I have been trying to think some of this through quite actively during the last 10 or 15 years.  My ideas on it are put forth most completely in
Friedman, Samuel R. Making the World Anew in a Period of Workers' Council Rule. We! Magazine #63, Volume 2, Number 16 Wednesday, 2 April 2008. http://mytown.ca/friedman/ or http://thelunaticgazette.com/friedman/.

I think that "we" can have content as well as form in what we say.  "Democracy" poses questions like which class's (or gender's? or ...?) democracy.  When you start to answer that, and think through the ways in which it can happen, I think we begin to get some content.

If we think about the conditions under which such democracy can come into existence, in the context of global warming, etc., I think the "eco" becomes highly probable   People do not want to live in a world where Hurricane Sandy's are real common. 

In any case, I am glad we are discussing this issue. To the extent to which people find good answers to it, I think barbarism or extinction become a little less probable.

best
sam



-----Original Message-----
From: Kamran Nayeri <[log in to unmask]>
To: SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Fri, Jan 10, 2014 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: Privatization of the brain

Dear Carol:

Of course, I would like to sit quietly and let others contribute if they wish so. But in the interest of making my own point of view clear without repeating myself here I would draw your attention to an essay I recently wrote to grapple with what is often treated as two crises--of society and of nature (ecosphere). 

In that essay, I discuss my own view of ecological socialism.  I am completely in agreement with you about the necessity of some radical form of democracy (I use the term "participatory democracy"). But at the same time, democracy itself only provide us with an optimum sociopolitical structure to discuss and arrive at societal problems/issues including the shape of the post-capitalist social formation(s).  In other words, democracy and state power are necessary but not sufficient. We also need to discuss and adopt some visions of social organization and how to get there (transition phases). I equate ecological socialism with a set of naturalist social formations where something like Marx's concept of associated producers provides its mode of production. 

Of course, these are just my current ideas based on a life time of learning/unlearning and participating in social and political movements. I am completely open to any other views and would adopt them if they prove superior to me. The will be ample opportunity as we work our way as a movement (when there is a movement). However, the history of movements for radical social change since the advent of modern ideas of socialism is not very reassuring. 

Best regards,

Kamran   


On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Kamran Nayeri:

No Mitchel, I did not. It may be an editing issue. But the second group of
questions are really important to grapple with. We tend to blame everything
that is wrong on the ruling class assuming that the "99%" or "the
proletariat" or "the humanity" would take the right decisions and actions.
But where is the proof for that assumption? Or at least, some historical,
empirical basis for such claims?

---------

A few observations.

1. I agree that the Idea of Progress is false; it is a crucial part of
capitalist ideology, grouned (I think) in (a) technological 'progress' in
the 19th-c and (b) the great success of British Imperialism. I don't believe
_either_ Marx or Darwin accepted the Idea, but they were Victorian Gentlemen
and couldn't avoid "progressive" phrases creeping into their texts. Rosa
Luxemburg was the first Marxist explicitly to deny the concept: Socialism or
Barbarism was not a mere slogan but a serious statement of two realistic
possibilities. (Barbarism, we now know, is the more likely.)

2. "Blame" is not a good verb to bring in to political analysis; it
substitutes subjective moralism for history. Capitalist relations of
production generate barbarism _regardless_  of the behavior or intentions of
capitalists. Capitalism isn't evil; it is history.

3. Our goal has to be _democracy_, not some specific set of policies.
Luxemburg in 1898 argued that the final goal was not some vague socialism
but state power for the SPD. Her statement was limited by actual  conditions
in 1898, but if we substitute Democracy for the SPD, her point is still
good.

4.  And since our goal is Democracy, WE CANNOT DICTATE THE POLICIES WHICH
THAT DEMOCRACY WILL CHOOSE. For example, the phrase "Eco-Socialism" is not
acceptable. Perhaps humanity, set free of the shackles of capitalism, will
choose to live it up for the next couple centuries. That is their choice.
All we can fight for is to create freedom (some form of direct democracy).

4a. So of course there is no proof (or even good probability) that a
democratic society would make the right decisions. We have no crystal balls.
But we do know that capitalism is destroying us and that within capitalism
we do not have the freedom even to attempt  alternative organizations of
human activity.

Carrol