> Maybe you could tell me your theory of social change, big guy? ha.
> Seriously, I have reams of material on this list where I've outlined it, and
> a blog I think you used to read where I also explained this waiting for
> Godot bizzo.
>
> No clue what you think.
The political tradition I feel closest to is the 1960s British New Left as represented by EP Thompson at one pole and Perry Anderson on the other. I like the strategies they set out in 'Revolution' and 'Problems of Socialist Strategy' respectively - though of course these were written in quite different social/political times so they don't apply wholesale, and Thompson and Anderson didn't get along. Anderson later moved away from the line in his essay. Both were essentially attempts to navigate between co-optation by the Labour Party on the one side and a hopeless Leninist model on the other. (Anarchists were not on their radar.) Kind of a political jujitsu, working on the left of social democracy with the argument that achieving social democratic aims would ultimately require the comprehensive socialisation of the means of production. One problem today is the absence of a serious social democracy.
I think Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin are good representatives of this approach today - see, e.g., Panitch's book 'Renewing Socialism'.
I wrote a piece on social democracy from this point of view for my Australian group a couple of years ago, which touches on the 'full employment' discussion we've been having here: http://scandalum.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/social-democractic-utopianism-and-capitalist-realism/
Thompson's short essay 'Revolution' is in issue 3 of New Left Review, I can provide it to anyone without access. It sparked a debate over the next few issues. Anderson's much-longer 'Problems of Socialist Strategy' is not online as far as I know, but maybe I'll find time to digitise.
There's a good review and critique of these two pieces by Wade Matthews here: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/50/matthews.html
I agree with much of his criticism, which basically boils down to the idea that all the strategy in the world won't help you if the right conditions aren't there. There is a Godot element. But there are things we can't influence and things we can and it seems sensible to focus on the latter.
>
> as for the emoticon, you addressed me and carrol. were you talking to a turd
> in your pocket you've name shag? normally, when I name my turds, I flush
> them. perhaps this is another thing that makes me so awesome?!
Nope - read the original post again. I was replying to Robert, agreeing with his view that there was "no reason to think of the intervention of Doug and the Jacobin people as being radically opposed to" Carrol's take on OWS. This was trying to build a bridge. I thought we could all laugh at the ultraleftists and narcissists together.
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20111024/013136.html
Mike