Michael Harrington and socialist achievement

[Malesori]

I have been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America for about six years now. I am a staunch defender and fan of Michael Harrington and the Left Democratic Socialist project.

It seems in threads I have read on here that progressive social democracy and democratic socialism are regularly thrown under the bus in favor of Maoist revolutions in obscure Himalayan mountains or remote Philipine Islands....Granted that democratic socialism is not as "glamorous" as the storming of the winter palace, or as romantic as seeing third world workers with a Kalshnikov, but democratic socialism has had major triumphs.

If you look at Sweden in the 1970s you have full employment legislation, Co-determination laws where company Boards had to have union representatives, The famed Meidner Plan whereby the incremental socialism of a nation takes place through union pension fund investment eventually giving joint stock majority ownership of a firm to the workers, you had Walter Korpi's "Democratic Class Struggles", and so on.

To this end the Bolivarian revolution can, in many ways, be considered a form of populist socialism with democratic tendencies. What did Sweden not accomplish that somehow makes democratic socialism untenable to self-described revolutionary Marxists?

Harrington talked about the "Left Wing of the Possible", and for those of us on the socialist Left in the United States this is a reality we all too often ignore.

[NGNM85]

I have been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America for about six years now. I am a staunch defender and fan of Michael Harrington and the Left Democratic Socialist project.

It seems in threads I have read on here that progressive social democracy and democratic socialism are regularly thrown under the bus in favor of Maoist revolutions in obscure Himalayan mountains or remote Philipine Islands....Granted that democratic socialism is not as "glamorous" as the storming of the winter palace, or as romantic as seeing third world workers with a Kalshnikov, but democratic socialism has had major triumphs.

If you look at Sweden in the 1970s you have full employment legislation, Co-determination laws where company Boards had to have union representatives, The famed Meidner Plan whereby the incremental socialism of a nation takes place through union pension fund investment eventually giving joint stock majority ownership of a firm to the workers, you had Walter Korpi's "Democratic Class Struggles", and so on.

To this end the Bolivarian revolution can, in many ways, be considered a form of populist socialism with democratic tendencies. What did Sweden not accomplish that somehow makes democratic socialism untenable to self-described revolutionary Marxists?

Harrington talked about the "Left Wing of the Possible", and for those of us on the socialist Left in the United States this is a reality we all too often ignore.

I've long been amused, and a little dismayed by the venom, and vitriol expressed by American Radicals towards the hated European social democracies, apparently, blissfully unaware, or indifferent to the fact that, for American workers, these 'modest increments of dignity', such as the ones you've listed, are a utopian dream. We're light years behind them.

All of this is the result of the fact that the Radical Left, in the United States, seems to be increasingly dominated by Ultra-Lefts. Because of the tunnel vision, and the rigid dogmatism, of these 'impossibilists', they categorically oppose any form of incrementalism as ideological treason. Any half-step, great, or small, is seen as hopelessly compromised because it falls short of total, immediate revolution. From this perspective; the history of the Radical Left is a history of failure, and their predecessors are written off as hypocrites, and traitors. Therefore; the most 'hard core' Radicals become the biggest obstacle to the empowerment of the working class, and, perversely, some of the most effective defenders of the status quo. Meanwhile; the Radical Left shrinks ever smaller, and becomes more isolated, and ineffectual, while the working class suffers. It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

DSA? You're fucking reactionary scum. Your heartwarming passion for Sweden in the 1970's only shows the rotteness of your conviction. DSA are a bunch of anti-communist filth. Do I need to cite the DSA political programs?

[NGNM85]

DSA are a bunch of anti-communist filth. Do I need to cite the DSA political programs?

Do you 'need' to? No. However; if you want to be taken seriously; you should.

[MarxArchist]

It seems in threads I have read on here that progressive social democracy and democratic socialism are regularly thrown under the bus in favor of Maoist revolutions in obscure Himalayan mountains or remote Philipine Islands....Granted that democratic socialism is not as "glamorous" as the storming of the winter palace, or as romantic as seeing third world workers with a Kalshnikov, but democratic socialism has had major triumphs.

This was funny. No, really funny. Thanks.

If you look at Sweden in the 1970s you have full employment legislation, Co-determination laws where company Boards had to have union representatives, The famed Meidner Plan whereby the incremental socialism of a nation takes place through union pension fund investment eventually giving joint stock majority ownership of a firm to the workers, you had Walter Korpi's "Democratic Class Struggles", and so on.

To this end the Bolivarian revolution can, in many ways, be considered a form of populist socialism with democratic tendencies. What did Sweden not accomplish that somehow makes democratic socialism untenable to self-described revolutionary Marxists?

That's capitalism. There is no socialist workers state in Sweden. No abolition of capital. No worker control of the means of production. Capital, or it's owners, remains in control of society albeit in a more seemingly egalitarian fashion. Liberation from capitalism requires the abolition of capital and I'm not sure you can provide any cases where capitalists let expropriation and or abolition of capital happen by them voluntarily giving up their hierarchical control of society. I think it was Lenin who said reformism is like trying to skin a live tiger by it's paw.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Harrington's books are interesting, they were my first introduction to socialist theory, especially his Socialism, The Future of An Illusion,FWIW, many moons ago. The problem with the DSA is that its basically an adjunct of the Democratic Party. That is not what we need.

Micheal Harrington did not oppose the Vietnam War. He was part of the problem.

The era of European social democracy is over. Its been rolled back by neo-liberalism. There were some important gains during the Long Boom of the 30 years after WWII but that era is over.During that period capitalism could afford to make concessions, often it even fit the needs of capitalism to make concessions. Non-profitable sectors of the economy-transportation, mining, etc could be run by the state. Soc Dems didn't challenge capitalism, they managed it.

In France 1968, Portugal during the Carnation Revolution and elsewhere Socialists played a very negative role in holding back class consciousness and preserving capitalism.

Interestingly the corrupt PRI in Mexico is a member of the Socialist International, and until the Arab Spring so were the ruling parties of Egypt and Tunisia. Mubarak and Ben Ali were card carrying SocDems.

edit: I forgot, Dominique Strauss Kahn. If not for an encounter with a woman in a New York hotel he would have been the Socialist president of France right now. Viva L'Internationale!

[sixdollarchampagne]

In connection with this discussion, I recently read about a proposal that the (Gus Hall) CPUSA, the (ex-CPUSA) Committees of Correspondence, the "Democratic Socialists," who, someone once told me, could accurately be described merely as Democrats, should all form a single organization, and, when I thought about it, I believe it's accurate to say that all those democratic, little-s "socialist" organizations do have one thing in common: They are all devoted to getting workers to vote for the imperialist, pro-war Democratic Party. To address the original post in this thread, I would be willing to bet a paycheck (if I still had a job), that the "left wing of the possible," where "the possible" is dictated by the needs of the exploiting class, as under social-democratic and "democratic socialist" rule, will also be accomplished by voting for the Democrats, which makes "democratic socialism" another road to nowhere, as far as working people are concerned.

I am glad that Lenina pointed out the ghastly PRI, for decades the governing party in Mexico, is a part of the "Socialist" International, which says a lot about the real nature of "democratic" socialism.

[NGNM85]

This was funny. No, really funny. Thanks.

That's capitalism. There is no socialist workers state in Sweden. No abolition of capital. No worker control of the means of production. Capital, or it's owners, remains in control of society albeit in a more seemingly egalitarian fashion. Liberation from capitalism requires the abolition of capital and I'm not sure you can provide any cases where capitalists let expropriation and or abolition of capital happen by them voluntarily giving up their hierarchical control of society. I think it was Lenin who said reformism is like trying to skin a live tiger by it's paw.

I'm not putting myself in the position of being his representative, but he didn't say otherwise. In any case; you do understand that there is a difference between agitating for reforms, and 'Reformism'; yes?

[MarxArchist]

I'm not putting myself in the position of being his representative, but he didn't say otherwise. In any case; you do understand that there is a difference between agitating for reforms, and 'Reformism'; yes?

Do you know who Michael Harrington is?

