Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
first, i wasn't running through the house and i didn't knock over the lamp, i don't know how it happened, really... second, i'm really not an engels contra marx person but... yes, there's a but... fe judged 'utopian socialists' moral-political philosophy via his dialectical understanding of natural sciences (particularly darwinian biology), problem is that this is either/or approach involving choice that really shouldn't be made, both are necessary but not for same purposes... one can certainly read in fe a reasoned attempt to convince folks that capitalism is bound to collapse, to be replaced by socialism...question is whether fe was saying that this was automatic/inevitable or whether people needed to be persuaded to join in and act to get rid of capitalism... doubtful that socialism will result from everything coming to grinding halt (great song by cure), was it marx or lenin (maybe both) who suggested barbarism as possibility... gramsci pointed out that emotional, moral, philosophical, rational would all be needed to get folks to act to bring about socialism (he also favored development of pre-figurative working class socialist institutions and practices in midst of capitalist society)... michael hoover
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
was it marx or lenin (maybe both) who suggested barbarism as possibility... Luxemburg coined the phrase socialism or barbarism. Jim
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
As far as I know, you are incorrect. Luxemburg coined the slogan, the idea was expressed first by Engels. J. - Original Message - From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:41 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left was it marx or lenin (maybe both) who suggested barbarism as possibility... Luxemburg coined the phrase socialism or barbarism. Jim
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Carrol Cox wrote: And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, revolutionary politics consists in? Wish I knew. Since you seem to know everything, why don't you tell me? Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Doug Henwood wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, revolutionary politics consists in? Wish I knew. Since you seem to know everything, why don't you tell me? I don't make big sweeping statements about revolutionary politics, you do. I make statements about building a mass movement (relationship to revolution wholly open). You used the term. Not me. Tell us what you mean by it. Carrol Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Carrol laid out the program in his post. (below) There are so many issues right now that can help people see the path forward. 1. Universal health care. Even at the depths of Hillary's mess the polling date showed strong support for single-payer. Now when corporations are screwing retirees and cutting benefits and increasing costs for active workers , ... 2. Patent rights for drug companies. As the prices soar, the opportunity for pointing out how governement funding could cut costs and spread benefits. 3. In electric power, the idea of local ownership, local takeover of utilities is quite popular. Difficult to pull off because of years of defenses built into our laws by the power companies. But a useful educational fight where it happens. Environmentalists at the local level can impact investment decisions (green power) and the consumer side gets lower prices. Where it exists now, public power does a solid and popular job. 4. The biggie: Taking away "corporate personhood." As the movement to eliminate personhood grows rapidly, some of the adherents can take the next leap, as Carrol describes. And when the "campaign finance reform" gang realizes that it ain't going nowhere without the end of "corporate free speech" this is going to be huge. 5., 6, 7., ... etc. Fill in the list. And get organizing!!! Gene Coyle Carrol Cox wrote: Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? Sigh! Saul Alinksky had a slogan that is appropriate in this context (and which I in fact followed in all my attempts, _ever_, to move someone to socialism): You organize with your ears not your mouth. From mid-1968 through 1973 I probably moved around 8 to 12 people to a socialist perspective, by which I mean involving them actively in movement politics and in a process of studying marxism. Without exception I did so without _ever_, once, using the word "socialism" or "marxism" or "revilution" or any synonym until _after_ they had indicated to me that they believed we needed socialism. (At least three of these people are still involved in left activity, one disappeared into Weatherman, and several others burnt out in the general meltdown of the early '80s. A couple of them would be back in the movement if real movement began again.) Your "asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics" simply doesn't make any sense. One simplyl does not ask them to do that. One asks them to attend an anti-war demonstration or a rally to get a framed black student out of jail. Et cetera. It is simply bizarre to expect people to jump to socialism on the basis of any sort of discussion of socialism. One involves people in resistance activities. Then one sees what happens, and if someone indicates a need for more, then the discussion begins. But people have to persuade themselves to socialism. One can't do it for them. You are still thinking like a writer rather than someone involved in active political work. And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, "revolutionary politics" consists in? Carrol Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
--- Eugene Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carrol laid out the program in his post. (below) There are so many issues right now that can help people see the path forward. 1. Universal health care. Even at the depths of Hillary's mess the polling date showed strong support for single-payer. Now when corporations are screwing retirees and cutting benefits and increasing costs for active workers , ... 2. Patent rights for drug companies. As the prices soar, the opportunity for pointing out how governement funding could cut costs and spread benefits. 3. In electric power, the idea of local ownership, local takeover of utilities is quite popular. Difficult to pull off because of years of defenses built into our laws by the power companies. But a useful educational fight where it happens. Environmentalists at the local level can impact investment decisions (green power) and the consumer side gets lower prices. Where it exists now, public power does a solid and popular job. 4. The biggie: Taking away corporate personhood. As the movement to eliminate personhood grows rapidly, some of the adherents can take the next leap, as Carrol describes. And when the campaign finance reform gang realizes that it ain't going nowhere without the end of corporate free speech this is going to be huge. 5., 6, 7., ... etc. Fill in the list. And get organizing!!! Gene Coyle 8. Winning the class battle for democracy. 9. Abolition of the wage-system. 10. Social ownership of the means of production/consumption. 11. Production of goods and services as things (as opposed to commodities) for use and need. 12. Living in harmony with the Earth. Cheers, Mike B) = * I can clearly recall myself angrily storming towards the pod pick-up point, muttering under my breath, Fucking son-of-a-bitch! What bastards! My life is going nowhere. I'm just a credit-slave to these chumps. They only care about their bloody profits. As far as theyre concerned, my sanity can be sacrificed on their holy altar of fiduciary responsibility. After all, The Corp is beholden, first and foremost to its stockholders. Screw the workers. Pure unadulterated crap! Theres no mystery to it. They wont hire more pilots because it would cut into the rate of profit. from WAGE-SLAVE'S ESCAPE http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the Madison (WI) Capital Times Left Should Take a Page From Wilde by John Nichols Toward the close of his extraordinary new book, The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left (Westview), James Weinstein ruminates on an all-but-forgotten tract by Oscar Wilde. Weinstein, the eyes-wide-open historian and journalist who has been close to the core of American left-wing politics for the better part of 50 years, might not appear on the surface to be a Wilde man. But in the Anglo-Irish dramatist and dandy's classic 1893 essay, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, Weinstein finds signposts that could point toward a brighter future for the American left. In year three of what Jefferson might refer to as a reign of witches, when American freedoms are under constant attack, when foreign entanglements threaten to drag the country deeper into the imperialist thicket, and when the loyal opposition to George W. Bush is so loyal that there is all too little organized opposition, few would dispute Weinstein's assertion that the American left is too frequently directionless and leaderless. Weinstein speaks with the authority of one who has, at many turns, offered both direction and leadership to the postwar left. The author of The Decline of Socialism in America and The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, Weinstein was the founder of the influential journal Socialist Review and the founding editor and publisher of the Chicago-based democratic socialist magazine In These Times. An old leftist, a new leftist, a radical and a pragmatist, Weinstein has held the banner of progressive politics aloft through so many struggles that he has passed from being a historian to being part of history. And, ever the optimist, he has not given up on the prospect that the next great chapter in the history of the American left may be no more distant than the next turned page. And Weinstein, wise as ever, has turned a page or so of Wilde in search of inspiration for framing the next left. Wilde's concern of more than a century ago, Weinstein observes, was with the great majority of working people whose creativity, 'latent and potential in mankind generally,' was stifled by capitalism. By making financial gain rather than personal growth its aim, he wrote, capitalism had 'crushed true individualism.' It debarred those in one part of the community from realizing their individuality by starving them; and it confused the other part by measuring them in terms of what they possessed. Capitalism left people to think 'that the important thing (was) to have,' rather than 'to be.' When he wrote The Soul of Man Under Socialism, Wilde's argument for the abolition of capitalism in order to free people to be was dismissed as unrealistic. Few socialists shared Wilde's take on socialism in 1900 because it was difficult to see a future where such a system would be possible, explains Weinstein. But here we are, a hundred and fifty years after Marx wrote the Manifesto and a hundred years after Wilde wrote 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism.' And while even now few envision such a future, the most advanced capitalist nations have nonetheless created the productive capacity for a society such as Marx and Wilde had in mind. The technology and productive capacity exist, but the vision is missing. The problem, then, is how to create a political movement with the will and the ability to realize that vision. In The Long Detour, Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. Weinstein is no dreamer - he expects the building of a left that can compete in the marketplace of ideas and at the ballot box in 21st century America will be a long arduous task, and there will be many false starts. But, he suggests, the renewal will be rooted in an understanding that the left must articulate an agenda that speaks to the highest hopes and promises reforms. And those reforms need to be not merely radical but rejuvenating for the souls of Americans, who are increasingly battered by a consumer culture so omnipresent that it leaves little room for personal growth or societal progress.
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
In The Long Detour, Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. I don't agree. I have no idea how this infatuation with utopian dreaming became so popular. Russell Jacoby writes a book titled End of Utopia (favoring its return) but takes time to rake Chomsky over the coals for all the usual false charges (Pol Pot, etc.) Meanwhile, Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch call for a socialist utopianism in the 2000 Socialist Register, while not finding anything worth publishing about Cuba in the past 20 years. Except for one article by somebody who signed Joanne Landy's petition. Utopia, ptooey!!! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Wilde is in the general tradition of William Morris (NEWS FROM NOWHERE, etc.) Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 6:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the Madison (WI) Capital Times Left Should Take a Page From Wilde by John Nichols Toward the close of his extraordinary new book, The Long Detour: The History and Future of the American Left (Westview), James Weinstein ruminates on an all-but-forgotten tract by Oscar Wilde. Weinstein, the eyes-wide-open historian and journalist who has been close to the core of American left-wing politics for the better part of 50 years, might not appear on the surface to be a Wilde man. But in the Anglo-Irish dramatist and dandy's classic 1893 essay, The Soul of Man Under Socialism, Weinstein finds signposts that could point toward a brighter future for the American left. In year three of what Jefferson might refer to as a reign of witches, when American freedoms are under constant attack, when foreign entanglements threaten to drag the country deeper into the imperialist thicket, and when the loyal opposition to George W. Bush is so loyal that there is all too little organized opposition, few would dispute Weinstein's assertion that the American left is too frequently directionless and leaderless. Weinstein speaks with the authority of one who has, at many turns, offered both direction and leadership to the postwar left. The author of The Decline of Socialism in America and The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, Weinstein was the founder of the influential journal Socialist Review and the founding editor and publisher of the Chicago-based democratic socialist magazine In These Times. An old leftist, a new leftist, a radical and a pragmatist, Weinstein has held the banner of progressive politics aloft through so many struggles that he has passed from being a historian to being part of history. And, ever the optimist, he has not given up on the prospect that the next great chapter in the history of the American left may be no more distant than the next turned page. And Weinstein, wise as ever, has turned a page or so of Wilde in search of inspiration for framing the next left. Wilde's concern of more than a century ago, Weinstein observes, was with the great majority of working people whose creativity, 'latent and potential in mankind generally,' was stifled by capitalism. By making financial gain rather than personal growth its aim, he wrote, capitalism had 'crushed true individualism.' It debarred those in one part of the community from realizing their individuality by starving them; and it confused the other part by measuring them in terms of what they possessed. Capitalism left people to think 'that the important thing (was) to have,' rather than 'to be.' When he wrote The Soul of Man Under Socialism, Wilde's argument for the abolition of capitalism in order to free people to be was dismissed as unrealistic. Few socialists shared Wilde's take on socialism in 1900 because it was difficult to see a future where such a system would be possible, explains Weinstein. But here we are, a hundred and fifty years after Marx wrote the Manifesto and a hundred years after Wilde wrote 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism.' And while even now few envision such a future, the most advanced capitalist nations have nonetheless created the productive capacity for a society such as Marx and Wilde had in mind. The technology and productive capacity exist, but the vision is missing. The problem, then, is how to create a political movement with the will and the ability to realize that vision. In The Long Detour, Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. Weinstein is no dreamer - he expects the building of a left that can compete in the marketplace of ideas and at the ballot box in 21st century America will be a long arduous task, and there will be many false starts. But, he suggests, the renewal will be rooted in an understanding that the left must articulate an agenda that speaks to the highest hopes and promises reforms. And those reforms need to be not merely radical but rejuvenating
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:44:13AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In The Long Detour, Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. I don't agree. I have no idea how this infatuation with utopian dreaming became so popular. Russell Jacoby writes a book titled End of Utopia (favoring its return) but takes time to rake Chomsky over the coals for all the usual false charges (Pol Pot, etc.) Meanwhile, Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch call for a socialist utopianism in the 2000 Socialist Register, while not finding anything worth publishing about Cuba in the past 20 years. Except for one article by somebody who signed Joanne Landy's petition. Utopia, ptooey!!! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
There are some on pen-l who use utopian as an insult or a put-down. Any criticism of a putative socialist country, for example, evokes the term. Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 09:44:13AM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: In The Long Detour, Weinstein argues that the time has come for the left to renew a few of its utopian affiliations. I don't agree. I have no idea how this infatuation with utopian dreaming became so popular. Russell Jacoby writes a book titled End of Utopia (favoring its return) but takes time to rake Chomsky over the coals for all the usual false charges (Pol Pot, etc.) Meanwhile, Sam Gindin and Leo Panitch call for a socialist utopianism in the 2000 Socialist Register, while not finding anything worth publishing about Cuba in the past 20 years. Except for one article by somebody who signed Joanne Landy's petition. Utopia, ptooey!!! Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Michael Perelman wrote: I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. I agree that we need an alternative vision. It would be good if our movement could produce something like William Morris did. However, that is not what I am opposed to. I am opposed to blueprints for future societies in the Albert-Hahnel mode since they are presented not as visions, but as *necessary* roadmaps to the future. My beef with Weinstein, Panitch and Jacoby is of another nature, however. These are all anti-Communists whose vision of the future entails rejection of the compromised, messy but *real* societies trying to create an alternative to capitalism.
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Michael wrote: I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. I agree with this. Hope counts in politics. Tis very human. And, right now, a vision of hopeful socialism (utopianism) is positive. All politics are based on improving the lot of the individual. Without a vision, even them realistic commies remain but a braukellar Marxist cadre trying to enlist disgruntled technocrats for a future world of technocrats removed from utopia. A vision/hope is important to a mass movement (mass movement being translated as Lots of people). Ken. -- The desire of the moth for the star, Of the night for the morrow, The devotion to something afar From the sphere of our sorrow. -- Shelley
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:07:12PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Michael Perelman wrote: I think that we need to have a vision of what socialism can offer -- not just lower unemployment or lower taxes or some other modification of what we have today. If utopianism is the creation of such a vision then it can be very important in building socialism. It is not the sum total of what we need. I agree that we need an alternative vision. It would be good if our movement could produce something like William Morris did. However, that is not what I am opposed to. I am opposed to blueprints for future societies in the Albert-Hahnel mode since they are presented not as visions, but as *necessary* roadmaps to the future. My beef with Weinstein, Panitch and Jacoby is of another nature, however. These are all anti-Communists whose vision of the future entails rejection of the compromised, messy but *real* societies trying to create an alternative to capitalism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Michael Perelman wrote: I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Wilde is in the general tradition of William Morris (NEWS FROM NOWHERE, etc.) Jim D. COMMENT: Mine is a simple remark, in the context of the discussion taking place on the matter- largely irrelevant. But I do object to the simplistic equation of William Morris (A man deeply involved with forming a Marxist Party and mass links) Oscar Wilde (A man representing the highest of individual courage). I say largely irrelevant - since the deeper purposes linkages of the men involved, informs the purpose of their writings. Hari
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
The difference between a vision and a blueprint in the amount of detail involved. Such a distinction is necessarily vague. Almost everybody here favors socialism, perhaps except David S. who hangs out here for his amusement. I don't think that many of us have exactly the same idea of what socialism entails on a blueprint level. If we started talking about blueprints -- even among us socialists -- we would end up in endless arguements. Just recall the long, fruitless dialogues about the merits of market socialism. People can dream of going to Hollywood to be in the movies without seeing the scripts before they depart to realize their dream. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:03:45PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Michael Perelman wrote: The difference between a vision and a blueprint in the amount of detail involved. Such a distinction is necessarily vague. Almost everybody here favors socialism, perhaps except David S. who hangs out here for his amusement. I don't think that many of us have exactly the same idea of what socialism entails on a blueprint level. If we started talking about blueprints -- even among us socialists -- we would end up in endless arguements. Just recall the long, fruitless dialogues about the merits of market socialism. People can dream of going to Hollywood to be in the movies without seeing the scripts before they depart to realize their dream. Saying you're for socialism in this context sounds more than a a little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. Doug
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Of course, saying that you are for socialism conjures up the Cold War vision of the Soviet Union. Maybe, you do not even use the term socialism in opening up a dialogue. Jim Devine seems to offer a course that uses science-fiction to create a vision of a socialist society. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 06:26:21PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Saying you're for socialism in this context sounds more than a a little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Saying you're for socialism in this context sounds more than a a little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. Doug Since the reference to True Leninists is presumably directed at me and since Doug filters out my email, I suppose it would not generate too much turmoil if I responded to this. People will not make a revolution in the USA based on the kind of objective conditions that have prevailed since the end of WWII. As long as there are expectations that you can find a job and raise a family, there is no reason for people to make a plunge into the unknown. However, as the economic situation continues to deteriorate, as we get more and more embroiled in imperialist wars and as the environmental crisis deepens, people will take extreme actions as a *defensive* measure. As happens in just about every single powerful revolutionary situation that we know of, the people will begin to form their own embryonic institutions of economic and political power. In 1917, they called them Soviets. In Spain in the 1930s they took the form of workers or peasant committees. Etc., etc. Fundamentally, what happens in a revolution is that dual power is resolved either in favor of the workers who are seeking to rule in their own interest or the bosses who want to maintain their privileges. If the revolution is successful, the workers councils, etc. will become the new government. In the period leading up to the conquest of power, the discussion in the ranks of these committees will not be about socialism in the abstract but how to move the struggle forward to a successful conclusion. Once the workers take power, their ideas about running the economy will be tested in action. In an advanced country like the USA, socialism will be more feasible than ever in history. With the high level of education and technology, the USA will set the example for the rest of the world. Although I don't think it is necessary to campaign around questions of what a socialist American would look like, I suppose that discussions will unfold that reflect some themes found in Trotsky's writings. As inspiring as they are, they cannot be described as utopian: Leon Trotsky, If America should go Communist: Here is where the American soviets can produce real miracles. Technocracy can come true only under communism, when the dead hands of private property rights and private profits are lifted from your industrial system. The most daring proposals of the Hoover commission on standardization and rationalization will seem childish compared to the new possibilities let loose by American communism. National industry will be organized along the line of the conveyor belt in your modern continuous-production automotive factories. Scientific planning can be lifted out of the individual factory and applied to your entire economic system. The results will be stupendous. Costs of production will be cut to 20 percent, or less, of their present figure. This, in turn, would rapidly increase your farmers' purchasing power. To be sure, the American soviets would establish their own gigantic farm enterprises, as schools of voluntary collectivization. Your farmers