Tape Error On A Vw Beetle

A socialism for the 21st Century?

I recently read the book "A socialism for the 21st Century" by the Chilean sociologist Tomás Moulian. Well, the question naturally arises whether it needs this for. His criticism of the leftist tendencies of the 20th Century, the revolutionary Marxism and reformist social democracy seems to me plausible. He locates their failure in particular in its statism, although the socialist project always aimed in the other direction: the dismantling of the state. Interestingly, the same as libertarian and socialist views. Moulian criticism now is that both trends have increased the state and have only a monster can grow (in the case of Marxism) or more and more inefficient Patchwork has been done in the face of globalization (in the case of social democracy). Socialism does not work "top down", but "bottom up". He also criticized the doctrine of "inevitable" global free market capitalist expression, which attach the neoliberals.

His solution now wants to combine socialism and democracy are inseparable. No socialism without democracy and no democracy without socialism. The first thesis will probably be hardly doubted (except of yesteryear Marxist), but the second? For what Moulian said, is that true democracy can not but be socialist, otherwise there is no real democracy.

this question To answer, we may need to understand first time, what he means at all under socialism. First, he wants to be clear that there will never be a "stateless state", as anarchists do. Second, he wants to point out that it will never go without a capitalist mode of production, but that his socialism be a hybrid between capitalist and socialist modes of production is.

But, here I have to hook it, the state that Moulian mind is a participatory democracy, comparable to what Switzerland has already been partially (possibility of positve and negative legislative initiative, federal structures, internal party democracy, open and pluralistic public space, respect for human rights, politicization and active political participation of the general population).

stay but then why not with the capitalist mode of production? For Moulian a pure capitalist mode of production is not compatible with an effective participatory democracy, because then the democracy in the economic sphere excluded. One concern that I understand very well, given the lobbying ability in today's democracies.

The new socialist economy will be a mixture of state enterprises and private companies that can be organized differently. On the one hand, this associative corporations while giving the shareholders a larger scope (such efforts also support the spirit of the initiative of Thomas Minder in Switzerland), as well as cooperatives (which in Switzerland are also already) and workers' organizations (where the owner also equal the employees themselves are operating is so collectively and democratically run - example is the Swiss mountain farming). And that is very central, the economy must be re-aligned to the needs of the people, not the "needs the money." The economy is there for the people, not the people for the economy. The Production must participate democratically in the factories and Take to ensure this.

is the interesting approach because it combines the political liberalism with socialism, as was previously liberalism has always been associated with capitalism (so much so that you "liberal" is almost equated with "a free market economy"). The idea goes so far as I know, of Heinz Dieterich is back and the basis for policy-Chavez, although one can argue about how well he carries them.