>> 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.
I thought I addressed this point, but perhaps not. The answer to your question is I don't know. I'm not sure why you think a description of the transformation process is required, and why not providing it renders the whole exercise (generating a blueprint) pointless. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Besides, it is much easier to think about the transition once you know the general direction in which you want to proceed. How can you meaningfully discuss the transformation of society when you don't know where you want to end up? I might be wrong here, but I suspect this would cause any such transition to be merely a reform of current institutions, and therefore inherently limited.
Finally, the transition can't be mapped out so neatly anyway. In my opinion it is literally unpredictable. Who knows when an opportunity for revolutionary change may occur? Or when an opportunity for significant reform will present itself? History has shown that situations can change rapidly and profoundly.
>>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.
This is something that I've talked about before. Ownership of the means of production is what needs to be eliminated, not consumer items. I don't want to take away your favorite shirt or your Toyota (or whatever you drive).
And why can't we eliminate private ownership of MoP essentially overnight? It's been done before (I'm thinking of Spain in the mid-30's). I don't think anyone saw it coming either. You seem to be an incrementalist, which is fine. You might be right that this is the only or best way to achieve socialist goals. But you should be prepared to back up this claim with a substantive argument. I don't see any reason to accept it on its face.
>>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.
This is my point - you can't predict the form the transition will take, but you can have a vision (as Lenin did, i.e. a "worker's" state in the hands of the revolutionary party) of what you want when the dust settles. And if you have a vision, the odds of achieving something you'll be happy with increase.
>> 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.
How is this a criticism of blueprints? I'm not trying to argue that the mere fact of having a blueprint necessarily leads to social change. Movements still have to be generated and strengthened, activism needs to be encouraged and so forth. I'm saying that when the time is right, if First World institutions can be weakened to the extent that revolutionary change or substantive reform is possible, you need to know how to take advantage of the opportunity. And here blueprints can help.
Incidentally, I think blueprints can also help to build socialist movements by providing people with alternative ideas. It might not matter to some, but it may matter to others. I've had plenty of people ask me, "so what would a socialist society look like anyway?" It's usually a genuine question, even if they don't really expect a well-thought out answer. Having an answer can at least get these folks to think about the issue more carefully and might even be persuasive. If not, you've lost nothing. Reading about ParEcon certainly gave me a radical shot in the arm.
>>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?
Another thing which Albert and Hahnel mention is the need to _test_ their ideas, and other ideas which might crop up. I agree with them. Nancy Folbre might be right, or she might be wrong, but there is no way to know without doing an experiment. Gordon mentioned last week that he ran ParEcon ideas by someone who actually lived in a commune, an apparently he had some good suggestions and criticisms (which I'd be very interested in hearing about). This seems like the right approach.
Brett