Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>If market socialism is such an attractive alternative, and vastly to be
>preferred to party dicatatorships, and capable of arising more or less
>spontaneously in periods of mass mobilization, then why
>
>a) did it not arise spontaneously in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet
>Union, either there or in any of the other ex-workers states?
>
>b) this in spite of the convictions of such political leaders as Havel in
>ex-Czechoslovakia that it was realistic and that they could actually create
>a third way similar to but better than the Swedish model?
>
>Could it just be that it's an impossible illusion?
>
>Or is it that the real world is just too rough and polarized a place, and
>needs to be civilized to resemble the neatness of Karl Kautsky's desk
>before humanity will be able to make any progress worth the name?
>
>In that case, how long will we have to wait?
If you want to make an argument from spontaneous evolution, which it
seems you are, then socialism everywhere is off the agenda, and not
just the market kind. Yes, the world is a rough and polarized place,
but I don't see any hint that your view of the world acknowledges
that. It's as if you expect everyone to wake up one day and sign on
to the vanguard's agenda, and then all contradictions are resolved
and heaven will have come to earth. After a few bourgies are shot, of
course.
Doug
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
