[lbo-talk] Struggle for Reform was Political Cartography

[Michael Dawson]

Carrol, you are a stubborn, didactic cuss with no literally point to make.
Socialism would be a huge welfare state funded by public industry and
progressive taxes.  If you can't consent to that ultra-ultra-obvious point,
why don't you just shut your cake-hole?  And why are you a socialist, if you
can't see what's beyond obvious?  What the hell do you want, except perhaps
some imaginary award for hurling yourself against all forms of reason?  God
damn!  I really wonder what you think you're doing.

P.S.  Ridiculing the idea of the welfare state is not a form of defending
it.  Seriously.  Think about it.

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:46 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: [lbo-talk] Struggle for Reform was Political Cartography

andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 
> 
> There are issues here:
> 
> 1) is the welfare state worth defending?

Yes. I presume there is unanimous agreement on that. There is probably a
good deal of disagreement on _how_ it can be most successfully defended,
and how that intersects other struggles.


> 2) is it OK for socialists to talk about defending it
when they mean the capitalist welfare state>

Of course.


> 3) Or as euphemism for some of socialism

No. Euphemisms are counter-productive in left politics, both in the
short run and in the long run.


> 4) Would socialism involve a sort of welfare state?

I don't see how this is a coherent question.

Carrol

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk