Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:26:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: M-I: Socialist Scholars Conference, part 1


This is the first of three posts on the Socialist Scholars Conference held
last weekend. The first panel I attended was "What economics for socialism?
Marxist, Market Economy, Cooperative?"

The first presenter was Howard Hawkins, a member of the Green Party from
upstate New York who works with co-ops but has his eyes opened to their
flaws. He mentioned that Leland Stanford, a member of the bourgeoisie in
California, wrote extensively about the need for co-ops during the pre-WWI
period. He believed that they would make workers feel like they had a stake
in the system. Hawkins also made an interesting point that the German social
democracy had extensive co-op holdings on the eve of WWI. He speculates
--correctly in my opinion-- that this influenced their decision to back the
war. They thought that their socialist empire of printing-presses,
publishing houses, etc. was worth defending from attack by enemy nations.

The next presenter was David Belkin, co-author with Frank Roosevelt of "Why
Market Socialism". He argued that since "growth" was necessary, markets were
needed. He accused Greens and some Marxists of being inconsistent when they
call for defending social security. Unless economic growth is assured,
social security will go down the drain. Belkin called for a much more
"realistic" view of how socialism would be built. He described it as a
negotiating process between different interest groups, not unlike those that
take place behind the scenes in the NYC City Council.

The final presenter was Harry Magdoff from Monthly Review. He started off by
questioning the notion that social security was in danger. He thought that
Belkin was transmitting the scare tactics of neoliberals who simply wanted
to privatize social security. He also attacked the uncritical acceptance of
growth in itself. When 4 out of 6 billion people on the planet are consumed
with the task of finding some bread for their next meal, why should we worry
about keeping up with the small minority of the planet's demand for "better"
automobiles. Finally, he said that Belkin's view of socialist politics as
being similar to City Council horse-trading described what he himself was
involved with when he worked in the Department of Commerce in FDR's
administration. He always found himself haggling over budget allocations,
etc. But this had nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a break with
all the old models of political, social and economic behavior.

As Magdoff was making his points, Belkin wore a smirk on his face the entire
time. Later in the day I discovered from Doug Henwood that Belkin was a
minor functionary in the office of some NYC Democratic Party official. It
was no wonder that Belkin was fixated on the sort of back-room negotiations
that take place in such circles. It is what he does for a living. Belkin is
a member of Democratic Socialists of America, the sponsor of the Socialist
Scholars Conference and official section of the Second International in the
USA. He is a socialist in name only. Like most DSA'ers, his politics can
best be described as liberal Democrat with lip-service to a socialism
somewhere in the distant future.

During the discussion period, I brought up the two subjects that had been on
my mind lately. The inappropriateness of Slovenia or Yugoslavia as a model
for socialism, and the utopian nature of market socialism. Belkin was all
smiles when I brought up the first question--evidently, he hates all forms
of Communism, including the Yugoslavia state of the 1950s and 60s, so dear
to people like David Schweickart.

He flinched at the idea of being a utopian. He wasn't "utopian", he was
"realistic". What are the alternatives to a gradual evolution toward market
socialism? The proletariat marching across the barricades with bayonets in hand?

Odd that this would seem so out-of-place on the day that Timothy McVeigh is
going on trial. Against a backdrop of neo-fascists accumulating weaponry to
use against a government they deem oppressive, DSA'ers assure us that
revolution is a pipe-dream. Just as the Communist Manifesto was written
partially as a response to the utopian hopes of the 1800s, we Marxists need
to develop a platform for social transformation geared to the economic
realities of late capitalism. This requires looking at the living reality of
the current age, not that of 60 or 100 years ago. This task is beyond the
reach of the Trotskyites who are still in our midst. It is also beyond their
partners in symbiosis who have gone to greener pastures. Now that the George
Orwell brigade has marxism-international to itself, we shall see whether
they have anything to say except how evil Stalinism is. Don't hold your breath.

Louis Proyect




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---