Carl,
Interestingly, I listened to Thursday's Flashpoints this morning on which there
are excerpts of a talk by Richard Wolff about his new book, "Understanding
Socialism". He began by criticizing what Paul Krugman said in his debate with
him on Democracy Now the other day. Krugman was complaining that Bernie Sanders
was making it more difficult for people to support him by describing himself as
a socialist, and that he isn't a socialist at all, but a New Deal Democrat.
Wolff said that socialism is no longer a dirty word in America and that Sanders
has identified himself as a Democratic Socialist, akin to European Democratic
Socialists, for many years. Wolff went on to say that socialism is like the
shadow of capitalism. I think he meant that it is a reaction to it. He went on
to talk about 3 kinds of socialism, and he described how each one is
constructed. The first is Democratic Socialism. The second is state socialism
or communism. He described positives and negatives of each. He said there is a
new kind of socialism, and went on to talk about worker owned and run
enterprises. He was not talking about governments. From all of the talks of his
that I've heard previously, I know that the third kind is what he is
advocating. I'm thinking about looking for the book on Bookshare. I hesitate
because I don't seem to have the time or inclination to read all of the
nonfiction books I've already downloaded and because, my brain just might not
be in good enough shape to deal with the book if it's abstract or just maybe,
I'll get bored. But I am curious to see the whole picture that is in his head.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2020 1:01 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
I agree with much of what you say, Miriam. My positions on matters discussed
on this list are not firmly defined or cataloged. They're fluid. I appreciate
the posts of all who offer opinions on this list, and I learn from much of what
I read. But I know that I will never find my place in any defined political
group, just as I found myself at odds with every religious group I visited.
Too many people in it for their own egotistical needs.
And as I also learned during my years engaged in the Blind Movement, no matter
how noble the cause, someone(s) will be there to define the Cause and the Rules
that we must live under.
As much as I admired Kenneth Jernigan for his ability as a speaker, I found him
to be a master at controlling the direction of, not just the Organization, but
of the individual members.
And I'll never forget how the air turned to ice when the woman turned to my
mother during a meeting of the local Communist Party, and said, "We put the
Party ahead of our families." Mother stood up, said "I don't", and we walked
out.
Whenever dedicated people pressured me to put "the Cause" ahead of all else, I
shake the dust from my shoes and head for the door. If folks want to turn me
off in a big hurry, all they need to do is to say, "Carl, what you have to
do...". And as Porky Pig would say, "Tha tha that's all f f folks".
Carl Jarvis
On 3/6/20, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Unfortunately, my definition of myself was much more naïve. I was
attempting to say that my thinking is way to the left, but I'm too
rebellious to be part of a disciplined group like the ones you were
describing. I wasn't being historically accurate when I used the word
"libertarian", but I was aware that there have been anarchist groups
who were concerned with social change. I don't require intellectual
consistency from myself, as you do from yourself. So if people's lives
are made better through Democratic Socialism, I have no problem with
that. That's probably because I don't have much faith in systems. I
don't have faith in systems because they all depend on human beings
and human beings are fallible. No matter what system in which society,
there'll be people with a need to dominate others, people who are
aggressive, and people who are greedy, and there'll be people who are
cooperative, kind, altruistic, and loving. Whichever system a society
chooses, it's necessary to control the negative aspects of human nature and
encourage the positive ones.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 8:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** R
Left-wing libertarian is another name for anarchist. The word
anarchist is used for a lot of groups with varying politics, but
discipline is not unheard of in anarchist circles either. I have made
reference to this or that anarchist organization before only to have
the person I was talking to guffaw and say, "Anarchist organization?
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?" Well, of course, it is not a
contradiction in terms and if someone thinks it is then that person knows
nothing about the history of anarchism.
Some anarchist organizations require a high degree of discipline from
their members. Some of them have functioned as underground
paramilitary groups and were a major factor in the Spanish civil war.
