Re: Rorty on socialism

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     I don't know that I want to get into this one too
much, but I think that Rorty is a) out of date and
b) way overdoing it.  The first has to do with the
fact that shock therapy Thatcherite Kinkel in the
Czech Republic botched and corrupted the privatization
and really made a mess of things.  The Communist
government in CR was very oppressive, so few want
to return to it.  But free market capitalism is not looking
nearly as wonderful as it did in 1992.
       Also, many of these countries have experienced
extreme economic shocks.  Communists have been
reelected, although most now label themselves as something
else, like "Social Democrats" or "Democratic Socialists."
The "socialist" label is hardly as dead there as he claims.
       It remains a fact that the majority of the population was
better off economically in 1989 than it is today throughout
the region.  Much of the opposition to the ancien regime was
nationalist opposition to Russian domination.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Veeder <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: Rorty on socialism


>
>
>----------
>>From: "Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Rorty on socialism
>>Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2000, 8:13 am
>>
>
>>This may interest some on pkt
>>(and infuriate others).
>>Alan Isaac
>>
>>Richard Rorty, "For a more banal politics".
>>
><snip>
>>It is going to take a long period of readjustment for us Western leftist
>>intellectuals to comprehend that the word "socialism" has been drained of
>>force--as have been all the other words that drew their force from the
idea
>>that an alternative to capitalism was available.  Not only are we going to
>>have to stop using the term "capitalist economy" as if we knew what a
>>functioning non-capitalist economy looked like but we are going to have to
>>stop using the term "bourgeois cultures" as if we knew what a viable
>>non-bourgeois culture in an industrialized society would look like.
>
>
>As generalists, Marx and Plato were wrong
>but this does not mean Rorty is generally right.
>
>I agree with Rorty that the language of socialism
>has become an impediment to human progress even if the
>underlying sentiments have quietly changed for
>the better.
>
>I believe a "shepherd" economy is preferable
>to either a "laize-faire" or a "planned" economy.
>A shepherd provides feedback to guide the flock
>to greener pastures..
>
><snip>
>>What is so surprising and refreshing about Havel's tone, to my mind, is
that
>>he seems prepared to go all the way in replacing theoretical insight with
>>groundless hope and trial and error. As he says in the interviews
collected
>>as Disturbing the Peace, "hope is not prognostication." Throughout those
>>interviews, he emphasizes his lack of interest in underlying forces and
>>historical trends.
><snip>
>
>
>Havel is right that "hope is not prognostication". However he is wrong
>that hope can be groundless. Hope is grounded in the present
>not the future. We need to be *certain* of where we are *now*
>(rather than where we are  going) to have hope. This is "true" hope.
>"False" hope flows from expectations about the future.
>When we have true hope we are able to face the uncertain future
>without contracts or liquidity.
>
>Calling for trial and error with no understanding of the spiritual
>dymanics of hope is dumb. Such "experimentalists" are free to perform
>social experiments on themsleves if they so desire, but I am
>tired of participating in *their* social experiments -- socialist
>capitalist or otherwise.
>
>Harry Veeder
>
>