----- Original Message ---- From: SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Sat, February 13, 2010 6:24:23 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] clarification
Carrol Cox wrote:
>> Can you name one person who in recent times has claimed to describe in
>> advance what a socialist society will be?
>>
>
> No. But that isn't how the topic ordinarily arises. Rather, someone (as
> on Pen-L a month or so ago) argues that Socialists or a Socialist Party
> OUGHT to present such a scenario.
Sure. But "present a scenario" and "describe in advance" are two very different things. As I said to James, there's a difference between proposing and imposing. If you conflate the two when it comes to socialism, what prevents one from conflating the two when it comes to something else? Like, for example, on this list you're constantly "presenting scenarios" for a how a movement should or will unfold. Is that also undemocratic? Is that Carrol Cox setting himself up as the dictator of the left? Of course not, you're just proposing; presumably in doing so you're merely attempting to open up the topic to democratic debate within the movement. Why is it so wrong to do that when it comes to socialism?
>> But how do you know socialist revolution offers a possible future?
>> Especially since you can't even begin to anticipate what socialism would be?
>>
>
> I don't. No one does. I just know that capitalism gurantees a disastrous
> future. "Socialism" is the provisional name we give to the seisure of
> power by an anti-capitalist movment.
Yes, I guess that's what I thought you meant. But when I try to wrap my mind around what this means, I always find it leads to a logical conundrum. Let's say I proposed to you (just for the sake of argument) that a movement that leads to Swedish-style social democracy (like, for example, the Swedish SAP) is an "anti-capitalist movement." I presume you would disagree. But then presumably you must have a definition of capitalism in mind, such that Swedish-style soc dem still counts as capitalism. The problem is that if you have that definition of capitalism in mind, it implicitly defines, in at least certain key ways, your vision of what an "anti-capitalist" society would look like. You're basically saying: "Capitalism in its essence has the following specific features. An anti-capitalist movement seeks to eliminate those specific features." But that is *already* defining certain key elements of a socialist society in advance. I suspect you wouldn't
accept that conclusion, but I think the conclusion is inescapable if you think about it carefully.
SA
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk