On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism by Waistline2 26 February 2002 22:13 UTC -clip- Melvin: The Communist Pary USA did not exist one hundred years ago and it should have stated half a century ago CB: I don't quite follow this Please reiterate ^ Everyone must do what's in their heart It you feel a neo-Roosevelt Coalition is the path forward - go for it I undersstand Lenin's criticism differently The Russian revolutionaries came to power on the basis of the slogan bread, land and peace ^ CB: Yes, in that case the peace part demonstrates involving the working masses in a poltical demand that is not as directly economic as bread and land Of course, in Lowell , Mass, the women workers demanded bread and roses , as good Leninists :) ^^ If you feel that we can effect change in American with the slogan socialism or political slogans go for it ^^^ CB: No, I think the article specifically discourages making socialism a slogan at this time, but sort reminds that it is communists' role to not let the socialism demand get completely buried In fact, the total picture of what Webb says would suggest a slogan closer to 1917, like and peace ^^ I prefer things like food, shelter, rent subsidy and other things that allow the inital formation of the working class into a class for itself Economism was a criticism directed at work in the trade unions I am no longer working within the trade union movement and want to try my hand at the labor movement in general ^^^ CB: The non-economist idea is to demand both, not to drop food, shelter , rent subsidy, but to demand those and peace and freedom ^ Perhaps in a day or two something on the totality of Sam Webb presentation forwarded to Pen and his preconvention presentation, although to my knowledge he is not claiming that his is a Marxist anaylsis CB: Let me assure you that he is claiming that his is a Marxist analysis Am I mistaken? ^^ CB: Yes One thing is sure He is claiming that he is giving a Marxist analysis I would rather not engage anyone in lenght who is outside Marxism, by their own confession Right or wrong I confess the method of Marx and Engels conclusions as the first General strategist for the proletarrian forces CB: Yes and after them Lenin Webb's is claiming for a Marxist-Leninist approach
On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism by Waistline2 22 February 2002 19:17 UTC Melvin: On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal Political Affairs from the early or mid 1930s to 1963 or 64. I am always amazed at their lack of theortical depth. ^ CB: Hey, comrade, good to see the criticism/self-criticism. Is there a specific theoretical shallowness that you note in this article ? ^^ A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices. This is an astonishing statement and nothing more than glorification of the old Roosevelt Coalition. Fifty years ago the last quantitative expansion of capital was underway that completed - more than less, the mechanization of agriculture and realigned the social contract allowing a segment of industrial and state employee the legal right to unionize. This was the era of the anti-colonial revolts and within our country the emergence of the Civil Rights movement as political realignment to stabilize the working of the productive forces. ^^^ CB: What I noticed when I looked back at what you quote is that it says a century ago too. So , the time frame is more 1902 to 1952 which is more than the era of the old (Franklin) Roosevelt Coalition. However, myself I would take a neo -Roosevelt Coalition today if we could build one. I said so on this list. What also strikes me is that your programatic discussion for meeting basic economic needs below seems very much to be a call for a Rooseveltian type Bill of Economic Rights , as he called for in his last State of the Union address. One of his Four Freedoms is Freedom from Want. Can you imagine getting an American President to call for that today ! We would definitely be cooking with gas. The question I would raise is concerning the neo-Economist quality of confining yourself to economic demands and issues. In other words, in _What is to be done_, Lenin critcized the Mensheviks for confining working class concerns to economic issues and demands alone, and not including political ( ideological ) issues for the working class to concern itself with. He dubbed it Economism or trade unionism pure and simple. In other words, when you say The battle is not for ideology but food supplies based on ones family size, shelter (rent subsidy), medical care, transportion, education for our diverse peoples based on needs as opposed to place of employment or employment this sounds Economistic. The battle IS for ideology and bread, both. Our job is to raise class consciousness, no ? On the direct issue, surely the Roosevelt Coaltion was not formed because of the influence of the bourgeois Roosevelt. On the contrary, it was precisely a social movement of the working class - Unemployed Councils, Ford Hunger March, returning evicted tenants to their housing, unionizing industrial plants,vast working class struggle in the 20's and 30' - that forced Roosevelt to go as far as he did to head off more radical change. So, Webb is accurate that there was a social movement behind the changes 50 ( and 100) years ago. ^ The social movement did not arise because of the brutal nature of capital. The African American people for instance, have a record of sustained and unbroken struggle against police violence, the hangman noose and horrible discrimination and this struggle intersected with the needs of a sector of capital that allowed the militant bravery and ingenuity of Montgomery Alabama to assume the proportions of a mass movement. I cannot accuse Mr. Webb of lacking a Marxist approach to the working class since that is not his claim. What are the quntitative boundaries that define the framework of the various stages of the working class movement is an elementary question for communist. I had an oppotunity to read and study the preconvention documents and one would think that the increased polarization of wealth and poverty did not exist in America, although millions have been added to the homeless, the list of those without medical care, the list of those unable to properly feed their family and unable to afford housing. It is not merely a question of captialism being rent but defining the specific property of this phase of the decay of private property relations. One must always start with an anaylsis of the economy and its quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Electronic production and the increasingly digitalization of the production process defines this era of capital and is the reason society is being pulled from its foundation
Re: On the necessity of socialism
