Joseph Catron wrote:
>
> O
> One point of contention: If we suppose ourselves to be engaged in a
> long-term struggle we're not going to win any time soon,
Long-term struggle does not make any sense at all inthis context Something like a National Health Service (and I agree that is a more practical goal than single-payer) has to be won (along with some equally sharply defined goals) within 5 or 6 years or you simply have to start all over again from scratch. "Protracted Struggle" worked in nations in which it was possible to establish military liberated zones. It is foolish in core capitalist nations.
I haven't read the article so I can't comment directly on the strategy. But if it was in the '60s it presupposed exactly what we don't have now: a mass movement, in fact a very militant mass movement, bringing steady pressure on the u.s. government.
Carrol
P.S. On Practical Goals: the essential element is that they have to be exciting to draw people to the streets. Hence one must NOT give any attention whatever to the irrelevant question of the techniques of implementation after being won:'we' are not in charge there and cannot even affect it. Goals are not Congressional legislation with dotted i's -- they are rallying points for raising hell.
why should it be
> for single-payer rather than a national health service? Presumably most of
> us actually want the latter and would consider it far preferable to the
> former, no?
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk