Roger
Roger Odisio wrote:
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > 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