the system is legitimate only when the collective subject abides
> by its own
> norms
> because of the developed opinions of the people and not because
> of coercive
> laws and policies.  Socialism has been unable to develop this
> understanding:
> that the people constitute an agency in contradistinction to the state.
> Political theories of democracy posit an autonomous collective subject
> capable of action through
> solidarity; political theories of socialism have always clung to
> a steering
> system
> whether by the party or the state administration.

This is simply not true.  There has always been a vigorous debate among
socialists (libertarian vs. authoritarian/statist) about this very issue.
Many libertarian socialists (including Bakunin and Orwell, though in
Orwell's case it is not exactly clear what he meant when he refers to
libertarian socialism) have disputed the Leninist/Bolshevik claims that a
vanguard is necessary as a "steering system."  Instead, they maintain, as
Chomsky does, that this bureaucracy of experts or intellectuals or managers
constitute a form of illegitimate, possibly highly abusive authority that
may turn out to be much more violent and oppressive (to their own citizenry)
than capitalist models.  This is a crucial debate, and I think that the
libertarian socialists actually owe a lot to democratic predecessors like
Paine and Jefferson.  In short, the issue that we should be most concerned
about is democracy, as you rightly hold.  However, by claiming that various
forms of Bolshevism or state/authoritarian socialism are the only choice
provided by a socialist framework, one risks missing out on the compelling
ideas and practices of the libertarian socialists.

Soren Bergeson
> Fred Welfare