On nationalisations, free services and reformism

[Q]

A programmatic demand often aired by the Trotskyist left is the nationalisation under workers control of the commanding heights of the economy. Another demand often put forward is to have services which are free at the point of use (free education, free healthcare, ...). This is posed as a transitional demand to support the fight for socialism. So far so good.

Now, this poses somewhat of a problem: if we're successfully gaining free healthcare for example within capitalism as a concession for class struggle, doesn't this feed the illusion that reforms are possible within capitalism? Put another way: aren't economic demands mis-educating the working class into reliance of the capitalist state (instead of an independent class position) and thusly undermine the incentive of overthrowing that state? And finally, shouldn't we pose the need for political demands (the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the democratic republic) very consciously instead, as to circumvent this problem?

The observant reader will see that the classic approach of the minimum programme, the programme that aims to bring the working class to power, is being contrasted here with the transitional approach. Because, although the minimum programme defends stuff like free services and nationalisations aswell, it starts at the political demands ("the objective need for the democratic republic") as opposed to the transitional programme which starts at the economic demands ("bridging from the current level of class consciousness to socialism").

Discuss.

[Kamerat]

How is free education and healthcare a transition to workers control? It will not bring anyone any closer to owning the means of productions in commen, by makeing education and healthcare free in a capitalist society.

[Q]

How is free education and healthcare a transition to workers control? It will not bring anyone any closer to owning the means of productions in commen, by makeing education and healthcare free in a capitalist society.
I think you missed the point somewhat. Services free at the point of use and nationalisations under workers control are typical transitional demands of the Trotskyist left. What I ask is indeed the political question (workers control over society at large). You only managed to reiterate my question.

[Tower of Bebel]

Now, this poses somewhat of a problem: if we're successfully gaining free healthcare for example within capitalism as a concession for class struggle, doesn't this feed the illusion that reforms are possible within capitalism? Put another way: aren't economic demands mis-educating the working class into reliance of the capitalist state (instead of an independent class position) and thusly undermine the incentive of overthrowing that state?The illusion of reforms has always existed and will always exist. It's a genuine part of capitalist ideology. Reform is always possible, even when faced with a crisis. But not every reform can be granted. For example, in 1936 a Belgian general strike won a primitive system of social security. But it was not always what the working class wanted. The crisis that hit Germany right after the first World War did not prevent the workers from gaining some significant reforms. And many contended with staying in and around the treacherous SPD.

The reason behind the old emphasis on economic struggles can be found in the history of the early 3rd International:

At the present moment the most important task of the Communist International is to win a dominant influence over the majority of the working class and involve the more active workers in direct struggle. Although the economic and political situation is objectively revolutionary and a revolutionary crisis could develop without warning as a result of a major strike, a colonial uprising, a new war or a serious parliamentary crisis, the majority of the working class is nevertheless outside the Communist sphere of influence. This is particularly true in countries such as Britain and America where finance capital is so powerful that it has enabled imperialism to corrupt entire sections of the working class, and effective revolutionary mass propaganda is in its early stages. From the day of its foundation the Communist International has clearly and unambiguously stated that its task is not to establish small Communist sects aiming to influence the working masses purely through agitation and propaganda, but to participate directly in the struggle of the working masses, establish Communist leadership of the struggle, and in the course of the struggle create large, revolutionary, mass Communist Parties.
Even though capitalism is in progressive decline and is unable to guarantee the workers even a life of well-fed slavery, social democracy continues to put forward its old programme of peaceful reforms to be carried out on the basis and within the framework of the bankrupt capitalist system. This is a deliberate deception of the working masses. Although it is evident that capitalism in its present stage of decline is incapable of guaranteeing workers a decent human existence, the social democrats and reformists everywhere are daily demonstrating their unwillingness and inability to fight even for the most modest demands in their programme. The demand advanced by the centrist parties for the socialisation or nationalisation of the most important branches of industry is equally a deception because it is not linked to a demand for victory over the bourgeoisie. The centrists want to divert the workers from the real, vital struggle for their immediate goals by holding out the hope that industrial forms can be taken over gradually, one by one, and that ‘systematic’ economic construction can then begin. The social democrats are thus retreating to their minimum programme, which now stands clearly revealed as a counter-revolutionary fraud. Some centrists think that their programme of nationalisation (e.g., of the mining industry) is in line with the Lassallean idea of concentrating all the energies of the proletariat on a single demand, using it as a lever of revolutionary action that then develops into the struggle for power. However, this theory is false. In the capitalist countries the working class suffers too much; the gnawing hardships and the blows that rain down thick and fast on the workers cannot be fought by fixing all attention on a single demand chosen in a doctrinaire fashion. On the contrary, revolutionary action should be organised around all the demands raised by the masses, and these separate actions will gradually merge into a powerful movement for social revolution.
The Communist Parties do not put forward minimum programmes which could serve to strengthen and improve the tottering foundations of capitalism. The Communists’ main aim is to destroy the capitalist system. But in order to achieve their aim the Communist Parties must put forward demands expressing the immediate needs of the working class. The Communists must organise mass campaigns to fight for these demands regardless of whether they are compatible with the continuation of the capitalist system. The Communist Parties should be concerned not with the viability and competitive capacity of capitalist industry or the stability of the capitalist economy, but with proletarian poverty, which cannot and must not be endured any longer. If the demands put forward by the Communists correspond to the immediate needs of the broad proletarian masses, and if the masses are convinced that they cannot go on living unless their demands are met, then the struggle around these issues becomes the starting-point of the struggle for power. In place of the minimum programme of the centrists and reformists, the Communist International offers a struggle for the concrete demands of the proletariat which, in their totality, challenge the power of the bourgeoisie, organise the proletariat and mark out the different stages of the struggle for its dictatorship.On tactics (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/tactics.htm)

(I would have stressed it like this: "The social democrats are thus retreating to their minimum programme, [...]"; since ultimately German social democracy tried to ignore the old Marxist programme it had adopted in the past.)

The 3rd International and the 4th didn't always pose democratic demands. And I can think 3 reasons for that:
1. Those demands didn't always spring from the class struggle. Posing them would mean a temporary isolation from the working class at a moment when time was of the essence.
2. Those demands were sometimes used by the opportunist trends (The social democrats are thus retreating to their minimum programme [...]").
3. The organized working class sometimes breached the "democratic" limitations of the capitalist state by ways of mass action. In the case of Germany the threat of Soviet Russia and the German working class already caused the expansion of democracy.
4. The emphasis on economic demands was also part of a campaign against the "sectarian tendencies" (the Communist Left)

However, this did not mean a repudiation of the political programme:

The Communist International has not been totally successful in its attempts to organise mass Communist Parties. A great deal still remains to be done in some of the most important countries, where capitalism is still firmly in position.

[...] The present economic crisis, which has thrown five million people out of work, means favourable conditions for this kind of work. The American capitalists are well aware of the threat a revolutionised workers’ movement would represent and of the influence that Communism would be likely to have on such a movement. [...] The Communist International reminds the United Communist Party of America that, though it is illegal, the Party must not only recruit and educate members, but must do all it can to reach beyond its underground organisations to the discontented working masses and find ways and means of uniting the broad masses in open political struggle against the American capitalists.On tactics (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/tactics.htm)

Trotsky didn't ignore political demands either. Nor does Trotskyism today. In the case of Iran a democratic "programme" was written.

In the eyes of the 3rd international the problem was that while objective conditions were ripe (Trotsky even wrote that they were rotten) the subjective condition lagged behind. It was not due to the lack of organization, not the lack of revolutionary theory, but due to the liquidationist role played by the former Second International. So it seemed mainly a question of leadership. The solution for the isolation of the communists was moving the workers towards action. The ongoing struggle for reforms, linked up with the prospect of socialism in the near (not distant) future would prove that not the yellow trade union leaders but the genuine reds were the real leaders of the working class. The 3rd international (an later the 4th), which was a minority faction in the working class, needed to gain the leadership of the organized working class. It needed to gain its trust.

