'The Militant' joins liberals
lause at worldnet.att.net
Mon Jul 8 05:38:41 MDT 2002
Chris Brady wrote:
> If liberals supported national health care, a.k.a., socialized medicine,
> they would be joining us. Would that make us wrong?
This is a decent starting point for discussing public operations, but it's
far from the bottom line.
I'm sure we'd all agree that socialism is more than a question of public vs.
private ownership. A century ago, perhaps, it was an issue, but the
expansive capitalist state of the past century has certainly demonstrated
its ability to run publicly owned enterprises in the interest of private
business. If the 20th century experience in the U.S. has taught us nothing
else, it's that government can function pretty much a kind of general
steering body for private enterprise. Applied to what this means in
education, criticizing the very real mess made of the school system isn't
necessarily an advocacy of vouchers.
Analogies to health care, mass transit, postal services, food stamps, etc.
are all appropriate here. Indeed, by far the most likely kind of national
health plan we'd eventually get here is a liberal plan that would be shaped
by the medical industry, the drug cartels, and the insurance companies
through their lobbyists and their tools in government. The fact that it
would be government owned and operated would not keep it from being shaped
to provide immense profits to these private operations, right?
The question is not whether something is or isn't owned by the state but a
matter of who owns the state.
"The cardinal sin, when we are looking for truth of fact or wisdom of
policy, is refusal to discuss, or action which blocks discussion."
---- Sidney Hook, "The Ethics of Controversy" 1954
The Civil War's Last Campaign: James B. Weaver, the Greenback-Labor Party,
and the Politics of Race and Section
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism