Continuing on with the questions:
What does one need to believe politically to be a communist? and/or
What is socialism/communism?
Another comrade wrote this:
What seems fundamental to me is that a person believe in the desirability, the necessity, and above all, the *possibility* of socialism. Part and parcel of this, on a more personal, ethical level, is holding in the highest esteem the essential dignity of every human being, without exception, and maintaining a profound and unshakeable belief in our fundamental capacity -- and deepest wish -- to live our lives together harmoniously and joyously.
My first claim raises the perennial question: What is socialism? The question is highly controversial even among socialists -- hence its interminable currency. The controversies reflect deep ideological fault lines within the left, foremost among which, in my view, is the division between proponents of socialism-from-above and proponents of socialism-from-below. The classic statement of the difference between these "two souls" of socialism is the 1966 pamphlet by Hal Draper, aptly titled "The Two Souls of Socialism". Aside from the Communist Manifesto, there is no other work that I could recommend more highly for someone who is trying to capture the essence of socialism. Here is a link to the pamphlet:http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm.
For now, I could cite another worthwhile -- because disputed -- characterization of socialism, namely, the "from below" definition offered by Max Shachtman in the early part of his argument during the 1950 Brooklyn College debate against Earl Browder. Shachtman states:
"The best way to begin is by defining socialism. Socialism is based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and exchange; upon production for use as against production for profit; upon the abolition of all classes, all class divisions, class privilege, and class rule; upon the production of such abundance that the struggle for material needs is completely eliminated, so that humanity, at last freed from economic exploitation, from oppression, from any form of coercion by a state machine, can devote itself to its fullest intellectual and cultural development. Much can perhaps be added to this definition, but anything less you can call whatever you wish, but it will not be socialism."
This definition becomes the yardstick that Shachtman proceeds to use in order to measure Stalin's Soviet Union; he finds it lacking to an overwhelming degree, and concludes that it cannot meaningfully be characterized as socialist. The debate makes for fascinating and engaging reading, in part because the disputants generally do not mince their words. The complete verbatim transcript of the debate may be found here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1950/03/russia.htm
Highly recommended!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I had forgotten the Draper piece. I read it more than 30 years ago.
Draper seriously mischaracterizes anarchism, is intellectually dishonest here and misses the point completely when talking about why anarchism doesn't work in theory or in practice: its theory forms solely around negation and can't comprehend a dialectic of struggle-change-new absolute-contradiction.
If Draper gets this so wrong, it's logical to ask what other mistakes he made.
Its a period piece and the period has passed. Is the contradiction and struggle we face one of socialist forces being repressed in existing socialist societies or is the struggle and contradiction we face more deeeply rooted in global capitalist relations? And in our present situation can we speak of anything other than "socialism from below"?
Note that we share definitions across the socialist spectrum and that we all feel comfortable with "socialism from below.". What we do not share are traditions or analysis.
To what extent are traditions helpful now?
One more point or question: what if it was nearly inevitable that the socialist revolutions of the past had no other option than failure? if the hopes and the rhetoric could never have matched the reality? if "all the sidewalks led to quicksand?" Would that make any of us changes our minds about capitalism and socialism?
To get back to the basic question, a young person--or any person--interested in being a communist should eventually learn how to think dialectically but should never be weighed down by political traditions beyond the tradition of fighting for justice. I think that the two go together; if either is lacking, thinking or practice suffers.
Post a Comment