There is no way that can be done without discipline. Anyway, the main
characteristic of left-wing libertarians is their analysis of the
state. They are anti-capitalist, but they do not see capitalism as
the main problem. They think that capitalism is a result of the state
and that it is an economic system commanded by the state. They hold
that in order to abolish capitalism the state has to be abolished
first. They are not all that clear about what they think the origins
of the state are. But putting all that aside and returning to the
question of democratic centralism and for the moment ignoring the
actual organizational principles of democratic centralism, what is the
point of having an organization at all if everyone in it can just go
around and take any position that they want to and disseminate all
those varied positions? I suppose that might be characteristic of some
anarchist groups that are not disciplined, like the Diggers, but what
did they ever do that had any effect? The diggers amounted to just a
way to play sharing games. I think I would have actually enjoyed
living among the Diggers out in San Francisco, but after a while I would get
tired of playing games and would have craved some kind of action. Maybe that
is why the Diggers fell apart.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/6/2020 4:30 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
That is fascinating and it does explain the splits. It also clarifies
for me, personally, why those of us on the left can't organize to the
point where we can achieve major changes. I, for example, could never
submit to the kind of discipline that you describe. I suppose that if
I were to try to describe myself accurately, I'd call myself a left wing
libertarian.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 4:13 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy]
***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave h
Actually, being a member of a democratic centralist organization is a
constant exercise in compromise, but there come times that compromise
is not an option. Here is how these splits usually come about. First,
to be admitted to the party it is required that you be in general
agreement with the party's program. Keep in mind that I said general.
If you had to agree with every little position no one would ever be
recruited. It is usually assumed that if you are not in general
agreement you would not want to join in the first place, but it is
still a good idea that you understand what you are in general agreement with
before you are actually admitted.
For that reason there are recruiting classes. That is where the
program of the party is explained in some detail so that you will
decide that you can live with anything you do disagree with before
you commit. There is also the youth group and the youth group has
more relaxed requirements for membership and is used as something of
a training ground for potential party members. I went through the
Young Socialist Alliance myself, but the time came that it had to be
disbanded. The latest youth group of the SWP is the Young Socialists.
Once in the party it is required that you support the entirety of the
party's program whether you completely agree with it or not. The
requirement is that the party turns the same face to the public at
all times while free discussion is allowed internally. That internal
discussion must come at appropriate times though. It would be
disruptive for comrades to be constantly criticizing the party to
each other. The appropriate time is when a convention is periodically
called. Then every member is invited to submit articles to the
discussion bulletins. The discussion bulletins are distributed to
each branch and a time is set aside to discuss them, usually right
after the weekly branch meeting. When there are disagreements
concerning some aspect of the party's program the discussion will
often include announcements of the formation of tendencies or
factions. Throughout the discussion period members will either align
themselves with one tendency or faction or not and when delegates to
the national convention are elected the delegates are proportionately
elected according to which tendency they have aligned with. The
convention is the highest decision making body within the party and
once its decisions have been made every member is bound by them
whether they disagree with those decisions or not. Tendencies are
usually formed around minor matters and it is assumed that if the
final vote goes against the tendency that you belong to you can live
with it. You can always bring it up again when the next discussion
period is called. Factions, however, represent major differences and
are formed to gain control of the party. Factions are formed around
some profound and principled issues. Splits almost always come out of
faction fights. Based on what I know of the internal workings of the
SWP I cannot help but think that this recent support for the two
state solution in Palestine must have been the result of a faction
fight, but I haven't heard of any splits that came out of it. A split
comes about when the losing faction just cannot live with the
decision that has been made. They have had their delegates to the
convention and when the convention elected the national committee all
factions have been given proportional representation on the national
committee, but it is still required that no matter how strongly you
feel about your side of the faction fight you have to defend the
position that the party has taken to the public and if your
differences are strong enough that can be really difficult to do. A
split usually occurs in one of two ways. One is that the minority
faction may break party discipline and start promoting their side outside
the party or continue to promote it within the party at the inappropriate
times. This can get the faction expelled. Upon expulsion they form their own
organization.
