Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Reply to JoSH on socialism
Message-ID: <227@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Oct-85 21:25:21 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.227
Posted: Sat Oct 26 21:25:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 22:00:46 EST
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 120

JoSH writes:

> It is my understanding that Marx spent the vast majority
>of his effort erecting a comprehensive economic/historical theory of
>conditions up to and during his day, and didn't spend much effort on 
>figuring out how the Communist revolution would do things better.

True enough.  His vision of communism was strongly colored by wishful
thinking and the belief that all good things must go together.

>Indeed, as I and other respondents here have noted, what descriptions
>of his utopia Marx did give, resemble "Libertaria" as much as any other
>proposed system.

There is a strong resemblance.  There are also very important
differences, including how to get from here to there.

>As mentioned before, I don't think Marx has much to do with socialism
>as practiced today.  When leading socialist thinkers such as Harrington
>begin economics texts ("Twilight of Capitalism") with lame excuses for 
>the Russian Communist regime ("bad weather"!!!), I will not be put
>off by "but that's not what Marx said."  Socialism, to me, exists 
>wherever there is State interference with voluntary economic interactions.

JoSH, it won't do to make a list of things one dislikes, and call it
"socialism."  A better method, when debating with persons who claim
to be democratic socialists, is to find out what they actually
believe in, and respond to that if you disagree with it.  You mention
Mike Harrington as making lame excuses for the Russian Communists.  I
don't recall the passage (I gave my copy of *ToC* to a
neoconservative friend) but I do know that Harrington is strongly
critical of Soviet Communism and that he bases his critique on none
other than Karl Marx, saying in a nutshell that Marx would have found
the Soviet Union repellent.  Harrington discusses various socialist
regimes at great length in *Socialism* (unfortunately out of print
last I heard).  In *Twilight* Harrington bases his critique of
20th-century capitalism explicitly on Marx.  Marx may not have much
to do with socialism as *practiced* today in, say, Eastern Europe,
but we were presumably discussing the ideals and principles of those
who espouse democratic socialism in this newsgroup.  (For the record,
I consider the Solidarity movement in Poland to be a splendid example
of democratic socialism.)  Marx remains profoundly important for most
Western socialist intellectuals; hence my objection to a critique of
socialist thought (society as a machine, individuals as expendable,
etc.) that is more or less identical with Marx's critique of
capitalism.  

If JoSH is indeed serious about understanding socialist beliefs, it
would be a good thing for him to read Irving Howe's article in the
Fall 1983 *Dissent*, "Thinking About Socialism," where Howe says more
or less the opposite of what JoSH thinks he will say.  I also suggest
reading the article on Henry Pachter's writings in the same issue;
the excerpts from Alec Nove's *The Economics of Feasible Socialism*
in the Summer 1985 issue; Michael Walzer's *Radical Principles*;
Howe's excellent anthology *Beyond the Welfare State* including
Harrington's article on "What Socialists Would Do In America -- If
They Could"; and Harrington's book on *Socialism*.  These books and
articles will give one a good idea of what democratic socialists are
saying.  (Please note that I don't necessarily agree with everything
they say.)

>>Both Marx and I believe that ultimately only the individual is
>>morally relevant.  
>
>If this is true, I do not see why you aren't a libertarian.  If you
>really believe this, how can you support systematic State prior
>interference with individual moral decisions?  *If only the individual
>is moral, why do you believe in collective control?*

What I said was that ultimately only the individual is morally
relevant.  I do not see the contradiction that JoSH finds with a
belief in democratic control, which I would roughly define as a
tendency toward equalization of the power of individuals over the
conditions of their own lives.  It is precisely the *individual* that
matters.

>Current-day socialists are strongly connected with efforts to put as
>much of the economy as possible under State control "for the public good."  
>I am quite ready to believe that Marx was not a great supporter of this
>particular style of "revolution," since he believed the State to be a tool
>of the capitalists.  However, as before, theoretical Marxism is irrelevant
>to modern practical socialism.

(i) Most Western socialists are not trying to put as much of the
economy as possible under state control.  (ii) The welfare state was
only a gleam in J.S. Mill's eye when Marx wrote *Capital*, so it is a
moot point what Marx would have thought of it.  (iii) Marx changed
his mind about the state being merely a capitalist tool as a result
of reflecting on the events of 1848-1852 or so.  See *The Class
Struggles in France*, *The 18th Brumaire*, and other writings.
Modern Marxist theories of the state have gone far beyond Marx.  (iv)
Again, the belief that Marx is irrelevant to democratic socialism is
profoundly mistaken.

>However, I seem to recall that Marx based his theory of history on
>the idea of the interactions of *classes*, in distinction with then
>current ideas which placed considerable weight on the actions of 
>*individuals*, typically kings, generals, and religious figures.
>So I would claim that Marxist thought, at its very core, treats
>people as groups and not as individuals.

It is true that Marx believed that "the history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles."  (He also
believed that it was the history of the development of the productive
forces, and the integration of the two points of view is a major
theoretical problem.)  The question is, what do you mean by
"treat people as groups and not as individuals"?  To say that the
concept of "class" is extremely useful in explaining the course of
history is not to deny the explanatory importance of individuals,
still less their moral importance.  There is no necessary connection
between the theory of class struggle and a belief that people are
faceless masses or whatever it is that JoSH means.  It is as if I
said, "The struggle between the US and the USSR is of enormous
importance in explaining 20th-century history," and JoSH replied,
"Aha, so you treat people as groups, not as individuals."

I welcome thoughtful criticisms of socialist positions, but I do get
weary of the endless parade of straw men.
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes