> but i can see where you get your interpretation. *shrug* what i find
> annoying is that, instead of just coming up with your own answers, you
> appear to think that it's a great idea to ask your fellow socialists
> what the answers are.
I think we basically understand each other now. I just want to say that here I think you're turning things upside down. When this subject comes up, it's usually not because "blueprinters" are demanding that "non-blueprinters" supply blueprints; at most, the latter typically are merely asked what they mean by socialism in the most general terms. Instead, usually it's the opposite that happens: Whenever "blueprinters" want to talk about what socialism might be, or about the need to talk about it, they're shouted down or lectured by "non-blueprinters" about how un-Marxist or undemocratic they're being. (I'm only using this terminology out of convenience, based on your use of the term blueprint.)
Also, I appreciate your point about Gotha being an unusual departure for Marx, but I still think it's a big problem, on a Marxological level, for those who claim that Marx was unalterably opposed to any form of this kind of thing. I doubt he scribbled the thing on a lark without thinking much about it. And he was actually suggesting his ideas be incorporated into a formal party program! Plus, while it may have been rare for Marx, it wasn't rare for Engels, who talked about this stuff a lot, especially in Anti-Duhring.
SA