In countries where the Communist Parties are mass Parties, they aim at taking greater initiative in launching mass action, but in Britain the Party must make it a priority to intervene in mass activity and show the masses in practice that the Communists represent working-class interests, demands and feelings effectively and bravely.On tactics (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/3rd-congress/tactics.htm)

Today things are different than they were 90 years ago. "The masses" have ceased to exist in many countries. The mass parties are mostly gone. And when they (still) exist they are very undemocratic, making it almost impossible to intervene properly. And in Europe and the US in many states you cannot claim that "the masses" have less than "a life of well-fed slavery". So we cannot simply repeat the phrases and demands of the 3rd and 4th International, That would only amount to "propaganda" and the creation of "sectarian tendencies".

I think that the "bridge" (between objective and subjective conditions) has been overextended for so many times. And it was done in such a way that the programme wasn't very effective or even became illusionary. Instead of nationalization under workers control the old centrist formula of nationalization without workers' control comes up as an example of how the transitional method is sometimes misued. I think we rely too much on winning trust while trust itself is not enough. The goal of the Transitional Programme changed over time. Today it means developing class consciousness from scratch. Step by step if it must. That's far from invoking dual power like in the old days (1938).

THE NEED FOR a transitional programme in this era arises from the mixed consciousness of working-class people. This consciousness will be shaken and changed by the march of events. But the development of a rounded-out socialist consciousness, firstly of the most politically developed layers and then of the mass of the working class, can also be enormously facilitated by a transitional approach and a transitional programme – by adopting the method of Leon Trotsky brought up to date and filled out by the experience of the working class itself in struggle. This provides the bridge from the consciousness of working people today to the idea of socialist change.

[...]

The gap between the increasingly worsening objective situation and the consciousness of the working class will close in the next period. Events – and explosive events at that – will help to ensure this. On the edge of an abyss, the mass of workers will confront the capitalist system – sometimes without a clear idea of what can be put in its place. The journey to a socialist and revolutionary consciousness will, however, be shortened considerably, the pain much less, if the working class embraces the transitional method and a transitional programme linking day-to-day struggles with the idea of socialism. How to fight the crisis (http://www.socialismtoday.org/126/fight.html)

You have most certainly heard of the current double task for Marxists. Do you think that the second task has been ignored programmatically? The two paragraphs from Taaffe's article represent this double task (in some way or another). First there is the adaptable Transitional programme for mixed consciousness and different sectors which could help the small groups of revolutionaries find the pioneers who belong to those sectors and layers to create a revolutionary party. Second there is the programme for the class as a whole. But it only says (working) class. It doesn't mention its independent organization. It only implies direct action, and trust in a body of revolutionaries with a revolutionary programme.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In response to Q's question, I'd like to start by responding to Rakunin's first statement:


The illusion of reforms has always existed and will always exist. It's a genuine part of capitalist ideology. Reform is always possible, even when faced with a crisis. But not every reform can be granted.

Comrade (thanks for clarifying on the Comintern's tactics and its political program), for the sake of discussion I should re-quote a past but related post of yours (in one of the threads on shorter workweeks):


The carrot versus working class organization debate (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm) is going on since the late 19th century. While Marx wanted the working class to organize themselves in a political party in order to pose the question of class power, Jules Guesde proposed to you only demands that could lure the workers to the party.

The link quoted above is the Programme of the Parti Ouvrier, and the debate surrounding that program is the original context of the "I am not a Marxist" statement.

Is it possible to say rhetorically that "I am a Marxist," given the continued existence of reform illusions? After all, I think Marx underestimated the extent of Guesde's party-building: Guesde would at some point build a party-movement in France (not just a cheap electoral machine like those in today's political systems).


You have most certainly heard of the double task of Marxists for today. Do you think that the second task has been ignored programmatically? The two quotes from Taaffe's article can represent this double task. First there is the ever changing transitional programme for mixed consciousness and different sectors which could help the small groups of revolutionaries find the pioneers in different sectors and among different layers they need to create a revolutionary party. Second there is the programme for the class as a whole. But it only says class. It doesn't mention its independent organization. It only implies direct action, and trust in a body of revolutionaries with a revolutionary programme.

Like I said earlier, I have no problems going the route of Krichevskii (http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-program-updated-t99491/index.html) in terms of an action platform (mainly economic demands, I think you've conceded Macnair's point on this). For example, "gun welfare" can be a sort of "transition" from so-called "democratic" slogans to the relevant part in the formal program (people's militias). Where he and the Rabocheye Delo group went wrong in the time of WITBD was in suggesting stage-ism in terms of a formal program, which the RSDLP did not have until 1903. "We wish to imitate the Erfurt Program," said Lenin in one of his earlier works.

