Robert Gassler wrote: > Apparently there is no way to look ahead and prevent another disaster like > the Soviet Union – totalitarian state capitalism in a developing country > disguised as a socialist revolution. The freedom that is socialism can exist > only under a dictatorship. That makes no sense.<
Huh? I didn't say anything like that. Among other things, I don't use the word "totalitarian" since there's no such thing as "total state power" except in fiction (Orwell's "1984," etc.) Dictatorships are most often quite corrupt, which means that a lot of the state employees have been bought off, i.e., that the state apparatus does not follow orders from the top very well. Elites don't have enough information to control the people at the bottom of the hierarchy enough to get them to do what they want. Most often, you see sullen and cynical people at the bottom (and also in the middle of the hierarchy) who mouth the official slogans but don't really go along with the official party line in practice but instead try to exploit the system for personal survival and even for gaining advantage over others. That weakens and even defeats the goals of those at the top. Also, these days authoritarian state capitalisms in "developing" countries are explicitly anti-socialist and often theocratic. I do see the underdevelopment and encirclement of a country as major barriers for the creation of true socialism, but they aren't insurmountable. If you want socialism, the way to go is to avoid top-down measures as much as possible, to mobilize the grass-roots workers and peasants. (For richer countries, drop the word "peasants.") The more that a revolution is rooted in and supported by the "masses," the more likely that it will be democratic and thus socialist. We saw some effort in this direction during the Nicaraguan revolution, for example. This bottom-up effort has to start long before any revolution (which of course may not happen at all). Among other things, this approach has the extra benefit of allowing people to win progressive and democratic reforms before any revolution by pressuring the current ruling class. Social democracy (a superior version of capitalism compared to the current _status quo_) was a compromise given to working classes who were pushing for much more. In this case, the means (mass pressure) and the ends (socialism) mesh pretty well. > The question is precisely about the system, since any system can be spoiled > by a lunatic. If it is impossible to prevent the rise of such a leader – as > Jim Devine’s argument seems to suggest – then socialism is not a liberated > zone, though it may be an egalitarian one.< It's quite possible to prevent the rise of a lunatic to power, while it's wrong to say that "any system can be spoiled by a lunatic." See above: a system based on bottom-up power is less likely to be "spoiled by a lunatic." It's only when power is highly hierarchical and centralized that a single person can have a big impact. Though bureaucratic socialism (or "state capitalism," if you will) may be more egalitarian than capitalism (of the sort we live under) in terms of the personal distribution of wealth, it's not especially egalitarian in the distribution of political power. (In desperate brevity, the fall of the USSR involved those with the most political power trying to turn that edge into personal wealth.) BTW, I didn't say that the USSR's system was spoiled by a lunatic. Rather, I said that the historical and institutional situation which prevailed in the USSR rewarded and cultivated lunacy (and also the appearance of lunacy). When the system is f*cked up, the scum rises to the top. > If there is no royal road to the future, if both capitalism and socialism > involve suffering for most people, then there is not much point in choosing > between them.< If I can read CC correctly, sayiung that there "is no royal road" is saying "it ain't easy." Saying "it ain't easy" is hardly the same as giving up. It's also a mistake to think in either/or terms (capitalism and "totalitarian state capitalism" disguised as "socialism"). -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
