Mediaboss Marketing

Marx saw socialism as a new mode of production that would follow capitalism the same way that capitalism had followed feudalism. It would represent a break, a rupture, and would likely come about through a revolution like the one in France. Socialism, and its ultimate form of communism, would incorporate in modified form certain elements of capitalismnamely popular democracybut abandon others, like capitalist ownership of the means of production. In Engels later formation, the working class, having won power, would own and control the countrys industry through their control of the state.

Before World War I, and to some extent afterward, many Marxist socialists saw capitalism becoming, in effect, a giant system of factories in which a small capitalist class ruled over the countrys rapidly expanding ranks of industrial workers. Through labor organizing and a socialist political party, the working class would seize power and displace the capitalist class. A dissenting group of revisionists, led by Eduard Bernstein, foresaw the growth of a new middle class and the attempt by the capitalist class to meet some of the demands that Marxist socialists believed would precipitate revolution.

But the debate between Marxists and revisionists was diverted by the Russian and Chinese revolutions. None of the pre-World War I socialists in the West believed that a country without a developed working class or the experience of parliamentary democracy could create socialism. But the leaders of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions insisted that they had done just that. As a result, the socialist debate for many years was waged over whether these countries were really socialist. That carried through to the new left of the Sixties when radicals describing themselves as communists adopted Cuba or China or even North Korea as models. (Acommune in Berkeley called the Red Family extolled the achievements of Kim Il Sung.) Their critics on the left, some of whom flocked to NAM, saw Debs socialism as a model. Debs believed in elections and democracy, but he also envisaged socialism as workers ownership and control of (repeat after me) the means of production. So what should have been a debate between Marxist and liberal socialists became a debate between self-styled communists and Marxist socialists.

In Western Europe, however, where many of the socialist, social-democratic, and labor parties entered government, socialists were forced to define their objectives more clearly. And what has emerged is a liberal conception of socialism. It has found itself under attack not from communistswho have disappeared after the fall of the Soviet Unionbut from Christian Democrats, Conservatives, and other center-right parties that continue to put the imperatives of the private market first. To some extent, too, that debate has crept into the socialist and social-democratic parties themselves through the advocacy of neoliberal politicians like Tony Blair in the United Kingdom, Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, Felipe Gonzalez in Spain and Francois Hollande in France.

In all its different varieties, you can still mark some clear lines between this Western European socialism and Marxist socialismand also distinguish pretty clearly between it and the neo-liberalism or market-liberalism that came to dominate the Democratic Party here. In practice, social democracy has probably reached its acme in the Nordic countries, where the left has ruled governments for most of last half-century. In these countries, the publics interest takes precedence over private interests of capital. Governments oversee the relations between employers and employees. Workers rights are enforced. In Sweden, the government conducts negotiations between labor and capital. In Germany, union representatives sit on corporate boards.

In some countries, key public service industries are nationalized; in others, they are strictly regulated in a way that goes well beyond our palsied agencies. Britains health service is state-run. (In Switzerland, the government sets rules for non-profit private firms to provide universal insurance.) In France, there are guarantees against arbitrary dismissal from a job. In Denmark and the Netherlands, it is easier for companies to hire and fire, but the government also provides very generous employment insurance. In Denmark, unemployment can last as long as four years and cover as much as 90 percent of what a worker had been earning. In most of these countries, college education is free and workers can also enjoy free retraining programs.

Thats not Marxs vision of socialism, or even Debs. In Europe, workers have significant say in what companies do. They dont control or own them. Private property endures. But within these parameters, families dont have to fear going hungry, losing their home, losing health insurance, and being unable to send their kids to decent schools just because somebodys job is automated or their company made bad investments.

Theres an implicit trade-off in this kind of social democracy. Private capital is given leave to gain profits through higher productivity, even if that results in layoffs and bankruptcies. But the government is able to extract a large share of the economic surplus that these firms create in order to fund a full-blown welfare state that alleviates the daily anxiety that workers feel. Nordic and Dutch social-democratic parties were among the first to make this trade-off soon after World War II, and the terms of it are still being fought over throughout Western Europe and Canada.

By the standards of Marxist socialism, this kind of social democracy appears to be nothing more than an attenuated form of capitalism. In the 60s, we scoffed at the very notion of Sweden as a socialist country.But the older version is not remotely viable. As the Soviet experiment with blanket nationalization showed, it cant adjust to the rapid changes in industry created by the introduction of automation and information technology. For non-vital services, the market is a better indicator of prices than government planning. And as the American Max Eastman pointed out after World War I, the older Marxist model of socialism may not even be compatible with popular democracy. By concentrating economic power in the state (or even in American states), it would lay the basis for authoritarian rule. In other words, Marxist socialism may not be viable or desirable.

Social democracy or liberal socialism, while lacking in utopian appeal, does provide a vision that goes very far beyond the status quo in the United States. It would bring immeasurable benefit to ordinary Americans. A good watchword is economic security something that is very lacking to all except the wealthiest Americans. It is the next step beyond the industrial capitalism that Marx and Engels believed was doomed. What politics and economics look like beyond that is simply unknowable. Its like speculating on whether there is human life on other planets.

Whats the difference between this kind of socialist politics and garden-variety liberalism? Not much. But I do think it defines a leftwing version of liberalism, and one that differs in some respects from the current variety and could provide an outer horizon for a liberal politics as the socialism of the 1930s did for the New Deal liberalism of the time.

Contemporary liberalism has lost that horizon. It has drawn back from a focus on the economics of the average American and became increasingly identified with social causes. It has incorporated the economic priorities of those segments of Wall Street and Silicon Valley that support the partys stand on social issues. Sanders campaign showed what that had wrought in terms of Democratic ideology: Party leaders and pundits reflexively dismissed as utopian, or simply undesirable, his focus on free college tuition or Medicare for all, or his call for a political revolution in how election outcomes are determined. His positions were attacked because they wouldnt past the current Congress or might even causeGod forbida political upheaval. But they gave a meaning to politicsa relationship between means and endsthat Hillary Clintons laundry lists of incremental proposals, and her appeals to identity groups (Its her turn), lacked.

There is, of course, a larger argument to be made about whether a socialist politics of this kind is politically viable in the United States. I always believed that if Sanders had won the nomination, he would have been pinioned as a proponent of big government and higher taxes. In November 2016, a proposal in Colorado for a single-payer health insurance system that Sanders campaigned lost by 80 to 20 percent. Sanders would have had trouble with Trump, but in retrospect, he might not have lost some of those Midwestern states that cost Clinton the election. Well never know.

What does seem clear to me is that American capitalismand that goes for Western Europehas entered a period of upheaval, where voters are looking for alternatives beyond what the major parties are offering. It wasnt just Sanders results in the U.S.; it was Melenchon in France and Corbyn in the U.K. and Pablo Iglesias and Podemos in Spain. These might not be the greatest candidates, and socialistsor left-liberalsmay not be able to get their candidates elected or even nominated, but through participating in organized politics, they can begin an important discussion of where these countries should be headed.

I cant really comment except in a very general way on DSA or on other current socialist groups. I like DSA because it is committed to working within the Democratic party rather than trying to perform Nader-like surgery on our two-party system. We are stuck with two major parties, and if socialists (or their right-wing counterparts) want to influence the countrys future, they are going to have to work through them. I also like DSA because, unlike many Washington-based organizations, whose members consist of people who clicked on a link, or unlike political organizations that depend on wealthy donors and foundations, DSA is based on a dues-paying membership that works through chapters. Unlike Indivisible, it is not bound by the politics of the moment.

And much of what DSA chapters have done pretty much conforms to what a social-democratic group would do. They were big supporters of Sanders campaign in 2016 and have echoed his kind of concerns this year. Theyre focused on local elections and organizing, along with health-care battles at the state level, and theyve been organizing against white supremacists Summer of Hate rallies. But they face the same problem that plagued social democrats in the 1960s and 1970sthey haventyet developed a viable idea of what American socialism should and (at this historical moment) can be.

The DSA fails to recognize how far-reaching and, in a way revolutionary, are the reforms that liberal socialism can advocate.

In its Resistance Rising strategy document, the DSA defines its aim as as the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy. Under socialism, it says, democracy would be expanded beyond the election of political officials to include the democratic management of all businesses by the workers who comprise them and by the communities in which they operate.

The platform goes into some detail about different sectors of the economy. Very large, strategically important sectors of the economysuch as housing, utilities and heavy industrywould be subject to democratic planning outside the market, while a market sector consisting of worker-owned and -operated firms would be developed for the production and distribution of many consumer goods. It is hard to parse this out, but it suggests that the large firms that make goods that go into producing other goods, or raw materials, would operate outside the market presumably through central planning. These would include, it seems, firms like Intel, while consumer- goods businesses like Apple would operate within the market, but would be under worker control. Which would mean what?(Im experiencing flashbacks just asking these questions.)

If the problem with current liberalism is that it is too timid and too grounded in the current deadlock between the parties, the problem with the socialism of the DSA is that it fails to recognize how far-reaching and, in a way revolutionary, are the reforms that a liberal socialism could advocate. American socialists need to do what the Europeans did after World War II and bid goodbye to the Marxist vision of democratic control and ownership of the means of production. They need to recognize that what is necessary nowand alsoconceivableis not to abolish capitalism, but to create socialism within it.

Read the original here:
The Socialism America Needs Now | New Republic - New Republic