could easily calculate whether it was to their individual advantage to remain as isolated links or to join the public chain. The same method would be used to draw small businesses and industries into the national organization of industry. By soviet control of raw materials, credits and quotas of orders, these secondary industries could be kept solvent until they were gradually and without compulsion sucked into the socialized business system. Without compulsion! The American soviets would not need to resort to the drastic measures that circumstances have often imposed upon the Russians. In the United States, through the science of publicity and advertising, you have means for winning the support of your middle class that were beyond the reach of the soviets of backward Russia with its vast majority of pauperized and illiterate peasants. This, in addition to your technical equipment and your wealth, is the greatest asset of your coming communist revolution. Your revolution will be smoother in character than ours; you will not waste your energies and resources in costly social conflicts after the main issues have been decided; and you will move ahead so much more rapidly in consequence. full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1935/1935-ame.htm Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I wasn't equating the two. Saying that they shared a general tradition is not equating. Jim -Original Message- From: Hari Kumar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 2:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left Wilde is in the general tradition of William Morris (NEWS FROM NOWHERE, etc.) Jim D. COMMENT: Mine is a simple remark, in the context of the discussion taking place on the matter- largely irrelevant. But I do object to the simplistic equation of William Morris (A man deeply involved with forming a Marxist Party and mass links) Oscar Wilde (A man representing the highest of individual courage). I say largely irrelevant - since the deeper purposes linkages of the men involved, informs the purpose of their writings. Hari
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
I used to offer that course. I taught it once to a class of economics students who wanted to be told what to think all the time. So I've been discouraged. BTW, according to Draper, Marx and Engels thought that utopian literature could be an important part of working-class self-education and discussion. They just didn't see it as a good guide to tactics, strategy, abnd history. Jim -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun 7/13/2003 3:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [PEN-L] John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left Of course, saying that you are for socialism conjures up the Cold War vision of the Soviet Union. Maybe, you do not even use the term socialism in opening up a dialogue. Jim Devine seems to offer a course that uses science-fiction to create a vision of a socialist society. On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 06:26:21PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Saying you're for socialism in this context sounds more than a a little like a wish that people should just be nicer to each other. It has almost no substantive content. And at the risk of alienating the True Leninists(TM) here, the Soviet model has almost no appeal to a significant population anywhere aside from Russian pensioners. I sure don't have the answers, but I do recognize that this is a problem. Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: John Nichols on James Weinstein on Oscar Wilde and the Left
Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they tend to make the future seem less attractive. I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity? Sigh! Saul Alinksky had a slogan that is appropriate in this context (and which I in fact followed in all my attempts, _ever_, to move someone to socialism): You organize with your ears not your mouth. From mid-1968 through 1973 I probably moved around 8 to 12 people to a socialist perspective, by which I mean involving them actively in movement politics and in a process of studying marxism. Without exception I did so without _ever_, once, using the word socialism or marxism or revilution or any synonym until _after_ they had indicated to me that they believed we needed socialism. (At least three of these people are still involved in left activity, one disappeared into Weatherman, and several others burnt out in the general meltdown of the early '80s. A couple of them would be back in the movement if real movement began again.) Your asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace revolutionary politics simply doesn't make any sense. One simplyl does not ask them to do that. One asks them to attend an anti-war demonstration or a rally to get a framed black student out of jail. Et cetera. It is simply bizarre to expect people to jump to socialism on the basis of any sort of discussion of socialism. One involves people in resistance activities. Then one sees what happens, and if someone indicates a need for more, then the discussion begins. But people have to persuade themselves to socialism. One can't do it for them. You are still thinking like a writer rather than someone involved in active political work. And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances, revolutionary politics consists in? Carrol Doug
