====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I think the very small and powerless far left in this country went way off the deep end in calling for the defeat of the health care bill. The basic argument is that it still leaves the insurance industry and pharmaceutical industry in the catbird seat, which is true. In fact, it is quite clear that today, in the existing relationship of class forces, no bill could have passed that did not do that. In calling for defeat of the bill, they demanded that Congress vote down: (a) barring immediately denying children insurance because of pre-existing or other illness (b) barring all other such denials within two years (3) adding 16 million people to Medicaid eligibility; (4) taking millions of people out of the category of uninsured. And a number of other like things. How can we call for defeating THIS when we today have absolutely no viable alternative. And in calling for defeating itself, we effectively rely on the ultrarightist (these days) Republican Party and the right-wing Democrats to win our "victory" for us. Our political influence is of course nil. It's a version of Alexander Cockburn's left-right alliance politics, in my opinion. Socialist Worker says you can't solve the medical crisis without taking the profits from the insurance companies and big pharma. True enough, but does anyone imagine that abolishing or defeating the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies was on the agenda in 2010? Not even single payer was possible in this period, and that would not make medical care anywhere near totally nonprofit. Medicare demands both big premiums and leaves people with sizable doctor bills. Should all these people be denied what they really do need now, under today's class struggle circumstances, because we know a better way. We insist on single payer or even socialism now and demand that anything less be REJECTED in a practical alliance with rightists who want to abolish all public health services, and who think that medical care is a privilege that must be earned making enough money to pay your own way. And we demand all or nothing at a time when the labor movement is prostrate, the women's and Black movements passive, and the immigrants trying to fight their way out of a legally tightening pariah position. This seems nuts to me. We seem to imagine that the defeat of this bill would have stimulated a huge increase in support for single payer, mobilizations, etc.-- kind of After the Tea Partiers, Us. On the contrary, the only political beneficiary would have been the right, and their arguments would have become even more the official mainstream than they are today. I am not saying we should have supported it. We have no members of congress. We have virtually no political influence. We could have objectively reported what was positive and negative, without starting to sound like Left Wing tea-partiers. (This JUST makes things worse! It's the end of the world!) Of course, there are bad and negative things in the legislation and we should explain them, but I think unhysterically is best. Trying to DEFEAT it was a mistake and a potentially discrediting one (although at this point our relative obscurity may serve as our best defense). A lot of scapegoating of Kucinich is going on. Actually, once his efforts to improve the bill had failed, he had no choice but to cross over and Obama's appeal just built him a bridge for a dignified exit. He could not have survived helping to defeat this bill in alliance with the far right. I've never been a fan of Kucinich but frankly the description of his vote as a great betrayal sounds like more left-wing hype to me. This does not make single-payer impossible. The obstacle to single payer above all is not legislation or even institutions but the relationship of class forces. I'm relieved there was enough sentiment and mobilization to soften some of the worst aspects of the bill (abortion) and keep in some of the better stuff. But positive changes in the class struggle will create new openings despite the institutional obstacles including this legislation. Part of this is the far left view that the ruling class is kind of plotting to make life unlivable in the United States, or as Louis Proyect puts it, to make us just like "China or some other third world country." Leaving aside Louis' vendetta against the government of China, I would first point out that some third world countries are moving in the opposite direction of the United States in cultural, economic, and social areas -- upward and not downward. But more importantly, the rulers have every intention for the United States to stay imperialist and for wide layers of Americans to stay privileged relative to other peoples and to remain a base of support for US imperialism. This plan may go afoul if another financial-industrial-trade crisis hits but they do not "plan" the opposite. One underlying motivation of this reform legislation, with all its anti-working-class aspects, is to retain popular support for the increasingly complex network of wars and interventions and conflicts with other countries that US imperialism feels it must carry out. A total collapse of US health and living standards will not further that project, so I think Obama and the class he represents would like to prevent it. That is one of the functions of this legislation. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
