Jim Devine:
He didn't use the word socialism much (while calling himself a "communist"). But in this part of the book, he does talk about overcoming "the antithesis between capital and labor," which sounds a bit like a classless society in a microcosm. (I quoted him on the limits of this story already.) (The words "socialism" and "communism" were buzz-words with all sorts of extraneous connotations back when Marx wrote, just as with today.)What in god's name are you talking about. Marx used the word socialism constantly in the texts where the word was appropriate. In an arcane discussion of the role of credit, no wonder it won't crop up. But in the Critique of the Gotha Program (a polemic against the followers of LaSalle, who supported state-aided co-ops), he uses the words socialism and communism like they are going out of style:
The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.
This quote fits with my point, since the "associated" mode of production is some sort of socialism. In volume I, ch. 1, section 4, he refers to the association of free producers, rather than using the word "socialism" or "communism." So this quote fits with what I said.That's what you say. I say that chapter 27 is an exegesis of the role of credit in mid-19th century capitalism. V. 3 of Capital has very little to say about how to fight for socialism. For that matter, neither does V. 1 or V. 2. In any case, since we have the benefit of 160 years of experience, we can say now that Mondragon and similar experiences are a diversion from revolutionary struggle. You of course can believe whatever you want. It is a free country.
It seems that every time someone disagrees with Louis, he characterizes their opinions using a word with negative connotations ("idealism"). (Note that I made it very clear that it was _my_ interpretation, not what Marx actually said.)No, I don't characterize Melvin P. in this fashion, nor Michael Yates, Michael Keany or Nestor when they were on Pen-L. You on the other hand seemed mired in philosophical idealism. But, that's okay. Better to be a socialist idealist than something like Brad Delong.
Given the patent failure of the main previous empirical "models" of socialism (the USSR, the Peoples' Republic of China), what are socialists supposed to say they're for? or are we supposed to be nattering nabobs of negativism, opposing capitalism without even thinking of what we're for?I would lay off the question of models altogether. Marxists should focus on questions of how to build an effective antiwar movement or to defend the longshoreman on the west coast. That's the sort of thing that Marx spent his entire working career on, when you really get down to it. It is only the academic left that is preoccupied with crystal balls.
I'd bet that if you were to study actual socialist mass movements (even in rich countries like the US), they had a lot of utopian notions. The moral/utopian dimension has always been an important part of actually-existing socialist movements.I have no idea what mass movement you are talking about. The revolutionaries of the 1930s were too busy dodging scabs and gun thugs to fret over future societies. In the 1960s we were trying to stop B-52's from killing the Vietnamese people.
that's a very economistic perspective: all we should do is focus on the current struggle (limiting thought and discussion) rather than thinking about what may or may not be the way that people can replace capitalism. Now, it seems that only issues of tactics are okay. Even strategy should not be discussed.Don't get me wrong. The last thing in the world I want to do is prevent you from gazing into the crystal ball. We just have different ideas of what is productive. I have been a Marxist activist all my life. I am alienated by sterile intellectualizing, but don't let that stop you.
Louis, if you want to limit the scope of the discussion on your own list, do it. But this is not your list. If Michael Perelman wants to limit discussion to things, that's fine.The real issue is your unquenchable desire to quibble with nearly everything I write from the perspective of a sanctimonious professor grading an undergraduate's paper.
Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
