[lbo-talk] Democracy

Carl Remick carlremick at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 1 07:48:34 PST 2004



>From: Jon Johanning <jjohanning at igc.org>
>
>On Nov 1, 2004, at 1:27 AM, Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
>>Why can't you do both? I mean, how else do you expect to change the
>>situation of socialism not being supported by wide sections of the working
>>class? If even socialists won't advocate socialism, then who the bloody
>>hell will?
>
>I don't often do this, Bill, but I thoroughly agree with you on this.
>Yoshie's statement that socialism "is not yet supported by wide sectors of
>the working class" is certainly true -- an understatement, if anything --
>but it does not explore the reasons for this situation. If those of us who
>consider ourselves socialists believe that socialism -- however we
>understand the meaning of the word -- is the best system for workers, then
>we should certainly get serious about figuring out those reasons. In my
>opinion, a lot of it has to do with the extremely inexpert way socialism
>has been presented, and the rest of it (especially in the U.S.) has to do
>with the way that "socialism" has been turned into a bugaboo of tremendous
>proportions over the years, to the point that it might be the most prudent
>course to drop the word altogether and start over with a different one.

I think much of socialism's image problem stems from its advocates mindlessly echoing the self-defeating, in-your-face style of patron saint Karl Marx. We need to get rid of scowling Karl and get a more inviting figure to brand this thing -- maybe the laughing Buddha.

To repost a comment I made here three years ago:

Like everything else, useful disputatiousness can yield diminishing marginal returns and become counterproductive when carried to merely peevish extremes. Consider Carl Schurz's thoughts on seeing Marx in Cologne during the summer of 1848:

"He [Marx] enjoyed the reputation of having acquired great learning, and as I knew very little of his discoveries and theories, I was all the more eager to gather words of wisdom from the lips of the famous man. This expectation was disappointed in a peculiar way. Marx's utterances were indeed full of meaning, logical and clear, but I have never seen a man whose bearing was so provoking and intolerable. To no opinion which differed from his own did he accord the honor of even condescending consideration. Everyone who contradicted him he treated with abject contempt; every argument that he did not like he answered either with biting scorn at the unfathomable ignorance that had prompted it, or with opprobrious aspersions upon the motives of him who had advanced it ... it was very evident that not only had he not won any adherents, but he had repelled many who otherwise might have become his followers."

Of course, Marx provided the role model for generations of leftists to come -- people who did not share his brilliance but figured they could at least outdo the Old Man in being obnoxious in the name of integrity. The history of the left shows this has not been an effective strategy.

Carl



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list