I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I’ll sketch the argument.
The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:
threat of capital flight (“if you pass this bill I don’t like, I will take my gizmo factory abroad”)
direct bribes / lobbying (“if you pass this bill I like, I’ll give you a nice cushy job at my gizmo factory”, and also campaign donations)
ownership of the media that completely shape the opinions of the electorate
Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.
The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.
Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had. A similar argument shows that moving towards such a welfare state from our current system is very unlikely.
I would add that this isn’t just speculation, it has historical precedent. The US created a powerful welfare state under FDR and it was slowly destroyed in exactly the way that you described. It’s also important to note that it was racism that provided the owning class with the narrative they needed to convince the working class to support the erosion of their own welfare. The creation of the welfare state began with the compromise that the benefits would not extend to non-white Americans. When the civil rights movement successfully forced the issue and demanded that the benefits be universalized the owning class was able to ride the wave of the racist backlash all the way to a near-total rollback of the welfare state.
Ensuring that welfare for the people lasts requires that we directly and conclusively address the underlying causes of the inequality it is meant to alleviate. We must recognize that private ownership of the means of production is the direct cause of this inequality and will always reproduce it if it is not eliminated. And finally we must also address the social causes of inequality - racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, etc. - so that they cannot be used as justification for the reconstruction of a system of inequality. Alongside an economic and political revolution we also need a cultural revolution.
I think that capitalism as we have it, but with a solid welfare state as you describe, is pretty close to my ideal society. But when I think about how such a system evolves over time in the presence of privately owned businesses, it seems to me that it is an unstable equilibrium. That is, it has an inherent tendency to break down the welfare state. I’ll sketch the argument.
The first ingredient is that the owning class has an outsized influence on politics. This happens through a number of means, including:
Through these means they can influence politicians to pass laws that benefit the owning class. Note that it is not beneficial to politicians to do something about this. This is their bread and butter.
The next ingredient is that the welfare state as you and I would like to see it (UHC, UBI, and so on) is detrimental to the owning class. A solid welfare state means that workers have a much stronger position to negotiate from. Without UHC, refusing a crappy offer is much riskier since your health is at stake, for example. That is to say, the welfare state drives up operating costs for the owning class. As such, it is in their best interest to fight tooth and nail against the welfare state.
Combine these two ingredients, and you see that in the presence of privately owned businesses, you eventually lose whatever kind of welfare state you had. A similar argument shows that moving towards such a welfare state from our current system is very unlikely.
I would add that this isn’t just speculation, it has historical precedent. The US created a powerful welfare state under FDR and it was slowly destroyed in exactly the way that you described. It’s also important to note that it was racism that provided the owning class with the narrative they needed to convince the working class to support the erosion of their own welfare. The creation of the welfare state began with the compromise that the benefits would not extend to non-white Americans. When the civil rights movement successfully forced the issue and demanded that the benefits be universalized the owning class was able to ride the wave of the racist backlash all the way to a near-total rollback of the welfare state.
Ensuring that welfare for the people lasts requires that we directly and conclusively address the underlying causes of the inequality it is meant to alleviate. We must recognize that private ownership of the means of production is the direct cause of this inequality and will always reproduce it if it is not eliminated. And finally we must also address the social causes of inequality - racism, bigotry, xenophobia, sexism, etc. - so that they cannot be used as justification for the reconstruction of a system of inequality. Alongside an economic and political revolution we also need a cultural revolution.
You see similar patterns in western european countries. It’s nice when empirical reality lines up with theory.