Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:14:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: Marxist theory



Doug, yoiu here repeat one of Marx's more dubious legacies to the
socialist left, the idea that we cannot be bothered to think about the
future because it will turn out differently from what we expect. This is
just silly. As Aristotle observed, we will hit the mark more esaily if we
know what to aim for. 

Marx, in his critique of utopian thinkiung, ran together a number of
distinct ideas taht should be seperated:

	1. The idea that models in the head of middle class reformers
should not be substituted for the democratic will of the revolutionary
working class. True enough, but this isn't ana rgument against middle
class radicals thinking up ideas to put in the pot and seewhat acceptance
they find.
	2. The idea that a cross-class appeal to the ethics of the
bourgeoisie is a waste of time. True, but model-builders like Roemer and
Schweickart today do not advocate this.
	3. The idea that there's no telling how things might turn out, so
why bother thinking about them. Not only ids this a nonsequiter, the major
premise is wrong. If certain models are reasonable approximatinations of
reality, then we can tell at least how things won't turn out. For example,
if the Mises-Hayek critique of a planned economy is right, such an
aeconomy will not be one of abundance and rationality but one of poverty
and inefficiency. So planned socialist have an obligation to _model_ a
planned economy that won't be like this. Market socialists have an
obligatiuon to model a market society that is also socialist.

	 Which leads us to the econd part, the alleged conclusion. Of
course things will turn oiut differently from what we imagine. No model
will be realized exactly. But that's just the way thinking is. You try to
get matters reasonably clear and establish a direction, you try out your
ideas, and modify them where they failed. You cannot do this at all if you
have no ideas to modify.

	The most important reason for modelling ang thinking about utopias
is this, however. Without answeers to the questions workersa ctullay ask:
Why won't this end up like Russia? What reason do we think these chnages
will not leave us worse off? we will have no mass movement for socialist
change. Marx could afford to defer these issues because he was confident,
with some basis in reality, that he had a mass movement of radicalizedw
orkers. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't. If we don't have an
alternative (or several) to articulate, we won't, either. 

	So it's time to buryu Marxist prejuduces against utopias. These
are prejudices that Marx only took seriously when he wanted to slam
someone else' views anyway. He had his own utopia: a classless, stateless,
and marketless society. Unfoirtunately he bever gavea nyone any reason to
think it was feasible. 

--JUstin

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:

> 
> Yes, of course, but those things cannot be worked out on a theoretical
> level alone, as they typically are. Theoryheads get lost in their
> simultaenous equations and forget that the equations are highly imperfect
> representations of a messy *highly politicized* reality.
> 
> >It is analogous to constructing models of future societies.  There are
> >certainly limits to the problems we can solve; but it is essential to
> >begin to understand the problems that we face.
> 
> Same problem here. You can't, Roemer-like, construct off-the-shelf models
> of future societies. You have to deal with what exists and figure out how
> to transform it. Utopia can be approximated only through experimentation
> and struggle.
> 
> Doug
> 
> --
> 
> Doug Henwood
> Left Business Observer
> 250 W 85 St
> New York NY 10024-3217
> USA
> +1-212-874-4020 voice
> +1-212-874-3137 fax
> email: <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---