On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, s_sanderson wrote:
> In response to Richard Hutchinson's point, he himself seems to realize that
> inequality in and of itself is not a very good measure of the standard of
> living. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European societies did have lower
> levels of income inequality, but at the cost of a much lower average standard
> of living, as he himself points out. What good does a more egalitarian income
> distribution do you when the average person stands in line half the day for a
> small piece of fatty meat, or waits 15 years for a cramped apartment or 10 yeas
> for a car?
>
> Stephen Sanderson
>
>
>
Well, it all depends on what the question is. If you're not concerned
with inequality or exploitation, and only in absolute, average standard of
living, then I guess you're right. But those of us who >>are<< concerned
with inequality and exploitation (and I include you as well, despite your
one-sided arguments) cannot so quickly dismiss what you yourself describe
as accomplishments of the attempts at socialism so far.
The way I see it, any positive lessons from China, the Soviet Union and
elsewhere are difficult to apply to the core. "Core socialism" remains
utopian, which is not necessarily bad (Warren Wagar's fiction is useful
and thought-provoking). But there are definitely lessons that are
applicable in the periphery. The prospect of revolution in China is
increasing along with unemployment, attendant to the displacement of
millions of farmers and the creation of a vast urban lumpenproletariat.
Many Chinese, caught in the process of capitalist modernization, long for
Mao's "iron rice bowl." (Also relevant here is the annoying -- to U.S.
capital -- refusal of Cubans to overthrow Castro. Cubans enjoy much
higher levels of education and health care than anywhere else in Latin
America, and although they are not totally happy, reject the alternative
in store for them. So the equality/abundance trade-off is not as
straightforward as the triumphant capitalists would like.)
Samir Amin is the most thoughtful current analyst of the prospects for the
periphery. He calls for a popular alliance of the peasantry and workers
to engage in national struggles that aim to "delink" from the exploitative
capitalist world-system. In today's climate, this too seems utopian to
many. But objectively, (especially given the current crisis of the
"Tigers", and the dim chance that most of the periphery will enter
"tigerhood"), the prospects for successful anti-systemic movements remain
greater in the periphery than in the core.
Rather than starting from scratch, it is reasonable to think that current
and future anti-systemic movements in the periphery will, and should,
carefully assess both the negative and the positive experience of past
attempts.
Richard Hutchinson