Carrol writes:>Discussions of the nature of socialism socialism are absurd if conducted from the p[erspectuive of being a motive for strugle -- that is, from the perspective of being seen as humanity's reward for struggle. But we cannot understand the present except by looking backward from the future.< right, we shouldn't see discussions of socialism's anatomy as being descriptions of what will (or can) be obtained via struggle. However, it someone like Alec Nove or John Roemer argues that the only kind of socialism that's "feasible" is something that looks a lot like capitalism, why shouldn't we argue that something better is feasible? unless one is totally "into facts" (a total empiricist), why is it wrong to think about future possibilities? It's best to at least _try_ to look before leaping, as long as we remember that our "looks" are necessarily provisional and incomplete and (most importantly) abstract. >...But unlike all earler social systems capitalism contains the elements of its own necessary dissolution -- that is, capitalism can only be understood when looked back on from the future. It is absurd and destructive to write recipes for the cook shops of the future, but to understand the present we must see that capitalism _necessarily_ leads to either socialism or barbarianism, that capitalism except insofar as it is the womb of socialism is endlessly destructive. Hence our _general_ conception of socialism is an integral part of our understanding of capitalism.< right. As far as I can tell, in his CAPITAL Marx saw two major elements of socialism as developing in the "womb" of capitalism. One was the huge joint-stock corporation (a small-scale centrally-planned economy) and the other was worker cooperatives. I see nothing wrong with speculating about how these two elements can coexist and actually prosper as an alternative to capitalism, as long as we remember that it's speculation. I guess the current discussion of possible socialisms is going to die, since (1) as Michael Perelman makes clear, we don't want to rehash an old debate about so-called "market socialism"; and (2) these days, the debate about "market socialism" vs. planning schemes of various sorts (Albert/Hahnel, Pat (no relation) Devine, David Laibman, etc.) is the only simple way to organize a serious discussion. But we shouldn't rule out discussions of how socialism can and should be organized as _a matter of principle_ as Louis would have it. Otherwise, we're into cheer-leading for Kemal Ataturk, Juan Peron, and other bourgeois leaders. We have to ask how the people -- workers and other oppressed groups -- can rule, rather than always choosing amongst bourgeois elites. -- Jim Devine --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://bstar.net/panda/
