>
>Is there a gleam of light at the back of Rob's mind here? Is he at last
>groping towards the key that can unlock the gate keeping him in that dark
>tunnel? All he's got to do is see how the mass leadership of the workers
>could be transformed from the revolutionary Marxism of October to the
>counter-revolutionary raison d'etat of 1927 and he's home dry.
>
>>
>>>Well, I've tried to clarify a bit what I think the position is on this.
>>
>>And much appreciated it was, too.
>>
>>>Market socialism is a cowardly utopian cop-out. Anything to avoid the
>>>life-and-death confrontation with the bourgeoisie that creating the
>>>preconditions for real socialism will involve.
>>
>>Market Socialism ain't gonna come about without fundamental and traumatic
>>social change, Hugh. And it might just be a promising candidate for just
>>the precondition of which you speak.
>
>See above. Fundamental social change that stops short at market socialism
>is a dry-as-dust academic illusion worthy of a Kautsky.
>
>
>>Nice to be convivially disagreeing with you (and just about evberybody else
>>here) again!
>>
>>All the best,
>
>The better we understand our present and the past it emerges from, the
>better we'll understand the future we're heading into.
Brrrrrr-UM pum pum. Where would we be without such sober reminders from
our betters. And is it brave, not to speak of smart, to sneer from one's
armchair soapbox at those comrades who advocate coming to terms with (and
therefore maintaining a hope of influencing) one of the potential
transitional stages (itself revolutionary relative to the status quo) along
the way to proletarian ownership of the means of production?
If not market socialism I wonder what a no-half-measures dude would
consider to be a morally acceptable increment in the struggle to realise a
genuinely democratic society.
Joanna
www.overlookhouse.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
