will- the will to seek a more equal future, often through the forms of alternative systems which erode the trust in the institution. And finally the narrative must be on the side of the revolutionary; the narrative must be stripped from the hands of capital and placed into the hands of the people, for whom one must fight.
1 It should be noted that this phrase in particular refers to cases where the attempt fails.
2 It should be noted this style of feint is found more in warfare than in fencing, but has historically been used.
3 This is in reference to the ideal of ‘Replacement’ as I described in “Reform, Revolution, and Replacement”. Also known as ‘pre-figurative revolution’.