Workington, Harrington & Moss Bay Through Time

Product Information

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. 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.

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. He then discusses “utopian socialism”. He quotes Martin Buber: “the goal of Utopian socialism is to substitute society for State to the greatest degree possible, moreover a society that is genuine and not a State in disguise.” (29) 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. Edward Michael Harrington was an American democratic socialist, writer, political activist, professor of political science, and radio commentator. The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism?

A look at Workington from the mid-20th Century to the early 21st Century

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. How do you acquire power or control over the privately-owned means of production, if their owners resist? Can you only do so by way of the authority of the state? This is the definitive text on the role of socialism throughout history which Publishers Weekly calls “succinct, readable” and the New York Times says “has a lively air of optimism and boldly challenges traditional ideas.” 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?

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. 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. The social democrats came up with transitional programs that made capitalism more humane - even if it remained quite capitalist.”Harrington was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended St. Louis University High School, College of the Holy Cross, University of Chicago (MA in English Literature), and Yale Law School. As a young man, he was interested in both leftwing politics and Catholicism. Fittingly, he joined Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker movement, a pacifist group that advocated a radical interpretation of the Gospel. Above all else, Harrington was an intellectual. He loved arguing about culture and politics, preferably over beer, and his Jesuit education made him a fine debater and rhetorician. Harrington was an editor of The Catholic Worker from 1951 to 1953. However, Harrington became disillusioned with religion and, although he would always retain a certain affection for Catholic culture, he ultimately became an atheist. During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist. 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. Socialism: Past and Future is prominent thinker Michael Harrington’s final contribution: a thoughtful, intelligent, and compassionate treatise on the role of socialism both past and present in modern society. He is convincing in his application of classic socialist theory to current economic situations and modern political systems, and he examines the validity of the idea of “visionary gradualism” in bringing about a socialist agenda. He believes that if freedom and justice are to survive into the next century, the socialist movement will be a critical factor. 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.