[Jimmie Higgins]

It seems in threads I have read on here that progressive social democracy and democratic socialism are regularly thrown under the bus in favor of Maoist revolutions in obscure Himalayan mountains or remote Philipine Islands....Granted that democratic socialism is not as "glamorous" as the storming of the winter palace, or as romantic as seeing third world workers with a Kalshnikov, but democratic socialism has had major triumphs.

Well while there can be this tendency, it's also a bit of a straw-man argument to make (not that revolutionaries don't also use straw-men in arguing against social democracy or anything else for that matter). For one thing, Maoist and Anarchist Insurrectionist ideas that you describe are probably just about as controverical as electoral approaches... and I'd arge that these approaches suffer from some of the same underlying political problems as Social Democratic approaches in some ways. But the straw-man is really the "glorification" or "glamerous" claim because, aside from some and I think it's a weak and unhelpful argument, the "glamerousness" of it is besides the point. I don't think coalition meetings or long-ass Occupy meetings were "glamerous" and yet I think this kind of organizing from below is essential for developing and redeveloping organic class struggle in the US or other places.

If you look at Sweden in the 1970s you have full employment legislation, Co-determination laws where company Boards had to have union representatives, The famed Meidner Plan whereby the incremental socialism of a nation takes place through union pension fund investment eventually giving joint stock majority ownership of a firm to the workers, you had Walter Korpi's "Democratic Class Struggles", and so on.

While NGNM85 is totally correct that the kinds of reforms associated with Social Democracy or even just UK-style social wages would be a huge gift and advance for workers in the US, the problem IMO is that these kinds of reforms - if they are to be meaningful - require a massive push from below. If we are organizing and winning reforms as a class it is sort of like we are winning battles, but it's not the whole "war". So if these reforms are backed by movements and organization among workers and at least part of the movement is aimed at an eventual total transformation of society through working class revolution from below, then these battles can be the place where we can eek out some more power through our collective class strength and solidarity. But if the battles are mistaken for the war, or if we believe that a number of battles won could eventually just transform society, then the focus is not on building our class power, but inherently in getting the best deal possible within capitalism. Many workers do and will operate in struggle on this basis until a revolutionary sort of situation - otherwise we'd be in a revolution anytime there was a reform struggle - but the problem with many electoral strategies along these lines is then we are not organizing our own power as a class, but supporting some elected "saviors" who can pass thing on our behalf. So we don't actually gain much class power or organization from this, we rely on the bourgoise legal system to make our gains. Then if the capitalist class decided that either these reforms are cutting into their profits too much or just feel that we are disorganized enough to make an assault on these reforms, we are left unarmed and unable to counter them. It would rely on the Social Democrat Party leaders being "true" to Socialism, and as the history of the 2nd International and modern Social Democratic Parties in the neoliberal era show, often when the winds of capitalism change, these parties adpat, rather than organize a real renewed fight.

As Eugene Debs said (approximately), "I wouldn't lead you to the promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone could lead you right back out".

To this end the Bolivarian revolution can, in many ways, be considered a form of populist socialism with democratic tendencies. What did Sweden not accomplish that somehow makes democratic socialism untenable to self-described revolutionary Marxists?

No, I'd say this is a fair analogy and I would also not call Chavez or Venusuela socialist in the Marxist sense either. He heads a capitalist state which has made reforms.

Harrington talked about the "Left Wing of the Possible", and for those of us on the socialist Left in the United States this is a reality we all too often ignore.

What's "possible" means what's possible under capitalism - it's an adaptation to the system, not a class challenge to it. There's nothing inherently wrong with struggling for reforms or trying to judge what is immediately possible at a given time under given conditions - but IMO the point of these efforts for revolutionaries should be to help workers to organize themselves and fight for their own class interests. When we are organized, consious, and confident, then anything is possible when it comes to class struggle.

[Crux]

I have been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America for about six years now. I am a staunch defender and fan of Michael Harrington and the Left Democratic Socialist project.

