Welfare State and Second Postwar Period’s Crisis
di Riccardo Piroddi
Abstract: L’evoluzione del concetto di cittadinanza nel secondo dopoguerra viene analizzata ponendo al centro il legame tra Stato sociale e diritti civili, politici e soprattutto sociali. La cittadinanza viene altresì ridefinita come valore democratico, non più limitata alla legalità formale, ma fondata sull’effettiva garanzia di diritti attraverso il welfare state. In questo contesto, il sociologo T.H. Marshall propone una visione tripartita della cittadinanza, mentre R. Dahrendorf sottolinea la persistenza del conflitto di classe come motore del cambiamento. Parallelamente, pensatori liberali come Hayek criticano il welfare, sostenendo la superiorità del libero mercato e temendo derive autoritarie. Negli anni ‘60 emergono critiche sia da sinistra – con Sartre, Kirchheimer e Althusser – che da una nuova visione della responsabilità etica, come in Hans Jonas. Viene inoltre esaminato il caso italiano, dove il movimento operaio ha ottenuto riforme significative come lo Statuto dei Lavoratori, e il pensiero marxista tedesco e francese, tra utopia (Bloch) e strutturalismo (Althusser). L’intero quadro riflette il complesso intreccio tra ideologie, sviluppo sociale ed economico e trasformazioni della cittadinanza nel XX secolo.
The political discourse of the post-World War II era centers on a fundamental issue: the relationship between the welfare state and citizenship. This nexus underscores the principle that essential social benefits—such as healthcare and education—must be universally and necessarily provided by the state. From this foundation, citizenship is conceived as a “democratic value” embedded within the welfare state model.
Two additional issues arise in relation to this phenomenon:
- The steady expansion of state responsibilities, which increasingly affect all aspects of citizens’ lives, without, however, adopting the oppressive or totalizing characteristics of a totalitarian regime
- The potential to broaden political perspectives beyond the state’s absolute power, safeguarding the “inalienable” rights of individuals who, irrespective of their citizenship status, are entitled to the same protections.
The establishment of the welfare state is closely tied to the evolution of the “Constitutional State.” Constitutions enshrining equality and freedom rights for all individuals are insufficient without the corrective interventions of the welfare state, which ensure these rights are effectively realized. Thus, constitutions are not merely legal frameworks but become “containers” of governmental programs, regulating the complex interplay between state authority and citizenry.
While the roots of the welfare state, particularly its emphasis on fraternity (or what is now called solidarity), can be traced back to Bismarckian politics in the late 19th century, it was the 20th-century constitutions that formally codified a range of social policy measures. This model seeks to transcend the formalistic limitations of the state, aiming to create a “Great Society,” akin to the vision articulated by American presidents Kennedy and Johnson—a principle mirrored in the Italian center-left’s social policies during the 1970s and 1980s.
Citizenship and social classes
The British political system of the 1950s serves as the key paradigm for this conception, epitomizing a model of “consociative” politics aimed at protecting the intangible rights of individuals. This approach bridged the gap between conservatives and progressives in a shared commitment to uphold human rights. A prominent figure in this movement was Thomas Humphrey Marshall (1893-1981), who argued that the state’s primary responsibility was the universal recognition and enforcement of social rights, thereby redefining the concept of “citizenship.” Marshall’s interpretation extended beyond the legal definition of citizenship to embrace a broader, more egalitarian notion that sought to equalize the status of all individuals, particularly through the principle of equality before the law. While the elimination of status as a source of inequality is a hallmark of modern citizenship, Marshall acknowledged that society still falls short of achieving a completely equal, universal concept of citizenship.
Marshall outlined three key dimensions of citizenship: civil, political, and social. Each dimension includes its own set of fundamental rights, from civil liberties like freedom of thought and speech to the political right to participate in governance. Social rights, however, took center stage in Marshall’s vision, as he advocated for the establishment of state institutions—such as education systems and social services—that would guarantee collective welfare. Despite his progressive stance on social rights, Marshall did not envision a classless society or a socialist state. Instead, he proposed a society where class distinctions persisted but were tempered by a commitment to human rights and equality.
