Hi Robin,

The fatal flaw is simple. If, and that is a giant IF, there is a significant
growth in socialist consciousness, the WSM view is that when it reaches a
majority (we won't quibble about 51% or 75% or anything here) that is the point
at which socialism becomes possible.
***
I think I have stated the WSM position correctly. And let us ignore for the
moment that this could take a year or two, but the odds are a zillion to one
against, or a thousand years with a fifty/fifty chance, or any other number of
years and matching odds you care to enter into the equation. Let us guess that
it will take 25 to 50 years. You can argue for less or more if you choose.
+++
But let us say that in a number of years socialist consciousness grows. But
what form will it take? WSM socialism? Leninism? Or any number of other
forms? My point is that there will be enough violent revolutionaries to have a
violent revolution long before there are enough non-violent revolutionaries to
have a non-violent revolution. Simple mathematics. Less happens before more.
***
If we can for the moment simply stick to what we know about human behaviour we
might resolve this. We know that there are and have been many that are prepared
to use violence to get what they want. It doesn't matter to them that we few
socialists want a non-violent revolution, they want a swift revolution that
gives them land and power in some small part of the world.
***
These warlords in a few countries are likely to be emulated by those of a
similar mindset in every country if capitalism were destabilised. They already
take on the might of the most powerful armies in the world. They are, or act as
though they are, not afraid to die for their cause. Armies of militants all
over the world that act as though they are not afraid to die can take over the
world. But that the result will be socialism as we understand it is
questionable.
***
We are fortunate to live in a world in which so many are not in fighting mood.
Capitalism serves a great number of people, workers as well as capitalists, and
they want it to work, to succeed. They see their future as being tied in with
the success and stability of capitalism. They don't believe socialism can or
will come to their rescue if they think about it at all. If they do think about
it they will claim to know it will "not" work, and they'll give you chapter and
verse on exactly why not.
***
I think I have made myself clear now on what will not work. In the past I've
said something about what might work. There is already a small movement in the
direction I think might succeed, but few accept the validity of that approach
yet. If it gets a boost in some way it will become newsworthy and could take
off and be the fastest change ever seen. The target should be 100 million
persons per annum moving from straight capitalism into alternatives, especially
into total systems alternatives like my circle city network idea.
***
I think even the majority of socialists would be quite positive about something
like that if it was happening. Not that it matters what such a tiny minority
might think if the vast majority were in favour. And note that I did not say in
favour of living in the new network. Those construction workers who build
skyscrapers don't expect to live in them, only a few are lived in (the Hancock
building being an exception). They simply expect paying jobs so they can pay
their own mortgages.
***
Who would be against the circle city plan? Only a few disgruntled socialists
who see such boosts to capitalism as counter-revolutionary, not realising that
it is not only revolutionary but realistic and helpful to people along the way
enabling workers to be paid and feed their families. We realistic socialists
want everyone to be in favour so that something actually happens other than hot
air generation.
***
People are not interested in discussing future plans like mine, and that plays
into the hands of the WSM and all other anticapitalist groups who have a lot
more to say about the evils of the present system and how it cannot be improved,
only abolished, than about what exactly it can be replaced with, in detail. If
socialists cannot or will not describe socialism in all its glorious details
then how is anyone supposed to know if they want it or not? vagueness is not in
the slightest convincing to the vast majority.
***
I know why socialists are reluctant though, it's because they don't want to give
ammunition to their opponents. If you promote a particular viewpoint others
will knock it. Just as when I promote circle cities you knock it. Most
leftists of whatever group or none are happier knocking capitalism than they are
promoting alternatives. They cannot knock each other for knocking capitalism.
But they would fall out completely if they all had a different view of where we
are headed and how to get there. It leaves one avenue open to me or anyone with
a plan, to do it without extremists involved, just with ordinary workers, even
if that means being their guide if not actually their leader.
***
At the risk of being knocked I am more than happy to discuss the future and how
we might reach our future goals.

Cheers,

Bob
***