I've been accused of being "inconsistent" because I, too, am guilty of what you nicely labelled "political dualism." I've answered this charge (for myself) in two ways. First, I respond to critics by arguing that my political values are about social/economic justice. That being the case, I am morally obligated to pursue that justice, regardless of the politico-economic system in which it/I am embedded. To not engage in that pursuit wold be to implicitly support the status quo. I go on to suggest that the powers-that-be would *like* for me to go to meetings and argue about precisely what form of anarchism/socialism/whatever should be implemented after the Revolution.If all of my political energy is going to such meetings, I'm not really posing much of a threat at all. (I know that if there are any Spartacists out there, I am going to hear from them.) You might not be posing much of a threat, either. And I suppose one could argue that you, too, are supporting the existing pwer structure by giving it a kinder visage. But if there are less hungry children...
I don't really know what it means to call oneself a socialist, or an anarchist. Herbert Read, reading camus, calls it a willingness to be absurd. (in Anarchism and Order) I think such politics perhaps take the place of religion, and our beliefs in anarchism or socialism reflect our eschatalogical yearnings...??
Yours, Frances Bolton
On Fri, 8 May 1998, Gar W. Lipow wrote:
> (snip)
> One problem I have with their theory is one I have with most left theory -- and it
> is really a flaw in my approach. I end up mostly as political dualist. In theory I
> would like to see a revolution. In practice, I spend my time fighting for
> "liberal" causes which most "liberals" have abandoned -- universal single payer
> health, a more progressive income tax, a wealth tax, universal tax funded child
> care, restoration of benefits cut by U.S. welfare deform, more environmental
> regulation and more enforcement, a smaller military, any cuts I can win in the
> U.S. torment of most of the third world, support for affirmative action, living
> wage bills, support for union struggles. Now all these are good things. To the
> extent that we win, they lessen the immediate pain; they shift the balance of power
> slightly in favor of the working class (or prevent further shifts towards the
> ruling class); they (possibly) delay environmental catastrophe long enough for us
> to win a sustainable society. I suppose they also educate people about the long
> term struggle. (Because of the top down way a lot of these battles are fought, I am
> not as confident as I'd like to be that their educational values goes much beyond
> the immediate issues.)
>
> Yet as a a socialist, I feel my immediate actions should somehow be more linked to
> the long term goal. I gather that most of the people on this list have found a
> synthesis of these two opposites that does NOT involve joining some loony cult
> (sorry to you cult members -- not an option I care to contemplate). Or do you
> simply live with the contradiction and hope for better days?
>
> Charles Brown wrote:
>
> > I like to call this the Light Sides of Solidarity.
> > Black is beautiful.
> > Can we, with computer-telecommunications
> > technology get so that people vote as often
> > as they shop now,so that there could be
> > considerably more direct democracy with
> > the planning boards and all planning
> > decisions, seeking to making them less
> > oppressive and arbitrary. We've got
> > to have some whithering away of the
> > state in this advanced process.
> > C.B.
> >
> > >>> "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb at jmu.edu> 05/08 5:04 PM >>>
> > Louis,
> > I don't wish to revisit old arguments about market
> > socialism vs planned socialism, but in this context here is
> > what looks reasonable.
> > Let there be a planning board that determines the
> > infrastructure and the general transportation layout. Let
> > there be sufficient redistribution so that nobody is poor.
> > Also make sure that there is excellent mass transit
> > (determined by the planning board). Then let people have
> > non-polluting automobiles and make them pay congestion fees
> > by automatic Vickrey-style recording mechanisms.
> > The basic problem with your "planning board rations
> > car use" scheme is that it implies a horrendous degree of
> > oppressiviness and arbitrariness. On what grounds will
> > this be decided? Who will be doing the deciding? Who will
> > make exceptions and how? How does one avoid corruption in
> > such decisionmaking? etc. etc. etc.
> > Barkley Rosser
> > On Fri, 08 May 1998 11:29:59 -0400 Louis Proyect
> > <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >Louis Proyect's notion of a global planning board rationing the use of motor
> > > >vehicles meanwhile strikes me as utter madness. I understand why socialists
> > > >are reluctant to make use of the pricing mechanism. Yet it is far and away
> > > >the most efficient method. Correctly pricing motor vehicles, not to mention
> > > >electric cars, mass transit, and even bikes decentralizes decision-making.
> > > It
> > > >allows each and every user to decide what is the most cost-effective way
> > > to go
> > > >from A to B without having to await instructions from command central. It
> > > >encourages "the praxis of everyday life" in which people, individually or
> > > >collectively, are free to develop solution to a myriad of mundane problems.
> > > >This strikes me as far more democratic and creative.
> > > >
> > >
> > > (clip)
> > >
> > > >Personally, I want to change everything.
> > > >
> > > >Dan Lazare.
> > >
> > > Pricing, ie. market socialism, is the opposite of changing "everything." In
> > > some respects, China embodies market socialism and the proliferation of
> > > luxury automobiles among the red bourgeoisie shows that something different
> > > is needed. Two years ago, at a Socialist Scholars Conference, David
> > > Belkin--coauthor of a book on market socialism with Frank
> > > Roosevelt--debated Harry Magdoff. Belkin argued that if workers wanted
> > > cars, they should have them. This is not socialism, it is adaptation to the
> > > current consumerist status quo, which favors the industrialized nations
> > > against the third world. Pricing is besides the point as long as artificial
> > > blocks to the free market exist, namely death squads and censorship.
> > > Indonesia will produce cheap oil because the army and cops and fascists
> > > murder trade unionists. The only way that prices will reflect reality is
> > > when the bourgeosie is overthrown. A mind-blowing task, but we'd better
> > > roll up our sleeves now or it will never get done.
> > >
> > > Louis Proyect
> > >
> > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
> >
> > --
> > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > rosserjb at jmu.edu
>
>
>
>