Trotsky, meanwhile, merely took the formal political program for granted.



[Since it's morning here and I'm in a rush, I'll discuss more stuff later.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Put another way: aren't economic demands mis-educating the working class into reliance of the capitalist state (instead of an independent class position) and thusly undermine the incentive of overthrowing that state? And finally, shouldn't we pose the need for political demands (the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the democratic republic) very consciously instead, as to circumvent this problem?

The observant reader will see that the classic approach of the minimum programme, the programme that aims to bring the working class to power, is being contrasted here with the transitional approach. Because, although the minimum programme defends stuff like free services and nationalisations aswell, it starts at the political demands ("the objective need for the democratic republic") as opposed to the transitional programme which starts at the economic demands ("bridging from the current level of class consciousness to socialism").

1) Having said what I said above about possibly justifying economic demands based on the motives of Jules Guesde, the answer to your first question ("incentive") is mixed.

It depends on the nature of the demands being raised. For example, Marx made not one peep whatsoever at "producer co-operatives with state aid" when it came to the Eisenach program and the Paris Commune.

This is because of one thing: "self help" (in "state aid vs. self-help") taken to the extreme tantamounts to lifestylism and [I]kibbutz-ism - the typical anti-communist "go out somewhere and set up a commune" that doesn't take into account class struggle.

2) Your second question doesn't consider that there are essential "politico-political" demands (DOTP) and there are "non-essential" yet still-radical "politico-political" demands (party-recallable PR which sorta goes against full-fledged demarchy, and perhaps also my anti-inheritance demand not being essential as well).

The answer to your second question, if in reference to the essentials, is obvious, but here's the thing: not all the demands for the DOTP can be presented "at once" along with the radical economic demands. Although all of them are in the same programmatic document, some demands can be posed "immediately" (politicians on average workers' wages, as opposed to the whole politico-administrative apparatus being subjected to such), and others can't (sovereign commoner juries, thereby scrapping judges and curtailing the prevalence of lawyers).

Immediate Demands -> Intermediate Demands -> "Threshold" Demands -> "Genuinely Transitional"/Directional Demands -> Maximum Program

[robbo203]

A programmatic demand often aired by the Trotskyist left is the nationalisation under workers control of the commanding heights of the economy. Another demand often put forward is to have services which are free at the point of use (free education, free healthcare, ...). This is posed as a transitional demand to support the fight for socialism. So far so good.
.

Or so far so bad perhaps. Nationalisation under so called workers control is nothing more than a capitalist measure - state capitalism. The workers as long as they remain workers i.e. the exploited subjects of capitalism, can never be "in control" It will be the so called workers state - a form of capitalist state that will be in control. Its the same with the the idea of making some goods free at the point of use. Within capitalism there is no such thing as a free lunch. As the Marxian law of value demonstrates, what this would entail is a downward adjustment of the real wage by way of compansating for what workers get for free. Such so called "free services" are funded out of taxation on the capitalists profits and no state would ever risk threatening the very existence of the goose that lays its golden eggs. All states including so called "proletarian" states must put the interests of the capitalists first and foremost.

The trotskyist demand for so called transitional demands is nothing mnore than a reformist programme for maintaining capitalism

[Q]

Or so far so bad perhaps. Nationalisation under so called workers control is nothing more than a capitalist measure - state capitalism. The workers as long as they remain workers i.e. the exploited subjects of capitalism, can never be "in control" It will be the so called workers state - a form of capitalist state that will be in control. Its the same with the the idea of making some goods free at the point of use. Within capitalism there is no such thing as a free lunch. As the Marxian law of value demonstrates, what this would entail is a downward adjustment of the real wage by way of compansating for what workers get for free. Such so called "free services" are funded out of taxation on the capitalists profits and no state would ever risk threatening the very existence of the goose that lays its golden eggs. All states including so called "proletarian" states must put the interests of the capitalists first and foremost.

The trotskyist demand for so called transitional demands is nothing mnore than a reformist programme for maintaining capitalism
A rather blunt way to rewrite my OP, but ok.