The other way that a split may occur is that the losing faction just
resigns all together and then form their own organization. What it
comes down to is that they no longer meet the requirement that they
be in general agreement with the party's program. This is how most of
these various parties, collectives and other groups, all of which
call themselves socialist came into existence. Some that come to mind
that split from the SWP are Socialist Action, the Workers World
Party, the Sparticist League and the Freedom Socialist Party. There
may be others that I am not thinking of right now and I am not
including groups like the Trotskyist Organization - really
imaginative name, isn't it? - because it doesn't exist anymore. Then,
of course, these organization have also undergone splits of their
own. I have been discussing this from the perspective of the SWP
though. The SWP itself came from a split from the Communist Party and
later entered the Socialist Party only to split from them only a very
few years later. Also, the Communist Party itself formed after splitting
from the Socialist Party in 1918 or 1919.
Without doubt if all of these groups would merge their strength would
increase. Mergers do happen too. The SWP itself formed when the Left
Opposition, formerly the Communist League of America, split from the
Socialist Party and merged with the Workers Party. I remember myself
when the Revolutionary Marxists merged with the SWP and even though I
was far from a participant I remember following the merger of the
October League with smaller Maoist collectives to form the Communist
Party (Marxist-Leninist). But it still remains that if you have
really strong differences it is very difficult to function together
in one party. Democratic centralism gives a revolutionary party
strength, but it also tends to encourage splits
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/6/2020 12:15 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Roger,
What you describe, seems to explain why our country has had center
right and right of center governments for most of its history.
People on the left are unwilling to compromise. They feel that their
ideology is so important, that they are not willing to compromise in
order to be pragmatic. The Marxists' disdain for Democratic
Socialism is one example. If one's goal is to help people achieve a
better life and if setting up a social welfare state within a
capitalist system is one way of doing that, even if it is far from
the ideal way, if it is the attainable way, then why not join
together and do it. If one looks at the world as it currently is, it
is obvious that we're not going to have state socialism in America,
most probably not before our whole human society is destroyed by
climate change. So to me, it seems reasonable to work for what we
might possibly attain. Given the response of the establishment to
the Sanders campaign, it's unlikely that even that is possible.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 10:16 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy]
Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for gov’t-funded,
cradle-to-grave health care!
I don't see how you can think it is underhanded. Its not like the
purposes of running a candidate is some kine of secret. It is a
fully admitted vehicle for disseminating ideas. As for getting
together with one candidate, well, I am not sure that can be done with the
Green Party.
There are some groups that do support Green Party candidates and
still call themselves revolutionary socialists. Socialist
Alternative is an example. But I am not so sure that they are not
drifting toward being social democrats by doing so. The Green Party,
as a whole, simply supports capitalism and that is kind of
antithetical to socialism. As for the socialist parties banding
together to promote one candidate, that is being tried in both
Britain and Australia with the Socialist Alliance, but the big
trouble is that it is really hard to get them to agree on a single
program. After all, the reason they split into their various parties
over the years is because they had profound principled differences
with each other. But I remember taking that position myself in my
distant past. As I was meeting radical groups and trying to learn
about them and figure out which I most agreed with I did say to them
that it would make more sense to me if they could all merge into one
organization and trade on the strength in numbers idea instead of
remaining weak by bickering with one another. I said that, after
all, we all have the same goals. I was told that it would be hard to
even get them all in the same room together. Then I saw what
happened when they did get in the same room. The Young Socialist
Alliance was giving a presentation at West Virginia State College
and some members of the October League were in the vicinity and
decided to attend. The October League people were entirely too
contemptuous of the YSA to make any kind of common cause with them.
Then another time I actually invited a Communist Party member to a
YSA meeting. He was pretty polite, but he declined offers to work
together and then later, in a private letter to me, he made some
pretty strenuous denunciations of the Fourth International. Then
when I was in the Committee Against Registration and the Draft that
organization kind of attracted communists like honey attracts flies.
There was the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist). There was the
International Anarchist Communist Federation. There was the
Socialist Workers Party. There was the Communist Workers Party. Not joining
the coalition, but still orbiting around it was the Revolutionary Communist
Party, the Communist Party, USA and the Communist Labor Party.
