: SDF: The only thing that I can see that would restart the potential for revolutionary mobilization, absent a resurgence in intentional communities, sharing, and other forms of socialist BEHAVIOR (as opposed to mere vanguardist theorizing on BBS's), is the energy limitation upon capitalist "growth," which foretells of an era of scarcity and not of abundance.
From above, something Engels said; "...and constantly keep in mind that Socialism, having become a science,..."
From Samuel Day Fassbinder; "I still await the objective scientific study of the conditions of
And once again from the indefatigable Samual Day Fassbinder; "I myself was using the idea of intentional communities as something that would forward observable socialist BEHAVIOR, something more obviously real than "consciousness"."
All the above quotes demonstrate something common in many of these discussions; the purported 'scientific' basis for a soft science, a social science.
This notion is reinforced by terms like 'alienation', 'surplus value', 'effective demand' and 'scientific dielectism'.
But what are these terms but jargon?
If one agrees with the premises, ie; the jargon, then one must agree with the conclusions. In this way, and in this way only, can Socialists/Communists/Trotskyites/Liberals/Greens win points for their side(s).
Politics and Economics and certainly the Social Sciences are not Sciences at all but rather opinions, sometimes well thought out and sometimes not, that are shared for discussion.
Science can put a man on the Moon with certainty, or predict exactly how many electrons will pass a given point in one second given X volts. It's not only predictable, it's repeatable, every time. It is, in short, everything that human action is not.
OK, I just had to get that off my chest.