Jim Devine: >It should be stressed that the 19th century utopians were _not_ >totally thinking things up in their heads. Fourier and Saint-Simon, >for example, saw themselves as furthering and perfecting the French >revolution. Owen saw himself as extending the lessons of his >paternalistic little factory. > Louis: This really gets to the heart of the problem. Yes, they were trying to figure out ways to "perfect" the French revolution by extending political equality to social equality. The problem is that they had no concept of class struggle. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto as a way of explaining how the contradictions arising out of the capitalist system would drive the working-class to seek socialist revolution. No such mechanism exists in utopian thought. Their schemes would succeed because they offered a more "humane" vision of how the world should be run. >H&A's approach is so different from that of Bellamy that it's >laughable to put them in the same camp (especially when the >similarity is simply in terms of the names of their books). > Louis: The comparison with Bellamy is made simply on the basis that "Looking Backward" and "Looking Forward" are schemas that are put forward with no concept of how the societies they recommend can arise out of the constellation of class forces operating in the capitalist system. They are the projects of middle-class reformers who are appalled by the brutality of capitalism and hope that their vision of a new world can capture the imagination of a broad public. It is interesting to note that Bellamy's "Looking Backward" did attract a powerful mass following in the decades following its publication. > >However, >we _do_ have to address the tendency for hierarchies in post- >capitalist societies to become a parts of new ruling classes. Part >of the H&A project is to minimize the role of the central planners, >to automate planning in conjunction with popular opinion. > Louis: This is the problem. When you say "part of the H&A project is to minimize the role of the central planners", you buy into the methodology. Everything is being minimized on paper, not in reality. Everybody's schema works on paper. I suppose if I had a choice between the cruelty I see all about me on a day-to-day basis in NYC and living in a world that maps to John Roemer's coupon socialism, I'd suppose I'd pick the latter. > >But do we make _any_ effort ahead of time to figure out how we'll >set up socialism when it comes? or do we leave it as something that >will arise "naturally" out of the struggle? Since the struggle >itself involves visions of what we want, it seems that utopian >dreams and schemes also play a role. > Louis: I am trying to identify a problem in left politics today. We have a proliferation of utopian schemas. These schemas grow out of the frustration and disappointment with the failure of "existing socialism". The solution to this is not in concocting schemas, but in trying to understand the real world. There is very little challenge in dreaming up future societies that would embody "feasible socialism" through the use of computer technology, markets, cooperative ownership, etc. Part of the problem is that this "debate" has taken on a life of its own and has no connection with American society or politics. The idea of Fotopoulos and Bookchin having a "split" over rival utopian schemas strikes me as foolish, no matter the sincerity of the two parties. This is symptomatic of a deeper malaise. >It seems to me that what we need to do is avoid blanket rejection of >say, H&A. Instead, try to compare _your_ vision (a cleaned-up >version of Cuba?) with their vision. Argue that your vision is >better and explain why. Louis: A cleaned-up version of Cuba? For the United States? I have no idea what socialism in the United States would look like. Part of the problem is that we lack an example of what socialism in an advanced capitalist country would look like at all. All I am committed to is trying to understand the underlying dynamics of late capitalist society. About a year ago I thought I would try to come up with a synthesis of some of the ideas I had about environmentalism and computer technology and have a stab at my own notion of a "feasible socialism". In the last 6 months or so, I have given this a lot of thought and it seems to be the wrong way to go. I am much more convinced than ever that all scientific socialists can do is develop a critique of capitalist society and become part of the larger political movement to transform society along socialist lines. > >BTW, I want to add that I think that workers' democratic control >over the elite who run a socialist economy is a much more important >issue than that of utopianism. In other words, I think the >possibility of simply trading the old bosses for a new set of bosses >is more important than the issue of utopianism. > >Finally, Barkley, could you tell us how the Slovenian economy is organized? > >in pen-l solidarity, > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. >7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA >310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 >"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way >and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. > >
