Re: utopianism
You're not kidding. I call that the Achilles heel of Marxism. At 22:39 30/03/04 -0800, Mike Ballard wrote: Thatcher's TINA is the opposite side of the utopian coin. Commies have to know what they want as well as what they want to leave behind in history's dustbin. Regards, Mike B) = 1844 Paris Manuscripts, Marx makes a major point of the relationship between the sexes: The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman, http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15
Re: utopianism
Rather, it seems to be the Achilles heel of various organized and self-styled official Marxisms. But reading Hal Draper's book, KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION (an annotated and analyzed collection of quotes from Marx and Engels on political issues), Karl and Fred were very interested in utopian thinking and saw discussion of utopias as useful to working-class self-education. The big criticism of utopianism was tactical and strategic: it doesn't do much good to show people a diagram of how socialism should be organized (as the Socialist Labor Party used to do) and do nothing else, ignoring the possibilities generated by the contradictions of capitalism. Respect for utopian ideas didn't fit with the growing scientism of Kautsky, Hilferding, and their ilk. Worse, utopian thinking implied an obvious critique of Stalinist regimes, and was so _verboten_. In the end, Engels' SOCIALISM: UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC was interpreted as being Utopian _versus_ Scientific. Jim Devine -Original Message- From: Robert Scott Gassler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 3/31/2004 12:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] utopianism You're not kidding. I call that the Achilles heel of Marxism. At 22:39 30/03/04 -0800, Mike Ballard wrote: Thatcher's TINA is the opposite side of the utopian coin. Commies have to know what they want as well as what they want to leave behind in history's dustbin. Regards, Mike B) = 1844 Paris Manuscripts, Marx makes a major point of the relationship between the sexes: The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman, http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html Robert Scott Gassler Professor of Economics Vesalius College of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 B-1050 Brussels Belgium 32.2.629.27.15
Re: utopianism
Devine, James wrote: Respect for utopian ideas didn't fit with the growing scientism of Kautsky, Hilferding, and their ilk. Worse, utopian thinking implied an obvious critique of Stalinist regimes, and was so _verboten_. In the end, Engels' SOCIALISM: UTOPIAN AND SCIENTIFIC was interpreted as being Utopian _versus_ Scientific. (Speaking of utopian, would it be too much to ask Jim Devine to clip extraneous text that he is replying to? Or to configure his mailer so that the text wraps properly? Everytime I respond to one of his messages, I have to reformat it like Chris Doss's.) On to the substance. Utopian socialism of the 19th century was a living movement. Engels had high regard for David Owen because his utopianism was engaged with political action that made a difference in the lives of working people: Banished from official society, with a conspiracy of silence against him in the press, ruined by his unsuccessful Communist experiments in America, in which he sacrificed all his fortune, he turned directly to the working-class and continued working in their midst for 30 years. Every social movement, every real advance in England on behalf of the workers links itself on to the name of Robert Owen. He forced through in 1819, after five years' fighting, the first law limiting the hours of labor of women and children in factories. He was president of the first Congress at which all the Trade Unions of England united in a single great trade association. He introduced as transition measures to the complete communistic organization of society, on the one hand, cooperative societies for retail trade and production. These have since that time, at least, given practical proof that the merchant and the manufacturer are socially quite unnecessary. On the other hand, he introduced labor bazaars for the exchange of the products of labor through the medium of labor-notes, whose unit was a single hour of work; institutions necessarily doomed to failure, but completely anticipating Proudhon's bank of exchange of a much later period, and differing entirely from this in that it did not claim to be the panacea for all social ills, but only a first step towards a much more radical revolution of society. Utopian socialism today has nothing to do with this. It is marked primarily by anti-Communism. It states that the USSR was a failure because it operated on the basis of a faulty blueprint and offers an alternative blueprint. That is the whole basis of Michael Albert's Parecon. It is also reflected in John Roemer's coupon-based market socialism. You can find the same type of thinking in Murray Bookchin and other anarcho-communists. It is basically intellectualizing about future societies and a complete waste of time since future societies will be shaped by the relationship of class forces and objective economic conditions rather than ideas. The one thing that utopian socialism of the 19th century and that of today have in common, in fact, is that they are both forms of *idealist* thinking. Completely harmless, but ineffectual. If I had a son who was embarking on a career and was trying to decide between writing books like Michael Albert's Parecon or going into corporate law, I'd have no problem recommending the former. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: utopianism
Jim wrote: The big criticism of utopianism was tactical and strategic: it doesn't do much good to show people a diagram of how socialism should be organized (as the Socialist Labor Party used to do) and do nothing else, ignoring the possibilities generated by the contradictions of capitalism. It seems to me what distinguishes utopian from scientific socialism is that the former pays no attention to the means through which the better society is to be brought into existence. I think it's a mistake to interpret the difference as dismissive of any need to pay attention to the nature of a better society. As Marx points out, the end determines the means with the rigidity of a law, so you can't determine the latter without knowing the former. This is particularly so in the case of socialism because its nature is such that it can only be constructed by architects and builders who construct it in the mind before building it in reality (this, according to Marx, being the defining feature of human labour). This provides a basis for critique of Marx's own account of these means. The architects and builders socialism requires can't be created in the way he posits. A more scientific socialism would have to reconstruct this part of the analysis. For instance, it might want to pay a lot more attention to the possibility of reducing the work day both as an end in itself and as a means to other ends. This would require examination of what our ends ought to be. I think Marx adopts as the ultimate end the realm of freedom - a community of universally developed individuals creating and appropriating beauty and truth within relations of mutual recognition. This requires free time i.e. time free from instrumental labour. This is time both for the activities which are ends in themselves and for the individual development these activities require. This individual development would also work to expand free time because it would improve productivity - efficiency - in the realm of necessity. These ideas serve to tie together Marx's various definitions of wealth. In particular, it connects wealth as universal development to wealth as free time. What is wealth other