It really sort of breaks my heart to see Michael P ask, for the second
or third time, a question that ought not to be arising here at all.
Well, I'm just a tolerated pseudonymous, non-economist lurker myself,
but below I repeat the forwarding I posted a few days back, which is
on approximately the same wave length.
Some otherwise long-forgotten prof of mine used to say "If you can't
tell it, you never had it." I don't think the slime-mold propagandists
of the right are shirking the telling these tumultuous days.
valis
-----------------------------------------------------------
====>Yesterday a citizen of the parallel world called psn-l
posted the following, which has, I feel, more than a tad
of applicability here and now. A number of words (and 1 phrase)
were framed thus: o-circumflex________o-umlaut, the residue of
some extraterrestrial non-ascii system, and I substituted quotes
in each case. If in doubt, as I am to some extent, you can ask
Prof White what sort of accentuation he really intended.
valis
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:35:33 -0500
From: William White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Irresponsibility of Pure Ideological Thinking
Let me take the dialogue in a different but related direction.
First, we are intellectual, academic sociologists. I believe we have
a better than average understanding of the forces that make up societies
and the individuals that live under them. Yet, it continues to amaze me
that many of us can be purely ideological in our thinking without
considering the practical difficulties of setting up what I consider
a progressive, humanistic, non-capitalist based society. Though I see
a progressive society as my own personal vision of a better society,
I cannot disregard the difficulty in attaining it.
With that said, let me ask this first question. How do we build
the "better society" without capitalism? This is a real concern for me
since I truly believe that the economic forces are in place that will
challenge capitalism as we know it today. The ripple effects of
the Asian collapse will, in my opinion, lead to a much deeper gouge
in the western capitalist world than mere "recessions." Are we truly
expecting, in an ideological sense, the "masses" to rise up against
the capitalists, given that working people will experience the economic
slump more severely than the upper .5% of society? If the organizations
are not in place to take advantage of this situation, let alone not
developed enough to express publicly an ideology of working class
solidarity that is "marketable," then I fear we will experience
an incredible chaos of social proportions perhaps similar
to fascist Germany.
Second question: in the transition from socialism (if we even make it
that far) to communism, must we not include capitalist incentive programs
to "reward" productivity among workers, if not merely for the mental
"transitional" health of the workers who only know the world from
a capitalistic perspective? How will workers "work" for the common
or community good if they have no knowledge (or trust) of how this system
"theoretically" can work to their benefit? Also, unless there is
a wholesale global elimination of capitalism as an economic structure,
how will a socialist/communist society economically interact with
capitalist societies? In what I consider the "best" of the socialist
states to emerge (and remain somewhat intact), even Cuba experienced
this transitional problem with its working class. The Cuban problem has
become even more complex and compromised after the fall of
the Soviet Union.
Third question: consider what social psychological and conflict
sociological theories (among others) add to this hypothetical dilemma.
How do you rid a "new" society, across all social strata, of the inherent
self-interests that individuals and groups possess in any given society?
First, how do you rid powerful groups (with access to capital, or access
to bureaucratic power, or access to military power) of their power,
and second, how do you safeguard against new groups who will gain power
from monopolizing it, given inherent self-interests in society? I know
that I am making the strong assumption here that self-interest is
a powerful force, but given the centuries of capitalist ideology and
practice in the world, it is difficult for me to envision an easy
transition from individual self-interest to a shared community perspective.
These are troubling questions for me, for I do want to see a more
progressive society emerge at some point in time. I think we can
ideologically "wish" for a better society to come forth, but it will not
magically appear because the workers, overnight, see they have a common
interest in rising up against the ruling class. Even if they see they
have common interests, their own self-interests may only create
a new ruling class based on capitalist assumptions.
If we are truly serious about changing society, and not just engaging
in philosophical debates on the inherent injustices within capitalist
social systems, then we must acknowledge the political, sociological,
psychological, and economic mechanisms that exist to maintain the current
social system. I believe that capitalist incentive programs for workers
will still need to be a part of the transitional strategy towards
a socialist world. Worker and group self-interest will continue to be
a stumbling block once a transition is in place. Getting to this economic
social transition will take a significant amount of work organizing around
an agenda that seeks change but is in a language that workers can
understand. For me, these are the significantly difficult steps before us.
To promote an ideology of common interest among workers is a positive first
step towards this transition. To not consider the power of self-interest
in this dialogue, though, can be catastrophic.
It is good that we can engage in this ideological dialogue among ourselves
here. But if we aren't willing to think the whole process out and consider
social forces that will get in the way of any progressive social
transformation, then we are merely pontificating among ourselves.
William Sakamoto White
University of South Alabama
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
