>To win, the left needs a vision, a faith, a big picture – not just a
>laundry list of items to be accomplished
I'd settle for a laundry list, if they were only accomplished.
At 12:21 PM 7/19/2006, you wrote:
>Michael McIntyre:
>
>I've been a paid-up member of the cult of kvetching for many years, and I
>don't think I'll resign anytime soon, but I agree that kvetching is no
>strategic option.
>[WS:] Same here, but I do not expect to pursue a political career of any
>kind. The role of a politician in a democracy is in many ways similar to
>that of a rabbi, a minister or a priest - to motivate, inspire, and
>mobilize others. Chronic complainers (including myself) do not qualify.
>
> I've been trying to convince comrades for the past couple of years,
> with little success, that the strategic arena now is health care, because of:
>(1) Massive market failure
>(2) Readily available non-market alternatives - even close to home
>(Medicare & VA)
>(3) Potential expansion of a militant union model (CNA)
>(4) Contradictions within the capitalist class (very roughly, industry vs.
>FIRE)
>(5) Size of the target - about 1/6 of the economy
>(6) Lack of plausible capitalist solutions
>
>Not that this will necessarily work - it just looks to me like our best
>shot at the moment.
>
>[WS:] I think it is a very good start, but it is only a beginning. To
>win, the left needs a vision, a faith, a big picture – not just a laundry
>list of items to be accomplished. In the past, such big picture vision
>was socialism – everything was done in the name of it – from fixing
>potholes in the road, to harvesting crop, to building a school in an
>obscure village to launching a spacecraft. Today, the purchasing power of
>socialism decreased rather substantially (unfortunately), so another big
>picture is needed.
>
>IMHO, one potential candidate is the concept of social economy that is
>gaining popularity in EU
><http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/>http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrepreneurship/coop/.
>In a way, it is “socialism” by another name – a concept that joins
>together the ideal (democratic governance, common good, public
>accountability) and the material (production of material goods) – and it
>carries very specific and very practical implications for the organization
>of economy and society. I understand that anything with the word ‘social’
>in its name would be quickly equated with ‘socialism” and ‘communism’ in
>the troglodyte US political discourse, but the label can be modified to
>the local tastes, e.g. public benefit economy. That concept would
>encompass not only social services (including health care or social safety
>net) but any economic activity whose main goal is the maximization of
>public benefit and democratic values rather than private profits. Another
>advantage is that this concept involves everyone’s benefit, not the
>benefit of some distant and abstract entity, such as the “organization”,
>the “country” or, for that matter, the “less fortunate” here or abroad.
>
>For example, promoting cooperative housing can provide tangible benefits
>to individuals (affordable housing) as well as embody the idea of “social”
>or “public benefit” economy. The economic success of a coop (e.g. cost
>savings to the residents, taking advantage of the economies of scale to
>create appealing architectural and environmental designs, minimizing some
>of the common home ownership problems such as maintenance, high repair
>cost, etc.) would automatically validate the abstract notion of
>“social/public benefit economy” in the same way as the quick improvements
>in the standards of living validated the concept of socialism in Russia
>and Eastern Europe – at least initially.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20060719/4132778a/attachment.htm>