than the universality of individual needs, capacities, pleasures, productive forces etc., created through universal exchange? The full development of human mastery over the forces of nature, those of so-called nature as well as of humanity's own nature? The absolute working out of his creative potentialities, with no presupposition other than the previous historic development, which makes this totality of development, i.e. the development of all human powers as such the end in itself, not as measured on a predetermined yardstick? Where he does not reproduce himself in one specificity, but produces his totality? Strives not to remain something he has become, but is in the absolute movement of becoming? In bourgeois economics - and in the epoch of production to which it corresponds - this complete working-out of the human content appears as a complete emptying out, this universal objectification as total alienation, and the tearing-down of all limited, one-sided aims as sacrifice of the human end-in-itself to an entirely external end. Grundrisse p. 488 The real wealth of society and the possibility of a constant expansion of its reproduction process does not depend on the length of surplus labour but rather on its productivity and on the more or less plentiful conditions of production in which it is performed. The realm of freedom really begins only where labour determined by necessity and external expediency ends; it lies by its very nature beyond the sphere of material production proper ... The true realm of freedom, the development of human powers as an end in itself, begins beyond it [the realm of necessity], though it can only flourish with this realm of necessity as its basis. The reduction of the working day is the basic prerequisite. Capital vol. 3 pp. 958-9 The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the masshas ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few,for the development of the general powers of the human head. With that, production based on exchange value breaks down, and the direct, material production process is stripped of the form of [706] penury and antithesis. The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum,
Re: utopianism
--- Ted Winslow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me what distinguishes utopian from scientific socialism is that the former pays no attention to the means through which the better society is to be brought into existence. * What a utopian that Marx was! To think and write as if socialism had something to do with free time and with freedom from the necessities imposed by the wages system. And then, his cheerleading of the Paris Commune and calling it an example of his dictatorship of the proletariat. And who can forget his naive critique of political-economy in the first chapter of the first volume of CAPITAL and the implications therein--an association of free producers owning the means of production in common and producing wealth without commodity production, indeed! Good-night Citizen Weston, wherever you are Mike B) = 1844 Paris Manuscripts, Marx makes a major point of the relationship between the sexes: The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman, http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: utopianism
ted winslow wrote: This provides a basis for critique of Marx's own account of these means. The architects and builders socialism requires can't be created in the way he posits. A more scientific socialism would have to reconstruct this part of the analysis. For instance, it might want to pay a lot more attention to the possibility of reducing the work day both as an end in itself and as a means to other ends. Of course I agree wholeheartedly with what Ted is saying. Not only would such a reconstruction lead to a more scientific socialism, it would also reveal compatible strivings with several important non-socialist visions of the good life. And I believe it does matter to point out that today's ruling ideas reject not only socialism but also repudiate the very best of bourgeois thought and aspiration. I think Postone's _Time, Labor and Social Domination_ is a step in the direction of that reconstruction as is Michael Lebowitz's _Beyond Capital_. Paradoxically, I think it is necessary to also take a 'step back' in order to take a few steps forward -- the step back being the pamphlet Marx cited in the passage from the Grundrisse that Ted quoted. I have it on good authority (the editor) that Routledge will be coming out later this year with a 10 volume set of early British socialist and utopian pamphlets and it will include The Source and Remedy. Meanwhile, I have prepared a fairly clean -- it needs one or two more proof-readings -- transcription of it. How far that pamphlet's author's opinions concur with Marx's (or with Ted's or Mike's or Postone's or mine) I dare not hazard a conjecture, but as many of them are uncommon, they may, as Hume says, 'repay some cost to understand them. [because]...if they are true, they have most important consequences.' One of those consequences, as I read it, is that reducing the work day needs to be firmly grasped as both a worthy end of economic policy and a necessary [but not itself sufficient] means of social and cultural progress. The tactic used against the reduction of work time throughout the 20th century was to characterize it as an ineffective means to the presumed end of reducing unemployment. It is then argued that economic growth offers a better way to expand employment because it also increases wealth -- assuming, of course, that wealth is nothing more than monetary value of industrial production. As the pamphlet exclaimed: From all the works I have read on the subject, the richest nations are those where the greatest revenue is or can be raised; as if the power of compelling or inducing men to labour twice as much at the mills of Gaza for the enjoyment of the Philistines, were a proof of any thing but a tyranny or an ignorance twice as powerful. The pamphlet contrasts that standard of the greatest revenue (GDP to us) with a definition of wealth as adding to the facilities of living: so that wealth is liberty--liberty to seek recreation--liberty to enjoy life--liberty to improve the mind: it is disposable time and nothing more. The development from an earlier ascetic, morally-grounded utopianism to productivist socialism in the 19th century perhaps covered some pretty ambiguous territory in a recklessly unambiguous way. The notion that socialism could meet and defeat capitalism on its own grounds of efficiency, rationality and output may have done a lot to ultimately validate instrumental rationality above all else. It would be a mistake, though, to fall back on asceticism and moralism. As commendable as it might otherwise be, curing unemployment strikes me by comparison as a fundamentally moral and intrinsically ascetic goal -- the old work ethic asceticism. What about the Dadaist old demand for progressive unemployment through comprehensive mechanization of every field of activity. Only by unemployment does it become possible for the individual to achieve certainty as to the truth of life and finally become accustomed to experience; Admittedly that demand is formulated to epater les bourgeois just a bit. Liberty to seek recreation--liberty to enjoy life--liberty to improve the mind sounds pretty hedonistic to me -- a cheerful, healthy hedonism, to boot. I am thinking about the juxtaposition between necessary and superfluous labour time and Marx's comment in the Grundrisse about the superfluous becoming, under capital, a condition for the necessary: Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition -- question of life or death -- for the necessary. The alternative -- and the challenge -- is not to simply do away with the superfluous as frivolous, excessive, degrading but to transform it into the free and creative _use_ of disposable time, freed
