I’m no political scholar, but I would rather have some improvements by people trying to make incremental progress within the existing framework than no improvement by purists.
I also am skeptical of anyone claiming a policy or political approach is inherently better and will produce positive outcomes purely on theory alone. Theory is a great guide for policies but without small scale roll outs where outcomes are measured it’s all just ivory tower navel gazing.
Also, I doubt any pure philosophy, like capitalism, communism, socialism or libertarianism will end up being the optimal solution. All are approximations of the complexity of real world sociopolitical and economic systems.
The dichotomy isn’t “some progress” vs. “Purity.” The point made by revolutionary socialists is that the capitalist system is incapable of reforming into socialism, and that socialism is a necessary step forward. Reforms only take the form of minor concessions, which can be taken away at will by the capitalist class, while the establishment of socialism is a semipermanent end to this issue (barring counterrevolution).
Marxists agree that pure theory with no practice is wrong. This is referred to as dogmatism, or “book worship.” Theory and practice are mutually reinforcing and sharpening. Theory gets tested by practice, which then tells us more about the world, which reshapes our theory and thus reshaping our practice.
Finally, the idea that a “mix” is the solution. I think the problem here is that you believe systems to be defined by purity, and not their principal aspects. Socialism is not a moralistic dogma, nor a legalistic decree. It’s a material system, which necessarily is propelled forward through the resolution of contradictions.
Private property, for example, de facto exists in socialist societies largely because of the underdevelopment of productive forces. The process of building towards higher levels of socialism therefore requires intense economic development. These systems are not “mixtures,” but different sectors within an overall socialist economy.
DEMSOCS are not socialist, the want to work within the confines of capitalism and preserve its exploitation
I’m no political scholar, but I would rather have some improvements by people trying to make incremental progress within the existing framework than no improvement by purists.
I also am skeptical of anyone claiming a policy or political approach is inherently better and will produce positive outcomes purely on theory alone. Theory is a great guide for policies but without small scale roll outs where outcomes are measured it’s all just ivory tower navel gazing.
Also, I doubt any pure philosophy, like capitalism, communism, socialism or libertarianism will end up being the optimal solution. All are approximations of the complexity of real world sociopolitical and economic systems.
Incrementalism only helps the oligarchy, voters assume it shifts to the left, it marches to the right.
James Baldwin, 1982
50 years of liberal incrementalism/lessor evil and all you’ve gotten is a larger evil.
The dichotomy isn’t “some progress” vs. “Purity.” The point made by revolutionary socialists is that the capitalist system is incapable of reforming into socialism, and that socialism is a necessary step forward. Reforms only take the form of minor concessions, which can be taken away at will by the capitalist class, while the establishment of socialism is a semipermanent end to this issue (barring counterrevolution).
Marxists agree that pure theory with no practice is wrong. This is referred to as dogmatism, or “book worship.” Theory and practice are mutually reinforcing and sharpening. Theory gets tested by practice, which then tells us more about the world, which reshapes our theory and thus reshaping our practice.
Finally, the idea that a “mix” is the solution. I think the problem here is that you believe systems to be defined by purity, and not their principal aspects. Socialism is not a moralistic dogma, nor a legalistic decree. It’s a material system, which necessarily is propelled forward through the resolution of contradictions.
Private property, for example, de facto exists in socialist societies largely because of the underdevelopment of productive forces. The process of building towards higher levels of socialism therefore requires intense economic development. These systems are not “mixtures,” but different sectors within an overall socialist economy.