newbie on Participatory Economics

Mark Jones Jones_M at
Sun Jul 19 00:52:13 PDT 1998

Actually Lou's note on socialist utopianism was one to treasure. I shall recycle it whenever anyone ever raises the question again. I also think Lou's remark in that post about the hallucinatory (and smug?) certainties the utopian socialists display also apply to a class of utopian-trots and utopian-stalinists, who also do not feel a need to confront their theories with the reproof of the facts.

Of course, the Sparts and lots of other folks will argue that SOME Marxists (ie Trotsky) did predict the fall of the SU as early as 1936. Others, including the marxologue Hillel Ticktin, were predicting many of the events which took place as the SU unravelled, by the mid-1970s. So did the Maoists, after 1970. But this still leaves open the question of whether Marxism is 'a science'. I don't think it is; Marxism is not one science alongside others -- that reduces, not enhances, its importance.

Bill Shankly, the great manager of Liverpool FC, once said 'It's more important than that', when a journo asked him if football was a matter of life and death. I'm not sure any science is a matter of life and death but I believe Marxism is.


bautiste at wrote:

> Louis,
> Your explanation of utopianism seems very well formulated. My only question is:
> if marxism is a science, why can't it predict the fall of the USSR? The turn of
> the Chinese to a semi-market economy? with the same kind of certainty that I can
> predict that a hydrogen bomb will blow up if I build it in a certain way?
> chuck miller
> --

-- Mark Jones

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list