I may be even forgetting some. Frankly, I think our chapter of CARD
was torn apart by the bickering. But what remains is that the
various parties have different messages that they want to
disseminate. One candidate would not be able to convey all of those
messages because they tend to be contradictory. Besides, some of
those organizations have the message that the elections should be
boycotted in the first place. I had some arguments with the RCP
about that. They urge people to not vote as if that is some kind of
revolutionary statement.
They just don't seem to be aware that most people don't vote anyway
and that is never portrayed as a revolutionary statement. I know
that it is not apathy either, but it is always portrayed as apathy.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 9:16 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No, certainly not. Organizing people around issues where their
actions have a chance of having an effect is not underhanded.
Strikes aren't underhanded. Passive resistance isn't underhanded.
But running candidates when you know that there's no chance in hell
that they can win, that they can't even get on the ballot in most
states, taking up people's time and energy for what amounts to a
"show candidacy", seems underhanded to me. If all the various
socialist parties and the Green party would join together and try
to form a real alternative party, that would make sense to me.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 9:06 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] RE:
[blind-democracy]
RE: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re:
Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
Then it must follow that any attempt to get out any kind of ideas
is some underhanded manipulative scam.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 8:41 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Roger,
Sorry, That was my interpretation of what the SWP is doing. I know
you didn't say that. You just said that the candidates running
would be used as propaganda to organize people. I wrote what that means
to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] RE: [blind-democracy] Re:
[blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re: Fight for gov’t-funded,
cradle-to-grave health care!
Miriam, you misrepresent everything I said. The best way I can
refute this is to just refer you back to my last message. Reading
that message shows that I said nothing like you are claiming I said.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 4:24 PM, miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Isn't using the election as solely an opportunity for agitation
and propaganda a rather cynical way to treat the working people
who might be attracted by that candidate's campaign? It sounds
like all those poor unsuspecting people who might be tricked into
getting involved, are being used as pawns to further the SWP's
objectdives of which they are unaware. "We're offering these
pretend candidates so we can use their campaign to seduce you
into believing a philosophy which, we believe, is in your best
interests in the end. But we aren't going to tell you that we
don't believe in this election, that we're actually planning a
revolution to overthrow this rotten system, and you might become
embroiled in this revolution, whether or not you originally planned to,
and it might become violent".
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 3:32 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: [blind-democracy] ***UNCHECKED*** Re:
Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
You are completely missing the point that Alyson Kennedy has
absolutely no expectation or intention of becoming president. The
ruling class would cancel the election before they would let that
happen.
Furthermore, if there was a realistic prospect for her being
elected then the class struggle would have had to sharpened to
the point that we would either be in the middle of a civil war or
else we would be on the brink of it. Alyson's candidacy is simply
a move to take advantage of the bourgeois electoral system to spread
agitation and propaganda.
But suppose that she did get elected and suppose she survived the
violent attacks that would be launched against her and her
supporters if she did get elected and then she took office. If
she then went ahead and merrily administered the bourgeois state
she would have upon that instant transformed into a social
democrat. That would be a complete betrayal.
Her job would be to give the bourgeois state its final kicks to
ensure its collapse. Then she would participate in building a new
workers and farmers state, possibly being a delegate to a new
constitutional convention.
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
On 3/5/2020 11:56 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
The article states: "The Socialist Workers Party campaign is
grounded in the conviction that it is possible to emulate that
example(the Cuban Revolution). We can mobilize in our millions
to overthrow the dictatorship of the capitalist class here, take
power into our own hands and open the door to working people
running society."
And then the article concludes, "Join us in campaigning for
Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett, the working-class
alternative in 2020!"
My problem with this article is that we can't take both approaches.
Either we advocate for Revolution and the replacement of our
current Ruling Class with a government which represents All the
People, or we send Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett to be our
sacrificial offerings. That approach appears hopeless. Let's
suppose, and it is a real long shot, that Alyson Kennedy and
Malcolm Jarrett squeak out a victory, and find themselves in the
White House. Then what?
