Amid a backdrop of worsening domestic and global economic prospects, Rachel Reeves stood up in the House of Commons on 26 March to announce welfare cuts amounting to over £8 billion by 2030. Beyond a nod to clamping down on tax avoidance, the government’s economic policy is to balance the budget on the backs of those who have the least to spare and the most to lose.
To present itself as a government the financial markets can trust, Labour has put the burden exclusively on the most vulnerable. People with disabilities, the long-term sick, and carers will shoulder the strain. Targeting specific benefits, the government hopes to reduce the number of claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) by tightening eligibility criteria. An estimated 800,000 individuals will lose their entitlement by the end of the decade, with a further 150,000 carers, who receive Carer’s Allowance, having their benefits withdrawn.
Furthermore, thousands of long-term sick who receive Universal Credit for Health (UCH) will see their weekly benefits frozen for the next five years, with new claimants, from April 2026, receiving a weekly amount 50 percent less than existing claimants. Moreover, the ambition is for this benefit to be withdrawn in its entirety from those who are under 22 years of age. Along with saving money, the government has been candid that changes to UCH are primarily concerned with getting people off benefits and into work. Ensuring some of the poorest in society have even less is a key employment policy.
Almost two-thirds of welfare cuts will fall on the poorest 50 percent of households. The government’s own impact assessment suggests that by 2029-2030, 3.2 million families will lose an average of £1,720 a year. For those who lose their PIP entitlement this could amount to £4,500. The consequence of these policies, predicted by the government, is that they will force over 250,000 people into poverty, including 50,000 children.
Welfare as class conflict
The targeting of welfare is no surprise. Recipients of welfare are often castigated as ‘work-shy,’ and ‘scroungers.’ Yet the welfare state’s existence is rarely challenged. Undoubtedly it has been essential for working people, protecting them from the excesses of the free market. But, critically, it has always been valuable for capitalism. Amidst a growing working-class presence, the implementation of state reforms at the turn of the twentieth century was an acknowledgement of the need to cushion the effects of exploitation, or risk rebellion.
What’s more, welfare was recognized as having economic and military benefits. Health insurance and free school meals were vital to Britain maintaining its colonial status. An imperial nation required healthy citizens to fight its battles and to work in its factories. Today, the principle remains the same; welfare states are indispensable for waging class war against the working class and securing the prosperity of capitalism. Social security is the weapon of choice to ensure we do not become ‘comfortable’ when out of work and disengage from the work ethic.
Welfare conditionality in Britain is unparalleled. Approximately 20 per cent of working-age individuals receive a conditional benefit where they must accept conscription into any job, or risk losing the meagre support offered by the welfare system. Besides regulating our behaviour, many welfare services ensure workers have the characteristics to be employable. As health insurance attempted over a century ago, the NHS is essential to ensuring the collective workforce is healthy enough to be exploited. Moreover, it goes without saying that the education system equips us with the skills and knowledge to enter the workforce.
A socialist alternative
Given the precarious nature of the welfare state under capitalism, as activists fighting both in and outside of government, we need to conceive of what a socialist welfare system might look like. Existing state services have an important role. Any government that stands for justice must provide generous protection against the erratic unpredictability of the free market. But we need more than just this. We must build power beyond the state. Political control needs to be communal, characterised by a robust system of local democratic infrastructure such as neighbourhood assemblies and cooperatives coexisting with a decentralised democratic state. This will be the democratic framework within which a socialist welfare system grows. Already efforts are being made in Britain to create this. Inspired by movements such as Cooperative Jackson in the United States (a network of worker and consumer-owned cooperatives underpinned by local assemblies) Cooperation Hull and Cooperation Sheffield are grassroots movements striving to create community-based democracy to operate alongside the state.
Putting democracy at the centre of a socialist welfare system requires communities taking control of welfare budgets. Participatory budgets (PB) can serve as inspiration in this regard. PBs allow for local communities to influence municipal finances. In Porto Alegre, Brazil, for example, often cited as the home of the first PB scheme, the process is underpinned by community decision-making and representation. Local assemblies offer residents an opportunity to debate and decide upon issues and priorities those most important to them. Assembly representatives then coordinate budget plans across the city and cooperate with municipal authorities to implement them. Although modest, with communities being granted control over small grants rather than local authority budgets, there is precedence for the use of PBs in Britain with examples from Glasgow, Tower Hamlets, and East Renfrewshire, among other places, over the last decade.
The implementation of state reforms at the turn of the twentieth century was an acknowledgement of the need to cushion the effects of exploitation, or risk rebellion
All welfare programmes should be organised with democratic participation in mind. Taking healthcare as an example, in places like Bolivia, Rojava, and among the Zapatistas of southern Mexico, residents, health professionals, and government officials collaborate in local assemblies to identify and address critical health concerns. Rojava is building a healthcare system centred on health assemblies. In the early-2000s, in Venezuela, neighbourhood committees were formed, the purpose of which was to debate and gather information about the healthcare needs of their communities, which shaped delivery. In Britain, despite the state dominating healthcare delivery, a cooperative alternative to support health and social care needs is gaining traction. Lambeth GP Food Cooperative bring together patients and health professionals to grow nutritious foods. Within social care, Yorkshire-based Equal Care Co-op is underpinned by providers and receivers of care collectively managing the delivery of personal services.
Community involvement needs to extend beyond planning to include oversight and direct control. Inspired by the Citizen Guardians initiative in Chihuahua, Mexico, where locals monitor the government’s delivery of services, a socialist welfare system must allow the community to be involved in all stages of welfare, from the initial budgeting to day-to-day delivery. Taken to its fullest expression, this means the community taking control of welfare services in the form of cooperatives or mutual aid services. Inspiring examples can be found regarding housing. For members of Cooperation Jackson, communal homeownership is sought as the only viable option to provide secure accommodation. Uruguay’s long-standing cooperative housing model, funded by the state and democratically managed by residents, offers a successful template. Moreover, in Venezuela community assemblies have handled up to 70% of the development of new housing, including planning, designing, and building homes using state funds
While the welfare state is undoubtedly beneficial for working people, under capitalism existing welfare systems are a product of class conflict and have never truly been working class institutions. Looking to the future, we need to break free from the welfare state of capitalism and instead begin imagining a true progressive welfare system, one where, rather than welfare being something done to, and often taken away from us, it is something we control and collectively provide for each other.
