>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20/02 07:38PM >>>
At 20/02/02 15:19 -0500,
>On the necessity of socialism
>
>Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA
> People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002
There is much that is correct in this article. I appreciate periodically
being able to read position statments from the CPUSA even though few still
assume just one organisation could alone have a revolutionary strategy.
I hope it does not sound like nit-picking therefore to express some
reservations, but rather a way of taking the issues seriously.
It is hard outside a country, and a specific environment, to judge the
relevance of a political stance. But this article seems more like a
commentary around a theme rather than a strategic attempt to address the
question of how to integrate a struggle for socialism with current
political and economic issues.
^^^^^^^
Charles: Thanks Chris. Actually, wouldn't " a commentary around a theme" rather than a
"strategic attempt" be more appropriate for an organization that was NOT acting as if
it was the one organization that could have a revolutionary strategy ? In other
words, your second comment seems to contradict your first. If you don't want the
CPUSA to act like it is the "one revolutionary organization" , then don't expect it to
put out "strategic attempts". Webb's modesty seems to fit exactly what you prescribe.
^^^^^^
>We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to
>non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that
>category.
>
>I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment
>through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that
>we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the
>aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its
>present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to
>life in all of its forms and to our planet.
Even though it is true that Sept 11 did present a perilous moment, and
there is a US nation, it sounds populist to my puritanical ears, to refer
to a 'perilous moment which our nation and the world are passing through'.
^^^^^^^^
CharlesB: I'm not clear on what your criticism of populism is, but again , your
"puritancal ears" seem to be exactly holding the CPUSA up to an old "one true
organization " standard , which on the other hand, you seem to discourage it from
taking. Surely if he had met your "puritanical" standard, he would be criticized for
dogmatic, wornout rhetoric. I think you have to make up your mind which way you want
him to go.
^^^^^^^
My perspective is that the USA has been challenged to flex its muscles and
is ready to do so to a remarkable degree. It continues to treat allies,
even, with disrepect, let alone weaker or more independent countries.
Indeed I suspect that the contradictions on a global level have to unfold
through this process of greater massive assertion of US military might,
with other forces eroding and undermining the smug and shallow basis on
which the USA claims hegemony. Just one fifth the daily number
of children who die prematurely in the world through massive inequality,
died in the implosion of the hubristically named World Trade Centre.
>Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and
>adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The
>captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of
>political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an
>about-face.
>
>Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system
>of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we
>appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they
>jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature.
>
>If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is
>inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical
>imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system.
>We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but
>also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a
>future at all.
I agree with that, but the limitations of perspective from being sited at
the heart of the world's hegemonic power I think may be apparent.
^^^^^^
CharlesB; Isn't it American communists job to focus criticism on U.S. imperialism ? I
don't think it is an accurate inference to conclude that Sam doesn't recognize some of
what you note about the development of Europe. On the other hand, U.S. militarism
could result in the blowing up Europe too, if the U.S. starts a world war.
^^^^^^
If socialism is social production guided by social foresight, Europe is far
down the road of socialism. It is deeply offended and alarmed by the US
attitude to Kyoto. In essence that is half the battle for socialism.
What Europe does not have is specifically a class focus of in whose
interests should there be social foresight. But the remarkable gaps that
are opening up between the US and Europe (today Solana is pleading for
Europe not to be too anti-American - at least in public!) will lead Europe
to consider a number of pragmatic and unprincipled alliances which will
nevertheless lean towards more radically democratic global solutions than
the USA can.
>This isn't the only way that we should popularize the idea of socialism.
>We also have to make a convincing case that socialism creates the
>objective and subjective conditions for an equitable, sustainable, and
>non-exploitative economy, full racial and gender equality, and a robust
>working class and people's democracy.
Yes, whatever weaknesses of the old communist parties they have been better
at understanding how the struggle for a radical application of democratic
rights, is intimately bound up with the struggle for socialism, and should
not be counterposed.
^^^^^^^^
CharlesB: Better than whom ?
^^^
>Nevertheless, it is a powerful and necessary argument at this juncture of
>history. Every species has an instinct to survive and humankind is no
>exception. We should find ways, beginning with our own publications and
>forums, to make socialism a household word in our country and invest it
>with a new urgency, a new necessity.
>
>Clearly, socialism is not on labor's and the people's action agenda either
>now or in the near term. No one should think that at their next union
>meeting, they should offer a resolution to establish socialism by the end
>of the decade in order to insure the survival of humanity and nature!
>
>Our main emphasis now and for the foreseeable future is on the immediate
>struggles of the working class and people against the right danger. That
>was the direction that we set at our convention last summer and it is all
>the more imperative now.
These last three paragraphs seem to me to be contradictory and confusing
for party members trying to implement them, although they contain points
that all could agree with.
My reservations are that it sounds very much like old politically left wing
drudgery to concentrate on the "immediate struggles" of the working class
and the struggle against the "right danger". This would leave members
forever feeling they and the people they support will be the underdogs.
^^^^^^
Charles: You seem to have forgotten that the title and main theme of this essay is "
On the necessity of socialism" ! This article is the exact opposite of concentrating
on immeditate struggles. It's purpose is to remind of the importance of raising the
necessity of socialism while in the midst of immediate struggles.
My hunch is that it is not necessary to promote "socialism" as a household
word at this stage, but rather to promote a pluralist consensus about
socially and environmentally conscious production, cooperation and respect
for peoples rights. That reframing of the question gives a better chance of
breaking out of the left ghetto, of die hard members of a party with a
stake in a section of the trade union movement.
I fear this will come over as an attack on the CPUSA in my rather fumbled
attempt to move beyond unase about what seemed a bit of a bland
article. It is not necessary for everyone to agree on every formula for
contributions like this statement of the CPUSA to be progressive. I am sure
it is. I hope we are well past attacking a particular organisation. The
CPUSA is neither like to collapse totally within a year nor to quadruple in
size. But some of the points on which I have tentatively taken issue with
this statement, may be worth the comments of others??
Thanks for the forward.
Chris Burford
^^^^^^^
Charles: Thanks for the comments.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
