Re: [OPE] market - and other kinds of - socialism

Reading the last three posts of Jerry, Engelskirchen, and Bapuji, you can get either very excited and wanting more, or extremely disappointed. Excited, because maybe they have the clue to nurture a feasible socialism able to outpace capitalism, and their thoughts hide brand-new knowledge that just have to be spelled in a more programmatic and concrete way. Disappointed, because it could also be that their thoughts are anchored in the state of the art of socialist thinking back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, and they are just unaware of the literature that deals with the huge problems of a unified control of production. I’m afraid guys I’m getting disappointed at reading your posts. But there is nothing that could take me out of this bad mood faster, than you getting real and revealing awareness of the practical challenges socialists really face. A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: B.R.Bapuji <brbapuji@yahoo.com> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: mié,4 mayo, 2011 13:58 Asunto: Re: [OPE] market - and other kinds of - socialism Jerry wrote: "We have, after all, a number of historical experiences in which technocrats and planners made the decisions (often, predictably from a technocratic perspective) RATHER THAN working people. In that context, I think it is legitimate to say that ULTIMATELY working people in practice will be the ones who should make the decisions about the organization of socialist society." In this context I find it useful to revisit Charles Bettelheim's 'CULTURAL REVOLUTION AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION IN CHINA' [Changes in Management and Division of Labour], where we will find certain concepts like 'workers' Management Teams' and 'the development of a unified plan at the factory level' etc. I mean that revisiting Chinese experience during certain specified periods of class struggle may give us certain indications as to what should be done and what should not be done etc. For instance, workers' management teams is a useful concept that would resist authoritarian tendencies at the place of production and while formulating planning. Bapuji B.R.Bapuji, Professor, Centre for Applied Linguistics & Translation Studies [CALTS], University of Hyderabad, Central University post office, HYDERABAD-500 046. (Phone: 040-23133655,23133650 or 23010161). Residence address: 76, Lake-side Colony, Near Durgam Cheruvu, [End of Road opp:Madapur Police Station], Jubilee Hills post, Hyderabad-500033. (Phone: 040-23117302) ________________________________ From: GERALD LEVY <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 11:36:53 PM Subject: Re: [OPE] market - and other kinds of - socialism Ian, Paul B, Paul C, Dave Z and others: I had a curious experience reading what Paul B and Ian wrote: I found myself agreeing with the thrust of what both were saying and even realizing that I - at different times - made similar arguments. Upon reflecting on this further, I realized that the two kinds of arguments that you are making are NOT mutually exclusive. The key to understanding why is to realize that actually both sides in this discussion have valid points to make. For instance, I believe there is a legitimate danger associated with elites, especially technocrats, developing plans for future socialist societies. We have, after all, a number of historical experiences in which technocrats and planners made the decisions (often, predictably from a technocratic perspective) RATHER THAN working people. In that context, I think it is legitimate to say that ULTIMATELY working people in practice will be the ones who should make the decisions about the organization of socialist society. Yet, at the same time, I am sympathetic to Ian's argument that explaining the basics of how a socialist society would work is practically important NOW because working people will demand to know what they are fighting for - and how this will be DIFFERENT FROM some of the authoritarian, repressive experience that they have heard about and want no part of. The way to resolve this tension, I think, is to recognize that we should support the right of working people to ultimately make the decisions about how socialism will function in a particular context and at the same time raise for public debate now different possibilities and the dangers and opportunities associated with different conceptions. In some ways, I think this is similar to the debate between utopians and dystopians: if we make an attempt to understand the concerns of each group, we can see that both groups have legitimate concerns and that the divide between them is not insurmountable. In solidarity, Jerry > > The point to remember is that capitalist societies will have a common > > structure of exploitation and reproduction. Socialist societies that are > > this able to run the show , ratehr than having the show run them, will > > show a very great variation in structure and experiment, and this is > > only to be discussed, by the working class itself, as they create such > > societies. > > > > We can't have the answer before the answer, and we have to build it. > > I think your view is common but I don't think it makes sense, and (to > be frank) I also think it creates a material barrier to the > development of socialist consciousness. > > When working people are confronted with Marxist ideas they naturally > ask what we intend to replace capitalism with. Answering along the > lines of, "the class as a whole will work it out in practice during > the revolution", isn't very convincing, even if some comments of > Marx's seem to support it. > > The view seems to rely heavily on a black-and-white (non dialectical) > categorization of historical time into non or pre-revolutionary > situations and the revolutionary situation. Only when the situation is > deemed to be revolutionary (by who?) is the issue "to be discussed" > because -- presumably -- only in this situation can the theory be put > into practice. But adequate theory is essential to good practice (and > vice-versa). And plenty of practical activity can be organized today > around ideas and projects of alternative economic organization. > > I have (in practice) always found this view deeply problematic. For > example, as a member of the working class I have thought about and > discussed alternative economic organizations (including learning from > prior history and practice). I have been told by (some) socialists to > basically shut up and stop thinking about it. I am certainly not alone > in this. For example, whole generations of activists associated with > certain socialist parties in the UK have been trained to *not think > about these issues*. I think it's a crippling philistinism. > > In contrast, if socialist activists were theoretically armed with good > answers to these kinds of questions (e.g., what will we place > capitalism with? How will we organize an economy? Who will get what? > etc.) I think they'd get a lot more traction with the working class.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed May 4 03:49:55 2011