Workington, Harrington & Moss Bay Through Time

Product Information

Michael Harrington comes from the Kautskian “school” of gradualism- advocating for a transition to socialism through electoral processes and reform. His desire in this country was to eventually use the left wing of the Democratic Party to push the party into being a legitimate social-democratic party a la the German SPD, or the British Labour Party. And for a time he and his work seemed to be doing precisely that. His work on poverty proved very influential for the Kennedy-Johnson Great Society programs, and he advised Tom Hayden on the formulation of The Port Huron Statement. When he died he was the last (and likely only) actual socialist that major publishers, publications, and news channels treated as legitimate political theorist and authority.

There is no guarantee that socialism will triumph - or that freedom and justice, even to the limited degree that they have been achieved until now, will survive the next century. All I claim here is that, if they are to survive, the socialist movement will be a critical factor.” (3) The capitalist - and antisocial - socialisation of the world is indeed subverting its most priceless accomplishment, the creation of the possibility of freedom and justice. And there must be a genuine - and social - socialisation if the precious gains of the capitalist era are to be retained and deepened.” (8) 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.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? This work provides a solid picture of history and an exciting possible future. Harrington was extremely thorough in his explorations, chronologies, and especially references to other thinkers and their texts. I also took numerous notes on his visions of a just and equitable society. All in all, a pretty good read.

I would say then that while Harrington is an important figure on the left and it’s important to understand his brand of socialism in the context of the New Left of the ‘60s and ‘70s that this book is more of a historical interest and not applicable to the situation today. I’d say that even Harrington’s desire to reform the Democratic Party is not feasible, or particularly worth the effort. We saw how extremely difficult it was to wring even extremely moderate concessions on a non-binding platform for the Democratic Party in 2016 much less secure the nomination of an outright social-democrat to the presidency despite his overwhelming personal popularity and overwhelming popularity regarding his ideas. The Democratic Party AS A BODY preferred the less popular, less electable albeit neoliberal friendly candidate. Octavo. Original dark green cloth, spine lettered in gilt, gilt monogram medallion to front cover, top edge gilt, other edges untrimmed. The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism? One of the problems in reading Harrington is that his vast knowledge presumes some corresponding width and breadth of his readers as well, for many of his references assume some pre-knowledge. Moreover, his reasoning is often dense, followed by equally remarkable connecting leaps that even I -- as a fairly educated and seasoned reader -- often found difficult to follow without a rereading. 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.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) 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. English: habitational name from any of the three places called Harrington (Cumberland Lincolnshire Northamptonshire). The Cumberland placename derives from the Old English personal name Hæfer + Old English connective -ing- + tūn ‘farmstead estate’. The Lincolnshire placename derives from the Old English personal name Hearra + Old English connective -ing- + tūn. The Northamptonshire derives from an Old English personal name Hǣthhere + Old English connective -ing- + tūn ‘farmstead estate’. Compare Herendeen . Irish: adopted as an Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó hArrachtáin ‘descendant of Arrachtán’ a personal name from a diminutive of arrachtach ‘mighty powerful’. Irish: in Kerry this name was adopted as an Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó hIongardail later Ó hUrdáil ‘descendant of Iongardal’ a personal name of uncertain origin. Irish: sometimes a variant of Harrity .

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. Written by an avowed socialist in 1989 just after the market crash, this is a pretty useful overview of the roots of a mediated form of socialism presupposed by much of the educated class of America and Europe today. He argues for a form of socialism that works, in theory, with the market, rather than presupposing the abolition of the market. Harrington wants to make a case that this new democratic socialism is the hope for the 21st century, and, most of all, is not reducible to the authoritarian or dictatorial centralized socialism of Stalinism, Leninism or Third World communism. Communism for Harrington is an antisocialist system of bureaucratic collectivism not part of the history of socialism. I won't go into the details here, but in effect the book wants to refute the conservative argument that socialism is like squaring the circle, that any socialist policy leads inexorably down a royal road to serfdom, since it necessarily involves some sort of central planning, and central planning is the fastest way to frustrate the market's means of setting price according to supply and demand, ultimately concerning the efficient allocation of scarce resources. One of Harrington’s major points is that there is not one definition of socialism, but many rival definitions. Socialisation’ describes two very different ways in which society can become more social: under capitalism, there is a trend toward a growing centralisation and planning that is eventually global, but it takes place from the top down; under socialism, that process is subjected to democratic control from below by the people and their communities.” (9) 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.

See Also

The social democrats came up with transitional programs that made capitalism more humane - even if it remained quite capitalist.” The fundamental text of the Democratic Socialists, hated by liberals, conservatives, and most other socialists alike! It was a good read, and Harrington makes his points well. There is an interesting read on a wide variety of socialist thinkers, and a great history of the socialist movement. I'll say that I didn't agree with all of his assessments. I am no patron of overly authoritarian socialist strains, I'm not a Stalinist or Maoist, but I think to proclaim that Communism is an "unsocialistic" movement is a step too far. I think that his decision to uniformly cast aside the explicitly socialist states in favor for a largely intellectual history of socialism, as well as a legislative history of socialism and social democracy, is a questionable one. There are, in my opinion, some highly favorable things in countries like Cuba and even in Lenin's original vision for the Soviet Union. The blanket condemnation is unfortunate, and I think it is to the detriment of the work. Especially when this is mixed with things like a tacit endorsement of Keynes, a man who, despite crafting a kinder capitalism, was explicitly capitalist. During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist. During the primaries, I resolved to read (or re-read) some of my books about American socialism by authors such as Michael Harrington and Irving Howe, both of whom had greatly influenced my own political and cultural views. However, as a non-American, it was quite unusual to see the term “socialism” being embraced to describe what I have traditionally regarded as “social democracy”.

Harrington refers to “socialisation” as “a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority”. He also explains: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. One and the same word, socialisation, is used to describe counterposed phenomena: the growing centralisation and interdependence of capitalist society under the control of an elite; and the possibility of a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority.” (8) 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.)