Re: utopianism
Jim Devine wrote, I see nothing wrong with utopian dreaming, as long as it's not seen as a matter of thinking up blueprints that _must_ be imposed. Just about everything I lay my hands on these days has the word Utopia in it. Chapman (1909): It occurred to me after a cursory examination of some recent examples of that remarkable modern crop of Utopias and anticipations which apparently are appealing to an extensive public. Dilke (1821): Even in these Utopian speculations the great land-holder should possibly be excepted; a rent, equal to the expense on importation, being alsways secured to him. Dahlberg (1927): Utopia through Capitalism. The irony, it seems to me, is that ALL theoretical abstractions about society and economy are essentially Utopian, no matter how realistic or materialistic they may aspire to be. Even dystopias are Utopian, although not eutopian. I'm drawn to this reflection first by the frankness of Dilke's description of his treatise as Utopian speculations and its contrast with Chapman's chaste disclaimer, If only these 'new worlds' represented what existed somewhere among human beings with passions and infirmities like our own, how much more instructive they would be! Could it not be, though, that the more 'realistic' a Utopia purports to be, the more beguiling it is as a dogmatic blueprint that must be imposed? The most beguiling Utopia would be precisely the one that elevates and enshrines those passions and infirmities like our own. Like selfishness and greed, for instance. Clearly the world in which the innocent, well-meaning, enlightened, prosperty-bringing USA is threatened by evil enemies is a Utopia even though it is presented nightly on the newscasts as an actual place. But then so too is the world in which US imperialism dominates the globe with its military might -- even if one happens to think it is a descriptively more accurate one. What I am having some difficulty formulating a response to is the seemingly spontaneous, instantaneous 'ability' of people to 'see through' and dismiss positive visions of change as frivolously utopian and simultaneously to recite a stale litany of non-factual, not even theoretically plausible articles of faith about the way it really is, always has been and always will be. You know, the way that higher wages destroy jobs, longer hours mean greater productivity and 'flexibility' or competition lowers prices and improves quality.
Re: utopianism
Thatcher's TINA is the opposite side of the utopian coin. Commies have to know what they want as well as what they want to leave behind in history's dustbin. Regards, Mike B) = 1844 Paris Manuscripts, Marx makes a major point of the relationship between the sexes: The infinite degradation in which man exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman, http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: utopianism??
[was: RE: [PEN-L:29857] Re: Re: Re: "Russia turns to yuan"] Shortage of oil? Not in this world. The shortage is in our vision and imagination. Melvin P. Louis P: Even under socialism, there would be dwindling supplies of oil just as there are dwindling supplies of water. Unless Melvin's "vision and imagination" includes serious and *measurable* proposals for how to conserve energy, water, etc., we can't be taken seriously as an alternative to the bourgeoisie. 125 years ago there was little difference between the bourgeoisie and Marxism over how to relate to nature. It was seen as both an unlimited tap for natural resources and a sink for industrial waste. We can no longer think in these terms. Socialism must first and foremost consider ways in which farming can be sustainable. This involves reintegration of the city and the countryside, just as Marx calls for in the CM. when you advocate "measurable proposals," are you saying that we need to develop "recipes for the cook-shops of the future"? I thought you were against utopianism. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine Comment I was not comfortable with simply replying that capital is destroying species as an acknowledgment of the shortage of blue fish. What we perceive as the word "shortage" is in fact "the process of the destruction of society." There is not a shortage of Native Bands of peoples but rather what is taking place is their continuing destruction. This approach is rather abstract but needed. Every question of the biosphere and man as the interactive ingredient is a question of destruction and reconstitution. There is no shortage of water on earth. There is a need for conservation because of the destruction of society and productive forces taking place. There is no shortage of oil but a need for conservation because of the destruction of society and productive forces taking place. Capital will not begin the construction of a new infrastructure because it is not yet profitable or utilize various forms of energy to drive the infrastructure. "If I cannot realize a profit, you can kiss my ass and die" is capitals theme. I believe that the above is what our diverse peoples must be told. We are not facing shortages of anything but systematic destruction of society and everything that makes life worth living. The exception is vision and common sense. Lou's point of departure is to seize this apparent destruction no matter how it is formulated and halt the destruction. This is a correct approach. Yet, we are forever condemned by history to not fully know the consequences of any given set of actions on future generations. What we do know is that the destruction of society and earth must be halted. "Supply" is the form of human interaction with nature as - "need" that becomes dominated by economic logic. Ascertaining "need" is a political battle evolving on the basis of the material power of the productive forces. The earth by definition contains an abundance of everything man needs for societal reproduction. What is involved in this conception of actuality is vision and the estimate of distinct modes of accumulation defining junctures in our development and why this process takes place in a destructive manner. Why is man evil? Even the idea of development or progress is the arena of heated debate. Here is what is being stated. There is no shortage of water on earth. The logic of our actual developmental process denied a vast segment of humanity access to clean water because it proceeded "on a certain basis" driven by a complex of "logic." The problem of man is always man but man is interactive and has been understood within Marxism, only as he eke out existence within definable social and economic relations. These definable social and economic relations present themselves as insurmountable obstacles demanding resolution for advancement and advancement is defined as the progressive accumulation of productive forces with an every increasing capacity to meet needs. Even when a section of Marxist has fought for a broader vision of man the fight could not be won because of the demands for a militant class defiance/defense against a highly militarized world capital. "Your point is well taken comrade, but what we need are tanks to exist, not bluejeans." This however carries us in an endless circle because "need" is understood on the basis of the material power of the productive forces without regard to the genesis of "need." "From each according to their ability to each according to their need" has to be reconceptualized theoretically. Here the historic criticism of Marxism as the science of society has been converted into - or rather, understood by the bourgeoisie as simply an economic doctrine, when in fact Marx sought to understand man and the conditions of social life that shapes his existence and thinking. What could be called a Marxist approach to man
Re: utopianism??
