[lbo-talk] Can a "Socialist" Strategy be Defined Abstractly, was Chavez's socialist world vision

[Carrol Cox]

If the movement is to be built in the future(near or far), than only an
abstract theory be relevant to it _now_.  A "concrete" strategy would be
linked to concrete conditions f the present. And that  means assuming
some constant state of affairs, absdtractable from the present. It can't
be done! Hence it is impossible to lay out a sociallist strategy (beyond
trivial truisms).

Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
> I'd like to think it's realistic to
> say that the goal of socialists is to form an opposition movement *outside
> of government* in order to build toward majoritarian support.

The evidence of the last century is that (a) a majority for socialism
cannot be built within a bourgeois democracy and (b) that even if such
appeared imminent, it would not be allowed to assume power. So we are in
the realm of idle fantsizing here.

Any answer  Bhaskar  gives to that objection will depend on predicting
an empirical future in which his (abstract) theory can operate. What is
the basis for believing a capitalist power would allow his (theoretical)
majority to emerge. In a European context, it would be confronted by the
power of all the other states in the EU; in a U.S. context it would have
to win overwhelming majorities in at least two-thirds of the states (for
adequatre control of the Senate).  Then this hypothetical majority would
have to win majorities in enough state legislatures to amend the
Constitution to allow interference by the state with the rights of
private property. The head spins.

Nor can Bhaskar describe the activities of such a movement which would
build this fantasized majority. 


>  This means
> rejecting Luxemburgist "mass strike" schemes,

Why? What _is_ your movement going to be doing? Writing ferocious
letters to the local paper?

Carrol