Working class/communist demands

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
OliverTwister's picture
Joined: 10-10-05
Jul 6 2007 21:33
MJ wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
I think the SEIU/WalMart partnership for public healthcare shows how there could be a 'public' healthcare which would probably not be worth much to the working class.

Please expand.

It's not something I want to get deep into right now, I was just making a brief note. Anyways I'll point out that I wasn't saying it was inevitable, only possible.

As far as how it could look, let's remember that Wal-Mart's reasons are to avoid having to pay healthcare costs of the workers. I also imagine that there would never be a complete nationalization, probably something closer to the government 'contracting' with Kaiser, or expanding medicare (in other words something like "single-payer insurance" which leaves the industry in the hands of the companies).

Kaiser et al. could maintain the insane prices of everything, charge it to the government, who then taxes workers more heavily. If it's in the form of national insurance, it would probably not cover quite a lot of things, and likely have all sorts of ways to gouge via deductibles, increase in rates, etc.

There could also be other problems such as having to go on a long waiting list for treatment (something that happens with many of the clinics in the Bay Area which receive government funding), etc.

Is that expanded enough?

Joined: 19-06-07
Jul 7 2007 19:23
Dust wrote:
Yoshomon, it strike me as a school debating club because words are twisted deliberately to suit the political point people are trying to make.

I assume you agree that the people of America have a shared interest in not being hit by a nuclear bomb. Does this make you a nationalist? (A abusrd example i know but just to illustrate a point)

Saying 'all Americans have a shared interest in not dying' doesn't illustrate your point at all.

If I said, 'the oil/gas industry in the USA should be reorganized and nationalized to benefit people living in the USA', that's nationalist.

Joined: 6-01-07
Jul 8 2007 18:26

Agree with much of what Devrim says.

The point is that very few left groups that may still identify themselves as Troskyist or have origins in the troskyist tradition actually apply the original approach to 'transitional demands'.

Most of them simply raise 'demands' as organising slogans without any real substance, as Devrim illustrates, or else they are simply more radical reformists of the social democratic variety of the past.

The WSM would not of course directly support electoral politics (as most left wing groups do these days) but in most other respects seem dangerously close to becomming a simple left wing group with an anarchist communist gloss, turning the respectable tradition of anarchist platformism into another (if more colourful) version of left wing vanguardism.