What is with the "no other alternative" excuse?

[RadioRaheem84]

I just finished reading a review for David Harvey's new book, Enigma of Capital, and the author of the review goes into a lengthy tirade about how Harvey's employs outdated terminology and doesn't provide for an alternative to capitalism.

Some critics of the book say that Harvey provides a damning critique of capital but doesn't provide an adequate social alternative.

Sometimes I wonder if reviewers skip the last chapter of every socialist book that's critical of capitalism because in almost all the books they at least outline a solution for the crises or at least promote a road to socialism.

But apparently, academics are still in the "end of history" mode and think that things are still moving in a linear fashion with socialism being left in the dust of the past.

They do not even bother to address the issues concerning socialists. They just use the fact that they're socialists to put them down, i.e. "outdated terminology". When the Marxist critique is sound, the critics say, "well you have a good critique but serious alternative".

The one thing that is an enigma to me is why do people insist that if Marxists have good critiques, that they don't have good solutions?

[ed miliband]

I thought even amongst socialists the consensus on David Harvey is that his politics are pretty shitty? He admits himself he isn't really sure on what to replace capitalism with, and I read that during one Q + A session he responded with something like 'just get rid of Bush!' when asked what was to be done.

[RadioRaheem84]

I thought even amongst socialists the consensus on David Harvey is that his politics are pretty shitty? He admits himself he isn't really sure on what to replace capitalism with, and I read that during one Q + A session he responded with something like 'just get rid of Bush!' when asked what was to be done.

Well, he does to distinguish himself from a revolutionary position. He has revolutionary language in his theories but is rather soc dem, reformist in his politics.

But I was using the example of David Harvey to point out a much greater example of liberals asserting that we offer nothing. They did it to John Bellamy Foster and the MR crew with their excellent book, The Great Financial Crisis.

You will find these critiques a lot; "yeah you make a good point but what's the alternative"?

If you say socialism they'll repeat the tired mantra of, "that's outdated".

What's funny is that some of them will look to cooperative means and other socialist-lite alternatives and think of those as "capitalist" alternatives.

[GPDP]

One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them."

There ya go.

[fa2991]

Zizek & Hitchens always say this, too, and it annoys me to no end. I think it's just the crusty cynicism that's inevitable when rebels get old.

[Peace on Earth]

It should be enough to say that capitalism is ass-backwards. Replacing it with anything else is probably a step up. Though it's always good to have a solution in your back pocket.

[anticap]

If we had always followed the idea that we must present a blueprint for the future whenever we critique the present then we would never have left the caves.

There is nothing wrong with simply saying "This sucks, and I don't know what lies ahead, but I want outta here. Who's with me?"

[IllicitPopsicle]

Yeah, exactly.

Honestly, I think the burden of proof should be on proponents of Capitalism. We've spent almost 200 years enumerating Communism, Socialism and Anarchism. We've presented numerous abstracts regarding life during and after the revolution. Hell, we've experimented in reality. Capitalism has sat on its lazy ass not having to provide any details for how it's going to bring people away from starvation and poverty.

[Rjevan]

But I was using the example of David Harvey to point out a much greater example of liberals asserting that we offer nothing.
They have to. It helps them sleep at night. ;)

But seriously, liberals don't want radical change or revolution, they have problems with certain aspects but not with the bourgeois system itself. Admitting that our alternative makes sense would be contrary to their class interest. The moment they say (and believe) that socialism/communism is a genuine alternative they cease to be bourgeois liberals and become communists themselves.

However, the more intelligent anti-communists see that our analyses and criticism do make sense and can't be ignored to a certain degree. Trying to refute them in the "dumb conservative"-way ("They are commies, don't listen to them!!! Capitalism is perfect, everybody has the same chances and we live in the best world possible!") would make them just look like ignorant fools in their ivory towers at best or cynical bastards at worst.

So they acknowledge that some of our points (only the irrefutable, though. Never give unnecessary concessions!) actually do make sense and are valid but at the same time they have to assure everybody that we either fail to draw any consequences, draw idealistic and utopian consequences which cannot but fail miserably (thanks to "human nature", etc.), or that history shows that socialism means nothing but a big bloodbath and mass poverty and thus clearly proved that socialism is impossible.