Roger Burbach wrote: > "In both the developed and underdeveloped countries, a wide variety of > critical needs and interests are being neglected at the local level, > including the building, or rebuilding, of roads, schools and social > services. A new spirit of volunteerism and community participation, backed > by a campaign to secure complimentary resources from local and national > governments, can open up entirely new job markets and areas of work to deal > with these basic needs." (ibid, p. 164)
It should be admitted that US labor unions started out that way, providing services that the government wouldn't or couldn't (like burial insurance & unemployment insurance). Mutual aid was quite common at the start. Of course, religious fundamentalists get into the same game, the non-state provision of (what we think of as) state social services. Hamas and a lot of other Islamic political parties spring to mind, but so do the Mormons in Utah. A key problem with non-state provision of "welfare state" programs is that the risk-sharing pool is too small: a labor union offering unemployment insurance can't do well if the whole membership is laid off. In addition, these services are typically exclusive, not helping outsiders (often the neediest) at all. I also don't see how it's a precursor to socialism. Instead, it's more of a precursor to real welfare statism: the German Social Democratic Party's social welfare programs spurred Bismarck to bring in state pensions. (As a minor example, as I understand it the U.S. AF of L started doing stuff like calculating cost of living measures, leading to the rise of the official Bureau of Labor Statistics in response.) -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
