I have read everything. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What did you read about Soviet socialism? > > Mine > > >Interesting musings Carrol, but words have meanings, and what most people > >mean by the word socialism is not what was seen in the USSR. You can call > >it what you want, but I don't call it socialism. > > Rod > > Carrol Cox wrote: > > > Rod Hay wrote: > > > > > Perhaps Marx was utopian. But we will have to wait until we have a socialists > > > society, in order to find out. The Soviet Union called itself socialist but it > > > wasn't. > > > > This I think is utopian. Socialism is a movement, not a platonic form against > > which you can measure any state and say it is or isn't "socialist." It would > > seem to me wrong to assume that there will not be many more episodes > > in the socialist movement which will go greatly astray in one way or another, > > many more defeats. THe struggles of 6 billion people and their descendants > > to find their way out of capitalism will almost certainly contain episodes > > at least as unpleasant as the USSR at its worst. The struggle for socialism > > has to be essentially <g> self-justifying at each step, regardless of the > > (temporary) final outcomes of each struggle. If the only or even the > > chief reason to fight for socialism is the achievement of the socialism > > for our great-grandchildren, then socialism is a bust. > > > > This is *not* to disagree with Rosa Luxemburg that the final goal is > > everything, the struggle is nothing. The role of that final goal is the > > understanding we achieve through it of the present. Hence the > > struggle depends on the final goal *independently* of whether or > > not we ever achieve that final goal. > > > > Marx, as I understand him, did not propose the classless society and > > the withering away of the state as a prize to reward us at the end. He > > saw that just as feudalism could be understood from the perspective > > of capitalism, so capitalism could only be understood from the perspective > > of communism. We can only understand the capitalist state (and therefore > > organize our struggle against it) by seeing it from the perspective of > > the society in which the state has withered away. > > > > [I really think it would help if a larger proportion of marxists suffered > > from depression. That would help dampen the galloping optimism > > that blithely says the USSR was not socialist -- for the implication > > of that evaluation is that socialism of just the sort we want will be > > easily attainable if we just have the right ideas. Horse Feathers!] > > > > The evil at the heart of capitalism (or of any social order of which > > the market is the central institution) is that Reality becomes > > the Future, while the past and present become mere appearance. > > I began to see this by reading and re-reading Plato's *Republic* > > and attempting to explain it to undergraduates. In Plato's timarchy > > (in effect a landed aristocracy of some sort) the Past is the Real. > > The present is merely a recapitulation of the past and is emptied > > of reality. In what he called an oligarchy (a state ruled by those > > whose motive was the accumulation of wealth [=money?], > > the past was non-existent, and the present only the shadow of > > the future. Action becomes meaningless in itself, since it cannot > > exhibit ambition (which is the struggle to maintain what the past > > has given us) nor can it be its own end. Since anything resembling > > capitalism was still nearly 2000 years away, it was remarkable > > that even in the piddling financial manipulations of his day Plato > > could see this. The core capitalist metaphor, that of *investment* > > catches up this trivialization of the present by the future. > > > > The *demos* Plato discarded with contempt: they *chose* (he > > implies) to live only in the present, their lives dominated by a > > lowly lust for immediate satisfaction. (One of the many modern > > equivalents of this is the accusation that unwed mothers have > > babies in order to make money off of public aid.) There would > > have been no way to theorize this in Plato's world, for that > > depended on the development of wage labor under capitalism > > and its theorization in Marx's conceptions of surplus value > > and alienation. The working class, by definition, is that class > > which *must* live in the present (that being the main thrust > > of the assumption that labor power is purchased at is value). > > > > And it is this (unavoidable) attachment of the working to the > > present (which implicitly is also a valuation of the past such as > > the investor dare not allow him/herself) which makes the working > > class a *potentially* revolutionary class. Its revolutionary task > > is to free humanity from the tyranny of the future. > > > > Carrol > > -- > Rod Hay > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The History of Economic Thought Archive > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > Batoche Books > http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ > 52 Eby Street South > Kitchener, Ontario > N2G 3L1 > Canada -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
