Who really invented the Welfare State?

Post Reply New Topic

It was Otto von Bismark who invented the modern Welfare State. He invented it to pre-empt the success of Socialism which he attempted to outlaw in Germany.

The current successful economic-political model in the world is the latter day version of Bismark's Welfare State. His approach was to provide a safety-net for German workers so they would not be driven by fear and panic into the arms of the Socialists. What Bismark wanted was busy, productive and reasonably happy workers and merchants that would not toy with revolutionary politics and would be loyal to the State. He wanted quiet well behaved subjects and citizens. That was his aim, and by and large he succeeded in his time.

Hitler's program purged of the crazy racism was essentially the same as Bismark's.

The Germany that emerged after WW2 was a country that operated along Bismarkian lines.

Bismark's program even had an impact in the U.S. Horace Mann used the Biskmark German model of public education to formulate schooling policy in the U.S. Mann won out in the end. Our schools

In nuts and bolts terms FDR pre-empted Norman Thomas and the Socialists by adopting a Bismarkian policy that contained most of what Thomas was trying to accomplish.

If you look at things in Darwinian terms it is the mixed economy with Bismarkian social programs that has won the Struggle for Survival. The Mixed Economy is the prevailing model in the industrialized technological world. The Marxist approach has failed. Marx could not conceive of the burgoise economy reforming itself sufficiently to prevent the "inevitable" revolution He and Engels were dead wrong. Every attempt at a centrally controlled Command Economy has failed. A pure Capitalist economy will also fail. Why? Because it does not address the rational fears and concerns of the class of people who do not own the means of production.

So the only issue is what are the proportions of the mix in the Mixed Economy. That depends on the culture and the country.

ruveyn

ruveyn -- Might I add that as productivity grows, the need to prop up demand, may dictate the necessity for welfare like programs.

Is Ruveyn a closeted Liberal? Conservatives don't want to hear talk like that. They might accuse you of listening to public radio, or some other media outlet that is not yet owned by Rupert Murdoch. Or, they will blame our schools, or accuse you of attending the wrong church.

I am not particularly political. I do have a great respect for facts. Historical facts are what they are. The truth of the matter is a pure capitalist system has never existed (any more than a pure Marxist system). Attempts to approximate the Ideal have led to grief. The first approximation to a Marxist state is the centralized command economy which has failed miserably again and again. The approach to a pure privately run economy has lead to economic instability, just plain injustice and a p*ssed off working class. The only solution has been to soften up the system with a modicum of regulation and redistribution. This is what prevents Revolution and social destruction on a large scale. This is exactly the dynamic that lead to the Bismarkian Welfare State in Prussia and later Welfare State (or if you prefer, reformed capitalism) in times that followed.

The fact is in the struggle for existence it is the Mixed Economy, a more or less regulated capitalist market economy with safety nets imposed politically that has survived the various ups and downs of depression, recession, boom or bust. The de facto champion is some variant of the mixed economy. This is not political ideology. This is recognition of historical, social and economic fact.

Britain went too far to the left and was corrected by the Thatcher government. The United States has gone too far in favoring corporate interests and our financial system has been rendered fragile. In years to come some kind of political correction will be imposed. I hope it is not too far to the left. The central controlled economy simply does not work. Economies are so complicated that they cannot be faithfully modeled nor can they be run by a committee of people who suffer from the delusion that they can control an economy the size of the United States (for example) It cannot be done. A certain amount of market interplay and properly function negative feedback loops is the only reasonable course. This is not politics or ideology. This is simple recognition of the facts.

ruveyn

I must agree with ruveyn. I would like to add that with out regulations much commerce would slow down. Consumers feel confident when they make a purchase that the product is reasonbly safe. Without regulations one would be skeptical of many new puchases.

Why, exactly, is it that a mixed economy state is better than a pure capitalist state? Last time I checked, many of the European welfare states are generally struggling from a severe debt crisis, as they have been unable to balance the public budget for decades... And doesn't the US have the same growth rate in a bad year that the average EU country has in a good year...?

And doesn't the current economic empirical research (Barro, Sala i Martín etc.) reach the conclusion that strong economic rights and low public expenditures are the only variables that are systematically correlated with economic wealth and growth?

The Jews.

"Tzedakah"

In a Welfare State the Government redistributes funds that it takes by force (or threat of force) from those who earned them in the first place. Tzedaka refers to what someone does with his -own- money. Taking money from someone by force and redistributing it in a charitable manner is NOT Tzedakah. Why? Because the money was first taken by force.

However the Israelites did have a tax on cattle and land to support the priests. Now there is a welfare state.

ruveyn

A case of "Right Temple / Wrong Seat", eh?

I knew that Israel was somehow involved, but the only thing I could think of was Maimonides' teachings.

What economies have survived war, upset, natural disaster, famine and flood the best. It turns out Mixed Economies are the survivor, hence the best so far.

ruveyn

I heard it originated in Sweden in the 1950s or 60s.

As I have pointed out it started in Prussia, nearly a century earlier. You heard wrong.

ruveyn

At least the most robust best is a value judgement.
I personally like living in robust and stable nations but there is no accounting for the taste of some.

The last one still standing is The Winner.

ruveyn

That is the only metric that is completely objective.

Standing is for losers. Sitting is where it's at. A really comfy swivel chair.