> I agree with you on the necessary uncertainty of
> outcome, whether or
> not we strive toward the "final goal of socialism"
> (= universal
> social emancipation of humanity from exploitation &
> oppressions), but
> there are a multitude of examples, major & minor,
> that can show how
> the absence of socialism as the political objective
> to strive for
> makes a difference in what political actions to take
> & how.
We're in agreement here, although since I don't know what socialism is in successful practice, I'd say abolishing the capitalist mode of production is an equally valid and unifying political objective. The difference seems to be that between something with positive though unrealized content--socialism--versus a negation of what actually is, and is wrong. The how of the negation, however, is not a matter of simply thrashing one's way through and breaking shit up; the political viability and productivity, and the basis of solidarity, develop as the political parameters develop through activism, and acts (including "reforms")--a development that can't be forseen and fit into a plan, but that requires critique followed by critique to realize what's happening along the way.
When I say the very political parameters will be changed if the "reform" is successful, this is what I mean [is this what you took as sketching a zero-sum game?]. This avoids the hazards of a teleological model, while still being guided, in a negative way, by a final goal.
> Suppose we decide that socialism is not possible
If we seem to be arguing at cross-purposes, it's only because of this conceptual difference: you argue that socialism is possible; I argue that something other than capitalism is possible. Right?
Alec
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/