The discussion has progressed somewhat since the OP though, care to reply to any other posts?

[blake 3:17]

Keep it public! If it ain't, make it public!

[Yehuda Stern]

if we're successfully gaining free healthcare for example within capitalism as a concession for class struggle, doesn't this feed the illusion that reforms are possible within capitalism?That, however, is no illusion. Reforms, i.e. minimum demands, are possible within capitalism, and if the workers fight for them and win them, they become more confident in their power as a class, and this strengthens their consciousness.

But transitional demands are different from reforms. Transitional demands are demands that workers that are not yet revolutionary can agree with, but that we as Marxists know capitalism cannot grant. By fighting for these demands, all the while clearly stating that we do not believe the struggle will succeed without a socialist revolution, we show workers that their needs cannot be met within capitalism.


shouldn't we pose the need for political demands (the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the democratic republic) very consciously instead, as to circumvent this problem?The difference between authentic Marxism and its ultra-left variants is that Marxists have to think about tactics which will help them intervene in struggles and approach the mass of workers, even if at least for now they have to concentrate on recruiting the vanguard. Here separating propaganda and agitation is useful. In our propaganda, which is directed at the vanguard of the working class, we talk about socialist revolution and other such issues that the working masses are not interested in yet. In our agitation, however, we must find a way to appeal to the masses (without, of course, concealing our full program). Otherwise, we cannot intervene effectively in struggles and run the risk of our organization becoming sterile.


although the minimum programme defends stuff like free services and nationalisations aswell, it starts at the political demands ("the objective need for the democratic republic") as opposed to the transitional programme which starts at the economic demands ("bridging from the current level of class consciousness to socialism".I think that dichotomy is somewhat artificial. What makes a demand a minimum or transitional one is whether or not it can be actualized under capitalism, not whether it is political or economic.

[New Tet]

Marxists have to think about tactics which will help them intervene in struggles and approach the mass of workers, even if at least for now they have to concentrate on recruiting the vanguard.

How is recruiting a vanguard different from building a party of socialism, if at all?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's an interesting proposal that could be inserted into some "transitional action" platform. I haven't thought about its implications for a class-strugglist minimum program (much less a Marxist minimum program), but here goes:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/13/why_capitalism_fails/?page=5


Minsky’s other solution, however, was considerably more radical and less palatable politically. The preferred mainstream tactic for pulling the economy out of a crisis was - and is - based on the Keynesian notion of “priming the pump” by sending money that will employ lots of high-skilled, unionized labor - by building a new high-speed train line, for example.

Minsky, however, argued for a “bubble-up” approach, sending money to the poor and unskilled first. The government - or what he liked to call “Big Government” - should become the “employer of last resort,” he said, offering a job to anyone who wanted one at a set minimum wage. It would be paid to workers who would supply child care, clean streets, and provide services that would give taxpayers a visible return on their dollars. In being available to everyone, it would be even more ambitious than the New Deal, sharply reducing the welfare rolls by guaranteeing a job for anyone who was able to work. Such a program would not only help the poor and unskilled, he believed, but would put a floor beneath everyone else’s wages too, preventing salaries of more skilled workers from falling too precipitously, and sending benefits up the socioeconomic ladder.

Or is this a more radical take on the "public works" slogan?

[eyedrop]

Minsky, however, argued for a “bubble-up” approach, sending money to the poor and unskilled first. The government - or what he liked to call “Big Government” - should become the “employer of last resort,” he said, offering a job to anyone who wanted one at a set minimum wage. It would be paid to workers who would supply child care, clean streets, and provide services that would give taxpayers a visible return on their dollars. In being available to everyone, it would be even more ambitious than the New Deal, sharply reducing the welfare rolls by guaranteeing a job for anyone who was able to work. Such a program would not only help the poor and unskilled, he believed, but would put a floor beneath everyone else’s wages too, preventing salaries of more skilled workers from falling too precipitously, and sending benefits up the socioeconomic ladder.