It seems in threads I have read on here that progressive social democracy and democratic socialism are regularly thrown under the bus in favor of Maoist revolutions in obscure Himalayan mountains or remote Philipine Islands....Granted that democratic socialism is not as "glamorous" as the storming of the winter palace, or as romantic as seeing third world workers with a Kalshnikov, but democratic socialism has had major triumphs.

If you look at Sweden in the 1970s you have full employment legislation, Co-determination laws where company Boards had to have union representatives, The famed Meidner Plan whereby the incremental socialism of a nation takes place through union pension fund investment eventually giving joint stock majority ownership of a firm to the workers, you had Walter Korpi's "Democratic Class Struggles", and so on.

To this end the Bolivarian revolution can, in many ways, be considered a form of populist socialism with democratic tendencies. What did Sweden not accomplish that somehow makes democratic socialism untenable to self-described revolutionary Marxists?

Harrington talked about the "Left Wing of the Possible", and for those of us on the socialist Left in the United States this is a reality we all too often ignore.

I've not read much of Harrington, but from what I understand he advocated basically a strategy of trying to turn the Democratic Party to the left. To use a swedish parallel, that would be as if the marxists, trade unionists and socialists had, instead of building the Social Democratic Worker's Party in late 1800's , latched on to the Liberals and the Liberal "friends of labour".

Speaking of Sweden, indeed let's look at Sweden in the 1970's. An emergent welfare state made possible by a) a powerful trade union movement but also no less important b) the general upswing of the world capitalist economy. Union representation on the company boards today has the effect of tying the soc. dem. bureaucrats even closer to the employers. But this has perhaps more to do with the rotting political corpse that is modern social democracy than the original impetus and intent of the law. As for the Meidner plan for all it's defects and problems, at least it was nominally a step towards socialism, and that's why the Soc. Dem. leadership had no intention of making it reality.

You ask, what did Sweden not accomplish? Well, socialism, democratic or otherwise.

I've long been amused, and a little dismayed by the venom, and vitriol expressed by American Radicals towards the hated European social democracies, apparently, blissfully unaware, or indifferent to the fact that, for American workers, these 'modest increments of dignity', such as the ones you've listed, are a utopian dream.

I've always been amused that reformists, american or not, do not seem to understand how reforms are achieved. Or indeed the lack of understanding of what modern Social Democracy really is. Pretty sure I've already touched on the wide-spread illusions in Sweden as some kind of socialist paradise too.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It seems in threads I have read on here that progressive social democracy and democratic socialism are regularly thrown under the bus in favor of Maoist revolutions in obscure Himalayan mountains or remote Philipine Islands....Granted that democratic socialism is not as "glamorous" as the storming of the winter palace, or as romantic as seeing third world workers with a Kalshnikov, but democratic socialism has had major triumphs.

First of all, if you had read any Lenin, Sam Admir, or any other Marxist theorist, you'd know that first world social democracies are only possible because of the brutal nature of imperialism, an imperialism that has wiped entire peoples off the earth and condemns billions to toil away in the sweatshops today. But of course ignore the fact that your precious social democracies have the blood of the third world on them.

Yes, ignore the genocide and tyranny that has paved the way for social democracy and mock the heroic men and woman who are fighting and dying for liberty. Yes, you social democratic swine, mock the toilers of Warsaw and their failed rebellion, mock the heroes of the mountains of Belorussia and praise the coming of Welthauptstadt Germania! Ignore the delays and zig zags and backward steps in it's design, ignore that the mortar assembled to build it was taken from the dead hands of the innocent, ignore that it will never be and that what little has been built is only a peculiarity of history, to be forgotten once the promise is seen to be hollow, ignore the blood that stains your horded gold and mock the proletariat of the world for trying to fight for a share of their own!

Bury your head in your "real accomplishments"! I will have none of them! I will be realistic, I will demand the impossible!

[Kindness]

DSA? You're fucking reactionary scum.

A fellow leftist disagrees with you and he's automatically "fucking scum?" No wonder so many workers find little use for today's radical left. Attitudes like that do nothing but alienate potential allies and give capitalists more ammo for calling socialism a dead movement.

Your heartwarming passion for Sweden in the 1970's only shows the rotteness of your conviction.

