I wrote:
>> But what kind of socialism?
1/07/98, Andrew Wayne Austin responded:
>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