Dear cj, I hope this posting gets to you. I'm posting indirectly via another account while I'm visiting my family on Kauai. Will be in San Francisco from Jan 12 to Feb 12. Write to me if you might want to get together. rkm ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:11:00 -0600 From: aat <•••@••.•••> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: cj#1014> Why class struggle isn't where it's at... Dear cj, First let me say that your work is greatly appreciated, and I find watching you develop your theories as satisfying as watching a tank of graceful, colorful, exotic tropical fish. I wish you well. In your answer to X, who is being cajoled to accept Marxism, you answer, correctly I'd say, that the real issue is democracy vs. hierarchical control. Would you agree that this could also be stated as 'democracy vs fascism' - and that these are two opposing political systems? Whereas 'socialism vs capitalism' might more precisely be considered as two opposing economic systems? The US media revels in opposing communism (socialism) to democracy and I find this irritating because I think they are different beasts and should not be compared. I would say generally, ideally, but perhaps too simplisticly, that democracy is complimentary to socialism, and fascism is complimentary to capitalism. In their purest forms, that's the way they seem to me to fit best. I know it doesn't always work out that way in the real world. That is true probably mainly because whenever we see a socialist government established, capitalism ensures that this government endure any of a number of hardships which it pulls from it's bag of tricks. The socialist government is then under pressure to compromise principles, do capitalistic things, in order to survive. Cuba today is a good example of this - though I think Fidel is doing a very decent job, all considered. My point is then, when you say: >what we need to do is replace the industrial-growth system >itself. We all together need to move on to a new system. No >one is going to take over someone else's job - we're all getting >new jobs in a new regime >So my focus is really on how we can achive bottom-up democracy >where there are no positions of power. I would be willing to >trust the people to work out their economics on a case by case >basis. I see this is a long term economic goal, and it may well be feasible, but when we inherit (the mildest word handy) this industrialized behemoth, we won't be able to chop it all up into mom and pop enterprises tomorrow. There will have to be an interim economic system, part of which would almost certainly have to endure permanently. Would you agree that this economic system should be a socialism similar to that which Marx described? Sincerely, austin ============= Dear Austin, Thanks for a particularly cogent and sensitive reply. I agree that the attempt to contrast "democracy" with "socialism" is propaganda, as is the attempt to equate "democracy" with "capitalism". I also agree that in an _industrialized society, an interim revolutionary system would by necessity resemble what has gone under the name of socialism. Before taking this conversation any further however, I think it is about time someone take the trouble to define 'socialism'. Do you want to give it a shot? Anyone else? rkm
Share: