--- k hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I always took revolutionary socialism to mean the > complete overthrow of > capitalism and its replacement by a mode of > production that involves some > sort of socialised ownership of the means of > production distribution and > exchange plus production on the basis of need not > profit.
So I guess as a longtime market socialist I was never a RS. But I like my historical account better than your abstract definition. Be that as it may, while I think that replacing capiatlism by some form of socialized ownership is an admirable goal (even if I would not go so far as getting rid of markets), there is a sort of scholastic flavor to variations on this formula at the present time, don't you think? Revolutionary > socialism contrasts with reformist socialism that > believes in changing > capitalism so as to socialise certain aspects of the > system to distribute > wealth and power somewhat more equitably and tomake > capitalism more > responsive to the needs of everyone and specifically > the worst off e.g. > universal healthcare, minimum wages, environmental > controls, etc etc. but > not doing away with the private property in the > means of production or with > profit as an engine of production. Well, as I said, if we in the US had what they have in Sweden or the Netherlands, we'd think we had won. And certianly it would be a great victory. But even that seems hopeless utopian just now. Today my 14 yr old daughter was marveling that in Europe they have subsized healthcare, education, and pensions, and wondering why Americans didn't demand these things. I have her a short version of the standard answer -- no labor party, racism, ethnic diversity, the frontier, no anti-feudal struggles, but the fact of the matter is that we would be far luckier than we have any right to expect to gets a struggle for what ytou call reformist socialism in the US. At one time > perhaps reformism itself > shared the goals of revolutionary socialism but that > is hardly the case with > any actually existing reformist socialist parties. > > The aims of revolutionary socialism certainly are > not part of the > consciousness of most working people nor are there > any powerful social > movements that clearly have as their end > revolutionary socialism but that > hardly means that talk of revolutionary socialism is > at all ridiculous, even > faintly. Because? I really do want an answer. I used to think I was an RS. I gave up a career and a lot of years to that ideal. Now I seem to have lost touch with what ir could mean. > > Certainly some of the rhetoric of radical > revolutionary grouplets may be > more than faintly ridiculous or groupies of the > likes of Kim Il Sung II but > that hardly discredits the aims of revolutionary > socialists. All it does is > show that certain strategies and tactics are not > likely to be successful in > the present context. So what struggles are likely to be successful? My boringly sane group Solidarity has been stuck at about 30 people since I joined it some 16 years ago. > > I am not sure what Justin means when he says that > the struggle does not take > classical Marxist forms. I mean that if you proclaim yourself a Marxist, blazon hammers snd sickles and red flags and quotes from the Marxist classics all over the place, no one will listen to you. Once that was not so. Now it is, and it seems unlikely to change. The classical Marxist form > par excellence is the > class struggle. Oh class struggle is real. Marxist theory is prettuy much true. But this truth dare not speak its name. You know that. . You mean > this form has been > superceded? No, the langauge, symbols, and vocabulary of Marxism have been irredeemably poisoned. Or dated. I am not sure which is worse. And on and on. > Surely any revolutionary socialists would struggle > against these > developments as part of their tactical activity no > matter what their > strategies might be. Reformists too. And left-liberals. > > I have no idea what Classical Marxism is supposed to > mean. Marxism-Leninism > seems to be included. Is Maoism classical Marxism? > Is Kautsky a Classical > Marxist? Marx once said he was not a Marxist, maybe > that is because he was a > classical Marxist!!! Louis speaks of authors who > are guides as to what is > revolutionary socialism not classical marxism. In > fact Louis does not > include Marx in his list.. Not my term, Louis's. But I think it means Marxist writers who can be appropriated for broadly anti-Stalinist ideals without breaking too much with orthodoxy. Benjamim is NOT a classical Marxist. > > As far as "what constitutes revolutionary > socialism", I'd say that the > answer to that is in the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, > Che Guevara, Rosa > Luxemburg, Mariategui, CLR James and others too > numerous to mention. Yeah, buncha folk who mostly died at least 50 years ago . . . Depressively, jks __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com
