Have you read "Socialism: Past and Future" by Michael Harrington?

[StockholmSyndrome]

Instead of doing my usual "read a book then start a thread on it" routine, I thought I would start out with a poll to see how many have read it. Hopefully we can then generate a discussion.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've read this book some years ago.It was among my first introduction to socialist theory. At the time I was impressed by Harrington but since then I've I've learned a lot more about politics. Micheal Harrington was a social democratic who thought he could identify a "social democratic trend" within the democratic Party. The DSA believed that the DP was about to undergo a "left turn". History has shown that this idea is utterly wrong and has done a lot of damage.Harrington is not one of the good guys.

To be honest its been a while since I've read SPAF. I forgot a lot, as I remember its not without interest but I think there are a lot better books on socialist theory now to choose from.

[Baseball]

I recall reading it years ago. It was published around 1980. The main part that stuck in my mind is that he rejected the claims (in the introduction) of Hayek et. al. (from roughly 40 yrs earlier) that socialism leads to tyranny, saying he saw no evidence of it. He then spent a good portion of the rest of book explaining how socialism has changed and evolved during the course of the 20th Century. I guess he never connected the two.

[#FF0000]

I recall reading it years ago. It was published around 1980. The main part that stuck in my mind is that he rejected the claims (in the introduction) of Hayek et. al. (from roughly 40 yrs earlier) that socialism leads to tyranny, saying he saw no evidence of it. He then spent a good portion of the rest of book explaining how socialism has changed and evolved during the course of the 20th Century. I guess he never connected the two.

you are right. every socialist loves stalin. even the ones that don't.

[StockholmSyndrome]

you are right. every socialist loves stalin. even the ones that don't.

Are you implying that Michael Harrington "loves" Stalin because his "totalitarianism" provided the impetus for what you would consider Harrington's "social-democratic bourgeois capitulation"? If so, I highly suggest you read this book. Though he is certainly a "revisionist", I was also surprised to discover that Harrington is much more evenhanded and admittedly "Marxist" than I had expected. Particularly, his treatment of Stalin is rooted in an objective Marxist analysis of material conditions and the nature of capitalism. He also spends a good amount of time talking about Lenin, whom he admires critically as a visionary of substance who lucidly acknowledged his own grave miscalculations toward the end of his life. It is also worth mentioning his admiration for Rosa Luxembourg and her commitment to true democracy and the idea that socialism is the "act of the working class itself".

I don't care if you still call him a "traitor" or a "bourgeois liberal" or whatever other half-brained knee-jerk emotionalism comes to your mind. The least you could do is read this poignant book, address the actual ideas contained, and give the man the respect he deserves before spouting one of your typically supercilious one-liners.

The point of putting a poll at the beginning of this thread was to prevent that sort of thing.

[#FF0000]

Are you implying that Michael Harrington "loves" Stalin because his "totalitarianism" provided the impetus for what you would consider Harrington's "social-democratic bourgeois capitulation"? If so, I highly suggest you read this book. Though he is certainly a "revisionist", I was also surprised to discover that Harrington is much more evenhanded and admittedly "Marxist" than I had expected. Particularly, his treatment of Stalin is rooted in an objective Marxist analysis of material conditions and the nature of capitalism. He also spends a good amount of time talking about Lenin, whom he admires critically as a visionary of substance who lucidly acknowledged his own grave miscalculations toward the end of his life. It is also worth mentioning his admiration for Rosa Luxembourg and her commitment to true democracy and the idea that socialism is the "act of the working class itself".

I don't care if you still call him a "traitor" or a "bourgeois liberal" or whatever other half-brained knee-jerk emotionalism comes to your mind. The least you could do is read this poignant book, address the actual ideas contained, and give the man the respect he deserves before spouting one of your typically supercilious one-liners.

The point of putting a poll at the beginning of this thread was to prevent that sort of thing.

Nah I was actually just attacking Baseball's silly idea that socialism = tyranny no matter what.

I'mma stop trolling your thread tho