Jim Devine: > >First, many of the grass-roots supporters of the FSLN, not to mention the >middle-class cadre, had utopian dreams, which helped them mobilize. They >weren't just fighting against Somoza or the contras or the US, but for >something. Making these dreams more concrete can help with this. The >process of doing so ideally involves a national dialogue involving all of >the progressive forces rather than one amongst the elite. > Louis: Many thanks to Jim for the trenchant reply to my original post. Rather than going over it point by point, I plan to put together some of my thoughts on the general topic of utopianism in the next day or two. This will address many of his specific points. Meanwhile, there is one thing that the above paragraph states that I want to take issue with right away, because it can led to some confusion over what we mean by "models". Carlos Fonseca, the founder of the FSLN, did not have utopian dreams. He had a model of the good society in mind and this was Cuba. As a young student, he visited Cuba and was impressed with the great progress made there. With qualifications to the Cuban model based on the Nicaraguan reality, he attempted to achieve such a socialist society as the result of a victorious fight against Somoza. In the decades following 1917, the Russian revolution also served as such a model. When the facts of Stalin's brutal dictatorship became known to the general public, this model ceased to have the kind of attractive power it once had. In the 19th century the French revolution served as a model for bourgeois-democratic revolutionaries. Garibaldi, Charles Parnell and Bolivar sought to create republics with all of the main features of Jacobin France: separation of church and state, a parliament, breakup of the feudal estates, etc. What we are dealing with in the recent literature of the market socialists, Hahnel-Albert, Devine, Fotopoulos, etc. is an attempt to plan out socialist societies that are abstracted from the actual socialist projects of the 20th century that people created through political action. This is most clear in Hahnel-Albert's popularization of their theory contained in "Looking Forward", a tip of the hat to Edward Bellamy, a utopian socialist of the turn of the century. They reject all of the concrete experiences of the 20th century in post-capitalist societies as "hierarchical" and offer their own utopian vision as an alternative. You also get plenty of this in the collection of essays contained in "Why Market Socialism" put out by Dissent magazine. One is literally called "A Blueprint for Socialism". All of these essays share with Hahnel-Albert a complete rejection of the concrete experience of Russia, Cuba, China, etc. They present an alternative vision that has no counterpart in history. I am not opposed to utopian visions. A work like "Notes from Nowhere" by William Morris will remain a great inspiration for socialists for all time. What I am opposed to is the notion that the blueprints of Hahnel-Albert, Roemer et al, are in any way linked to the project of transforming capitalist society. The main reason they are misleading is that they are offered as *practical* solutions for the evils of capitalism. Obviously, they have the same expectations as the original utopians. If enough people read their literature, they will be swayed by the logic and moral rectitude of the plans and organize to make it reality. At least the original utopians took the trouble to set up little experimental communes that would add clout to their pet theory. Socialism does not issue out of the logic and morality contained in the tracts of left economists, however. It is a product of class struggle. I will have more to say on this probably tomorrow or the next day. Louis Proyect
