On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> But what kind of socialism?
We will have to see what emerges. One can only assert socialism in very
broad outlines. People will have to make the system for themselves, where
they are. It would be based primarily in collective ownership of the means
of production and a distribution system based on effort and need. In its
initial form it would probably involve state socialism, and there would be
violent dispossessions of private property, which is in order. Violent
because accumulators will resist. And who would blame them? Capitalists
more consistently act in accord with their interests than any other class
of people. That is one of the reasons they are in power and we're not.
> Is private property allowed?
I draw a distinction between personal property and private property, with
the later being property which the owner uses to exploit the labor or
others. I agree with Marx and Engels that individuals should have the
right to appropriate social product (since they produced it), but that no
one should be permitted to use social product to exploit others. So it
depends on your understanding of the term "private property," I suppose.
> Are there political parties?
We will wait and see. I think that industrial organizations politically
active, whatever you call them, are reasonable after the bourgeoisie is
abolished. And they should be encouraged presently. There would not be any
organized capitalists since capital would be abolished (capital in its
systemic sense) so it is hard to think of what such a party would be about
(as long as we are speculating on possible worlds). Parties usually cohere
around interests, and interests are the result of objective relations.
Would people be allowed to stand on a soapbox and wax nostalgic for the
days when people were allowed to exploit other people? Sure, why not. Can
they call their soapbox a political party? I suppose so. Wifebeaters can
organize a political party, too, right?
> Are there private businesses?
In what sense? You mean can a person sell the fruits of their own labor?
Sure. If this is business, then I guess that's business. An important
question here would be whether civil society survives the destruction of
capitalism. If you mean business in the sense that a person can hire labor
to work in their firm, no, that would be contrary to socialism. People
exploiting other people should be outlawed like murder. Accumulators should
be charged with the murder of starving people. Lots of things flow from
this logic.
> I don't see that "socialism" tells us much more than "marxism", or
> "democracy" for that matter.
Each word tells us various things about different dimensions of real and
possible and imagined social worlds. Marxism tells you a lot when it is
contrasted with Malthusianism. Marxism is differentiated reasonably well
from, say, Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It become a little more blurry when a
historical materialist is held up beside a Leninist, and so forth.
Socialism is well understood to be different from capitalism, but there
are disputes between what is socialism and what is communism, or whether
they are the same thing, so forth. And democracy is different from, say,
totalitarianism. But what sort of democracy? Socialist democracy? Or
polyarchy? All are contested concepts, true. At one level they are useful;
at another level they are glittering generalities. But all are also
reasonably distinguishable from other standpoints within the dimensions
they call home. So, Richard, we would all agree that socialism is a vague
term. I don't think we could agree on what your point is exactly.
But as I recall you said that Marxism was not an alternative to
capitalism. This struck me as sort of like saying "Malthusianism is not an
alternative to socialism." It seemed to be mixing apples and oranges,
that's all. And I don't see here that you have clarified the matter at
all.
> What are the specifics? The devil is in the details.
But this is true for everything, isn't is? That is the purpose of slogans
like "the devil is in the details"--it is true because it isn't false.
Slogans are propaganda tools to skirt the hard questions. They have their
place.
> That's _your_ opinion
More slogans. Sure, Richard. Everything can be said to be opinion. The
point is whether somebody's "opinion" carries more validity than another
person's opinion. Biological evolution is an opinion. Creationism is
another. And then there are some who believe aliens put us here. Are all
these opinions equal? We get into a really silly spot if we chalk
everything up to opinion. There is also the fallacy of neutrality, etc.
Yes, like everybody else, I have beliefs about the world. I even hold some
convictions.
> would you disallow differing views from discussion?
Why is this a question? You offer a point of view. I offer another. You
attack my point of view because it is *one* point of view (as is yours)
and then suggest that because I have a point of view that I want to
disallow your point of view. Why doesn't this same argument apply to your
point of view? Why aren't I whining about being oppressed by your opinion?
This is a standout in the big book of fallacies. Typical liberal pluralism
"Can't we all agree to disagree." No, we can't. We have to make a judgment
or else we stand paralyzed like deer in a car's headlights. And that is
deadly.
A deer from the woods shouts to another deer standing stiff in the middle
of I-24, "Hey, it's my opinion that that phenomenon you are observing is
simply a pair of ethereal lights, a mere atmospheric disturbance, so don't
move." No, Bambi, it is a metallic gasoline burning vehicle weighing
several hundred kilos. Get the hell out of the way!
> And what exactly is it that this "practical system" tells us that is
> useful?
One objectifies reality. It is a matter of becoming conscious of the
process of objectification and take over the process of world
construction. I recommend Marx's Theses on Feuerbach (1845).
> We're in agreement here, and one doesn't need Marx to know this much; but
> do you claim that all the "people on the ground" need to carry a marxist
> banner before they can succeed?
I believe that people would be more successful in global revolution (and
in any sort of organizing against oppressive systems) if they were
historical materialists. Yes. I already answered this question when I made
claims about the superiority of the Marxian standpoint. But, of course,
the question you ask is plain: nobody would ever need to know Marx and his
work to carry out successful revolution. However, ignorance of Marx's work
does not preclude people from developing a system that is *in effect*
Marxian. Had Marx never lived, I feel confident that historical
materialism would have been developed, only under a different name. What
the term "gravity" describes doesn't necessarily need Newton. We don't
know who was the person who invented bowls. But they work, don't they?
Gramsci notes:
The same ray of light passes through different prisms and yields
different refractions of light: in order to have the same
refraction, one must make a whole series of adjustments to the
individual prisms.... Finding the real identity underneath the
apparent differentiation and contradiction and finding the
substantial diversity underneath the apparent identity is the most
essential quality of the critic of ideas and of the historian of
social development. (Prison Notebooks, Notebook I)
It doesn't matter what you call it, Richard. When all the prisms are
adjusted properly we will all be pretty close to being on top of it.
> I don't consider myself an "anticommumist": that's much too vague.
I consider you an anti-communist. But I don't see the sense of arguing
over this. It is just my opinion.
> I don't like Stalinism; I do like Castro.
I don't think you can make snap statements like this (although I'm glad
you "like" Castro). Stalin accomplished a lot. He should be credited for
his successes. He changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people for
the better. Give him his due. Does this mean that there are things about
him that aren't deplorable. Of course not. People are complex. I recommend
Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds (1997).
> And sorry I hit a sore spot with you
The trick of trying to make you opponent look lost to emotions is very
old, Richard. This fits more with the Bill Buckley type, not somebody
addressing WSN.
> my point is just that if you tell the world's people that the only
> alternative to capitalism is marxism, you won't get anywhere mobilizing
> "people on the ground".
Are you telling us that movements based in Marxism didn't get anywhere
mobilizing people on the ground? Events of the 19th and 20th century
refute this statement.
Andy