January 08, 2006: Socialism or barbarism
One hundred years ago the old Socialist movement had a terse and eloquent slogan summarizing the alternatives facing humanity: socialism or barbarism. They were right, and, they lost. Our society today is the barbarism they pessimistically yet accurately foresaw.
What do we mean when we say that the alternative is "socialism"?
The movements of 100 years ago had several answers. That vibrance was part of its strength, IMO. One of the most rigorous answers was that socialism was the first stage of transition toward a society without classes and without a state apparatus in our usual sense. The political power of working people was the precondition. The activists who held these beliefs sketched out something of what this transition would look like: state ownership of major enterprises, democratic planning of the economy, and so on.
I don't use the term "socialism" in such a specific sense. I use it more abstractly, that is more simply, to mean merely the political empowerment of working people. My difference with the old definitions are that they seem arrogant to me. I don't think it's reasonable to try to make specific predictions about what an empowered working class might choose to do. The point is to fight for empowerment. In a democratic society, the consequences of victory will be determined collectively, through discussion, debate, and open struggle.
Comments
Post-Modernsim is a term that emerged after the failure of the 60's left to achieve socialism. It implies a sense that the real antagonisms of society have been overcome. Yet, in that same time frame, capitalism has become more exploitative and politically repressive. In that same time, popular culture has become increasingly violent and, I think, class conscious, reflecting the persistance of the antagonisms that theory has repressed. To reflect the victory of barbarism over Socialism, I sometimes use the expression 'Savage Modernism'.
Posted by: Wayne Rothschild | January 13, 2006 01:00 PM