Re: Beyond Communism and Capitalism?

[Justin Schwartz <jschwart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis,

This "guilt by association" tactic is unworthy of you. It is simply an
attempt to avoid coming to grips with the arguments. I might just as
easily try to smear advocates of central planning by pointing out that
this is the position advocated by Stalin and Stalinists of all stripes.

In fact market socialism is a position compatible with a wide range of
views about class struggle, reformism, and revolution. My own perspective
is revolutionary, although I'm the first to admit that what that means is
a contexted matter. Still, as I have explained earlier on this list, I do
not think any form of socialism can come about without the working class
organizing and taking political power. I very much doubt, moreover, that
it can do so by parlaimentary or perhaps even legal means. I am far from
the only market socialist who thinks this. There are other in Solidarity,
for example, although again MS is a minority position in my group.

I disagree with Heilbroner and others about these issues. I do not know
his position on MS. I think that the Monthly Review crowd is close-mided
about discussing alternatives. (They won't publish my stuff either, you
will be happy to hear.)

Nonetheless, the arguments are out there and demand response. Let's make a
deal. Don't call me a lousy reformist social democrat and I won't call you
a sTalinist apologist for murder and dictatorship. Then we can get on to
enagement on the real issues.

--Justin

On Sat, 20 Jan 1996, Louis N Proyect wrote:

> Louis: I'm sorry, Justin, this is not simply a question of ad hominems. I
> view "market socialism" as a current within the left that has certain
> political aspects that is impossible for me to ignore:
>
> 1) When Jim Lawler appears at the Socialist Scholars Conference on a
> panel with Sidney Gluck who argues that the Chinese government,
> all appearances to the contrary, is steering the country toward
> communism, I see that politically. When the other panel member says that
> the Scandanavian countries represent "socialism" now and the possibility
> for "communism" down the road, I see that politically.
>
> 2) When the anticommunist Dissent magazine puts out a book called "Why
> Market Socialism" and the introduction is written by the left-liberal
> economist Robert Heilbroner, I see that politically.
>
> 3) When Monthly Review editor Harry Magdoff, who I count as one of the
> most consistent and important Marxist thinkers of the last 50 years or
> so, tells the editors of "Why Market Socialism" that their book is so
> far-removed from the political framework of MR that he wouldn't even
> consider having someone review it, I see that politically.
>
> 4) When David Laibman, editor of Science and Society, a journal I hold in
> the highest respect, receives a communication from our own Father Burns
> basically complaining that S&S gave market socialism short shrift, I see
> that politically.
>
> This is a contradiction you have to work out, not me. All of the evidence
> I see around me is that, for the most part, market socialism is an
> expression of social democracy. It is an economic model that is tied up
> with the collapse of the Soviet model. This model serves to prop up the
> argument that capitalism is a more or less permanent feature of our
> planet at this time in history.
>
> Sweden, the former Yugoslavia, or Bukharin's NEP become models, rather
> than Castro's Cuba. I will be proposing a cyberseminar on Cuba in the
> months to come, so we will have an opportunity to examine a society that
> abolished the market in a fairly sweeping manner and that followed a
> different trajectory entirely from the former Soviet Union. Having a
> concrete example might help to focus our discussion. More on this later.





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------