Jim Devine: when you advocate measureable proposals, are you saying that we need to develop recipes for the cook-shops of the future? I thought you were against utopianism. Utopianism means blueprints for how society should be run. Stating that there are 2 billion souls on earth and given 2 trillion gallons of available water, we must strive to guarantee sufficient drinking and sanitation necessities for all these souls is not very utopian. It would only be utopian if we came up with the precise political forms to implement this goal. All we need to do is look at how water is used today and project intelligent alternatives. This means drawing upon *scientific* input from hydraulic engineers, etc., not disciples of Fourier or Bakunin. For example, the Green Revolution is a complete misuse of water. So are big hydroelectric dams. Opposing such waste is not utopian. It is rock-solid realism. Utopianism would involve something like this: --- Suppose we work in a ball bearing plant. It is time to figure out how much steel we need, how to apportion our tasks among ourselves, and how to organize our day. Yes, these decisions affect on people beyond our workplace so that consumers of our product, producers of products we use, and also citizens in the vicinity impacted by our byproducts, should all have a say-by all means. But should we workers in the plant wait for authoritative instructions from municipal assemblies who are neither knowledgeable about our plant nor use the ball bearings that we produce, and should we influence the outcomes ourselves only via our participation in those local assemblies, separated from our jobs and co-workers, as if we had no greater stake than other folks? Should those who actually use the ball bearings have no greater say than those who don't? This seems to me so overwhelmingly odd a proposal to entertain that the pressure causing the Libertarian Municipalists to rule out workers in workplaces having any direct power over workplace outcomes via their own workers councils, and to rule out consumers having impact via consumers' councils as well, must be very compelling indeed. full: http://www.zmag.org/lm.htm Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
RE: Re: utopianism??
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29861] Re: utopianism?? It's a nice academic distinction, but it doesn't work in practice. How one sets up a social organization of production affects how and what is produced. The relations and forces of production are unified, interpenetrate, and determine each others' character. So we can't separate the bad utopianism (figuring out how to get people to work together) from the good utopianism (figuring out how to save water, etc.) BTW, several of the 19th century utopians were pro-environment (e.g., William Morris). BTW2, I'm in favor of limited utopianism, where it's treated as a subject for discussion and collective self-education rather than as a set-in-stone blueprint to be imposed. The utopians often have the same attitudes as the stereotyped Vanguardists: while the utopian says here is my correct scheme for how to run society, so worship it, follow me, and stop thinking for yourself, the Vanguardist says here is my correct Party Line or Program, so worship it, follow me, and stop thinking for yourself. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29861] Re: utopianism?? Jim Devine: when you advocate measureable proposals, are you saying that we need to develop recipes for the cook-shops of the future? I thought you were against utopianism. Utopianism means blueprints for how society should be run. Stating that there are 2 billion souls on earth and given 2 trillion gallons of available water, we must strive to guarantee sufficient drinking and sanitation necessities for all these souls is not very utopian. It would only be utopian if we came up with the precise political forms to implement this goal. All we need to do is look at how water is used today and project intelligent alternatives. This means drawing upon *scientific* input from hydraulic engineers, etc., not disciples of Fourier or Bakunin. For example, the Green Revolution is a complete misuse of water. So are big hydroelectric dams. Opposing such waste is not utopian. It is rock-solid realism. Utopianism would involve something like this: --- Suppose we work in a ball bearing plant. It is time to figure out how much steel we need, how to apportion our tasks among ourselves, and how to organize our day. Yes, these decisions affect on people beyond our workplace so that consumers of our product, producers of products we use, and also citizens in the vicinity impacted by our byproducts, should all have a say-by all means. But should we workers in the plant wait for authoritative instructions from municipal assemblies who are neither knowledgeable about our plant nor use the ball bearings that we produce, and should we influence the outcomes ourselves only via our participation in those local assemblies, separated from our jobs and co-workers, as if we had no greater stake than other folks? Should those who actually use the ball bearings have no greater say than those who don't? This seems to me so overwhelmingly odd a proposal to entertain that the pressure causing the Libertarian Municipalists to rule out workers in workplaces having any direct power over workplace outcomes via their own workers councils, and to rule out consumers having impact via consumers' councils as well, must be very compelling indeed. full: http://www.zmag.org/lm.htm Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
Jim Devine: It's a nice academic distinction, but it doesn't work in practice. How one sets up a social organization of production affects how and what is produced. The relations and forces of production are unified, interpenetrate, and determine each others' character. So we can't separate the bad utopianism (figuring out how to get people to work together) from the good utopianism (figuring out how to save water, etc.) BTW, several of the 19th century utopians were pro-environment (e.g., William Morris). Well, I see that you are declaring in favor of socialism from below for the millionth time on pen-l, so please excuse me if I don't respond to your points. I am much more interested in examining concrete issues such as the folly of the Green Revolution or the Narmada Dam. If and when you find yourself interested in such mundane matters, I will be happy to respond to you. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
Would it be fair to say that Lou is saying that we have to take account of technical recipes, but not social recipes? Providing food requires certain minimum amount of water, but not necessarily a specific social form in which society converts water into food. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29864] Re: RE: Re: utopianism?? You don't have to reply. But are you endorsing socialism from above, in which a small minority imposes its predetermined schemes on the majority of the population? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29864] Re: RE: Re: utopianism?? Jim Devine: It's a nice academic distinction, but it doesn't work in practice. How one sets up a social organization of production affects how and what is produced. The relations and forces of production are unified, interpenetrate, and determine each others' character. So we can't separate the bad utopianism (figuring out how to get people to work together) from the good utopianism (figuring out how to save water, etc.) BTW, several of the 19th century utopians were pro-environment (e.g., William Morris). Well, I see that you are declaring in favor of socialism from below for the millionth time on pen-l, so please excuse me if I don't respond to your points. I am much more interested in examining concrete issues such as the folly of the Green Revolution or the Narmada Dam. If and when you find yourself interested in such mundane matters, I will be happy to respond to you. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
Jim Devine wrote: You don't have to reply. But are you endorsing socialism from above, in which a small minority imposes its predetermined schemes on the majority of the population? I advocate the most ruthlessly dictatorial rule from above and over the working class to make sure that they follow the dictates of the central presidium. Any workers found reading Hal Draper will be buried up to their necks and a workers militia under the leadership of a tested commissar will drive over their heads with power lawnmowers. Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
Title: RE: [PEN-L:29868] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism?? Louis Proyect of www.marxmail.org writes: I advocate the most ruthlessly dictatorial rule from above and over the working class to make sure that they follow the dictates of the central presidium. Any workers found reading Hal Draper will be buried up to their necks and a workers militia under the leadership of a tested commissar will drive over their heads with power lawnmowers. oh yes, the father knows best approach. That's attractive to most working people. (irony intended.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29868] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism?? Jim Devine wrote: You don't have to reply. But are you endorsing socialism from above, in which a small minority imposes its predetermined schemes on the majority of the population?
