Hugh Rodwell
Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:07:16 -0800
>Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>
>>If market socialism is such an attractive alternative, and vastly to be
>>preferred to party dicatatorships, and capable of arising more or less
>>spontaneously in periods of mass mobilization, then why
>>
>>a) did it not arise spontaneously in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet
>>Union, either there or in any of the other ex-workers states?
>>
>>b) this in spite of the convictions of such political leaders as Havel in
>>ex-Czechoslovakia that it was realistic and that they could actually create
>>a third way similar to but better than the Swedish model?
>>
>>Could it just be that it's an impossible illusion?
>>
>>Or is it that the real world is just too rough and polarized a place, and
>>needs to be civilized to resemble the neatness of Karl Kautsky's desk
>>before humanity will be able to make any progress worth the name?
>>
>>In that case, how long will we have to wait?
And Doug Henwood responded:
>If you want to make an argument from spontaneous evolution, which it
>seems you are,
Wonder what gave him that idea? That's precisely the view I was arguing
against. Those who are able to conceive of a system of market socialism
coming of its own accord in a period of weak or disputed class power -- a
period of dual power so to speak, although this was hardly the case except
potentially during the early 90s.
>then socialism everywhere is off the agenda,
Well I didn't want to make the spontaneous evolution argument, but Doug
just wants to repeat the socialism off the agenda argument. Mechanical
stuff. He can't see it's being kept off the agenda by extreme measures of
surveillance, repression and misinformation.
>and not just the market kind.
My question, which Doug missed, was why market socialism, as such an
attractive and powerful alternative in the eyes of some, didn't force
itself on the world in the early 90s when conditions were at their most
propitious for this kind of development -- if you believe in spontaneous
developments and fight till your dying breath against organized,
consciously led political change of the kind the Bolsheviks demonstrated in
1917.
>Yes, the world is a rough and polarized place,
Polarized between which forces? Doug only sees triumphant imperialism
everywhere.
>but I don't see any hint that your view of the world acknowledges
>that.
He's blind. Polarized for us between the forces of the imperialist
bourgeoisie and the international working class, acting in its various
national frameworks.
>It's as if you expect everyone to wake up one day and sign on
>to the vanguard's agenda, and then all contradictions are resolved
>and heaven will have come to earth.
This is just Doug's tired old straw man being raised yet again. Look at
1917 for the most telling historical refutation of this crap.
>After a few bourgies are shot, of course.
Nice to know who Doug cares about.
Cheers,
Hugh
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---