Workington, Harrington & Moss Bay Through Time

Product Information

Harrington discusses Stalin in terms of War Communism, where the Soviet state was under internal threat from a civil war and an external threat from foreign capital and military intervention. I wondered whether this term meant something different in the US, compared with British Commonwealth countries. Socialism is a derogatory term for a political philosophy that is condemned by many Americans as more or less the same as Communism, so it didn’t make sense to me that Bernie embraced the term with conviction and enthusiasm in the Post-Communist era. Socialism sought, precisely, the democratic socialisation of the process of elitist, irresponsible, and destructive socialisation of capitalism - a process that is very much at work today as revolutionary new modes of producing wealth are being introduced in ways that increase poverty and unemployment and widen the gap between the affluent and hungry areas of the world.” (15) Edward Michael Harrington was an American democratic socialist, writer, political activist, professor of political science, and radio commentator.

During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist.I can’t necessarily fault Harrington for the second assumption because most of the examples showing outright regression and abandonment of reforms occurred after his death. The sole exception I’ve brought up that he would have known about was the Spanish Socialist Party abandoning its Marxist roots in 1979. This ought to have been a warning sign although Harrington was by no means attached to a Marxist analysis or a Marxist direction as he explains in later chapters.

For all the talk in the US right now of socialism, it seems to be a topic a lot of people (some of the loudest) are uninformed about. There’s confusion about what it is, and more importantly, what it isn’t. Michael Harrington’s account is a good introduction in part because it admits to a multitude of “socialisms,” given deviations in definition. He also goes to great lengths to explain some of the examples that come to mind most readily when many people think of socialism – examples that are rightfully frightening and have little in common with socialism at all, even given a range of accepted and contested definitions. However, as an overview of the history of socialism until our own times, this book remains vital and insightful. He shows how the great dream of the 19th century both fizzled and was diluted by the unexpected twists and turns of history in the early and mid-20th century, including the rise to dominance of Soviet communism masquerading as socialism, the wobbly internationalism of socialist parties prior to WW I, and the morphing of much of the socialist program into the all to brief post WW II success of democratic socialist parties in Western Europe. First edition, first impression, one of 500 copies printed, of Hardy's second volume of verse, following Wessex Poems and Other Verses (1898). Socialism: Past and Future is listed as an "Introduction to Socialism" book on the YDS reading list that I have, one which I don't have any idea when it was compiled or by whom. But I was surprised and annoyed to see that I have not read a single book on it, so I'm planning on working my way down the whole thing (it should take me about 5 years, at this rate). This book was first on the list.Within state ownership, Harrington differentiates between statism and democratic state ownership. Statism is the ownership by a dictatorship or authoritarian state, such as occurred in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.

In Germany the SPD has been more than happy to govern together with the right wing Christian Democrats.Harrington starts with a dictionary definition: “socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution”. There is no express discussion of the meaning of “public” in this context. However, it is implicit that it could be some variation of society or the state. I can’t say I came away from this book with a clear understanding of the issues. However, I think the solution is in here, if you read it closely and spend some time digesting what you’ve read. At others, he refers to it as (growth-oriented) “social democratic Keynesianism” - a precursor to the welfare state - and the mixed economy (in which there are elements of both private enterprise and public enterprise owned by the state). He frequently describes it as “the social democratic compromise”. It’s implied that it has compromised with capitalism (by allowing it to continue), while compromising the goals and values of socialism (i.e., by simply regulating and managing capitalism rather than overturning or replacing it.) All this history only brings us up to about halfway through the book -- the subtitle is Past and Future, after all. This, to me, is where things really get interesting. Chapter 6, "The Third Creation of the World," looks at the rise of globally integrated finance capitalism (or "corporate socialization," as Harrington calls it). The economic impotence of newly freed colonies of the great empires in the face of early globalization is a big theme, as are the end of the Keynesian consensus and the rise of transnational (i.e., multinational) corporations. In short, we are looking at the rise of the modern economy, from a period much closer to when it was actually happening. It is from this perspective that Harrington calls for a "new socialism," to match the new form of capitalism eating the world. The later chapters lay out his ideas about what that new socialism should look like, a sometimes dated, sometimes prescient combination of proposed political program, predictions about the future of work and of economics, and a few very underdeveloped (but nonetheless there, which is not bad for 1989) remarks about climate change ("If the GNP goes up, no matter what its composition, it is thought that the society is advancing. But that advance could well be a stride toward catastrophe, for example, toward a greenhouse effect that will threaten life itself" p. 217). He also mentions the "precariat" in terms of the unemployment of the '70s; I had thought that word was only coined along with "gig economy" in the post-crash period. Shows what I know. The welfare state might have been motivated by the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. However, the economic strategy was actually intended to benefit capitalism. It was “a legal floor...put under consumption”. If people had no money, they could not spend it on consumption. If there was reduced consumption, there would be reduced production and capitalism. Both jobs and profits are protected by the welfare state. Therefore, the welfare state props up capitalist production by subsidising public consumption.

Ink ownership inscriptions on front endpapers dated 1902 (one crossed out, the other decorated with a large floral sketch). Faint marks to otherwise bright cloth, endpapers foxed, contents clean. A very good copy indeed. Harrington believed that capitalism had taken us a long way along the path to freedom and justice from the oppression of feudalism, whether willingly or not. However, in a sense, it had stalled and was now obstructing further progress:Do democratic socialists have to obtain control of the state by democratic means (i.e., by way of democratic election) or is there a case for the acquisition of power by way of revolutionary force? Is revolutionary force intrinsically anti-democratic, even if it is used in the name of a majority of the public? Once power is obtained, can it be retained by way of force (e.g., by the modern equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat)? Is it acceptable that all gains can be reversed at the very next election (just as the gains won by social democrats can be [and have been] reversed by a neoconservative or populist government)? How can democratic socialists protect their gains against a hostile democratically elected government? Stylistically, some might find Harrington a bit dry; it took me entirely too long to finish reading this book, although some of that might have just been because it was an absurdly busy three weeks and I was too burned out to focus. I tend to rather like Harrington's authorial "voice"; it's occasionally got a bit of dry humor, but mostly I find it sort of... soothing, in a way? It's certainly less grandstandy than a lot of other well-known socialist writers, and noticeably less pompous than, say, Irving Howe, though Harrington and Howe were good friends and seem to be on a similar ideological wavelength. At any rate, I'm interested enough to have started reading another Harrington book, Toward a Democratic Left, written in 1968, some of which is distressingly relevant, but that's for another review. In the context of work, it requires worker participation in the decision-making process. Harrington aims to reconceive the nature of work, and the worker's relationship with it.