'*Imposing* a preconceived plan is to deny the popular will. *Proposing* a plan is contributing to democratic debate. A few years ago, you published a book saying Britain should build 5 million houses. Were you substituting your preconceived plan for the popular will?'
I take your point, but the difference is that my proposal was one that was framed in relation to an immediate and pressing problem that was allowed to persist in spite of the land, labour and materials being available to address it (a proposal which is fully vindicated by Britain's dwindling and dilapidated housing stock to this day). I would not propose that all authorities in the future be bound to oversee the building of 500,000 houses a year, because that would be to assume that conditions in the future would contine to be the same.
The concept of socialism that you are taking issue with is one that is not reducible to specific decisions about resource allocation, building programmes or suchlike, but rather proposes a wholly distinct framework (i.e the democratic control of social production) in which such decisions are made.
If I could suggest this analogy, in defending the principle of trial by jury, we do not demand that all accused be acquitted (or convicted) only that the decision of the jury be respected.
Anyway, I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it. Proposing specific plans for the future is a good idea (but such demands are not the same thing as socialism). I was only saying that you seem to have misunderstood the argument that is made against outlining the policies of a future socialist society in toto.
The development of a socialist programme is not something that the socialists drop ready made at the feet of the masses, but develop through debate and discussion with them - I would have thought that the failure of the health reform plans in the US to galvanise a popular base of support was proof enough of the limitations of preconceived reform delivered from experts from on high.