> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I'm mostly on Doug's side in this debate, but I think it's worthwhile
> pointing out that there have been serious arguments (I'm thinking
> mostly of Hannah Arendt) for making life "one long student council
> meeting." Late in their lives John Adams and Thomas Jefferson took
> up in their letters the question, "If there was a heaven, what should
> it be like." Thomas Jefferson's vision was of an endless Continental
> Congress: an eternity of persuading and being persuaded.
>
> And in criticizing Duhring's conception of socialism, Engels lists as
> one of the necessities of human happiness the opportunity and
> materials for carrying on arguments. Arguing for the sake of
> arguing, not merely for the sake of results.
>
> A point of view shared by Jefferson, Engels, and Arendt is not
> self-evidently wrong.
>
> But this does not question at all Doug's argument that utopian
> planning ignores the route from here to there. Doug and I
> disagree about some of the details of that route, but I
> think recognizing that the route exists, that we can't simply
> move in our heads from here to there, is fundamental.
>
> Carrol
But its easy to agree, isn't it, because, as you state the problem there is no room for disagreement. Particularlywith the loaded words like "utopian planning", which surely no one can be for. But your point is surely valid. There is little that can be said to argue for theusefulness of the more neutral term previously used, "blueprint". Both kinds of blueprints--on how to get there and what the new society should look like when you do. The argument that blueprints for socialism/communism are designed to help establish its feasibility are inherently weak, precisely because they abstract from the material; conditions. form which a process that is the only legitimate way to get there must be derived. As you indicate, Carrol. You would agree with this wouldn't you Brett?
While bluprints are of little value, it *is* important to discuss the nature of the alternative being one is seeking. A while back, Brett, Ange and I had such a discussion of a simple point in that process--the meaning of private property, and what is it about capitalism that needs to be changed before you can claim to have replaced it with something better.
But to me the central is issue is this. Replacing capitalism means, above all else, replacing the purpose of the production. The purpose of capitalism is simplicity itself: the creation and accumulation of surplus value on an expanding. This simplicity is atthe heart of captilasm's appeal (particularly when combined with efficiency of the market and the dishonest claim that everyone, through hard work, can grab a share of capital's benefits). In other words, the capitalism has the beuty of simplicity and...
The unfortunate fact is that we who advocate replacing this simple marvel with a system that is so complex, no one can yet adequately explain it. By answering clearly that most fundamental question: what is the purpose of production under socialism/communinsm? Those of us here who want to replace capitalism, are most fundamentally saying
Alternative purpose: much more complex. Production will have to be organized to meet the needs of people as workers, consumers, community residents, environmentalists, The first problem facing those who advocate alternatives is exp