[R-G] Michael Lebowitz: The spectre of socialism for the 21st century

[Anthony Fenton]

Michael Lebowitz: The spectre of socialism for the 21st century

The following is the keynote address to the annual meeting of the  
Society for Socialist Studies, Vancouver, June 5, 2008. It was  
originally titled ``Building socialism for the 21st century''. To hear  
an audio recording of the speech, click HERE.

By Michael A. Lebowitz

A spectre is haunting capitalism. It is the spectre of socialism for  
the 21st century. Increasingly, the characteristics of this spectre  
are becoming clear, and we are able to see enough to understand what  
it is not. The only thing that is not clear at this point is whether  
the spectre is real – i.e., whether it is actually an earthly presence.

Consider what this spectre is not. It is not the belief that by  
struggling within capitalism for reforms that it is possible to change  
the nature of capitalism -- i.e., that a better capitalism, a third  
way, can suspend the logic of capital (except momentarily). Nor is it  
a focus upon electing friendly governments to preside over  
exploitation, oppression and exclusion -- i.e., to support barbarism  
with a human face. Indeed, this spectre does not accept the premise  
that you can challenge the logic of capital without understanding it.  
Very simply, the spectre of socialism for the 21st century is not  
yesterday’s liberal package -- social democracy. Further, this spectre  
is not a focus upon the industrial working class as the revolutionary  
subjects of socialism, a privileging whereby all other workers  
(including those in the growing informal sector) are seen as lesser  
workers, unproductive workers, indeed lumpenproletariat. Nor does it  
suggest that those industrial workers by virtue of the difference  
between their productivity with advanced means of production and their  
incomes (i.e., the extent of their exploitation) have a greater  
entitlement to the wealth of society than the poor and excluded.

In the conception of socialism for the 21st century, socialism is not  
confused with the ownership of the means of production by the state  
such that (a) it is thought that all that is necessary for socialism  
is to nationalise and (b) that everything not nationalised is an  
affront. Indeed, this spectre does not emphasise the development of  
productive forces without regard for the nature of productive  
relations (such that gulags, dictatorship and indeed capitalism can  
all be justified because they develop the productive forces and  
thereby move you closer to socialism and communism).

Nor, for that matter, does it think of two post-capitalist states,  
socialism and communism, separated by a Chinese wall; in the concept  
of socialism for the 21st century, there is no separate socialist  
principle of ``to each according to his contribution’’ which must be  
honoured. Rather, there is simply the recognition that the development  
of the new society is a process and that this process necessarily  
begins on a defective basis -- in other words, with defects such as  
self orientation. Precisely for this reason, this recognition of  
existing defects, the battle of ideas -- an ideological battle against  
the old world -- is central to the concept of socialism for the 21st  
century.

Finally, socialism for the 21st century is not based upon democracy in  
the classic sense. By that, I mean that it is not based upon the  
concept of representative democracy -- that institutional form in  
which rule by the people is transformed into voting periodically for  
those who will misrule them. All these fall into what I call  
yesterday's socialist package.

[...]

http://links.org.au/node/503