PEN-L'ers might be interested in my unbiased, journalistic musings on the panel discussion "What economics for socialism? Marxist, Market Economy, Cooperative?" that took place at this weekend's Socialist Scholars Conference. (I do forbid Peter Bohmer from reading this however.) There are no references to additional articles, books, etc. that you will have to track down to make sense of this post. Oh, I take that back. There are one or two, but you can find them at any Barnes and Noble. One of them, the Communist Manifesto, is even available on the WWW and is a heckuva read if I say so myself. The first presenter was Howard Hawkins, a member of the Green Party from upstate New York who works with co-ops but has his eyes opened to their flaws. He mentioned that Leland Stanford, a member of the bourgeoisie in California, wrote extensively about the need for co-ops during the pre-WWI period. He believed that they would make workers feel like they had a stake in the system. Hawkins also made an interesting point that the German social democracy had extensive co-op holdings on the eve of WWI. He speculates --correctly in my opinion-- that this influenced their decision to back the war. They thought that their socialist empire of printing-presses, publishing houses, etc. was worth defending from attack by enemy, barbarian nations. The next presenter was David Belkin, co-author with Frank Roosevelt of "Why Market Socialism". He argued that since "growth" was necessary, markets were needed. He accused Greens and some Marxists of being inconsistent when they call for defending social security. Unless economic growth is assured, social security will go down the drain. Belkin called for a much more "realistic" view of how socialism would be built. He described it as a negotiating process between different interest groups, not unlike those that take place behind the scenes in the NYC City Council. The final presenter was Harry Magdoff from Monthly Review. He started off by questioning the notion that social security was in danger. He thought that Belkin was transmitting the scare tactics of neoliberals who simply wanted to privatize social security. He also attacked the uncritical acceptance of growth in itself. When 4 out of 6 billion people on the planet are consumed with the task of finding some bread for their next meal, why should we worry about keeping up with the small minority of the planet's demand for "better" automobiles. Finally, he said that Belkin's view of socialist politics as being similar to City Council horse-trading described what he himself was involved with when he worked in the Department of Commerce in FDR's administration. He always found himself haggling over budget allocations, etc. But this had nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a break with all the old models of political, social and economic behavior. As Magdoff was making his points, Belkin wore an adolescent smirk on his face the entire time. Later in the day I discovered from Doug Henwood that Belkin was a minor functionary in the office of some NYC Democratic Party official. It was no wonder that he was fixated on the sort of back-room negotiations that take place in such circles. It is what he does for a living. Belkin is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, the sponsor of the Socialist Scholars Conference and official section of the Second International in the USA. He is a socialist in name only. Like most DSA'ers, his politics can best be described as liberal Democrat with lip-service paid to a socialism somewhere in the distant future, perhaps the 24th century. During the discussion period, I brought up the two subjects that had been on my mind lately. The inappropriateness of Slovenia or Yugoslavia as a model for socialism, and the utopian nature of market socialism. Belkin was all smiles when I brought up the first question--evidently, he hates all forms of Communism, including the Yugoslavia state of the 1950s and 60s, so dear to people like David Schweickart. He flinched at the idea of being a utopian. (Why does everybody hate that label?) He wasn't "utopian", he was "realistic". What are the alternatives to a gradual evolution toward market socialism? The proletariat marching across the barricades with bayonets in hand? Odd that this would seem so out-of-place on the day that Timothy McVeigh is going on trial. Against a backdrop of neo-fascists accumulating weaponry to use against a government they deem oppressive, DSA'ers assure us that revolution is a pipe-dream. Just as the Communist Manifesto was written partially as a response to the utopian hopes of the 1800s, we Marxists need to develop a platform for social transformation geared to the economic realities of late capitalism. This requires looking at the living reality of the current age, not that of 60 or 100 years ago. Louis Proyect
