>[WS:] I am not disputing that, but these are not uniquely *socialist*
>issues. Almost everyone is for a genuine democracy, clean and safe
>environment, and world peace. What is missing is a *socialist master
>theory* - to borrow a cognitivist phrase - a coherent interpretative frame
>that is uniquely distinctive to a socialist movement - something akin to the
>theory of value and the derived from it imperative of public ownership of
>the means of production for the "Old Left." There were many social
>movements in the 19th century seeking a betterment of the working class -
>utopian, mutualist, religious, luddite, or even reactionary. But the
>Marxist brand of socialism was unique thanks to their master theory. This
>is what I am asking for - not a laundry list of what needs to change, no
>matter how justified.
>
But why does a master theory have to come first? Just to make sure that
the intelligentisa can keep the mental gears going without missing a beat?
Why could the theories and principles not emerge from the practice of making concrete things happen -- like developing green energy, reforming education, implementing a universal health system, etc. Because, after all, if we manage to make those things happen they will affect people's consciousness of what communalism might be good for and people gain skills/knowledge/pride in making them happen.
Because, bottom line, you can't eat theory. The Russian Revolution was driven forward by "Land, Peace, and Bread." -- right? Not by the labor theory of value. And, it could be argued, that a good deal of the harm that followed was due much more to the pursuit of the logic of ideas (or the use of those ideas as cover) than to anything else.
Always suspicious of theory.
OK. Now you can all pile on.
Joanna