Sweden in the 1970s provided a far better life for the working class than did the Soviet Union during the same time period. Proletarians made unbelievable gains during that time, not only in Sweden, but in the other Nordic countries as well. Was it perfect? No. Was it communist? No. But was it the best thing on Earth at the time for the proletariat? Absolutely.

DSA are a bunch of anti-communist

Please define "communist."

filth.

This kind of emotionally charged rhetoric is unnecessary, unkind, and unscientific. There's no need to call people who disagree with you "filth."

Do I need to cite the DSA political programs?

Please do.

[Kindness]

First of all, if you had read any Lenin, Sam Admir, or any other Marxist theorist, you'd know that first world social democracies are only possible because of the brutal nature of imperialism, an imperialism that has wiped entire peoples off the earth and condemns billions to toil away in the sweatshops today. But of course ignore the fact that your precious social democracies have the blood of the third world on them.

That may be true in some sense, but such social democracies are also the result of class struggle by proletarians within "first world" nations. Capitalism is oppressive, yes, but social democrats are not directly to blame for that any more than Bolshevist Russia was to blame for the Tsarist regimes that preceded it.

Social democracy is a bandage on the gaping wound of capitalism, but it at least allows the patient (the working class) to survive a bit longer; impossibilism just stands by and does nothing while the proletariat bleeds to death. Third-worldist rhetoric is cold comfort to the millions of homeless Americans and Europeans, as well as the millions of sweatshop laborers and peasants throughout the developing world.

Yes, ignore the genocide and tyranny that has paved the way for social democracy and mock the heroic men and woman who are fighting and dying for liberty. Yes, you social democratic swine,

Why is such emotive language necessary? It's ironic that those so quick to condemn others' politics as "idealist" resort to such emotionally charged rhetoric when arguing their positions.

I don't think Malesori, or any socialist for that matter, wants to ignore those that died for peace and freedom or support the oppressive system that made such deaths happen. I just think he recognizes that social democracy, like it or not, is the best thing possible for the working class at the moment. It's a stopgap, a baby step, but it's better than doing nothing.

Bury your head in your "real accomplishments"! I will have none of them! I will be realistic, I will demand the impossible!

Impossibilism is, to use Stalin's words, a petty bourgeois deviation, an idealistic platitude that results from a position of economic privilege. Ideological purity doesn't fill stomachs, food does, it doesn't keep families warm at night, shelter does, it doesn't heal diseases, healthcare does. Social democracy allows workers to have food, shelter, and healthcare, and securing those basic needs for workers should be the first things supported by any true revolutionary.

[Crux]

Sweden in the 1970s provided [was] the best thing on Earth at the time for the proletariat[.]

That sounds more than a little idealized.
You do have a point though...

Consider this a verbal warning to Takayuki for flaming. This is about tone, not content.
/OI-mod

[#FF0000]

Because of the tunnel vision, and the rigid dogmatism, of these 'impossibilists', they categorically oppose any form of incrementalism as ideological treason. Any half-step, great, or small, is seen as hopelessly compromised because it falls short of total, immediate revolution

I know you're stupid but not that stupid. You know that's not what people think.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That may be true in some sense, but such social democracies are also the result of class struggle by proletarians within "first world" nations. Capitalism is oppressive, yes, but social democrats are not directly to blame for that any more than Bolshevist Russia was to blame for the Tsarist regimes that preceded it.

Social democracies are the direct result of imperialism, to suggest that they are the result of class struggle is a bit absurd because that would imply that the third world has engaged in less class struggle, when it has been leading the world in that area for the last couple centuries.

Social democracy is a bandage on the gaping wound of capitalism, but it at least allows the patient (the working class) to survive a bit longer; impossibilism just stands by and does nothing while the proletariat bleeds to death. Third-worldist rhetoric is cold comfort to the millions of homeless Americans and Europeans, as well as the millions of sweatshop laborers and peasants throughout the developing world.

I am being called both an impossiblist and a third worldist in the same argument. Oh joy

It is not third worldism to express solidarity with your comrades regardless of their geographical location, it is internationalism.

Why is such emotive language necessary? It's ironic that those so quick to condemn others' politics as "idealist" resort to such emotionally charged rhetoric when arguing their positions.

Because he suggested that we should neglect the struggles of our comrades in the third world to praise the achievements that have been won through imperialism. To do what he suggests is to ignore the basic tenet of proletarian internationalism and ditch it for a eurocentric praise of the merits of imperialism, and considering the contempt for our comrades in the east, I would go as far to say that he has buried his head in nationalism and therefore is no comrade of mine

I don't think Malesori, or any socialist for that matter, wants to ignore those that died for peace and freedom or support the oppressive system that made such deaths happen. I just think he recognizes that social democracy, like it or not, is the best thing possible for the working class at the moment. It's a stopgap, a baby step, but it's better than doing nothing.

He just said that we should ignore the struggles of the working class in the global south to praise the very reason why we have these struggles in the first place. Social democracy is not a stepping stone because it is merely capitalism restructuring it's self for the era of imperialism. Now that we have an era of globalism we will see the social democracies collapse, and no amount of class struggle will prevent that because they were a historic anomaly, not a path to the future.

Social democracy allows workers to have food, shelter, and healthcare, and securing those basic needs for workers should be the first things supported by any true revolutionary.

Social democracy allows the workers of the third world to eat shit and die.

This isn't to say that I am opposed to social democracy, of course I live in the west and I am no third worldist who thinks that somehow the removal of social democracy will better the third world, though argubly the advent of social democracy has ramped up primitive accumulation in the global south which has displaced millions, it's just that the thing is that social democracy is not a political movement, it is the result of the decay of the working class movement due to imperialism, it is the restructing of capitalism for the modern era, and this structure will fade now that it's economic base is gone. There's simply nothing we can do about it, just like no one is for the sun and no one is opposed to the moon because the existence of both is a historic nessecity, not a result of our collective wills.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Consider this a verbal warning to Takayuki for flaming. This is about tone, not content.
/OI-mod

Oh, yeah? You feel that is fitting? The DSA are members of the so-called "socialist international", which we all know is as socialist as Hitler; rotten supporters of the Democratic Party; is there any way to kindly phrase the contempt which is what they and any supporters thereof deserve? If I'm not mistaken they even supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Oh, yeah? You feel that is fitting? The DSA are members of the so-called "socialist international", which we all know is as socialist as Hitler; rotten supporters of the Democratic Party; is there any way to kindly phrase the contempt which is what they and any supporters thereof deserve? If I'm not mistaken they even supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I concur, to treat them with any less contempt than the fascists just shows that we are on the winning side of history and that we have allowed this position to corrupt our judgement, after all, fascism is just imperialism against other imperialists, while imperialism doesn't even pretend to fight fair, and for that reason I would say that I dislike the empires of old that social democracy is built upon than the reich of yesteryear

[Kindness]

Social democracies are the direct result of imperialism, to suggest that they are the result of class struggle is a bit absurd because that would imply that the third world has engaged in less class struggle, when it has been leading the world in that area for the last couple centuries.

The gains made by the working class in places like Sweden was due to class struggle within their own countries. Sadly, this class struggle led to rising labor costs which led capitalists to move jobs overseas; this is one reason why social democracy is not enough and is no substitute for socialist transformation.

It is not third worldism to express solidarity with your comrades regardless of their geographical location, it is internationalism.

I agree, I just don't see why one should favor third-world friends over first-world ones. We're all in this together, and as long as imperialist nations support global capitalism, things will not improve for the third world. At least some social democrats support curbing the excesses of globalism.

Social democracy allows the workers of the third world to eat shit and die.

That's what capitalism does, not social democracy. If anything, social democrats support improving conditions for third world workers.

There's simply nothing we can do about it, just like no one is for the sun and no one is opposed to the moon because the existence of both is a historic nessecity, not a result of our collective wills.

I don't think the importance of ideas can be downplayed. Yes, material conditions played a role in social democracy's downfall, but so has the ideology of hyperindividualism which arose in the West after 1980. Both ideals and material conditions have played into the hands of capital.