Right!  Economic justice is contained in the word socialism for me.

I like the phrase "participatory, democratic, ecosocialism."  I consider those words goals not prescriptions.

Carroll:  I agree that the outcome for democracy, including the form of democracy, cannot be predicted.  But that is also true of the form and outcome of socialism, eco- or not.

You seem to have problems with the word ecosocialism.  It is vague, of course, like the word socialism or democracy or freedom, or liberty, etc.

Is there something you would prefer that gets at both the idea of preserving our planet and socialism?


From: Rich Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 06:39:04 -0700
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Article By Gar Alperovitz from Truthout on producing wealth via Science

but democracy is not the only priority - economic justice is also - and this can not be obtained in a capitalist system!


From: Science for the People Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 11:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Article By Gar Alperovitz from Truthout on producing wealth via Science


Larry Romsted wrote:


One think missing in the essay to me is how decision making is done under capitalism and how it could/should be done under participatory, democratic, ecosocialism.  There was Foster talking to Occupy Wall Street people who are practicing a kind of participatory democracy that does not occur in any corporate or business workplace and it looks like he failed to make that connection. The Occupy need to be lauded for setting an example for the future.

(I enjoyed the double play of your typo: “think.” Probably there are a lot of “thinks” needed.)


I agree the Occupations should be lauded, primarily and independently of anything more they accomplish, that they have created a totally new political terrain or climate, one of possibility rather than the grim holding on of the last 40 years as we fought the long defeat. And it will be up to the rest of us (but including the OWS in that “rest of us”) to build a larger more varied and more coherent movement (or movements) in that new terrain of possibility.


There is also, I think, a potential contradiction in calling for democracy and at the same time prescribing that it shall be an “eco-socialism.” I share the refusal of Rosa Luxemburg and Walter Benjamin to dictate to the future or to assume that we can know the outcome of our struggles: the recognition encapsulated in Luxemburg’s “Socialism or Barbarism,” which can also be expressed as “Democracy or Barbarism,” remembering that Luxemburg saw both as real possibilities; the outcome of the struggle for democracy cannot be predicted.


But if our struggle is for democracy, we cannot write the recipes for the world that democracy will build; as the youthful Marx put it, it is not our thing to write recipes for the cook shops of the future. We can only carry on a ruthless critique in both thought and action of all that is. The future remains invisible.