[Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

Thu Mar 25 10:54:17 CDT 2010

As an anarchist and a "precarious-shit-worker" who does do the 'grub-work,' I take offense to this "individualistic libertarian anarchists" claim. We, anarcho-PSWs, do not have cushy university jobs with health-care, sick days, vacations, living wages... or the time, privelege, and luxury for academic debates. It is true, those of us who make around $1000/month will NEVER, EVER be able to afford the $200-300/month minimum premiums to fucking corporations after paying some $400 in rent alone! [Add $200-300/loans in student loans, $150 in other bills, etc... and there's nothing left for food. Keeps me in my boyish figure I guess ;-) ] Simply, everyday life is always a losing battle... we're working-poor and we're FUCKED, this is real. And, the $700 penalty on top of taxes will only make things worse! Now, for those who make some $40,000/yr this all may be doable, and an improvement, but for many of us who don't it's completely impossible unless the feds pay %100 of our premiums.... i.e., SINGLE-PAYER. So, single-payer is the ONLY improvement for us, and the ONLY solution that was never on the table! [thanks to Both Dems and Reps] 

So, please don't throw around sectarian epithets by calling "self-proclaimed socialists" anarchists in a squabble over who's a socialist and who isn't... I know many anarchists and almost every one of them are working-poor or working class whose fate is intricately tied to the fate of others. 

I suggest 'bourgeois' not 'anarchist,' and you can bicker about the rest amongst yourselves... here's an over simplified refresher for those who are a little rusty,  or a primer for the uninitiated: 

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeserving_poor ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarious_work ] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precarity_(Social_Christianity) cge may like this one] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Laurie Solomon <ls1000 at live.com>
To: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>; C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
Cc: peace-discuss List <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 23, 2010 11:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

It has been my experience that all the self-proclaimed socialists  - especially in this town - tend to be self-centered, individualistic libertarian anarchists who are into doing their own thing and following their own personal agendas  - rebelling against bowing to the collective will or conforming to collective rules imposed on them by the collective.  That is when they are not busy being political gadflies flitting from one cause to another only to put in a brief appearance with little mundane grubby work before going on to the next cause.  The "Being There" syndrome where one is a voyeur  is a predominant malady in this community; and witnessing versus participating and acting tends to be the primary occupation of many supposed activists.

From: John W. 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:29 PM
To: C. G. Estabrook 
Cc: peace-discuss List ; melodye at nitrogendesign.com ; discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org 
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:02 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:

Not being a liberal but a socialist, I'm not looking for an escape route. I
wouldn't have wanted to miss the most interesting and affecting observation on
this matter that I've seen on this list. --CGE

Thanks, Carl.  Now here's the rejoinder to that, so as not to leave anyone out:  

If you and all the other self-styled "socialists" in this town were DOERS, as Melodye and Bob suggest, rather than mere talkers, you'd be organizing a credit union, for example, and we'd all pull our money out of Chase Bank and Bank of America and pool it in our very own Socialist Credit Union, which would pay far higher returns on investment because there'd be no profit incentive for stockholders, no big executive salaries, no annual bonuses, and low administrative costs.  We'd loan money to our socialist members for home mortgages, to lessen the probablility of their losing their homes to foreclosure by faraway corporate behemoths trafficking in human lives via sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps.

We could also, for example, pool our money in a health insurance pool - from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.  That's how the modern-day health insurance companies started out, after all - as local benevolent associations organized among immigrant groups or co-workers.

The possibilities are virtually limitless if one is willing to put one's money where one's mouth is.  My experience of the "socialists" in this town is that it doesn't even occur to them to car-pool to meetings.

John again

John W. wrote:

On this list, three of us have been and are the harshest critics of the new
health care 'reform' bill:  Carl, Dave Johnson, and me.  I'm curious which of
the three of us has NOT, in the eyes of Bob and Melodye, worked our asses off
to try to make both the local community and the larger society a better
place, according to our lights and talents.  Name some fucking names.

The way I see it, most of the folks on this list have decent health insurance, so they have the luxury of being "ambivalent" about the health
care bill, reminding us of its many virtues and counseling us to take a 'wait
and see' approach.  I, on the other hand, have no health insurance, and will
NOT have Medicare when I'm 65 due to a quirk in the law over which I had and
have no control.  I can't speak for Carl and Dave, but I have actually
suffered the indignity of sitting in the Frances Nelson Clinic, getting a
different doctor every time, KNOWING that there were tests not being
performed because Frances Nelson could not perform them in-house, and having
pills shoved at me which I KNEW would do no good but which were all that
Frances Nelson had to offer. Having to present proof of income documents over
and over so that even Frances Nelson's precious and scarce resources would
not be "wasted" on me.

The only decent medical care I've received in LIFE was at McKinley Clinic
when I was a student at UIUC.  They have government-run, "socialized"
medicine there; the doctors are on salary and all the services are "free",
even the prescription meds, paid for by a student fee.  There I finally found
a physician (female - God bless her) who cared about me as a human being, and
ordered tests that were based on what I as a patient NEEDED rather than on
what I could afford or on what paid the doctor the most money.  Sadly, when I
ceased to be a student I could no longer avail myself of her services.  God
bless her.

So I'm afraid I can't be as blase as the rest of you about this shitty bill
which leaves health insurance companies firmly in control.  Nothing at all
has changed for me, not a God-damned thing.  And you can bet that if nothing
has changed for me, it's not changing for millions of other Americans who are
not, perhaps, as articulate as I am.

Oh, yes, I forgot.  Something HAS changed for me after all, or it will in -
what?  2014?   I'll be mandated to purchase a terrible private-sector health
insurance plan, with money I don't have and with deductibles and co-pays so
high I won't ever be able to actually use it, or else I'll be fined for my
failure to purchase it.  Please forgive me if I don't see that as a benefit.

Yeah, I'll shut up now.  Every time I try to talk personal realities "on the
ground" rather than abstractions, all the liberals' eyes start darting around
the room, looking for an escape route.  Don't think I don't see it.

John W.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu <mailto:illyes at uiuc.edu>> wrote:

Melodye writes:

"It never ceases to amaze me how some of the biggest critics (on every
subject) coming out of the shadows have done---- what?"

Precisely, Melodye.

Some pretext is generally behind this lack of accomplishment. A "Christian"
pretext is that because of Original Sin it is not possible for a person to do
good. A "Marxist" pretext is that the middle class will always prevent
political progress, which isn't possible because the middle class is not yet
destroyed. Market Fundamentalism supplies its own unsubstantiated theology.
But don't be fooled. These are just excuses to hold in contempt those who do their part to leave the world better rather than worse. These critics get off
on contempt. They attempt to set up abusive relationships with those who
would do good.

On a slightly different subject, I confess I have never seen anything quite
so revolting as the Social Darwinian arguments coming from opponents of the
efforts of our first black President and our first woman Speaker. (Their race
and gender have nothing to do with this, right?) In the Gilded Age, it was
seriously proposed that charity was vice, because it lessened the pressure on
those on the bottom to change their evil ways. And now the new Gilded Age has
 arrived, with the same recycled pseudo-scientific nonsense, that we all
already get what we deserve.....

Bob

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
iscuss mailing list
iscuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
ttp://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100325/b58aa785/attachment-0001.html>