Charlie Andrews' book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY ends with two very
interesting chapters on how a "Labor Republic" would be organized. His
utopia is very interesting because he is quite conscious of pro-capitalist
criticisms of his scheme. So far, it makes a lot of sense. BTW, following
his terminology, his scheme is neither market-socialist nor state-socialist.
At 08:03 PM 10/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>At this point I was just going to let the argument drop -- but have
>decided to pursue the mega-argument instead -- why we should spend a
>little time on speculating on the nature of a socialist society, on as
>old whiskers said "creating recipes for the cookshops of the future".
>
>To start with, when Marx made his classic arguments against Utopias the
>historical context was greatly different than today. Utopians held up
>their models as an alternative to class struggle. Build a small perfect
>commune, or a perfect city and the shining example would convert
>everybody to socialism -- no need for noisy demonstrations, or the hard
>dirty work of politcal organizing. Today model builders mostly see
>vision as a minor but important adjunct to class strugge.
>
>Why -- because the myth of TINA (There Is No Alternative) is far more
>widespread than it ever was in Marxes day. In the USA, if you ask most
>workers if socialism is possible -- that is can it get the bread baked
>and the shoes made, most people will say no, or not in the long run. Or
>they will say it is possible but only under a horrible dictatorship that
>tortures people and suppresses there freedom.
>
>This belief is especially strong amongst the intellectual castes,
>academics, journalists and such.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
