Re Allin's [OPE-L:1334]:
I had written previously:
> And let us not forget that it will be the citizens in a
> post-revolutionary society who will ultimately have to
> concretize the goals concerning the operation of a socialist
> Naturally, but the point is that there ain't going to be any
> revolution unless people have some idea in advance of what they
> hope to achieve thereby, and how it's going to be better than
> what currently exists.
I don't disagree. The disagreement, if any, concerns what is meant by
> Socialist theorists today certainly can't _legislate_ what
> socialism will look like, even if they wanted to. The point is
> not to bind the future, but to enable it.
Again, I don't disagree.
> The notion that the revolution will come of itself, and we can
> leave thinking about the nature of socialism till afterwards, is
> completely untenable.
Of course, the revolution won't come of itself.
As for you point about the "nature of socialism", what do _you_ mean by
that expression? It seems to me that that question should be addressed
_before_ we discuss the details of different forms of planning.
> For all but a tiny minority of
> intellectuals today, "socialism" simply means something that was
> tried, and failed horribly, in the middle two quarters of the
> twentieth century. Why would anyone want to make a revolution
> to re-establish that?
Certainly I wouldn't want to re-establish what existed in the "socialist"
world in the middle two quarters (1925-1975). And I agree with you that the
masses of the world don't want to fight to re-establish Stalinism.
Yet, the issue that most question -- *indeed all but a tiny minority of
intellectuals* -- is not how planning can be efficiently organized but is
rather how you can have socialism _and_ democracy. And that question can't
be settled with mathematical and/or accounting methods and models.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:10 EST