As one who raised "the vision thing," I welcome this observation. Actually I sought to distinguish being a visionary from being a utopian. In endeavoring to popularize what a socialist future might offer, I think it is critical that we define what underlying values guide us and serve as our "moral compass" in the construction of socialism. We can debate the structural form forever, but without a guiding set of values, it will be a meaningless and sterile debate about a structure devoid of true content. In solidarity, Michael At 07:42 AM 3/31/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: >Sorry, I hit the wrong key the first time: > >Now the quote: > >Ruth Levitas. 1990. The Concept of Utopia (Syracuse: Syracuse University >Press). > 35: "The real dispute between Marx and Engels and the utopian >socialists is not about the merit of goals or of images of the future >but about the process of transformation, and particularly about the >belief that propaganda alone would result in the realization of >socialism." > >I think she is only partly correct. The other fault of the utopians is >that they had made up blueprints in their head, which they wanted to >impose on others. > >Some on the list use the term to imply a search for a vision of an >alternative. In this sense, utopian is good. We have really failed to >communicate our vision of socialism. As a result, too many people want >to stay with the devil that they know, especially since the Soviet >version of socialism was or has been made out to be so horrible. > >That vision thing remains terribly important. If we get all worked up >about the departures from our own exact version of socialist planning, >maybe we are being utopian in the bad sense. I confess that I think >that market socialism can not work. >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 916-898-5321 >E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
