In response to Louis N Proyect's flame: Louis, I sent you a very gentle _personal_ comment, one which I thought was to a friend, even though I'm sure we disagree on a lot of stuff. So you make this note _public_ and flame it. Why? (I must admit that I've made private comments public on the net before, but it's because I've _agreed_ with what their authors said.) >>Once again I get a lecture from a professor<< I don't see _one paragraph_ as a "lecture." Maybe that's the kind of lectures they give at Columbia. The valid content of all of their economics lectures probably adds up to a paragraph. ;-) >>Meanwhile Bill Mitchell stands on his remark about me being a prick. Have you sent him some e-mail chastising him?<< I've done so, a long time ago. But mostly he has some content to back up (and to justify) his impolite style. I haven't paid enough attention to the current debate to notice him insulting someone without having some kind of backing. >> By the way, it is nice to receive some advice on my netiquette from somebody who has nothing at stake in these sorts of questions: Jim "Socialism from Below" Devine. How low is below, Jim? Below or above Lenin? Below or above Castro? What exactly is your model? ...<< Hmmm... flamed because of a signature file that I usually don't use on pen-l (but instead on such places as the Marxism list, where basic political issues are more on the agenda). Oh, poop! it's provoking me to produce a lecture! Well, you asked for it! (I really should use that signature file more, since it does provoke useful questions.) The tradition surrounding the phrase "socialism from below," among other things, says that leaders such as Lenin and Castro can only be as good as what the organization and consciousness of the workers and other oppressed groups allows -- and can only do better if they work actively to improve the organization and raise the consciousness of their bases. (BTW, I have no patience for those who talk about Lenin or Castro or even Stalin as "betrayers" of the people, since that's a misuse of hindsight and an invalid abstraction from the social context.) They can also be much worse, as with Pol Pot, empowering themselves by appealing to peoples' worst instincts. I'll let Louis decide how close to those those extremes Lenin and Castro have been, because I don't want to get into a debate on that issue. The key political point is to avoid what Trotsky (one of Louis's favorites, if I remember correctly) called "substitutionism," in which the leaders or the leaders' political parties are substituted for the followers and sympathiser, where the means becomes an end in itself. This critique is not simply aimed at the "Leninist" movement (which is typically much worse than Lenin himself) but also at the social democrats, who empower state bureaucrats, union leaders, and parliamentary parties within capitalism. Avoid the glorification and undemocratic empowerment of leaders and parties, because the point of revolution and even reform is to empower the people, not the leaders. Without the latter empowerment, the relatively progressive achievements of the leaders and their parties sooner or later turn to rust. As for my "model," I would be the first to admit that there are no clear models in the real world that I can point to and say: "this is what all working people can and should strive for." This is especially true here in Los Angeles. I would point to elements of a large different number of real cases (some aspects of Mondragon, some aspects of the old Yugoslavia, some aspects of the old Sweden, some aspects of the old USSR, some aspects of the Brazilian Workers' Party, etc.) while trying to be as honest as possible about the limitations of these cases. I see it as very important task to figure out how to bring together the positive elements of these cases and exclude the negative elements -- and I don't see this task as being done yet. On this question, I'm a student and not a teacher. Diverse efforts such as those of Albert & Hahnel, Pat (no relation) Devine, and David Schweikert give us some inkling of the kind of system that needs to be built. I wish I had had enough time and energy to sift through the current pen-l debate to get more light on this question; I also wish that there weren't so much heat on what is basically an abstract question. In the end, such ideal models of the way in which the world should work only have a meaning, an impact, if there's a mass democratic movement pushing to overthrow capitalism and replace it with something better -- or even a mass democratic movement pushing to reform capitalism, to get a better deal out of the system. Debates about the nature of the system that should replace capitalism can help build this base, but only if the debate is serious, not a flame which drives serious discussion out. >>Listen: professors of the world. You can continue writing your articles ... from now until doomsday and it will have no effect whatsoever on the class-struggle on the United States. I think you are a bunch of academic windbags, and that's it. Anybody else want to stick a finger in between the bars?<< Gee, I didn't know you were in a cage; if you're protected by bars, why do you need insults? I do know that socialism-from-above politics and sectarianism simply turn off a lot of workers (and often not academics, who very often are socialism-from-abovers or even sectarians). Most workers, don't want a new set of bosses just like the old ones. Or when they do, it produces some pretty bad results: those who say "lead me! think for me! I'll follow" flock to fundamentalist churches and fascist movements (e.g., the "militias") and worse. Now I must admit that I try to publish stuff in the magazines that Louis trashes. But I've always thought that the goal of all that was to develop theory that can be popularized without losing content, so that it can be the subject of debate and self-education by the working people. (Even my stuff on Roemer, which seems so abstract, is aimed at creating theoretical coherence that can be empowering.) So I look favorably at magazines such as DOLLARS & SENSE, the PROGRESSIVE, and even the NATION (while trying to be conscious of their limitations). Finally, in defense of "lectures": there are some thoughts that cannot be stated in the form of slogans, but must instead be explained in terms of paragraphs strung together in a coherent way. I've noticed that Louis agrees: he posted two interesting lectures to pen-l within the last couple of months. in pen-l winbaggery, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