Marshall’s ideas tie closely to discussions of the “centrality” of the social dimension in the state, particularly as societies became more affluent and the middle class grew. These changes led to new challenges in integrating different social classes, shifting the focus away from the antagonistic dynamics of class struggle.
In contrast, sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2009) critiqued the optimistic view of class integration, emphasizing the persistent negative aspects of class structure. Dahrendorf noted that even in modern, advanced societies filled with “careerists and false prophets,” intellectuals like Erasmus, More, Aron, Popper, and Berlin continued to resist being co-opted by the system. These thinkers rejected servility, dogmatism, and opportunism, advocating instead for reason, dignity, and freedom. After engaging deeply with Marx’s theories and analysing industrial society, Dahrendorf described the contemporary era as “post-capitalist,” a phase in which capitalism itself had evolved but not disappeared.
Dahrendorf opposed integration theorists by reaffirming the necessity of class conflict as a key driver of social progress. This perspective, grounded in a dialectical understanding of societal development, portrays the state not as a neutral arbiter between labour and capital, but as an active participant in the economic life of the nation. This vision echoes Keynesian economic theories from the 1930s, which similarly shaped the economic policies of Western states, positioning the state as a central actor in regulating and managing economic activity.
The liberal and conservative criticisms
These various theories converge with the insights of Daniel Bell (1919-2011), who argued that post-World War II politics witnessed the “end of ideology” and the decline of Marxism, giving way to liberal democratic ideals. Bell emphasized a return to methodological individualism, prioritizing the autonomy and opinions of individuals over the collective or “system.”
The resurgence of liberalism can also be seen in the work of Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992). Hayek, who largely disregarded the economic upheaval of 1929, pre-empted the neoliberal critiques of the welfare state by advocating for a laissez-faire approach to politics. For Hayek, liberalism was a safeguard against the rise of new ideologies and totalitarian tendencies. Unlike Keynes, whom he opposed, Hayek rejected the notion of social justice as a feasible goal, deeming it an illusion. Instead, he called for a reform of liberal democracy that reinstated the rule of law and allowed for the spontaneous, self-regulating forces of the market.
In Hayek’s view, the welfare state represented a stagnation of societal progress and marked the beginning of excessive bureaucratization. His theory hinged on the belief that the market, with its unpredictable yet impersonal rules, was superior to any other social system. Although market-driven dynamics could produce inequality, Hayek argued that this inequality was not inherently unjust because it was not the result of deliberate intent but rather an outcome of impersonal economic forces. Therefore, he contended that the randomness of market mechanisms prevented inequality from systematically disadvantaging any particular group.
Hayek’s thought encapsulates the core tenets of 20th-century neoconservatism, echoing thinkers like Augusto Del Noce. These lines of thought view the welfare state as a symptom of the erosion of ethical values, particularly those tied to economic freedom. They critique socialism’s “constructivism,” which they believe manifests in the state’s centrally planned economic and social activities. However, the alternative proposed by Hayek and his neoconservative counterparts was not a new set of moral values but a reevaluation of authority grounded in metaphysical or substantial principles.
A key concern among neoconservatives was that the welfare state might pave the way for the “despotism of the majority,” a threat foreseen by Tocqueville. From a political perspective, Hayek championed “Demarchy,” a form of governance in which authority is divided between two assemblies: one responsible for legislative duties and the other for executive governance, thus ensuring a regulated but decentralized political order.
Left-wing criticism in the 1960s
In the post-World War II years, Europe’s economic boom further distanced the continent from socialism. Emerging social structures, primarily composed of a growing middle class, did not align with socialist ideologies. Despite ongoing social inequality, these issues were addressed through a social pact between the state and its citizens, rather than through revolutionary changes. This led to the establishment of a mixed economy, where public enterprises, particularly in key industries, coexisted with private businesses in peripheral sectors. This arrangement represented a compromise between capitalism and socialist theories, a model endorsed by various political factions, including some left-wing parties. However, in countries like Italy and France, these left-wing parties were often in opposition and thus did not play a direct role in shaping the political, economic, and social trajectory of the state.