I mean what do we Revolutionaries do? We have just won the top
two offices in the nation, and the most influential top dogs in
all the World.
Are they prepared to lead a Revolution from within the
Establishment's System? Do they attempt to swim upstream and
make what social changes they can make? To me it is a lose lose
situation. The fact is that we live in, and have lived in from
the beginning, in a Class System.
This nation of the people never set out to be the government of
All the People.
Although I have no dog in this presidential fight, I plan to
vote for Bernie Sanders. Not because I think that he will win,
or even if the Heavens opened up and God smote all his opponents
and Bernie, like David with his sling, did win, but because I
believe it is my only way of spitting in the Establishment's
eye. Bernie will be as unable to return America to the New Deal
Days, as would Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett.
But on the other hand, if we are truly serious about a People's
Revolution, then we need to stop pretending that we can "make a
difference" through tucking a few Progressives into the System.
It's like tossing red meat to a pack of wild dogs.
As a defender of the American People and their Rights and
Dignity, I am faced with deciding whose laws I must obey. Do I
take the safer path and obey the laws that have been bought and
paid for to protect the properties and positions of the long
established Ruling Class?
Or do I obey those basic laws that defend the dignity and
security and health, and all the Rights that belong to First
Class Citizens?
This is no easy decision. But it is one that every Citizen must
make, because we cannot serve two Masters. Either we support
the right of a few to own us, or we defend the Right to Human
Dignity by All the People. This constitution we live under was
created back when we were a collection of 13 Colonies and an
Agrarian Society.
The Document was truly revolutionary in its day. It declared
that the Colonists were no longer the economic slaves of the
King of England. In the situation the Colonists found
themselves, there was no misunderstanding over whether they
could somehow take over the government and make changes to existing
laws.
There was only one of two roads, compliance or revolution.
The ensuing struggle was costly for many Landholders. Many
chose to duck and cover, hoping the King would reward them once
the uprising was quashed.
While Times are very different today, we live in an Urban
Society and number 50 states and over 300 million People, we are
still faced by the same two roads. We can duck and cover and
accept what is "given"
us by our Ruling Class, hoping they make wise choices that
somehow include us, or we can set them aside, thanking them for
their long years at the helm of our Ship of State, but
recognizing that they have outlived their day, and that they
have become far too self serving.
But if we do the latter, we must realize that once declared, the
New Revolution must follow. Are we ready for it?
Carl Jarvis
On 3/5/20, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
https://themilitant.com/2020/02/29/fight-for-govt-funded-cradle
-
t
o
- g r ave-health-care/ Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave
health care!
article
Vol. 84/No. 9
March 9, 2020
The U.S. government, the most powerful imperialist power on the
planet, like every other capitalist power around the world, is
far from prepared for the spread of coronavirus. The virus is
new, no one is immune, and it will take time to develop an
antidote.
The rulers in China and Iran tried to pretend things weren’t so
bad and working people are paying for it. The administration in
Washington tells us they’ve got everything in hand and complain
the media is trying to make coronavirus “look as bad as possible.”
The deadly impact of the virus will fall overwhelmingly on
working people in the U.S., as it does elsewhere, exacerbating
the broader social, economic and moral crisis of capitalism
bearing down on us.
Millions of workers already confront the declining availability
of health care. Hospitals have been closing in rural areas and
working-class neighborhoods, where the owners decide they
aren’t making enough profit. The system of health insurance in the U.S.
— whether it’s “Obamacare,” private health insurance or the
Medicare-for-all insurance schemes promoted by a wing of the
Democrats — is designed to guarantee a profit for hospital
bosses and drug and insurance companies, not to provide the
health care working people need and deserve.
If we can’t afford to pay the rising costs they charge for
premiums, deductibles or copays, we have to go without
something that should be a basic human right.
The capitalist rulers consider the provision of health care to
workers a nonproductive expense. Hospital bosses are notorious
for transporting homeless people seeking care out of the city
and dumping them. The capitalist rulers seek to impose the
responsibility for medical care onto individual workers and our
families. And if you don’t change your lifestyle — quit
smoking, lose weight, etc. — they want to make you pay more.
