>The problem, however, is that class struggle will dictate the contours of
a >new socialism, not excellent working models.
I don't entirely agree. Couldn't you consider Adam Smith to have, at least partially, provided a model for future market economies which didn't exist in his time?
Perhaps this is a poor example, but perhaps better examples exist of social changes which had at least some sense of where they wanted to go, i.e., that were inspired by a model.
Besides, isn't it the case that revolutions can be more easily diverted away from one goal and towards another if most of the revolutionaries don't have a grasp on what goals they want to achieve, or a belief in what to implement once the revolution is complete? I've heard just this sort of criticism in regards to the Russian revolution.
>The difficulties we face in building socialism are not on the theoretical
>front, but in the application of theory. The reason for this of course is
>that such applications always take place in the circumstances of war,
>economic blockade, internal counter-revolution, etc., where even the best
>laid plans off mice and men often go astray.
>
>There will also be a large element of the irrational in any revolution. The
>very real possibility of a reign of terror or even the fear of one is
>largely absent in the rationalist scenarios of the new utopians.
These are valuable insights, but I don't think the two exercises (working toward more active agitation against capitalism now and model building) are mutually exclusive. Besides, if things do go astray during or right after the revolution, having a vision could make it easier to steer the social trajectory back towards a common goal, and less likely for individuals or minority groups to harness the revolution for their own benefit.
Of course, larger forces which can undermine or ruin a revolution, such as military force, blockades, brain drains, or whether an unruly mob slakes its thirst for revenge are difficult to predict at best, and are usually beyond control. But these facts don't shed much light on whether or not model-building is a worthwhile exercise.
>Albert states:
>
>"I look at history and see even one admirable person--someone's aunt, Che
>Guevara, doesn't matter--and say that is the hard thing to explain. That
>is: that person's social attitudes and behavior runs contrary to the
>pressures of society's dominant institutions. If it is part of human nature
>to be a thug, and on top of that all the institutions are structured to
>promote and reward thuggishness, then any non-thuggishness becomes a kind
>of miracle. Hard to explain. Where did it come from, like a plant growing
>out of the middle of a cement floor. Yet we see it all around. To me it
>means that social traits are what is wired in, in fact, though these are
>subject to violation under pressure."
>
>With such a moralistic approach, the hope for socialism is grounded not
>in the class struggle, but on the utopian prospects of good people
>stepping forward. Guevara is seen as moral agent rather than as an
>individual connected with powerful class forces in motion such as the
>Cuban rural proletariat backed by the Soviet socialist state.
I think you've misrepresented Albert's views here. Albert's point in this passage is to refute the view (often expressed by the right) that the social institutions we have now are in harmony with human nature. He's using individual examples as a kind of proof that this view is false.
He's not trying to say that hope for a socialist future lies in the hands of great individuals who can deliver us from capitalism. Having read a number of his articles, he has been quite clear that the left needs to advance its cause through social organization, demonstration and demand for change. For example, Albert has devoted a lot of time to thinking about why the inertia of the '60's movements petered out and couldn't be sustained and built upon. He recognizes the need for current struggle.
>Their idea of a feasible socialism is beyond reproach, just as any
>idealized schema will be. The problem is that it is doomed to meet the same
>fate as ancestral schemas of the 19th century. It will be besides the
>point. Socialism comes about through revolutionary upheavals, not as the
>result of action inspired by flawless plans.
I disagree. Revolutionary upheavals don't occur in a vacuum, but rather when people understand how they are oppressed and exploited. Education is a required to lay the groundwork for popular struggle. Why can't a discussion of an alternative society be part of that education? It's conceivable that this might even strengthen the appeal of socialism.
>In-depth analysis by serious scholars such as Moshe Lewin focus on
>the structural problems, not on statements made by Lenin and Trotsky made
>on management wrenched out of context.
Again I think you misrepresent Albert's views (I don't know as much about Robin Hahnel, so I won't comment on him). Most of Albert's writing is characterized by a focus on institutions, not individuals. In "Looking Forward" he does criticize Soviet institutions, and central planning institutions generally. The whole point of ParEcon is to try to develop institutions which are compatible with socialist values like self-management, solidarity, diversity, etc.
Brett