Max Sawicky wrote,
>there isn't much left of planning, properly
>speaking, much less socialism, without public
>ownership of capital and public control of its
>allocation. What's left is where most of us are,
>in some kind of social-democratic framework.
>In other words, I agree with those on the further
>left who say most of us on, say, PEN-L, aren't
>really socialists. I differ in that I think
>that's as it should be.
Max is right (except for the last line). To add definition to Max's "public
ownership of capital and public control of its allocation", I'd mention the
concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Today, the phrase is an
embarrassment to many who would like to call and think of themselves as
socialists. This is partly because the phrase has been appropriated and
misused for expressly undemocratic purposes. But, rather than re-examine the
concept itself, the "revisionists" (I can't resist the irony) suppose it's
enough to substitute a more benign sounding "democratic planning" for the
terrifying "dictatorship".
The problem with such a smooth transition is that it begs the question of
the need for any transition at all. If the cure for bourgeois democracy is
simply "more democracy", then we might as well get on with the practical
work on taxes and transfers rather than speculating about alternative
systems. On the other hand, if the problem is the qualitative issue of class
rule, then a mere quantitative increase in "democracy" is a non-sequitur --
again making speculation about alternative systems a waste of time.
To return to the socialist embarrassment about the dictatorship of the
proletariat, there is a second, "non-Stalinist" source for the chagrin: the
dictatorship is transcendental, not scientific. Socialists (particularly of
the academic marxist variety) would like to present themselves as reasonable
people, whose actions and beliefs are grounded in empirical observation,
etc. etc. But the dictatorship of the proletariat has more in common with
the father, the son and the holy ghost then it does with the working class
(or "the workers" or "working people").
Don't take my word for it, remember old Karl himself wrote a manifesto about
a "spectre haunting Europe". Compare that to the advocates of planning who
seek to evade the spectral character of the revolutionary subject by
shifting to the passive tense. Meanwhile, unfettered by such subaltern
scruples, the clumsily manipulated, "invisible" hand of the neo-liberals is
left to rake in all the ideological chips.
I wish I could wrap this thought up with some answers, but maybe it's not
such a bad thing to generate a few questions instead. Why have we come to
take "bourgeois ideology" at face value as, at least, an *attempt* at
empirical description? How have we come to the imaginative impasse of
seeking to oppose "their" empirical descriptions with our own, more faithful
to the "facts"? What, then, is the status of an "empirical description" of
something that doesn't yet exist? Have socialists forgotten how to dream in
colour (or are they just ashamed to try)?
As for Max's last line, "that's as it should be", I can't buy it. Here in
Canada, the social-democratic NDP abstains from even its own
social-democratic, electoral politics in a vain attempt to be seen as a
voice of moderation. The NDP appeal in the current election comes down to
nostalgia for the 1970s -- a presumably brighter, happier, more innocent
time. If you liked the Partridge Family, you'll love the NDP. The PF was
"wholesome" psychedelia without drugs. The NDP is wholesome Keynesianism
without fiscal crises.
And there's the social democratic dilemma in a nutshell: it's not simply
that social-democratic policy prescriptions are objectionable, it's that in
order to be palatable to the "mainstream" they always have to be repackaged
as even more innocuous then they are. Social democratic policies can never
be innocuous enough, at least until they are completely vapid -- at which
point, they are readily dismissed by "the mainstream" as vapid.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [and in spreadsheets]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
