This comes close to answering my questions. >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 Devines 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 > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