In a message dated Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:54:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the necessity of socialism by Waistline2 22 February 2002 19:17 UTC Melvin: On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal Political Affairs from the early or mid 1930s to 1963 or 64. I am always amazed at their lack of theortical depth. ^ CB: Hey, comrade, good to see the criticism/self-criticism. Is there a specific theoretical shallowness that you note in this article ? ^^ A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices. This is an astonishing statement and nothing more than glorification of the old Roosevelt Coalition. Fifty years ago the last quantitative expansion of capital was underway that completed - more than less, the mechanization of agriculture and realigned the social contract allowing a segment of industrial and state employee the legal right to unionize. This was the era of the anti-colonial revolts and within our country the emergence of the Civil Rights movement as political realignment to stabilize the working of the productive forces. ^^^ CB: What I noticed when I looked back at what you quote is that it says a century ago too. So , the time frame is more 1902 to 1952 which is more than the era of the old (Franklin) Roosevelt Coalition. However, myself I would take a neo -Roosevelt Coalition today if we could build one. I said so on this list. What also strikes me is that your programatic discussion for meeting basic economic needs below seems very much to be a call for a Rooseveltian type Bill of Economic Rights , as he called for in his last State of the Union address. One of his Four Freedoms is Freedom from Want. Can you imagine getting an American President to call for that today ! We would definitely be cooking with gas. The question I would raise is concerning the neo-Economist quality of confining yourself to economic demands and issues. In other words, in _What is to be done_, Lenin critcized the Mensheviks for confining working class concerns to economic issues and demands alone, and not including political ( ideological ) issues for the working class to concern itself with. He dubbed it Economism or trade unionism pure and simple. In other words, when you say The battle is not for ideology but food supplies based on ones family size, shelter (rent subsidy), medical care, transportion, education for our diverse peoples based on needs as opposed to place of employment or employment this sounds Economistic. The battle IS for ideology and bread, both. Our job is to raise class consciousness, no ? On the direct issue, surely the Roosevelt Coaltion was not formed because of the influence of the bourgeois Roosevelt. On the contrary, it was precisely a social movement of the working class - Unemployed Councils, Ford Hunger March, returning evicted tenants to their housing, unionizing industrial plants,vast working class struggle in the 20's and 30' - that forced Roosevelt to go as far as he did to head off more radical change. So, Webb is accurate that there was a social movement behind the changes 50 ( and 100) years ago. ^ The social movement did not arise because of the brutal nature of capital. The African American people for instance, have a record of sustained and unbroken struggle against police violence, the hangman noose and horrible discrimination and this struggle intersected with the needs of a sector of capital that allowed the militant bravery and ingenuity of Montgomery Alabama to assume the proportions of a mass movement. I cannot accuse Mr. Webb of lacking a Marxist approach to the working class since that is not his claim. What are the quntitative boundaries that define the framework of the various stages of the working class movement is an elementary question for communist. I had an oppotunity to read and study the preconvention documents and one would think that the increased polarization of wealth and poverty did not exist in America, although millions have been added to the homeless, the list of those without medical care, the list of those unable to properly feed their family and unable to afford housing. It is not merely a question of captialism being rent but defining the specific property of this phase of the decay of private property relations. One must always start with an anaylsis of the economy and its quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Electronic production
On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism by miyachi 23 February 2002 14:17 There is not necessity of socialism Rather, there is only possibility of socialism. Marx firstly expected revolution when economic panic happened, but later In Capital, Marx depended upon growing social movements themselves. BELOW is From Capital CB: I think in this case the idea of necessity is humanity needs it to avoid such crises as Argentina, Enron, 9/11, war on Afghanistan, etc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Socialism is necessary in the sense in which food is necessary: not as something which will be but as something that must be if we are to survive. It is pure religiosity to claim that socialism _will_ come; it is close to self-evident that unless it comes we will plunge ever deeper into the barbarism RL predicted. Doug doesn't like quotes, but no one has ever said it better than Mao: If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Carrol Dear Carrol, Why are you being so picky? Look, we the non-native speakers are not as good as you are in this bloody language, O.K.? To some of us, including myself, there is not much difference between necessity, certainty and the like. By the way, I understand you quite well: Please accept my apologies Chris because of my unnecessarily critical words about your statements regarding strange attractors. In reality, I knew what you meant perfectly. Best, Sabri
Re: On the necessity of socialism
Sabri Oncu wrote: Dear Carrol, Why are you being so picky? Look, we the non-native speakers are not as good as you are in this bloody language, O.K.? To some of us, including myself, there is not much difference between necessity, certainty and the like. That's the trouble -- there isn't much difference for the English speaker _either_. :-) And I would also wager that _similar_ confusion exists in other languages as well, because the distinction in reality is cloudy enough to generate endless difficulty in finding the words that will state it clearly. By the way, I understand you quite well: I'm not surprised. The distinction is as important as it is cloudy -- so one can catch it even if the words are wrong. Carrol Please accept my apologies Chris because of my unnecessarily critical words about your statements regarding strange attractors. In reality, I knew what you meant perfectly. Best, Sabri
Re: Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
miyachi wrote: There is not necessity of socialism Rather, there is only possibility of socialism. Socialism is necessary in the sense in which food is necessary: not as something which will be but as something that must be if we are to survive. It is pure religiosity to claim that socialism _will_ come; it is close to self-evident that unless it comes we will plunge ever deeper into the barbarism RL predicted. Doug doesn't like quotes, but no one has ever said it better than Mao: If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Carrol
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
In response to Doug's (tongue-in-cheek?) comment Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Charles writes Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. Depends on what you think the transformation problem refers to. As I read Marx, the problem, as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is the general case). Issues have been raised with the logic of Marx's original demonstration, and interpretations of his value theory have been offered that get around these issues at the cost of raising others. But the real question, it seems to me, is whether anything at all that is critical to Marxist political economy hinges on this demonstration. And I agree with Doug's negative response to this question. Gil Does the Sraffa model which presumably makes Marx's demonstration redundant explain the source of profit any better the Quesnay model to which as Heilbroner notes it bears a family resemblance explains the origin of the produit net? rb
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
on 2002.02.23 05:20 PM, Rakesh Bhandari at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to Doug's (tongue-in-cheek?) comment Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Charles writes Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. Depends on what you think the transformation problem refers to. As I read Marx, the problem, as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is the general case). Issues have been raised with the logic of Marx's original demonstration, and interpretations of his value theory have been offered that get around these issues at the cost of raising others. But the real question, it seems to me, is whether anything at all that is critical to Marxist political economy hinges on this demonstration. And I agree with Doug's negative response to this question. Gil Does the Sraffa model which presumably makes Marx's demonstration redundant explain the source of profit any better the Quesnay model to which as Heilbroner notes it bears a family resemblance explains the origin of the produit net? rb MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is not necessity of socialism Rather, there is only possibility of socialism. Marx firstly expected revolution when economic panic happened, but later In Capital, Marx depended upon growing social movements themselves. BELOW is From Capital Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. For, depending on the development of labour productivity, surplus-labour may be large in a small total working-day, and relatively small in a large total working-day. If the necessary labour-time=3 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=6 and the rate of surplus-labour=100%. If the necessary labour=9 and the surplus-labour=3, then the total working-day=12 and the rate of surplus-labour only=33 1/3 %. In that case, it depends upon the labour productivity how much use-value shall be produced in a definite time, hence also in a definite surplus labour-time. The actual wealth of society, and the possibility of constantly expanding its reproduction process, therefore, do not depend upon the duration of surplus-labour, but upon its productivity and the more or less copious conditions of production under which it is performed. In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Miyachi wrote: Most important is that Marx tried firstly to prove ability of working class to destroy civil society, not tried to explain economical phenomena from without. In Japan, from pre-war to 1960', Marxists focused mainly market analysis modeled after Stalin's dogma. Its objectivist tendency was destroyed by new left movement. Dear Miyachi, Please excuse my ignorance but I don't know much about the new left movement in Japan. Would you give us some information about it? It is good to know that there are many around the world who are trying to make socialism a possibility. Best regards, Sabri
Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar
Sabri Oncu wrote, Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian My dear Ian, This problem is not that difficult. I solved it when I was 14. I realized that there was no difference between believing in the existence or non-existence of God. Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker
n the necessity of socialism and grammar
G'day Tom'n'Sabri, Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. I know where you're coming from, Tom, or at least I know there's a big unutterable there somewhere that we all come from and dwell in (I have only recently allowed myself to let the prepositions hang; wow, it's like peeing outadoors!). To avoid confusion, though, I'd not call it God - admit rather, and often, that whereof we cannot speak we must pass over in silence. Apropos of which, I append this, a favourite (necessarily longish) quote, by Pommie composer Anthony Powers (which can be had in full at http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,6000,563387,00.html : I came back to the Tractatus after reading Ray Monk's life of Wittgenstein and Bryan Magee's Confessions of a Philosopher, says Powers. What became clear to me was how misinterpreted the Tractatus had been by mid-20th- century linguistic philosophers, and how what it was really about was the importance of recognising non- linguistic reality. The logical positivists and linguistic analysts thought everything could be said if it was said in the right kind of controlled and logical way. But the Tractatus is saying almost the opposite - that there are so many dimensions of life and experience that are beyond the capability of language to explain or even adequately express. The famous last sentence of the Tractatus - What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence - is, according to Powers, meant as an injunction to philosophers to put up or shut up, and certainly not as a discouragement to musicians. According to Wittgenstein, there are huge things - the whole areas of moral and religious philosophy and aesthetics - that cannot be 'said' but can be 'shown', says Powers. The honest thing philosophically is to be silent about those things. What I'm trying to do is to show in the piece that music is a way of reaching into that silence. Cheers, Rob.
On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism by Doug Henwood 22 February 2002 05:30 UTC Sabri Oncu wrote: P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Doug Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. (Sorry to be serious on a joke thread )
Re: n the necessity of socialism and grammar
Rob wrote, To avoid confusion, though, I'd not call it God -snip- The famous last sentence of the Tractatus - What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence This suggests to me that as much as I sympathize with the aim of avoiding confusion, confusion cannot be avoided. That too is inherent in the limitation of language. Tower of Babel and all that. Tom Walker
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar
- Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker = Have you let Jerry Falwell in on this? The Pope, being a fan of Husserl and Heidegger might get it, but Jerry needs your help. http://www.falwell.com/ :- Ian
RE: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? the transformation of capitalism into socialism? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? I have a most marvellous solution to this one, but it will not quite fit into this margin ... dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
In the spirit of Sabri Oncu's cheerleading the one I like best is Go Reds, beat State. Gene Coyle Ian Murray wrote: - Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go Marxian economists, Go! === Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian
Re: On the necessity of socialism
In response to Doug's (tongue-in-cheek?) comment Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Charles writes Charles: Isn't it worse than that ? Marx asserts as principle the insolubility of the transformation problem. The unsystematic relationship between value and prices is symptomatic of the basic anarchy of capitalist production. If the problem were solved , Marx would be refuted. Depends on what you think the transformation problem refers to. As I read Marx, the problem, as he posed it in Chapter 9 of Volume III, lies in showing that aggregate prices equal aggregate values and aggregate surplus value equals aggregate profits even if commodities exchange at prices of production which are disproportional to their values (which is the general case). Issues have been raised with the logic of Marx's original demonstration, and interpretations of his value theory have been offered that get around these issues at the cost of raising others. But the real question, it seems to me, is whether anything at all that is critical to Marxist political economy hinges on this demonstration. And I agree with Doug's negative response to this question. Gil
Re: On the necessity of socialism
In a message dated 2/20/2002 2:37:31 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the necessity of socialism Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002 During the CPUSA's pre-convention period about a year ago, we had a rather lively discussion of socialism in the party and in our publications, and there was a convention panel on socialism. But the discussion never reached beyond our circles, partly because of its nature. It largely pivoted on whether Bill of Rights socialism was an appropriate concept and term. Most of us had opinions about this, but it wasn't a discussion that would interest wider circles of people, certainly not one that would attract them to socialism. Most would think that we were splitting hairs. Since then we have not broached the subject in any meaningful way. Where it does appear in our discussion and literature, it is by and large an addendum, tacked on at the end in way that would not convince anybody of the wisdom of our socialist objective. We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that category. I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to life in all of its forms and to our planet. Nuclear annihilation is one possibility that we mistakenly thought fell off the radar screen with the end of the Cold War. An ecological crisis of planetary dimensions lurks somewhere in this century unless something changes. Hunger, unemployment and pandemic diseases are now cutting wide swaths across the globe. A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices. And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century. Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an about-face. Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature. If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system. We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a future at all. This isn't the only way that we should popularize the idea of socialism. We also have to make a convincing case that socialism creates the objective and subjective conditions for an equitable, sustainable, and non-exploitative economy, full racial and gender equality, and a robust working class and people's democracy. Nevertheless, it is a powerful and necessary argument at this juncture of history. Every species has an instinct to survive and humankind is no exception. We should find ways, beginning with our own publications and forums, to make socialism a household word in our country and invest it with a new urgency, a new necessity. Clearly, socialism is not on labor's and the people's action agenda either now or in the near term. No one should think that at their next union meeting, they should offer a resolution to establish socialism by the end of the decade in order to insure the survival of humanity and nature! Our main emphasis now and for the foreseeable future is on the immediate struggles of the working class and people against the right danger. That was the direction that we set at our convention last summer and it is all the more imperative now. On and off I have followed the politics of the CPUSA a little over thirty years; met some wonderful members of their party and engaged in common work; used to live at their old bookstore off Wayne Campus and later relocated to Highland Park and had assembled 85% of their Theoretical Journal "Political Affairs" from the early or mid 1930s to 1963 or 64. I am alw
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century. Sam Webb Communism and history. Everyone familiar with the methodology of Marx that allowed him to formulate the thesis concerning the science of society traveled an individual path to arrive at his or her particular point of view. Most people I have met in life interested in and supportive of the writing of Marx expressed a deep compassion for the plight of their fellow human being and utilize the method of Marx to make sense of what appeared to be a chaotic world - at least for me. Our home was always agitated with lively debate about politics and race and much of this had to do with dad having hand built a stereo system - vacuum tubes and all, in the late 1950s and early 60s and had made a decision to get into the skilled trades as an electrician at the Ford Motor Company. Father had fought in the Philippines - one moment on the side of the "Huks" (the communist) and with a change in government policy, against the "Huks," and in the post Second Imperialist War atmosphere of America, grasped the logic of the reform movement opened on the basis of restructuring industrial relations and promoting Civil Rights. Our residency was the Jefferies Project in Detroit, one of the first major government sponsored housing projects in America, dedicated at its opening by Eleanor Roosevelt and a testimony to the efforts of the Roosevelt Coalition to stabilize class relations in America. American capital was poised to dominate the world through the rebuilding of Europe, the reformulation of monetary policy by way of the Bretton Wood Agreement and the dismantling of the colonial world structure that inhibited the flow of capital. The need to reformulate the social contract between owners of property and broad section of the laboring class was the necessary ingredient to stabilize the productive forces and allow the US to assume world leadership in opposition to Soviet Power. It was if the workingman had found a friend in Roosevelt. Well, much water has passed under the bridge and one can assess the waves of change in retrospect. Roosevelt and Hitler came to power at roughly the same time and it became apparent to "our" imperialism that Hitler's crusade against Bolshevism entailed colonialization of Eastern Europe. Wall Street had profound feeling about this matter, in as much as the areas coal fields, budding oil field and municipal bonds - and other investments, was owned by some of Wall Street and Roosevelt was the representative of financial capital - Wall Street. Back then the Democrats were the reactionary party of the Solid South and had no mass base North or South. The A f of L was securely tied to the Republicans. The mass vote of Roosevelt in 1932 was a repudiation of the starvation policy of Hoover and the depression. Roosevelt had to construct a mass base for the Democratic Party, stop Hitler re- division of the world and Wall Streets money as a basis to pull the economy out of crisis or experience World War 1 on a higher level. Without question the communist and revolutionary forces in America were desperately mobilizing the masses in the fight for food, shelter and clothing - and the communist fought extremely hard and were making headway and the masses were responding. The victories of social security, unemployment compensation, social welfare, the youth act, old age pensions, etc. were the compromise Wall Street Democrats were prepared to make to build a mass base, stave off the reemergence of crisis, defeat Hitler and push the quantitative boundary of the system. It appeared to the communist that the mass movement forced Roosevelt into its camp. The CIO (Committee of Industrial Organization) could not have been built the way it was unless a strong section of capital and the administration agreed with such building. By the time Earl Browder - then head of the CPUSA, had his famous dinner with Roosevelt the communist felt they had a secret ally in Roosevelt or he had been won over to their position. Unfortunately, Roosevelt died and proved the Shakespeare wasn't totally correct. Here the good of the man lived after his death and the evil was interned with his bones. To this day a section of our comrades cling to the most subjective and personalized view of history, as if the death of Roosevelt meant the death of the Roosevelt Coalition and all that is need is another Roosevelt to overpower the "ultra-right." The Roosevelt Coalition served its purpose and politics transformed on the basis of the completion of the quantitative expansion of the industrial infrastructure. This of course meant completing the mechanization of agriculture and consolidating
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar
I thought Time played that role in the Timeworks philosophy. By the way God is a noun-- sharing this grammatical feature with Time But perhaps this is part of your humor or animal spirits. I dont know. Where is the commandment laid down that a noun must have a definite or indefinite article accompanying it? I assume you mean to be goofy. While it is ungrammatical to put a definite article with a pronoun even if before the pronoun rather than after it as you do, but on the contrary it is not ungrammatical to place definite articles before abstract nouns such as truth goodness, virtue etc even though they can stand on their own without articles. So what on earth is ungrammatical about putting a or the before God. A he is usually male by the way... Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 8:24 AM Subject: [PEN-L:23057] Re: On the necessity of socialism and grammar Sabri Oncu wrote, Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian My dear Ian, This problem is not that difficult. I solved it when I was 14. I realized that there was no difference between believing in the existence or non-existence of God. Sabri has framed the issue correctly. Both are beliefs. For the same reason as Sabri, I believe in God but not in a God or gods. The distinction is crucial. There IS a difference between believing in God and believing in a God or the God. God is a unique part of speech that cannot be a noun. The article makes God into a noun, which is grammatically absurd. It is like saying, in English, I the go to store or She a eat apple. It is clearly, obviously ungrammatical. God is also not a verb, an adjective, an adverb, a preposition or any other common part of speech. In fact, one might say that the linguistic function of God is precisely to stand as other to all the common parts of speech and thus to remind us of the incompleteness, the inadequacy of any conceivable utterance. God is the unique grammatical term for the ultimate unutterableness of being. Tom Walker
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism 2
A New Era - A New Doctrine II The teaching of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is all-powerful because it is true. Marx was a genius because he was able before anyone else to abstract from all the writings of history the law system that governed changes in society. Using the law system he discovered, Marx shifted through a mass of data concerning the fact of economic and social development and elaborated the conclusion into the doctrine of the class struggle. People always were and always will be the victims of deceit and self-deceit in politics, as long as they have not learned to discover the interests of one or another of the classes behind any moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises. Virtually every adult in America understands that we are living in an era of revolution and the revolution is in the economy as expressed in the technology and revolutionizing of all kinds of social products and services. What everyone in society recognizes as revolutionary is a qualitatively new technology that alters all social relationships. The way we communicate with one another is changed forever and continues to change; the way we pay our bills, shop, secure information, go to the movies and purchase tickets, drive our vehicles, cash weekly checks or deposit it into banking accounts, secure education, interact with television, play recording devices and listen to music - everything is being revolutionized and people already know this. The revolution has entered a stage where people begin to fight out the social question posed by the economy revolution. This developing fight to formulate what is wrong in society cannot mature without a cause, a morality and a vision. During the last reform movement within capital, the Civil Rights Movement, there was a cause, a morality and a vision. The