Why not just introduce a citizen wage instead of having lot's of people in useless jobs. (Cutting working hours in governmental jobs is also an option.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll refer you to this post of mine here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1444481&postcount=7

The problem is basically two-fold: it can be used as an excuse to privatize social benefits (Milton Friedman), and wages would be driven lower than the current minimum (Paul Cockshott, now a RevLeft poster :) ).

[Paul Cockshott]

A programmatic demand often aired by the Trotskyist left is the nationalisation under workers control of the commanding heights of the economy. Another demand often put forward is to have services which are free at the point of use (free education, free healthcare, ...). This is posed as a transitional demand to support the fight for socialism. So far so good.

Now, this poses somewhat of a problem: if we're successfully gaining free healthcare for example within capitalism as a concession for class struggle, doesn't this feed the illusion that reforms are possible within capitalism?


Why is it an illusion?

What do you mean within capitalism?

What do you mean by free health care?

[robbo203]

Why is it an illusion?

What do you mean within capitalism?

What do you mean by free health care?

There is no such thing as a free lunch under capitalism. The Brish NHS for example is paid far out of general taxation which is ressentially a cost born by the capitalist class (however it might appear to be paid for by workers through their wage slip to foster the impression that we are all stakeholders in capitalism) . This was a point made long ago by David Ricardo and endorsed by Marx. All things being equal, an increase in taxation leads to an increase in the nominal wage. A decline in taxation leads to a decline in the nominal wage. The wage represents the price of labour power , the socially neccesary labour time required to produce a given level of skill under the conditions prevailing. With or without free health care in capitalism the nominal wage level will adjust upwards or downwards to reflect this fact

[Paul Cockshott]

There is no such thing as a lunch that is free to society in any mode of production. Likewise no health care is free to society, it always involves a labour cost.

It does however make an big difference to people if the health care treatment that they get is free to them individually, and does not depend on their individual income level.

When I asked what Q meant by free health care I was meaning a somewhat different emphasis to the question. Was Q thinking of a system like the NHS or the former Soviet system where treatment is provided largely by a salaried set of state employees, or did he mean an insurance based system in which private firms and contractors charge for the treatment which is then recouped from a universal insurance scheme?

They involve somewhat different economic forms.

[Die Neue Zeit]

When I asked what Q meant by free health care I was meaning a somewhat different emphasis to the question. Was Q thinking of a system like the NHS or the former Soviet system where treatment is provided largely by a salaried set of state employees, or did he mean an insurance based system in which private firms and contractors charge for the treatment which is then recouped from a universal insurance scheme?

They involve somewhat different economic forms.

Do they?

Although Chapter 8 of my programmatic work (http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/) (link for readers to my document) has yet to be further worked upon, one of the demands listed there deals with health care, under bourgeois capitalism:

Of course, at the national or multinational level, democracy in general and participatory democracy in particular would be wholly valueless to manual, clerical, and mainly “middle-income” professional workers if not used immediately, in a class-strugglist manner, for that “somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment” known otherwise as economic national-democratization – that is, “anti-capitalist” nationalization reforms and multinational equivalents directed democratically against private ownership and elite control of classical economic rent and of the underlying significant productive and other non-possessive property, preferrably with minimum compensation to affected non-workers based on proven need and on the insolvency-period market values of relevant enterprises, thereby further ensuring the livelihood of the working class. The specifically legislative (not regulatory) demands for these are, to begin with [....]

The takeover of the health-industrial complex and all assets of workers' insurance and private pension funds into permanent public ownership, with levies against corporate assets for any fund deficits, and with decisive worker participation in their administration [...]

[The preamble quotes Engels and Keynes.]

This demand, in turn, is merely an extension of the very last "Bernsteinian" demand in the Erfurt Program and of one of the suggested amendments to the RSDLP program in 1917 (as per my notes in the document). On a contemporary note, it is inspired by demands found here:

http://www.workers-party.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=62
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/economics.html

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes they do. If health care is provided by state salaried staff, the taxes to cover it do not include a component to cover surplus value. If private clinics provide it at a profit, the cost in taxes is higher since the profits of the clinics must be met.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Forgive me, for I interpreted "somewhat different economic forms" to imply changing the economic system of the whole society. I do agree with you about tax levels, though.

[Paul Cockshott]

I would argue that the employees of the NHS are not actually involved in a capitalist relation of exploitation either.