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any workers found reading Hal Draper will be buried up to their necks and a workers militia under the leadership of a tested commissar will drive over their heads with power lawnmowers. But what kind of lawnmowers, reel or rotary? Reels provide a better cut but rotary mowers produce better mulch -- hence, are probably the better choice if one wished to sustain, say, a red-green coalition. Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism??
No comrade, this is obscurantist thinking designed to distract us from stalinist mis-leadership of Proyect. Notice that he has told us to use power mowers, contributing to capitalist and state-socialist abuse of the natural environment. No mention of the merits of electric vs gasoline powered mowers not to mention green high tech manual mowers designed to same energy resources and improve the physical and emotional health of the worker-philosopher-poet. How could Proyect have fallen into such error!! -Original Message- From: Carl Remick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 2:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:29876] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: utopianism?? From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any workers found reading Hal Draper will be buried up to their necks and a workers militia under the leadership of a tested commissar will drive over their heads with power lawnmowers. But what kind of lawnmowers, reel or rotary? Reels provide a better cut but rotary mowers produce better mulch -- hence, are probably the better choice if one wished to sustain, say, a red-green coalition. Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: utopianism.
At 06:28 PM 6/21/00 -0400, you wrote: Jim, Thanks for the citations. I'll try not to be so loose with terminology in the future. Still, I'm not sure Robin Hahnel's LOOKING FORWARD is in quite the same camp as Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD, Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD is a classic -- or _the_ classic -- model of an ideal planned economy run totally from above by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who are presumed to be benevolent. It's the ideological precursor of both Stalinism and social democracy, though the reality varied from Bellamy's ideas in practice. (For example, Bellamy coined the phrase "cradle to grave," which the social democrats used to refer to the ideal benefits of the welfare state.) Albert Hahnel's LOOKING FORWARD is an effort to present a picture of an economy that's planned from below, with the centralized part of planning done by an automatic mechanism (computer program). Even though it has its flaws (like implying endless meetings), it's a noble effort. So is Pat (no relation) Devine's scheme. At the recent national economics and URPE meetings, Hahnel, Devine, David Laibman, and Paul Cockshott Allin Cottrell presented their ideas about participatory planning. It was interesting how their views were converging. I wish I could summarize their conclusions, but I can't. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: [PEN-L:9132] Re: utopianism
One final thought on the subject of utopianism: All real-world judgments are comparative. People don't have a utility thermometer that reads "97" when they evaluate a situation; instead, they compare it to some benchmark and decide whether it's better or worse, by a lot or a little. (This is the message of the prospect theory literature.) The left is in the business of trying to persuade people that they should not be content with the status quo. The right is in the opposite business, more or less. In this context, everything depends on what the standard for comparison is. The political right says that the alternative to the American political system as we know it is totalitarianism; that's why liberal-capitalist-democracy is the "end of history". Mainstream economics (the economic right) says that the alternative to free markets is bureaucratic stagnation (USSR), the alternative to free trade is autarcky, etc. I honestly don't understand how one can be on the left without a *different* standard for comparison, a vision of how the world could be under a better, socialist order. After all, for most Americans life in 1997 is better than it was 50 years ago, and it's better than life for most Mexicans today. Why should anyone try to change this? According to what standard is this state of affairs not good enough? (Yes, I know that conditions have declined compared to 1969, but I remember that in 1969 the left thought we were in somewhere other than heaven.) As the song from the 60s said, "trying to make it real compared to what..." Peter Dorman
[PEN-L:9280] Re: utopianism -- final words??
My utopian badge is red and black and is polished every day by the memory of millions who have given their lives for a more just democratic economy that strengthens people's solidarity for one another.
[PEN-L:9259] Re: utopianism -- final words??
ROBIN:I have always embraced the label "utopian" and wear the badge proudly. KARL:What colour is it and is it a big or a small badge? I bet you polish it every day to you mammy's delight. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9242] Re: utopianism -- final words??
I have always embraced the label "utopian" and wear the badge proudly. I have also always criticized Marxists who rail against utopianism as wrong headed if not self-serving. I'm sure Louis wears his labels with pride.
[PEN-L:9160] Re: utopianism -- final words??
Jim Devine: I see nothing wrong with Robin's mention of his experience with planning -- since, after all, it was more than relevant to answering Louis' accusations. Louis: The fact that Robin Hahnel spent some time at work in a Cuban agency is completely besides the point. As is the fact that he has taught "comparative socialism" for 20 years. I have spent about the same amount of time in Sandinista agencies and ANC exile headquarters, but so what? I have also been a socialist activist since 1967. Again, so what. What Robin Hahnel did not do was discuss my ideas. At first he says what's wrong with a little utopianism, then he turns around and says that since he spent time in Cuba, how can he be a utopian. I guess he is not sure how he feels about being labeled as a utopian. Perhaps he would be happier if I labeled him as a half-utopian. I personally don't think utopia is a dirty word and urge him to accept it more graciously. What is wrong with being placed in the company of such figures as Fourier, Saint-Simon, Robert Owens, etc. These people were saintly in comparison to the average apologist for capitalism in the 19th century. What's important is to criticize any "utopian socialist" scheme on the basis of whether or not -- and how -- it works, in both theory and in practice. Such as the possibility that Albert Hahnel's scheme might turn into a dictatorship of compulsive meeting-goers. Louis: Utopian schemes all work on paper. I can't think of a thing wrong with Albert-Hahnel, Pat Devine, Cockshott-Cottrell or even John Roemer. When I think of all of the cruelty of capitalist society, Roemer's utopia seems positively heavenly. Today's NY Times has 2 items that really stand out. One, is about how the mask of somebody getting electrocuted in Florida caught fire and flames were shooting a foot from his head. Doctors are pretty sure that he felt pain from the flames before he died. The other is about how rightist death squads in Colombia have been killing suspected supporters of the guerrillas, including a high-school teacher accused of "selling information" to them. If Roemer's blueprint for socialism was enacted in the US or Colombia, that would be a cause for celebration when events like this are an everyday occurrence, wouldn't it? The problem is that his scheme and all the rest will never be tested in practice. Louis, please tell us what's good about Cockshott Cottrell's proposal, how it's superior to AH's idea. Though maybe those authors are still on pen-l and can chime in. Louis: What's good about it is that it theoretically answers the calculation problem. What's not so good is that the calculation problem will be solved not by supercomputers alone, but by social and political institutions that emerge after a successful revolution. What caused a mismatch between supply and demand in the USSR in the 1920s and 30s was not the availability of reliable information to resolve calculation type problems. Stalin's GOSPLAN professionals gave him a 5 year plan that was based on goals that were realizable, provided that a whole set of conditions obtained (5 good years of harvests, etc.) He promptly tore up the plan and chose his own goals from year to year. And what caused Stalin to usurp these powers? That Lenin and Trotsky said in some speech somewhere that management practices from capitalism were worth emulating? For heaven's sake, all they were doing was endorsing Taylorism. We had Taylorism in the USA for the better part of a century, but no gulags, etc. Economic stagnation and inequality are functions of a set of class relations that have evolved historically, not of what management principles you subscribe to.
[PEN-L:9150] Re: utopianism
At 01:40 PM 3/25/97 -0800, Karl Carlile wrote: [SNIP] KARL:Utopianism means striving for a state of being that is unachievable. It means struggling for something that it is historically impossible to establish. Utopianism is a political philosophy and practice.This being utopian political activity hinders the struggle for socialism and in that way ultimately serves the interests of capitalism. To claim, as you do, that a certain amount of utopianism is not only healthy but necessary amounts to the same thing as saying that a certain amount of reactionary politics is good. One need not be "utopian" to have vision. No movement worthy of respect can offer credible leadership or inspire people to struggle and sacrifice if necessary for its objectives if it is without visionaries. No movement led by visionaries who are utopians is destined to accomplish much that will endure. Karl and Frederick were pretty well grounded but were they not also visionaries?
[PEN-L:9137] Re: utopianism
For what it's worth, I respect Robin and Michael's effort to introduce a democratic aspect to the planning process, which seems to me to be the main virtue of their system. I also note that I raised one problem (aggregation) that has so far not received an answer. Barkley Rosser On Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:59:25 -0800 (PST) Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Albert and I developed our utopian model of a participatory economy in large part in response to our historical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslavian, and Cuban experiences. We wrote about those experiences for 2/3 of a book -- Socialism Today and Tomorrow (SEP 1981) -- before offering any utopian ideas for 1/3 of the same book. I have taught comparative socialism for over 20 years and visited Cuba 3 times. I have spent 6 weeks in work with Cuban planners at JUCEPLAN. My utopian ideas are NOT UNBASED in 20th century real world experiences. Louis, you talk too often before you know of what you speak. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9135] Re: utopianism
A KARL CARLILE MESSAGE KARL: Hi Rosser! ROSSER: But, I think that a certain amount of it is not only healthy but necessary. KARL:Utopianism means striving for a state of being that is unachievable. It means struggling for something that it is historically impossible to establish. Utopianism is a political philosophy and practice.This being utopian political activity hinders the struggle for socialism and in that way ultimately serves the interests of capitalism. To claim, as you do, that a certain amount of utopianism is not only healthy but necessary amounts to the same thing as saying that a certain amount of reactionary politics is good. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9132] Re: utopianism
Michael Albert and I developed our utopian model of a participatory economy in large part in response to our historical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the Soviet, Chinese, Yugoslavian, and Cuban experiences. We wrote about those experiences for 2/3 of a book -- Socialism Today and Tomorrow (SEP 1981) -- before offering any utopian ideas for 1/3 of the same book. I have taught comparative socialism for over 20 years and visited Cuba 3 times. I have spent 6 weeks in work with Cuban planners at JUCEPLAN. My utopian ideas are NOT UNBASED in 20th century real world experiences. Louis, you talk too often before you know of what you speak.
[PEN-L:9131] Re: utopianism
Here! Here! Let's here it for a Jim Devine's defense of utopian thinking. And, I'd like to add that I consider my recent reading of Bellamy's Equality -- his lesser known but more complete work on utopianism -- and William Morris' News from Nowwhere -- a libertarian response to what Morris considered to be Bellamy's "too technocratic" utopianism -- to be among the more fruitful things I've read over the past decade.