vision of a genuine system of justice and equality for all was the cause that excited deep passion throughout every sector of society because it conformed to a general morality that say it is honorable to be fair. One hundred years before the Civil Rights movement the struggle to preserve the Union birthed the cause of ending human slavery. That cause became the foundation of a vision of a new world of human freedom. One Hundred years earlier the cause of national independence - self-determination, united the scattered and contradictory forces around a program of Independence and ushered in 1776. It is the striving of our diverse peoples for a higher vision that demands formulating the righteous cause that can inspire them to unbelievable heights. Lurking beneath the morality of fairness is always class interest, however the vision that inspired was the striving for a better and just world. The cause today is slowly emerging into view - the distribution of the wealth of society according to need. The vision is of a world without human suffering based on want, without race and national hatred, without sexual oppression and human exploitation, a world where an ever expanding technology delivers fuller lives for all, materially, culturally and spiritually in a safe and healthy environment. The historical record clearly proves that it was Marx to first formulate the vision of the new world and this was not a vision called socialism but from each according to his ability, to each according to their need. Trying to take socialism to the working class is useless for several reasons. One important reason is that the process of the decay of capital does not take place on the basis of a general collapse of the system where everything stops working at one time but rather on the basis of the polarization of society into two hostile camps; wealth and poverty. This polarization splits the working class into two hostile camps. One camp is absolutely dependent upon imperialism for its privilege position relative to the other sector of the class. The other sector of the working class faces the razor edge of capital with its standard of living slowly sinking lower and lower, while its rank slowly but consistently grows larger. This process is underway in all countries on earth and in this sense is historic and develops with its own uniqueness in every country. The more stable section of the working class has no interest in socialism, but rather the stability of employment and preservation of its relatively high wages - compared to the bottom. This desire does not prevent large sections of skilled and white-collar workers from being pushed into the lower sectors of the working class. The lower and most destitute sector of the working class has no interest in socialism because it is driven on the basis of its needs - I need this, that and the other. Then of course the banner of socialism was a banner in a historical period of time that no longer exists. Socialism has already defined itself on earth and before the collapse of Soviet
On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20/02 07:38PM At 20/02/02 15:19 -0500, Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002 There is much that is correct in this article. I appreciate periodically being able to read position statments from the CPUSA even though few still assume just one organisation could alone have a revolutionary strategy. I hope it does not sound like nit-picking therefore to express some reservations, but rather a way of taking the issues seriously. It is hard outside a country, and a specific environment, to judge the relevance of a political stance. But this article seems more like a commentary around a theme rather than a strategic attempt to address the question of how to integrate a struggle for socialism with current political and economic issues. ^^^ Charles: Thanks Chris. Actually, wouldn't a commentary around a theme rather than a strategic attempt be more appropriate for an organization that was NOT acting as if it was the one organization that could have a revolutionary strategy ? In other words, your second comment seems to contradict your first. If you don't want the CPUSA to act like it is the one revolutionary organization , then don't expect it to put out strategic attempts. Webb's modesty seems to fit exactly what you prescribe. ^^ We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that category. I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to life in all of its forms and to our planet. Even though it is true that Sept 11 did present a perilous moment, and there is a US nation, it sounds populist to my puritanical ears, to refer to a 'perilous moment which our nation and the world are passing through'. CharlesB: I'm not clear on what your criticism of populism is, but again , your puritancal ears seem to be exactly holding the CPUSA up to an old one true organization standard , which on the other hand, you seem to discourage it from taking. Surely if he had met your puritanical standard, he would be criticized for dogmatic, wornout rhetoric. I think you have to make up your mind which way you want him to go. ^^^ My perspective is that the USA has been challenged to flex its muscles and is ready to do so to a remarkable degree. It continues to treat allies, even, with disrepect, let alone weaker or more independent countries. Indeed I suspect that the contradictions on a global level have to unfold through this process of greater massive assertion of US military might, with other forces eroding and undermining the smug and shallow basis on which the USA claims hegemony. Just one fifth the daily number of children who die prematurely in the world through massive inequality, died in the implosion of the hubristically named World Trade Centre. Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an about-face. Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature. If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system. We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a future at all. I agree with that, but the limitations of perspective from being sited at the heart of the world's hegemonic power I think may be apparent. ^^ CharlesB; Isn't it American communists job to focus criticism on U.S. imperialism ? I don't think it is an accurate inference to conclude that Sam doesn't recognize some of what you note about the development of Europe. On the other hand, U.S. militarism could result in the blowing up Europe too, if the U.S. starts a world war. ^^ If socialism is social production guided by social foresight, Europe is far down the road of socialism. It is deeply offended and alarmed by the US attitude to Kyoto. In essence that is half the battle for socialism. What Europe does not have is specifically
Re: On the necessity of socialism
Friends, I have been away from the net for a while and now that I am back I see that in my absence you had sucessfully resolved many of the important issues, including the issue of politeness (Oh Boy! Am I glad or what?), and see that we are sailing through the very important issue of the necessity of socialism. Let us see what kind of fights will emerge from this topic. I am sure you will not disappoint me. Go Marxian economists, Go! It is good to be back and I look forward to watching more fights. Sabri P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem?
