[Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)

[S. Artesian]

I don't know why anyone would think that Marxists are obligated to support, 
not reform of the bourgeoisie's system, but the bourgeoisie's own reforms. 
There is a difference-- a big difference.

If the workers strike and struggle for health insurance, or universal health 
care-- of course we support that.  But when the bourgeoisie offer up 
Medicare and Medicaid to debilitate any independent class-based movement, 
and to place the burden directly back upon the regressive tax systems of the 
various states, and to funnel tax dollars into bigger and greater corporate 
practices while overall access to essential health services does not improve 
for the poor and working class-- we do not, should not, support that.

When workers agitate, demand an occupational safety administration, we 
should support that and "enhance" that demand by proposing such 
administration be responsible to the workers organizations themselves, and 
not to executive branch for mis-administration.  But when Nixon proposes his 
OSHA, we are under no obligation to support that.

We should not support Obama's  health plan.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Smith" <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] YADL (Yet another disillusioned liberal)


> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
> milongonsinga <milongonsinga at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's suppose we get national health insurance. Would that constitute a 
>> difference?
>
> Sure it would. But I'll believe it when I see it. Do you think that's
> going to happen?
>
> -- 
>
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net