Actually, there have been a number of threads on this list over the years on "detailed blueprints" for post-revolutionary society , and the several political tendencies you (B) mention have chimed in then.
Here, however, the question to Chuck O is narrower than you, B, characterize it below. Not "what is Chuck O's detailed plan for society in general ? " , but "what is Chuck O's specific plan for defending against the military invasion and threat by capitalism ? " which has occurred to destroy significantly every socialist revolution so far before it could really get started, and we can presume, based on this experience, will occur in the next revolution ( maybe with the exception of a future revolution in the U.S. given the current balance of military forces in the world ).
The answer as to how to prevent militarization of socialist societies in response to what Thomas Seay asks must be found in explaining why they militarized. They militarized in self-defense against capitalist invasion and threat. So, a key to preventing militarization of socialist society is preventing capitalist attack and threat.
For example, our Yankee-left job is to keep the U.S. military out of Venezuela, so that the Venezuelans don't have to militarize in self-defense.
No moral high ground for Yankee intellectuals to stand on complaining about Venezuela turning into a "policestate" if they were to do so because of _U.S._ invasion or sponsored invasion, nuclear threat or the like.
There's nothing inherently militarist about socialist/Marxist revs or leaders or ideas. The militarization is a pragmatic response to imperialism's attacks, blockades and the like. This is what socialists mean when they differentiate themselves from pacifists. Socialists _will_ defend the revolution with military self-organization and force of arms. History has demonstrated that the tragically contradictory side-effect of this is the militarization of _all_ of society, undermining the ability to develop real socialism.
In the case of the U.S. revolution, given the world's biggest military arsenal is here, we should be able to avoid or thwart foreign, capitalist threat and invasion, come the U.S. rev., and avoid further militarization of the U.S. in the bargain.
Charles
^^^^^
B. docile_body Asking Chuck0 to provide a detailed blueprint of a post-revolutionary, anarchist society probably isn't the way to go. In fact, it just makes me wonder what everyone else's plans are for an ideal society, on the list. I mean, why should anarchists get all the heat -- why should anarchism have to present a super-lucid, meticulously detailed blueprint [which its many theorists have actually developed over the years, incidentally, if one really cares to look], whereas folks who advocate some type of liberal reformism, or state socialism, don't seem to feel compelled to do the same?
I mean, let's hear it, state-socialists, liberals, etc. What would your model society look like, top to bottom, in and out -- right now, in one email?
For myself, I take anti-authoritarianism to be a methodology, not a static finality. Even the deceased anarcho-syndicalist Sam Dolgoff said the goal of anarchism should be to constantly stimulate society in a libertarian direction. "Pure anarchism" may never be reached, but society should constantly be propelled towards ever more anti-authoritarian goals. Perfect society? No. Better society? Yes.
-B.
Thomas Seay entheogens at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 11:35:48 PST 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
It's a good question but I am still waiting to hear how you defend against the police states that have been so prevalent under real socialism.
--- Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Big paper-mache puppets and chants!
>
And how then are we to defend againt the installation of police states under hyper-centralized socialism? At least Chuck's big papier-mache' puppets dont have the innocent blood on them that the hands of stalinists do.
Given the history of real socialism I should think we dont have room to be flippant towards other approaches.
Chuck does not have all the answers and neither do you...neither do any of us.