Re: Re: RE: Suppressed Voices: McReynolds and Nader(fwd)

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charlie Andrews' book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY ends with two very
interesting chapters on how a "Labor Republic" would be organized. His
utopia is very interesting because he is quite conscious of pro-capitalist
criticisms of his scheme. So far, it makes a lot of sense. BTW, following
his terminology, his scheme is neither market-socialist nor state-socialist.

At 08:03 PM 10/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
> At this point I was just going  to let the argument drop -- but have
> decided to pursue the mega-argument instead -- why we should spend a
> little time on speculating on the nature of a socialist society, on as
> old whiskers said "creating recipes for the cookshops of the future".
>
> To start with, when Marx made his classic arguments against Utopias the
> historical context was greatly different than today. Utopians held up
> their models as an alternative to class struggle. Build a small perfect
> commune, or a perfect city and the shining example would convert
> everybody to socialism -- no need for noisy demonstrations, or the hard
> dirty work of politcal organizing. Today model builders mostly see
> vision as a minor but important adjunct to class strugge.
>
> Why -- because the myth of TINA (There Is No Alternative) is far more
> widespread than it ever was in Marxes day. In the USA, if you ask most
> workers if socialism is possible -- that is can it get the bread baked
> and the shoes made, most people will say no, or not in the long run. Or
> they will say it is possible but only under a horrible dictatorship that
> tortures people and suppresses there freedom.
>
> This belief is especially strong amongst the intellectual castes,
> academics, journalists and such.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine