Just a quickie while I watch Australia play the Czecg Republic (the latter
lead 1-0 just after half-time in a cracking good match),
Thinking about Hugh and Doug's latest posts, it occurs to me that market
socialism may actually play a part in the mass mobilisation process itself
(should one come along). By and large, people don't oppose the idea of
state ownership of necessarily large or particularly crucial enterprises,
especially in those sectors where a 'natural monopoly' argument might be
made (at least privatisation is having a hard time of it here). They
realise lots of conscious planning is necessarily going on already, as huge
conglomerates threaten their operations here (like the newly merged
Mitsubishi seem to be doing in a world full of unbought cars), and would
much rather that the planners be accountable to a democratically constituted
assembly (we are democrats at heart). They like the idea of cooperatives -
indeed can get rather moved by the idea (the recently revived communitarian
reflex to currently felt modes of alienation). They are wed to the idea of
'moms'n'dads' small businesses in sectors where something like a continuum
of traders and low market thresholds apply (yeah, they're quite romantic
about 'small business'). They'd see themselves as far more securely placed
under an income-policy regime and would approve of prioritising employment
over micro profitability (because politicians and CEOs can bang on about
'consoomers' all they like (we all know we're workers, too - and for more of
our waking life than we're shoppers at that).
Not everyone, of course, but lots nonetheless. Not only would they be able
to imagine such a world; they might even still silently subscribe to some
'moral economy' notion whereby they see this sort of arrangement as their
birthright. And once credible people give voice to this sort of social
option, questions might arise as to what's happened to make it all so
unlikely an option. I reckon there's real mass mobilisation potential in a
platform of this sort - and one that would make sense to Europeans (on both
sides of the erstwhile Curtain) and even some Anglo-Saxon political cultures
(mebbe all except the US). Add a global recession to the mix (and I'm
inclined to think Wall Street could conceivably fall enough to start a
credit crisis of monstrous proportions - indeed, I submit that anyone who
subscribes to the economic orthodoxy of a century, and the valuation
formulations that attend it, would be expecting a pretty big and enduring
crisis), and you have not only a profound legitimation crisis, but also a
dramatic realignment of people's perceived material interests (as so many of
the western proletariat and petit bourgeoisie lose that overly-cherished
stock-market nest-egg). People might just be prepared to risk a mass stink
in such circumstances. But they have to believe there's something
believable at the other end (I think they'll risk a lot for what may seem to
some here as very little - and not believe enough in , nor even want, any
more than that).
And if, like me, they daren't hope beyond that sort of world, well, fine.
If those who do dare hope for more turn out to become more convincing in the
context of this new world, well, that's fine, too. I'm happy to explore our
potential to its (historically contingent) limits if a lot of other people
are.
That said, I tend to agree with Hugh that the sort of world I have in mind
is itself a scenario that would meet concerted and violent opposition from
corporate capital and current parliamentary parties alike. While those two
keep their interdependent mutually-supportive institutional positions, even
real social democracy seems beyond reach. I keep rereading Marx's
optimistic speech at The Hague in 1873, about revolution by constitutional
action - and keep trying to convince myself that a new party (built from the
grassroots up to the level of international alliances) could perform that
suddenly Herculean task. And I have to believe it can happen, no matter how
doubtful it seems to me at the moment. The trouble with wholly
extra-constitutional violent revolution (aside from heaps of dead people) is
you tend to need a war economy and martial law if you're gonna win it and
hang on to your gains - all of which generates a centralised hierarchy,
replete with both economic and political power. And I don't reckon the
formguide makes for very good reading when it comes to post-bellum
single-party regimes.
A old-fashioned left-social-democrat is a homeless creature in this day and
age, eh?
What's worse, the Czechs have just won 3-1.
Cheers,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