You’re on your own.
Health care is social right
Health care is a social question. The working class and our
unions need to fight for government-funded cradle-to-grave
health care for all. Our labor produces all the wealth, more
than enough to provide care for all, for a lifetime. The
problem is the employers expropriate that wealth for
themselves. So they don’t have to worry about the costs of getting
treatment.
Health care as a social right can only be won by class
struggle, including breaking from all the capitalists’ parties,
which insist that the health insurance racket is untouchable.
It will take massive struggles by workers and our allies to
take the hospitals and drug companies out of the hands of the
capitalists who run them for profit and organize to run them
under workers control in the interest of all. But it can be done.
Revolutionary Cuba is the one country in the world where health
care is not a commodity, where the surplus workers and farmers
produce is used to provide lifelong, preventative health care
for every person.
And where thousands of volunteer medical workers provide much
needed care throughout the world, treating all they look after
with dignity and respect. A vivid account is provided in the
recently published Red Zone: Cuba and the Battle Against Ebola
in West Africa.
The volunteers’ internationalism, author Enrique Ubieta
writes, “is an expression of their revolutionary humanism.”
As Che Guevara said, to be a revolutionary doctor you have to
make a revolution.
Revolution transformed working people in Cuba This is only
possible because Cuban workers and farmers made a revolution
and the government today is in their hands. Making that
revolution transformed working people. They simply look at the
problems they confront — from the U.S. rulers’ economic war
against them to the threat of coronavirus — as the
responsibility of the whole people.
Whatever they face — a hurricane, a threat of disease, or
anything else — they prepare, mobilize the whole people and
resources of their government, and take it on.
The Socialist Workers Party campaign is grounded in the
conviction that it is possible to emulate that example. We can
mobilize in our millions to overthrow the dictatorship of the
capitalist class here, take power into our own hands and open
the door to working people running society. Join us in
campaigning for Alyson Kennedy and Malcolm Jarrett, the
working-class alternative in 2020!
article end
list of 4 items
Audio version
Share
list end
RELATED ARTICLES
article
Capitalist economies wobble as coronavirus cases spread Media
worldwide headlined the news Feb. 24 with reports that
coronavirus infections and deaths were spreading outside China,
where it originated, with spikes in South Korea, Japan, Iran
and northern Italy. Capitalist governments around the world
either admit their health… article end IN THIS ISSUE Front Page
Articles list of 6 items • ‘We need a labor party, independent
of the bosses’
• Capitalist two party system’s stability won’t be restored •
New Zealand protesters say ‘Abortion is not a crime’
• Striking Asarco miners protest bosses’ union-busting attacks
• Federal court says Florida law gutting felons’ right to vote
is unconstitutional • Over a million Syrians forced to flee
Idlib in face of regime’s offensive list end Feature Articles
list of
1 items • New book on Ebola launched at Cuban tropical medicine
school list end Also In This Issue list of 8 items • Kennedy:
‘All workers should back Asarco strike’
• Back Socialist Workers Party 2020 campaign Contribute to
$25,000 fund!
• Families, former inmates, SWP protest conditions at Georgia
jail • Capitalist economies wobble as coronavirus cases spread
• Women in Iraq say no to segregation of protesters •
‘Communism is not a doctrine but a movement’
• Bosses step up spying on workers — on and off the job • Join
2020 May Day international brigade to Cuba!
list end
Editorials
list of 1 items
• Fight for gov’t-funded, cradle-to-grave health care!
list end
Books of the Month
list of 1 items
• ‘Second-class status of women arose with class society’
list end
25, 50 and 75 years ago
Letters
Corrections
main region end
© Copyright 2020 The Militant - 306 W. 37th Street, 13th
floor
- New York, NY 10018 - themilitant@xxxxxxx Cookies This site
uses cookies to improve your experience.
Learn more.
Okay, thanks
--
___
Neil deGrasse Tyson
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