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
- Original Message - From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go Marxian economists, Go! It is good to be back and I look forward to watching more fights. Sabri P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? === Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Sabri Oncu wrote: P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Doug
Re: Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Sabri Oncu wrote: P.S: Any forecasts on when we will be able to solve this transformation problem? Never. It was a ruse devised by the bourgeoisie to occupy the attention of otherwise smart and knowledgeable Marxian economists on something addictively divisive but politically irrelevant. Doug For the neo Ricardians, the transformation problem is only one of the liabilities of Marx's theory of value, though as I indicated in a previous post, drawing from Geoffrey Pilling's very stimulating Marx's Capital, Marx's own transformation is a theory of class contradiction raised to the level of society as a whole. For the neo Ricardians, there are also questions of redundancy and derivativeness and the possibility of negative values. If Frank Roosevelt's Cambridge Economics as Commodity Fetishism is in fact correct (in Jesse Schwartz, ed. The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism--has anyone read the disseration on which this was based?) there are clear political implications. Marx's value theory clarifies the struggle for the self emancipation of the working class from alienated labor while the neo Ricardian theory defends the interest of functioning capitalists, as well as fetishisizes science and technology, against rentiers. Roosevelt argues that it was not accidental that Joan Robinson became a champion of Maoist party leaders and factory managers, not the workers themselves whether they be in the West or the East, the North or the South. I suppose from this reading it would not be accidental that the neo Ricardian theory was embraced by former Stalinists such as Meek and Dobb, either. If this kind of sociology of knowledge has any weight, then one would expect say for it to be defended by those close to those Brahmin controlled CP's in India. Roosevelt's argument has been overlooked, I believe, because it is not a piece of technicist economics but in essence a philosophy of labor. And so little is written which makes a contribution to the philosophy of labor. One thinks of Raya Dunayevskaya (a lot can be learned from her), Lawrence Krader, Enrique Dussel, Istvan Meszaros, Chris Arthur. But there are libraries on dialectics, structural causality, totality, the theory of history and other weighty topics. Marxism seems in fact to have become the last refuge of the bourgeoisie. But there are criticisms to be made. Roosevelt compares the idea of the surplus as physical surplus, as a quantity of mere things to the concept of surplus as surplus *value* which indicates an exploitative social relation in the production process itself. But the surplus does in fact have to be analyzed in terms of use value and value, physical quantity and social labor time ; for while a smaller quantity of the physical surplus could have the same value as a greater quantity, the effects on the accumulation process would be markedly different. For example, if there are more means of production in physical terms, then more labor and surplus labor and surplus value can be absorbed in the following period. I think the value theorists such as Roosevelt are often too anti physicalist in their criticisms of neo Ricardian theories (I submitted this criticism of Kliman and Freeman). Marx's strength was that he analyzed the accumulation process in terms of value and use value. The quantity of the surplus in terms of physical goods matters as much as the quantity of the surplus as value (again Grossmann was the first to emphasize this). Marx's transformation tables are in fact not good at all in capturing the former side; and in this sense the simple neo Ricardian physical input-output matrices do seem to have an advantage over the Marxist value based transformation examples. And I say this despite my great sympathy for the criticisms made by Lebowitz, Roosevelt, Shaikh and Mattick Sr of neo Ricardian theory. Rakesh
Re: Re: On the necessity of socialism
Um, as soon as we can figure out whether God does or does not exist... Ian My dear Ian, This problem is not that difficult. I solved it when I was 14. I realized that there was no difference between believing in the existence or non-existence of God. Both were believes, and for no obvious reason, I chose to believe in the non-existence of God. At the age of 31, when I was doing my compulsory military service, which was a joke because I paid $2,500 to do it for only a month and somehow I managed to avoid touching any of the guns they had, I asked this to the religious fundamentalists who were serving with me: Believing is stopping questioning, taking it for granted. I take it for granted that God does not exists and you take it for granted that He does. What is the difference? They were really confused and said things like how can such a nice guy like you would say things like that? By the way, that I was a nice guy was their idea, not mine. Best, Sabri
On the necessity of socialism
On the necessity of socialism Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002 During the CPUSA's pre-convention period about a year ago, we had a rather lively discussion of socialism in the party and in our publications, and there was a convention panel on socialism. But the discussion never reached beyond our circles, partly because of its nature. It largely pivoted on whether Bill of Rights socialism was an appropriate concept and term. Most of us had opinions about this, but it wasn't a discussion that would interest wider circles of people, certainly not one that would attract them to socialism. Most would think that we were splitting hairs. Since then we have not broached the subject in any meaningful way. Where it does appear in our discussion and literature, it is by and large an addendum, tacked on at the end in way that would not convince anybody of the wisdom of our socialist objective. We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that category. I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to life in all of its forms and to our planet. Nuclear annihilation is one possibility that we mistakenly thought fell off the radar screen with the end of the Cold War. An ecological crisis of planetary dimensions lurks somewhere in this century unless something changes. Hunger, unemployment and pandemic diseases are now cutting wide swaths across the globe. A century ago, even 50 years ago, the working class and its allies faced huge challenges. Capitalism at that time was brutal, raw and violent and as a consequence it gave rise to a powerful movement against its injustices. And yet as brutal, raw and violent as it was, it didn't threaten the very future of humankind and the planet. Rosa Luxembourg said that the choices facing humanity at that time were either socialism or barbarism, but even the brilliant Rosa did not anticipate the new dangers that are in store for humankind as it begins the 21st century. Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an about-face. Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature. If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system. We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a future at all. This isn't the only way that we should popularize the idea of socialism. We also have to make a convincing case that socialism creates the objective and subjective conditions for an equitable, sustainable, and non-exploitative economy, full racial and gender equality, and a robust working class and people's democracy. Nevertheless, it is a powerful and necessary argument at this juncture of history. Every species has an instinct to survive and humankind is no exception. We should find ways, beginning with our own publications and forums, to make socialism a household word in our country and invest it with a new urgency, a new necessity. Clearly, socialism is not on labor's and the people's action agenda either now or in the near term. No one should think that at their next union meeting, they should offer a resolution to establish socialism by the end of the decade in order to insure the survival of humanity and nature! Our main emphasis now and for the foreseeable future is on the immediate struggles of the working class and people against the right danger. That was the direction that we set at our convention last summer and it is all the more imperative now.
Re: On the necessity of socialism
At 20/02/02 15:19 -0500, On the necessity of socialism Author: Sam Webb, national chairman, Communist Party USA People's Weekly World Newspaper, Feb 16, 2002 There is much that is correct in this article. I appreciate periodically being able to read position statments from the CPUSA even though few still assume just one organisation could alone have a revolutionary strategy. I hope it does not sound like nit-picking therefore to express some reservations, but rather a way of taking the issues seriously. It is hard outside a country, and a specific environment, to judge the relevance of a political stance. But this article seems more like a commentary around a theme rather than a strategic attempt to address the question of how to integrate a struggle for socialism with current political and economic issues. We are doing very little to make socialism compelling and intriguing to non-socialists. And we know there are plenty of people who fit into that category. I don't know exactly how we can change that, but this perilous moment through which our nation and world are passing has forced me to think that we should take a fresh look at this question. What has occurred in the aftermath of Sept. 11 has brought home to me that capitalism at its present stage of development is capable of doing irreversible damage to life in all of its forms and to our planet. Even though it is true that Sept 11 did present a perilous moment, and there is a US nation, it sounds populist to my puritanical ears, to refer to a 'perilous moment which our nation and the world are passing through'. My perspective is that the USA has been challenged to flex its muscles and is ready to do so to a remarkable degree. It continues to treat allies, even, with disrepect, let alone weaker or more independent countries. Indeed I suspect that the contradictions on a global level have to unfold through this process of greater massive assertion of US military might, with other forces eroding and undermining the smug and shallow basis on which the USA claims hegemony. Just one fifth the daily number of children who die prematurely in the world through massive inequality, died in the implosion of the hubristically named World Trade Centre. Some people think that capitalism's technological wizardry and adaptability will pull us back from the brink of social calamity. The captains of industry and finance and their lieutenants in the corridors of political power will see the destructiveness of their ways and do an about-face. Don't count on it. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the system of capitalism is rent with more powerful destructive tendencies than we appreciate, indeed so powerful and so structured into the system that they jeopardize the reproduction of people and nature. If this is so, we have to make the case, not so much that socialism is inevitable, but rather that it is necessary, that it is a historical imperative in light of the destructive tendencies of the present system. We have to say not only that it offers a better future for humanity, but also that it is a necessary condition for humanity and nature to have a future at all. I agree with that, but the limitations of perspective from being sited at the heart of the world's hegemonic power I think may be apparent. If socialism is social production guided by social foresight, Europe is far down the road of socialism. It is deeply offended and alarmed by the US attitude to Kyoto. In essence that is half the battle for socialism. What Europe does not have is specifically a class focus of in whose interests should there be social foresight. But the remarkable gaps that are opening up between the US and Europe (today Solana is pleading for Europe not to be too anti-American - at least in public!) will lead Europe to consider a number of pragmatic and unprincipled alliances which will nevertheless lean towards more radically democratic global solutions than the USA can. This isn't the only way that we should popularize the idea of socialism. We also have to make a convincing case that socialism creates the objective and subjective conditions for an equitable, sustainable, and non-exploitative economy, full racial and gender equality, and a robust working class and people's democracy. Yes, whatever weaknesses of the old communist parties they have been better at understanding how the struggle for a radical application of democratic rights, is intimately bound up with the struggle for socialism, and should not be counterposed. Nevertheless, it is a powerful and necessary argument at this juncture of history. Every species has an instinct to survive and humankind is no exception. We should find ways, beginning with our own publications and forums, to make socialism a household word in our country and invest it with a new urgency, a new necessity. Clearly, socialism is not on labor's
