Jim and Lou, do you really think that this discussion is going anywhere? On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:40:27PM -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: > Jim Devine: > >Louis, if you want to set yourself up as a villain, you may do so. But I > >was not. I try to aim my discussion at the list as a whole. > > But when you use some far-fetched pretext for opening up such a > discussion--like a review of Steven Pinker--it only can be seen as an > attempt to bait me into a discussion we've had countless times--to the > point that I've announced that I am dropping out. I suppose that I am > really quite unusual in terms of mailing lists that I look for new > information or insights to keep me interested. So far, I've seen none from > you that I haven't heard before. You won, Jim. You are a true socialist. I > am the avatar of Vishinsky trying to drag the workers' escutcheon through > the mud. > > >It is a total misrepresentation to say that I said that "socialism from > >below" [was] "the road to salvation and the > >opposite side taking you straight to hell." That's a > >"black-white presentation of the two sides," as you say, but I didn't do it. > > Of course you did. What else could be the purpose of dropping Stalin's name > numerous times in a post about whether women's brains are different than men's? > > >The fact is that the Russian Revolution failed, leading to the rise of a > >powerful new stratum, a self-selecting elite (the CPSU). There were lots > >of things that happened that were out of socialists' control (imperialist > >invasion, the division between the peasantry and the workers, the poverty > >of the country, the civil war, etc.) that encouraged that result. However, > >we can learn from this experience to fight and/or delay the development of > >the new elite; history isn't totally out of the left's control. One thing > >is to NOT focus on "building the party" (as the Maoists and Trotskyists > >do, for example) but instead use any organization as means to build up the > >workers' power and the power of other dominated group. The latter kinds of > >power are the main bulwarks not only against the restoration of capitalism > >but against the creation of a new stratum running the country "in the > >workers' name" (and taking advantage of their powers). > > I have no idea what use a socialist activist could make of the advice that > they should " use any organization as means to build up the workers' power > and the power of other dominated group." One might as well advise them to > pursue the good and shun evil. > > The real questions being thrashed out by the left in Australia, for > example, revolve around what attitude to take > toward the Labor Party. Whether it is a capitalist party or not. Whether > there is such a thing as a labor aristocracy. Whether or not to join the > same caucus as the Labor Party youth on campus, etc. Your musings about > true socialism hover over all this like Platonic Ideas and have about as > much value. > > >The basic principle is that power corrupts, i.e., that if we rely on wise > >leaders to make decisions for working people, we're bound to be > >disappointed. So the wise leaders must be held responsible in a democratic > >way. > > Power corrupts? But don't forget that absolute power corrupts absolutely. > Now I know I am back in high school when I hear echoes of Lord Acton. > > > Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org >
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
