After I sent this message I realized that I got so caught up in talking
about the pitfalls on the way to the goal that I forgot to continue what
I started out to say. Let me try this again. Capitalism has a lot of
manifestations that we, of course, want to get rid of. But because they
are manifestations of capitalism then when capitalism is abolished those
manifestations should disappear too. That is, if you want to get rid of
something you have to get rid of the objective conditions that make it
possible. What is generally called corruption is a manifestation of
capitalist property relations or of property relations in a class
society in general. If you change those property relations to the point
that property and wealth cannot be accumulated and used to exert power
over others then there is no opportunity for corruption and so it
disappears just like the tendency to consume alcohol disappears in
Saudi Arabia. If you go to that country and you want to have an
alcoholic drink then good luck in finding a liquor store or a bar. The
trouble is that class society cannot be abolished instantly by decree.
That is why you will still see some amount of corruption on the way to
abolishing it.
On 7/21/2016 9:11 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender rogerbailey81
for DMARC) wrote:
Whether it is corruption, greed, religion or a myriad other manifestations of a class society the way to stop them is to remove the objective conditions that make them possible. That is not done by waving a magic wand nor by any other instant method. When the formerly ruled class becomes the ruling class it rules. That is what a ruling class is, a class that rules, and that opens the opportunity for corruption, but the mere fact of the former ruled class being the large majority tends to lesson that possibility. When there is a revolution where the full productive capacity of capitalism has not been achieved there will be shortages and that means that someone must be in charge of distributing what there is not enough of. That is the simple explanation of the rise of Stalinism and the rise of Stalinism itself should be a lesson in how not to build a socialist society. The kind of situation that should be striven for is one in which there is plenty of production and what is produced need only be administered. As Lenin said, the state as an apparatus for administering people needs to become an apparatus for administering things. The trouble is that revolution does not and virtually cannot work out just exactly the way we want it to. There are just too many variables to keep track of. So undoubtedly there will be corruption along the way that will have to be fought down. We can only plan a forward line of march and always look to the past to avoid mistakes that have already been made. To paraphrase someone else, the price of socialism is eternal vigilance. If this sounds like a forever war that you would not like to participate in then remember that even if you do not participate you will have to deal with a forever war anyway. Do nothing and the inequities of a class system continue and you are caught in the middle whether you like it or not. Do something about it and you are caught in a perpetual struggle in which you are helping things to get better and it works too. Capitalism is a much better system to live under than feudalism and feudalism was a much better system to live in than slavery. The next stage will be even better, But remember, as Trotsky described it, our goals are to maximize man's power over nature and to minimize man's power over man. That goal does not have an end in sight. There will always be opportunities to get closer.
On 7/21/2016 4:06 PM, Bob Hachey wrote:
Hi Roger,
I have finally decided that there is little or no hope for capitalism and that it cannot serve well the majority of us. But I keep thinking about what would happen if we really do achieve the socialist revolution often referred to in the millitant. The theory sounds great, but it seems dependent upon no humans who will try to corrupt the new system for personal gain at the expense of the rest of us. Look what happened in Russia, China and Cuba. I know that Cuba is not as bad as China and Russia, but I can't help but be suspiscious when one leader, Castro, is in power for such a long time. Carl speaks often and eloquently on this issue.
It seems to me that most humans when put into positions of ledership would try to exploit the situation. What sort of safeguards would you recommend in a new system that would prevent or eliminate this tendency?
Bob Hachey