Breaking the taboo against serious thought (reply to Macdonald)

["Ben Seattle" <Left-Transparency@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gunnar Kreku -- June 1:
> I have thought a long time that socialists should be much
> clearer about how the socialist society would look like.
> With what kind of institutions can the working people govern
> themselves? And how can the market system be replaced by
> planning? Most socialist organisations today have too
> general answers to questions like these. They concentrate on
> criticizing capitalism and say that it is impossible to make
> a blueprint of the coming socialism. And they add that Marx
> did not say much on the subject. But after what happened in
> USSR, China, etc., I think it is necessary for all
> socialists to have a lot to say about what kind of socialism
> they want.

Macdonald replies -- June 1:
> While it is a good idea to do this, both to keep inspired
> for the better world shall I say, as well as to produce the
> kind of vision we can attract people to our cause with, I am
> a little skeptical of producing visions for the future in
> blueprint form. My reasons have nothing to do with the fact
> that Marx did no such thing, but I reckon it has a lot to do
> with the fact that there wasn't really much he *could*
> write.
>
> As scientific analysis, it is important not to produce
> fanciful visions of socialism, like certain Cliffite
> organisations, but rather what what kind of socialism we
> will *need*; i.e. we should take the geo-political realities
> of the day as our starting point, and see what kind of
> breakthroughs we could make on that basis. In other words,
> if we are talking about Colombia today, is it really
> possible to envision a fully democratic open society based
> on the best principles of socialist organising? Or would it
> be sufficient (my view) to move in that direction (through
> land reform and an independant government structure), while
> taking the harsh realities of the inevitable counter attack
> from Imperialism into account? Can any vision of socialism
> that is divorced from our current weakness in the world have
> more than inspirational value? Is not the victory of
> Hezbollah recently more important towards the vision of a
> better world than all pamphlets put together?

Hi Macdonald,

I have been waiting to see if I get a reply from José to my
recent post [1].  In the meantime I have read your post several
times in order to better understand your thinking.  I believe
that you somewhat misunderstand Gunnar.  Gunnar refers to what
happened in the USSR and China--where successful revolutions led
to the rule of a single party which (a) suppressed all
oppositional political life and (b) eventually proved unable to
organize the economy and raise the productivity of labor without
resorting to the wholesale importation of capitalism and
capitalist methods.  Ordinary people are skeptical that any
alternative to capitalism can better organize production and
provide for the democratic rights essential for a modern, healthy
society.  Gunnar knows this, most likely, because he talks to
people about socialism and (unlike many of us) he listens to the
people to whom he talks.

The ordinary people who are skeptical about an alternative to
capitalism deserve some kind of intelligent response--some reply
to the standard bourgeois line that all attempts to do better
than capitalism must inevitably degenerate into a police state
with a low productivity of labor.  Gunnar says (above) that he
has talked to socialist organizations who offer only meaningless
platitudes with the excuse that blueprints are impossible.  But
note: Gunnar is not asking for *blueprints*.  Gunnar is asking
for a *refutation* of the bourgeois line that a better
alternative to capitalism is not possible.

------------------------
Blueprints vs. principles
------------------------

A demand for a "blueprint" of a future society run by
workers--would be absurd.  However no one is asking for that.
What I believe that Gunnar is getting at--is that we need to be
able to understand the _principles_ that would guide the
organization and development of a modern society run by the
working class.  I think that most of use can understand the
distinction between a blueprint and principles.

The "blueprint" issue represents an _evasion_ by the various
"socialist" organizations who are unable to deal with
_principles_.  I provided an example of one such principle in my
recent exchange with José.  I asserted that a central principle
that would guide the development of a modern society run by the
working class--would be the necessity of a large number of
independent organizations--that workers would have the right to
create organizations, promote their own views, struggle to
mobilize public opinion, and openly oppose (as they saw fit) any
and all people and policies of their own government.

Many people believe that I am mistaken to assert that myriad
independent organizations would be necessary in a modern society
run by workers.  Most who oppose the principle of independent
organizations, however, have learned the futility of opposing
this principle openly.  I have discussed this principle on
numerous marxism-related forums and my opponents have learned
that this principle (ie: of independent organizations and
democratic rights in a modern workers' state) cannot be
intelligently opposed.  So what happens instead are various
methods of opposing this principle that are less than
straightforward.

-----------
The taboo
-----------

I do not want to imply that the people who oppose this principle
are dishonest.  This is not always true and in any event would be
misunderstood.  What I assert is that there is a massive sense of
_denial_ that saturates all discussion and even thought about
this subject.  There exists a powerful _taboo_ against talking
about (or thinking about) a modern society run by workers.

This is why I believe it is unhelpful to dismiss discussion of
the principles that will guide modern workers' rule--with phrases
like "blueprints" and "fanciful visions".  Often such phrases are
nothing more than another way of saying that workers' rule in a
modern country like the US is a fanciful vision--a concept too
impractical to waste time talking about or even thinking about.

-----------------------------
We have to start somewhere
-----------------------------

We need to encourage discussion of how politics and economics
would function both in (a) an eventual classless society and (b)
in the transitional society that was run by the working class.
The poverty of our thinking concerning a society that would be
genuinely deserving of being called "socialist" or "communist" --
is extreme.  Therefore even efforts that are deeply flawed may be
worthy of examination and discussion of strengths and weaknesses.

I do not know, Macdonald, to what efforts of Cliffite
organisations you refer.  If they have done any theoretical work
in either areas (a) or (b) above a summary and references would
be useful.  Science begins with necessity.  If our efforts today
are not worthy of being considered scientific analysis they may
nonetheless be useful and may pave the way for more advanced work
in the future.

The Cockshott-Cottrell book [2] that Gunnar mentions is, in my
view, somewhat slanted in a blueprinty direction.  I consider
this unfortunate.  I looked at it when it came out.  It contains
various ideas for how production could be organized with various
kinds of planning boards (if my memory is accurate) that would
use iterative processes (ie: "we produced too little in the last
cycle--so let's make more now") to eliminate the need for either
a market economy or a centralized apparatus that would decide how
many left-handed screws would be needed for the entire economy.
Many of the ideas may eventually prove quite useful although my
own view is that this will only be determined in practice.  My
own view is that the organization of the economy will involve a
fair amount of experimentation to see what works and what does
not.  And there will be a fair amount of competition to determine
what methods of organization best unleash the initiative of
workers and raise the productivity of labor.  But the
Cockshott-Cottrell book contains very little (at least that I
recall) about either competition between producing units (another
taboo subject) or about any kind of real struggle at all.  I
suspect this is due to the ideology of the authors and the
social-democratic millieu which surrounds them.  There is a very
different spirit in my efforts at scientific speculation
concerning the economic and political organization of a classless
society [3].

---------------------------------------
Geo-political realities, breakthroughs,
solidarity with the struggle in Colombia
and our current weakness in the world
---------------------------------------

What kind of socialism do we need?  We need socialism that is
really socialism--not something else that we call socialism
because we mistakenly believe that it is somehow to our advantage
to do so.  If the struggle of the Colombian people results in a
popular revolutionary government--why not call it a "popular
revolutionary government" instead of degrading scientific theory?
Taking account of the harsh realities of the inevitable
counter-attack from imperialism requires us to be serious about
solidarity with the Colombian people.  But what does it mean to
be serious?

During the later stages of the war of US imperialism against the
Vietnamese people hearings were held in the US Senate.  In these
hearing the Democrats accused the Republicans of creating a
revolutionary crisis in the US.  By prolonging the war, the
Democracts charged, the Republicans were radicalizing a
generation of youth.  There is a class truth here.  If we want to
assist the Colombian people in the fight against our common enemy
we must be serious about mobilizing the workers and oppressed
here, in North America, against the political and economic system
of imperialism.  And the ideological core of the fight against
this economic and political system is the recognition of the
necessity that it be overthrown.  But any talk of getting rid of
this system is nothing but hot air if we cannot present an
_alternative_ to it that is better--that can raise the
productivity of labor and protect the democratic rights of
workers that are essential for a healthy modern society.

All real "breakthroughs" involve a period of preparation and the
mobilization of energy and resources.  I have seen this called
the Law of the Harvest.  If we want the crop to grow we must be
prepared to plant the seeds.  We make sure that the growing
shoots get water and sunlight.  We get rid of the weeds.  We
recognize that everything worthwhile requires consistent effort
over time.  And with time--we reap the harvest.

If we want to see a mass revolutionary movement grow here in the
soil of North America we must be prepared to plant the seeds.  We
must be prepared to tell people that there is an alternative to
the present system.  And if we understand damn little about what
this alternative would look like--then we must set to work
understanding it better.  We begin by talking about it and making
an effort to appreciate what each can contribute to this common
project.  You ask:

     "Can any vision of socialism that is divorced
     from our current weakness in the world have
     more than inspirational value?"

If we are going to overcome our existence as isolated atoms and
work together for a common goal--then, yes, we will need to talk
about this common goal.  We must break the taboo.  We can't
storm heaven if we have no idea of what it means to storm heaven.
Our common goal will not only inspire us--but will play a
profoundly practical role in allowing us to effectively
coordinate our day-to-day activity.  Rather than ask about a
vision of socialism founded on weakness we should ask ourselves a
better question:

     How can we overcome our weakness in the world
     except by a vision of socialism that is not divorced
     from the needs and aspirations of the people who
     will build it?


Sincerely and with revolutionary regards,

Ben Seattle
----//-// 13.Jul.2000
www.Leninism.org

     ========================================================
     Read "Notes of an Information Theorist"
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Watch Ben apply the tactics of "information war"
     (characterized by intelligent listening and calm,
     scientific argument) to help transform the marxism space
     into a powerful weapon against bourgeois rule.
     --------------------------------------------------------
     Archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/theorist/
     To subscribe: theorist-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
     ========================================================


Notes:
-------

---[1]---
"Workers' rule in modern conditions is unthinkable
without fundamental democratic rights" 5.Jul.2000
http://www.egroups.com/message/theorist/25

---[2]---
"Towards a New Socialism", P.Cockshott and A.Cottrell, 1993
http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

---[3]---
"The Self-Organizing Moneyless Economy", 1995
http://Leninism.org/some/