On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Paul Papadeas wrote:
> But what ultimately is Socialism for the 21st century? Wouldn't
> this also include the ability to allow everyday people to control
> their own destinies outside of the need for government mediation?
> To fall into a stateless situation?
>
> Is this merely a pipe dream - even for the long term future?
How can we possibly tell that now? We have no idea what would happen over the long term as a result of the struggles that people engage in in the short and medium term. "Everyday people" - and are there any other kind, really? - can organize on their own, fight their employers, fight city hall, etc. etc., but very few of them think that they can dispense with the state. The state is part of everyday life and is likely to be for a long time. As I recall Empire, H&N talk about some sort of minimum standard of living, but they're vague on who would write the checks. Who but a state could deliver that sort of thing, at least in any foreseeable future. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between antistatisms of left and right. For example, social security privatization. Having people save and invest for themselves is a kind of self-organization outside the state, but it means increasing the power of private capital. Having that as a public sector function reduces the power of capital. What's the autonomist approach to providing income for the old?
Doug