[lbo-talk] Goug Greene on The Democratic Socialist Cul-de-sac: A Critical Look at The Socialist Manifesto

Bill Bartlett william7 at aapt.net.au
Wed Jul 17 20:45:13 PDT 2019


In the context, I must presume that by ”socialism”, you actually mean “social democracy”. I guess this again illustrates the problem that Marx an Engels had with the word “socialism” way back in 1848. People have all kinds of funny ideas about what the word means. Marx just abandoned the word and used “communism” instead, so they wouldn’t be confused with all the abusers of the language.

Socialism is, by definition, social ownership and control of the means of production and exchange. Put simply, economic democracy, the means of production collectively owned and controlled by the people.

Social democracy, in contrast, is merely political democracy, with as many popularly approved reforms as can be practically incorporated within the context of capitalism. The welfare state, minimum wages and conditions, etc. But not crossing the line into threatening private ownership and control of the means of production.

It seems odd to me that so many people confuse the two concepts. But there you go, they do.

Back in Marx’s time it was a different problem he was coming up against I gather. The bane of his life were utopian socialists, people with all kinds of dreamy ways of achieving socialism. In a way we have a bigger problem, most people don’t even have the faintest idea what “socialism” means.

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas


> On 17 Jul 2019, at 9:42 am, Barry Brooks <durable at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Socialism that leaves money in power, while quelling revolts of the mass, ought to be popular with all billionaires.
> Socialism was always a devils bargain, but nothing else could have been done in face of the extreme powerful reaction against deeper reform?
>
> For decades, science has shown that ending the need for consumption growth was urgent. Socialism seemed to offer the quickest way to end consumption growth. Socialism hoped that big money would care about such things, and end wage dependence, stop producing as much as possible, and to accept steady dividends as a replacement of appreciation. After a century or so of suppressed revolutions there was little hope that anything other than the consent of big money could stop our destruction of natural systems soon enough.
>
> Without revolution by workers socialism was just buying time. Now, we witness a revolution of nature against capitalist plunder. Socialist ass-kissing was not enough to stop unlimited growth. Rather, socialists agreed with big money that more plunder and more income for everyone would be good economic policy. It was good for a while. Now it's too late for reform or for revolution. We are toast thanks to economic growth mania.
>
> Was "from each according to his ability" a prescription for producing too much once automation increased labor power times X? Would a revolutionary government have stopped our plunder of the planet soon enough?
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list