From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox) Subject: Re: BHA: Transitions. Re "Market Socialism" To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 14:19:48 -0500 (CDT) Howie is correct, I believe, to argue that we must give very broad definition indeed to Marxism; further, it seems clear to me that the majority in any anti-capitalist revolutionary movement are not even going to consider themselves "Marxists," however broadly defined. (My wife and I would have been pretty lonely here in central Illinois over the past 27 years if we had been willing to work only with "Marxists" or "revolutionaries.) We belong to no national organization now, and I suspect that when a viable socialist movement is formed it will include many who call themselves "Market Socialists." I will work with them. BUT. I'm not going to try to give the arguments for the following; those arguments are long and complex. I am simply going to lay down some heuristic propositions, and predictions based on them. (1) Market Socialisms, in their most sophisticated versions, are forms of utopianism (by which I mean any social goal separated from the means of struggle by which it might be achieved) (2) When the chips are down, and when the old slogan "Which side are you on" ceases to be a slogan and must be answered in action, "Utopians" will more often than not decide that the people are not to be trusted, that the revolution will lead to some form of totalitarianism, and that it is best, at least for the present, to side with (whatever then will be the disguised form of fascism). See Phil Ochs, "Love Me, I'm a Liberal." So I will work and live with market socialists: I will never wholly trust them. And that is based not on differences Carrol --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005