[PEN-L:9090] Re: utopianism
Jim Devine: First, many of the grass-roots supporters of the FSLN, not to mention the middle-class cadre, had utopian dreams, which helped them mobilize. They weren't just fighting against Somoza or the contras or the US, but for something. Making these dreams more concrete can help with this. The process of doing so ideally involves a national dialogue involving all of the progressive forces rather than one amongst the elite. Louis: Many thanks to Jim for the trenchant reply to my original post. Rather than going over it point by point, I plan to put together some of my thoughts on the general topic of utopianism in the next day or two. This will address many of his specific points. Meanwhile, there is one thing that the above paragraph states that I want to take issue with right away, because it can led to some confusion over what we mean by "models". Carlos Fonseca, the founder of the FSLN, did not have utopian dreams. He had a model of the good society in mind and this was Cuba. As a young student, he visited Cuba and was impressed with the great progress made there. With qualifications to the Cuban model based on the Nicaraguan reality, he attempted to achieve such a socialist society as the result of a victorious fight against Somoza. In the decades following 1917, the Russian revolution also served as such a model. When the facts of Stalin's brutal dictatorship became known to the general public, this model ceased to have the kind of attractive power it once had. In the 19th century the French revolution served as a model for bourgeois-democratic revolutionaries. Garibaldi, Charles Parnell and Bolivar sought to create republics with all of the main features of Jacobin France: separation of church and state, a parliament, breakup of the feudal estates, etc. What we are dealing with in the recent literature of the market socialists, Hahnel-Albert, Devine, Fotopoulos, etc. is an attempt to plan out socialist societies that are abstracted from the actual socialist projects of the 20th century that people created through political action. This is most clear in Hahnel-Albert's popularization of their theory contained in "Looking Forward", a tip of the hat to Edward Bellamy, a utopian socialist of the turn of the century. They reject all of the concrete experiences of the 20th century in post-capitalist societies as "hierarchical" and offer their own utopian vision as an alternative. You also get plenty of this in the collection of essays contained in "Why Market Socialism" put out by Dissent magazine. One is literally called "A Blueprint for Socialism". All of these essays share with Hahnel-Albert a complete rejection of the concrete experience of Russia, Cuba, China, etc. They present an alternative vision that has no counterpart in history. I am not opposed to utopian visions. A work like "Notes from Nowhere" by William Morris will remain a great inspiration for socialists for all time. What I am opposed to is the notion that the blueprints of Hahnel-Albert, Roemer et al, are in any way linked to the project of transforming capitalist society. The main reason they are misleading is that they are offered as *practical* solutions for the evils of capitalism. Obviously, they have the same expectations as the original utopians. If enough people read their literature, they will be swayed by the logic and moral rectitude of the plans and organize to make it reality. At least the original utopians took the trouble to set up little experimental communes that would add clout to their pet theory. Socialism does not issue out of the logic and morality contained in the tracts of left economists, however. It is a product of class struggle. I will have more to say on this probably tomorrow or the next day. Louis Proyect
[PEN-L:9091] Re: utopianism
Louis P. is correct that the participatory planner advocates such as Hahnel-Albert are making proposals with little foundation in any actually existing, or previously existing, society, and hence might be labeled "utopian." The planning model of Cockshott-Cottrell may be somewhat less so in that it has more links with the formerly existing centrally planned economies. But then, the problem for them is to establish that they can overcome the various difficulties of those societies (as well as the currently existing centrally planned DPRK) in order to achieve full credibility for their scheme. This obviously involves understanding just "what went wrong" in those societies, a matter of ongoing debate and controversy. However, the market socialists are in a very different situation. They have the single most successful by many measures of all the previously or actually existing socialist economy models to reference. I am referring to the Slovenian case. Now, Louis P. and I and others have discussed and debated this case before, with a major negative being the difficulties and ultimate breakup of the larger former Yugoslavia. But, given that arguably Slovenia is _still_ an actually existing market socialist economy, albeit trending to a market capitalism with heavy worker-owned, worker-managed elements, one can hardly lay the "utopian" label on the advocates of worker-managed market socialism. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:27:37 -0800 (PST) Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Devine: First, many of the grass-roots supporters of the FSLN, not to mention the middle-class cadre, had utopian dreams, which helped them mobilize. They weren't just fighting against Somoza or the contras or the US, but for something. Making these dreams more concrete can help with this. The process of doing so ideally involves a national dialogue involving all of the progressive forces rather than one amongst the elite. Louis: Many thanks to Jim for the trenchant reply to my original post. Rather than going over it point by point, I plan to put together some of my thoughts on the general topic of utopianism in the next day or two. This will address many of his specific points. Meanwhile, there is one thing that the above paragraph states that I want to take issue with right away, because it can led to some confusion over what we mean by "models". Carlos Fonseca, the founder of the FSLN, did not have utopian dreams. He had a model of the good society in mind and this was Cuba. As a young student, he visited Cuba and was impressed with the great progress made there. With qualifications to the Cuban model based on the Nicaraguan reality, he attempted to achieve such a socialist society as the result of a victorious fight against Somoza. In the decades following 1917, the Russian revolution also served as such a model. When the facts of Stalin's brutal dictatorship became known to the general public, this model ceased to have the kind of attractive power it once had. In the 19th century the French revolution served as a model for bourgeois-democratic revolutionaries. Garibaldi, Charles Parnell and Bolivar sought to create republics with all of the main features of Jacobin France: separation of church and state, a parliament, breakup of the feudal estates, etc. What we are dealing with in the recent literature of the market socialists, Hahnel-Albert, Devine, Fotopoulos, etc. is an attempt to plan out socialist societies that are abstracted from the actual socialist projects of the 20th century that people created through political action. This is most clear in Hahnel-Albert's popularization of their theory contained in "Looking Forward", a tip of the hat to Edward Bellamy, a utopian socialist of the turn of the century. They reject all of the concrete experiences of the 20th century in post-capitalist societies as "hierarchical" and offer their own utopian vision as an alternative. You also get plenty of this in the collection of essays contained in "Why Market Socialism" put out by Dissent magazine. One is literally called "A Blueprint for Socialism". All of these essays share with Hahnel-Albert a complete rejection of the concrete experience of Russia, Cuba, China, etc. They present an alternative vision that has no counterpart in history. I am not opposed to utopian visions. A work like "Notes from Nowhere" by William Morris will remain a great inspiration for socialists for all time. What I am opposed to is the notion that the blueprints of Hahnel-Albert, Roemer et al, are in any way linked to the project of transforming capitalist society. The main reason they are misleading is that they are offered as *practical* solutions for the evils of capitalism. Obviously, they have the same expectations as the original utopians. If enough people read their literature, they will be swayed by the logic and moral
[PEN-L:9092] Re: utopianism
Oh yes, and I do agree with Louis P. that there is much about the PRC that is awful, ugly, disturbing, and that raises very serious concerns regarding the longer-term viability of its system. But, it is certainly some variation of market socialism right now, and has the world's most rapidly growing economy. China is hardly utopianism, much less a utopia. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:27:37 -0800 (PST) Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jim Devine: First, many of the grass-roots supporters of the FSLN, not to mention the middle-class cadre, had utopian dreams, which helped them mobilize. They weren't just fighting against Somoza or the contras or the US, but for something. Making these dreams more concrete can help with this. The process of doing so ideally involves a national dialogue involving all of the progressive forces rather than one amongst the elite. Louis: Many thanks to Jim for the trenchant reply to my original post. Rather than going over it point by point, I plan to put together some of my thoughts on the general topic of utopianism in the next day or two. This will address many of his specific points. Meanwhile, there is one thing that the above paragraph states that I want to take issue with right away, because it can led to some confusion over what we mean by "models". Carlos Fonseca, the founder of the FSLN, did not have utopian dreams. He had a model of the good society in mind and this was Cuba. As a young student, he visited Cuba and was impressed with the great progress made there. With qualifications to the Cuban model based on the Nicaraguan reality, he attempted to achieve such a socialist society as the result of a victorious fight against Somoza. In the decades following 1917, the Russian revolution also served as such a model. When the facts of Stalin's brutal dictatorship became known to the general public, this model ceased to have the kind of attractive power it once had. In the 19th century the French revolution served as a model for bourgeois-democratic revolutionaries. Garibaldi, Charles Parnell and Bolivar sought to create republics with all of the main features of Jacobin France: separation of church and state, a parliament, breakup of the feudal estates, etc. What we are dealing with in the recent literature of the market socialists, Hahnel-Albert, Devine, Fotopoulos, etc. is an attempt to plan out socialist societies that are abstracted from the actual socialist projects of the 20th century that people created through political action. This is most clear in Hahnel-Albert's popularization of their theory contained in "Looking Forward", a tip of the hat to Edward Bellamy, a utopian socialist of the turn of the century. They reject all of the concrete experiences of the 20th century in post-capitalist societies as "hierarchical" and offer their own utopian vision as an alternative. You also get plenty of this in the collection of essays contained in "Why Market Socialism" put out by Dissent magazine. One is literally called "A Blueprint for Socialism". All of these essays share with Hahnel-Albert a complete rejection of the concrete experience of Russia, Cuba, China, etc. They present an alternative vision that has no counterpart in history. I am not opposed to utopian visions. A work like "Notes from Nowhere" by William Morris will remain a great inspiration for socialists for all time. What I am opposed to is the notion that the blueprints of Hahnel-Albert, Roemer et al, are in any way linked to the project of transforming capitalist society. The main reason they are misleading is that they are offered as *practical* solutions for the evils of capitalism. Obviously, they have the same expectations as the original utopians. If enough people read their literature, they will be swayed by the logic and moral rectitude of the plans and organize to make it reality. At least the original utopians took the trouble to set up little experimental communes that would add clout to their pet theory. Socialism does not issue out of the logic and morality contained in the tracts of left economists, however. It is a product of class struggle. I will have more to say on this probably tomorrow or the next day. Louis Proyect -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9098] Re: utopianism
Barkley: But, given that arguably Slovenia is _still_ an actually existing market socialist economy, albeit trending to a market capitalism with heavy worker-owned, worker-managed elements, one can hardly lay the "utopian" label on the advocates of worker-managed market socialism. Louis: I will have *much* more to say about this in my next post, but let me make a brief point here. Yugoslavia was an attempt to create a society based on the Soviet model. The Marxist economists who were part of Tito's original planning team had given a lot of thought to the question of how they would develop socialism geared to what they saw as the particular characteristics of capitalist Yugoslavia. This included ideas about the need to combine self-management with export manufacturing, etc. The key thing is that socialist Yugoslavia grew out of the relationship of class forces following WWII, not utopian schemes. What has happened, however, is that a segment of the market socialist current has abstracted out the main features of socialist Yugoslavia in the "good old days" and turned it into a blueprint for socialism. In one of Schweickart's early books, he tips his hat to Yugoslavia as a model of what he is talking about. Isn't it besides the point for socialists in the United States to be holding up Yugoslavia as a model? We are American Marxists, not Yugoslavian Marxists. When we talk about the socialism that is feasible for the United States, we should be doing the sort of study that our counterparts were doing in the mountains when they were fighting with the Partisans. But we have no revolutionary mass movement. All we have are left economists with very little ties to any mass movement --revolutionary or reformist-- who dream up "feasible socialisms" with zero connection to current American politics or even a politics that can grow out of the contradictions of society today.