The appeal of socialism in Western Europe began to wane, particularly after the Soviet Union’s brutal suppression of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. The degeneration of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” into a totalitarian regime in the USSR, marked by repression, undermined faith in the socialist ideal. The Soviet model failed to realize the “communist project,” exposing a broader global discontent with war-torn societies on both the right and left.
This sense of disillusionment is particularly evident in the philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). While Sartre initially embraced Marxism as an embodiment of the concept of permanent revolution, he became increasingly critical of what he saw as “so-called” communism, whether in the Soviet Union or the French Communist Party. His critiques reflected a deep skepticism about the authenticity and efficacy of these movements in realizing true revolutionary goals.
In a different but related critique, Otto Kirchheimer, influenced by the Frankfurt School, focused on the role of consumption as a key integrative force in modern society. He argued that work, rather than being a meaningful expression of human value, had become a condition that alienated individuals from collective structures such as the state, citizenship, and trade unions. Kirchheimer’s analysis suggested that the consumer-driven nature of society had supplanted older forms of collective identity, including those rooted in labour, further distancing the postwar middle class from traditional socialist ideas.
Italy
Italian politics in the 1960s was deeply shaped by socialist theories that gained traction within the labour movement. These theories went beyond merely critiquing capitalism, instead demonstrating how, even within capitalist societies, the labour movement played a dynamic role in mitigating the contradictions predicted by Marx. By advocating for progressive social policies and the protection of workers, the labour movement helped delay the onset of the crises that Marx associated with the bourgeois era. A key example of this pragmatic approach was the introduction of the “Workers’ Statute” in 1970, a landmark piece of legislation that significantly enhanced workers’ rights and solidified the role of labour in shaping Italian social and economic policy. This statute underscored the movement’s ability to channel socialist ideals into tangible reforms, while still operating within the capitalist framework.
Germany
A key element within Marxism is its utopian aspect, which finds roots in German philosophy and is significantly shaped by the thinker Ernst Bloch (1885-1977). Bloch’s work emphasizes the theological underpinnings of the revolutionary potential inherent in Marxism, framing it as a forward-looking philosophy that seeks not merely to contemplate the world, but to actively transform it. For Bloch, Marxism is deeply intertwined with an optimistic vision of the future, a stark contrast to the present, where individuals are encouraged to cultivate hope as a vital force. This is encapsulated in his notion of the Principle of Hope, which asserts that where hope exists, religion also thrives. According to Bloch, this principle suggests that the revolutionary impulse within Marxism is not solely material but also spiritual, aiming for a future that transcends current limitations.
Hans Jonas (1903-1993) offers a critical response to Bloch’s utopianism, particularly regarding the role of technological progress and the principle of collective responsibility. Jonas seeks to ground human existence in the concrete realities of history, countering Bloch’s utopian ideal with a more pragmatic approach. Instead of focusing on an idealized future, Jonas emphasizes the ethical obligations that arise from our present actions, particularly in relation to technology’s impact on the environment and society. In doing so, he challenges Bloch’s vision, suggesting that a re-evaluation of human responsibility in the present is essential for the survival and well-being of future generations.
France
A significant turning point in Marxist thought came with the rise of Structuralism and its interaction with Psychoanalysis. A key figure synthesizing these intellectual currents was Louis Althusser (1918-1990), who sought to redefine historical materialism as a scientific theory, emphasizing Marx’s epistemological break from humanism and Hegelian philosophy. For Althusser, Marxist analysis was not rooted in a division between “bourgeois science” and “proletarian science,” but rather between science and ideology. He argued that Marxist ideology is fundamentally anti-humanistic, asserting that capital, not the individual, is the central force in Marxism.
By rejecting humanist interpretations of Marxism, Althusser shifted focus toward the structural forces that shape society, independent of the individuals involved in them. Instead of concentrating on the human subjects of exploitation and production, as traditional Marxism had done, Althusser and Structuralism examined the underlying structures—economic, political, and ideological—that govern social relations. This approach emphasized that it is these structures, rather than human agency, that drive historical and social change. In essence, Althusser’s view aligned with the core tenets of Structuralism, which contends that the world is shaped by deep, impersonal systems that operate beyond the direct influence of individuals.
