>Doug,
>
> >>Finally, there is this insistence on calling these kinds of blueprints
> >>"utopian."
> >
> >>>>Because they seem invented largely out of thin air, in a "Wouldn't it
>be nice?" mode, rather than saying how the present set of
>institutions and associated forms of consciousnessness can be engaged
>and transformed. <<<<
>
>I have to respectfully disagree.
Hey, respect isn't a requirement around here!
> If something is created willy-nilly, then
>certainly it doesn't have much to recommend it. But participatory planning
>has been carefully thought out. This doesn't mean its the only or best
>solution, or that people would go for it, but the exercise has value.
Sure it's been thought out. But how does it relate to what people do today? How do you go from a world of Wal-Marts and eBay to PP? Is PP kind of like eBay with a social conscience? These are genuine questions - I'm not dismissing it out of hand.
>Furthermore, in some cases socialist goals simply can't be achieved
>through the transformation of current institutions. For example, private
>property is incompatible with equality. Control over resources must be
>manifested in some other manner. The institution of private property must
>be eliminated.
All private property? Even my consumer durables? Or just private ownership of the means of production? My point is that you're not going to eliminate private ownership of the MoP overnight, or even overdecade - you move by encroaching on property rights, one step at a time - worker control, more public investment, more regulation of capital, etc.
>As for the transformation process itself, does anyone know how to morph
>current institutions into socialist institutions? Did Lenin map out the
>trajectory of the Russian Revolution before it occurred?
It was largely improvised - which goes to show you that off-the-shelf plans don't work in a world of flux and surprise.
> No, but he knew
>what he wanted to ultimately achieve - the Soviet state in the hands of the
>Bolshevik party. So when the revolution did get going, he was able to
>steer events toward the desired outcome.
And the Russian Revolution happened because Russia was in a state of collapse. Institutions and loyalties were very weak. That's not true of the U.S. or any other First World country today.
>Anyone who sells socialism as having "a lot of meetings" isn't a very good
>salesman.
Fans of PP argue that Nancy Folbre's characterization of it as being like one long student council meeting is all wrong. But it seems not wholly unjustified to me. What do you have in mind?
Doug