The Idea of Socialism

by Axel Honneth

The idea of socialism has given normative grounding and orientation to the outrage over capitalism for more than 150 years, and yet today it seems to have lost much of its appeal. Despite growing discontent, many would hesitate to invoke socialism when it comes to envisioning life beyond capitalism. How can we explain the rapid decline of this once powerful idea? And what must we do to renew it for the twenty-first century?

In this lucid political-philosophical essay, Axel Honneth argues that the idea of socialism has lost its luster because its theoretical assumptions stem from the industrial era and are no longer convincing in our contemporary post-industrial societies. Only if we manage to replace these assumptions with a concept of history and society that corresponds to our current experiences will we be able to restore confidence in a project whose fundamental idea remains as relevant today as it was a century ago the idea of an economy that realizes freedom in solidarity.

The Idea of Socialism was awarded the Bruno-Kreisky-Prize for the Political Book of 2015.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Economics, History, Academic

216 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2015

About the author

Axel Honneth (born July 18, 1949) is a professor of philosophy at both the University of Frankfurt and Columbia University. He is also director of the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research) in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Honneth's work focuses on social-political and moral philosophy, especially relations of power, recognition, and respect. One of his core arguments is for the priority of intersubjective relationships of recognition in understanding social relations. This includes non- and mis-recognition as a basis of social and interpersonal conflict. For instance, grievances regarding the distribution of goods in society are ultimately struggles for recognition.

Reviews

[Patrick Neylan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did a bit of research, so I can say with some certainty that this book isn't a satire or a parody. Axel Honneth is a senior philosophy professor and he is seriously trying to guide the theory of socialism out of the blind alley where it was led by the misguided assumptions of its 19th Century founders and their unquestioning 20th Century acolytes.

To put it in layman's terms, which Prof Honneth most certainly hasn't, the problem is that early socialists were fixated on the economic sphere and the proletariat's revolutionary reaction to it in the context of the nation state. Infuriatingly, the nation state has become diluted (Brexit notwithstanding), the proletariat has failed to adopt a revolutionary consciousness and become diluted as the economy becomes post-industrial, while capitalism has refused to collapse under its own contradictions. One of the best things about the book is how Honneth objectively picks apart the muddled and circular thinking of dogmatic socialists in a politically neutral way.

The solution, which Honneth finally gets round to after lengthy discussion of the philosophical roots of the the movement, is for society to be controlled democratically, with its various elements (not just the industrial proletariat) co-operating through ill-defined communication structures, based on the recognition of common needs rather than individual wants. For this to happen, the present power structures must be dismantled by means unspecified, while stronger personalities within the new order must restrain themselves from building a new power structure for their own selfish benefit.

As Honneth concludes, in the very last sentence of the book:

Only if all members of society can satisfy the needs they share with all others – physical and emotional intimacy, economic independence and political self-determination – by relying on the sympathy and support of their partners in interaction will our society have become social in the full sense of the term.

With such a naïve vision, it's little surprise that Honneth's book is a fundamental contradiction of itself. Socialism at its heart is a society run by the masses, for the masses. Yet Honneth's writing style shows that he is wedded to the idea of socialism as the preserve of an intellectual elite. The language of the book – and this cannot simply be the whim of his translator – makes every effort to be obscure and even intimidating.

For instance, on page 55 he states: "With a bit of goodwill, we could say that the first socialists understood…" Only he doesn't say that. He says: "With a bit of hermeneutic goodwill…" This isn't a one-off. At every opportunity, Honneth uses words designed to intimidate and exclude. The message is clear: his socialism is the preserve of an intellectual elite. You need a degree in politics. A degree in English won't do: I know because I've got one, and I can barely understand it.

Situations are frequently "immanent" (a word used almost exclusively by left-wing intellectuals). The word "normative" appears on almost every page (I'm not exaggerating). Social structure has to be "concretized". The existence of resistance movements is "apodictically presupposed". The operating segments of society make up not just a whole, but a "superordinate whole", while their interests are not just intertwined but "intersubjectively intertwined". If his argument is ever in danger of making its point clearly, Honneth invariably inserts a mysterious, convoluted, polysyllabic and usually unnecessary word or phrase to throw the reader off the scent.

As for the proletariat – y'know, the ones who are supposed to not only benefit but actually be in charge – the clear message is that socialism isn't for you. It's ours. Leave it to your betters. You could call Honneth's vision a kind of aristocratic socialism. He recognises that socialism has lost its way, but the destination remains the same: the movement must continue the long march up its own backside.

[Rhys · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good essay basically advocating for solidarity (or what he terms a 'democratic public sphere') to capture the interest of most people as a basis of socialism.

I have to admit that I am troubled by a reliance on something so vague as this to base the future of socialism. I wonder what space and where such a space can be created and sustained for such solidarity. He suggests keeping 'communication' a free as possible, which sounds good, too, but can this really be what passes for communication today? What about the Levinasian 'face' or 'Other' as a basis of mutuality?

I liked The Idea of Socialism, but like many calls for a renewed socialism, there seems to be a pragmatic gap - but, maybe that is to be expected when we find ourselves at the edge of the void.

[Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Update: August, 2019

In the 13 months since my last read, I have become far more sympathetic to the socialist project thanks to the influence of G.A. Cohen. While what Honneth does here is attempt to show how socialism advances from the 20th century failure of so-called communist states rather than provide normative grounds for a sort of egalitarian socialism like Cohen, the read is still valuable and most definitely enriched by supplementation with someone like Cohen who presents a normative case for socialism.

The focus of this book is, in essence, social freedom and its realization. Social freedom can be quickly explained as the conjunction of freedom, fraternity and equality. Honneth focuses mostly on the relationship between freedom and fraternity and how they indirectly give rise to equality. To be fully free we must have no one opposing to our freedom. This requires a fraternal ethos in which we attempt to lift each of our comrades which, in effect, also lifts ourselves and brings total freedom to all. Through this fraternity we are also given equality, or something similar to equality.

The normative bases for Honneth's socialism is, I think, not too different from Rawls' liberalism. Rawls focuses firstly, on freedom, but also has emphasis on fraternity. While Rawls is often critiqued on his interpretation of fraternity or at least how it exists in his liberal state, he at least places the same sort of normative emphasis on it as Honneth does. The difference between a socialist like Honneth and one like Cohen lies in their normative focus - Honneth focuses on freedom whereas much of Cohen's work is based on the assumption that equality is the starting point and then attempting to undermine the attempts of liberals to deviate from equality through reference to the requirements of fraternity and freedom.

I was initially skeptical of the possibility of the sorts of ideas Honneth has because of epistemic worries relating to how we can know what is required to achieve socialism - I believe this was due to, firstly, a misreading of Honneth, and secondly, an underestimating of the obviousness of some solutions. Honneth's suggestion is experimentation - we need not know exactly what we need to do, but since we know our goal, we can make small, piecemeal changes and then evaluate whether they have helped us come closer to achieving our goal. As well, some solutions to achieving social freedom, such as the reduction of wealth inequality through tax reform, a universal basic income and other similar strains of economic reform seem obvious enough.
_________________________
Honneth starts with the theoretical bases of socialism, a short history and then attempts to explain why it developed the way that it did and consider whether these bases are defensible in their present form. From here, he moves towards a re-interpretation of socialism that is divorced from what he perceives to be the theoretical faults of it, and presents it in a very acceptable manner, even for someone like myself who does not identify as a socialist. This book not only serves as a good general introduction to socialism, but also a good revival.

Honneth presents socialism through a sort of anthropological lens that in ways dates back to Aristotle. Socialists see people as fundamentally social creatures, not in the sense that they are simply drawn into social relations, but that their freedom is fundamentally social. What is meant by this is that freedom, understood as the lack of domination or restriction in achieving one's goals, is a fundamentally social phenomenon. One's ends are best achieved with the cooperation of others - this suggests that in order for myself to be free, I ought to support a set of social relations that allows for support from my cohorts, in exchange for my support for them as well. This anthropology is certainly interesting, but it could surely use a further defense. Such an idea surely has an intuitive pull, but a more rigorous defense of the idea that each person's freedom is best supported through a society of fraternity, rather than one trending more towards egotism would only serve to better highlight the appeal of socialism.

Moving from this, Honneth goes on to identify three fundamental premises of classical socialism - 1) the key to creating social relationships of solidarity lies in the overcoming of capitalism, 2) workers desire to replace capitalism with a cooperative system and 3) it is historically determined that capitalism will be destroyed due to internal contradictions. The first premise can be understood as the idea that social freedom (the idea of freedom presented above) is fundamentally driven by the economic realm, with a relationship of the base to the superstructure of the economic and social realms. The second premise may be understood as a sort of engrained class struggle, and the third as classical historical materialism.

Ultimately, Honneth does not believe that these premises are defensible in their current form, and require revision to re-invigorate socialism. To some extent this will clearly be met with resistance by classical socialists of today, but to a non-socialist like myself, I found myself agreeing this idea, with perhaps a few apprehensions about totally disregarding historicism.

Honneth then begins by re-thinking historical materialism, a fundamentally deterministic (perhaps fatalistic is a better word) theory, into a more agent-based theory. Historical materialism proper is best summarized as the idea that production relations (capitalism) are driven by modes of production (how we produce things), and certain relations are only compatible with certain modes. Through capitalism's inherent drive for innovation, modes of production will be advanced to the point that they are no longer compatible with capitalist social relations (as happened with other historic production relations such as feudalism), and will thus give way to socialism.

Honneth perhaps rightly notices that a deterministic theory such as this appears to in some sense diminish agency in lieu of the historical mechanism - capitalism is destined to fall so it does not really matter what any individual agent does to support or condemn it. While it is probably true that strict adherence to such a theory may perhaps diminish agency, I would argue this only happens if agents misunderstand the historical mechanism. The historical mechanism, or the driving force of history, seems to fundamentally be a human-agency driven thing. Modes of production do not advance without human ingenuity, nor is the incompatibility of certain modes of production with certain production relations noted without a sort of involved philosophical analysis of society. So, it does not appear altogether necessary to abandon historical materialism, but simply retain it as active historical materialism, with an entrenched understanding that human agency ultimately drives history. Honneth's approach is not dissimilar, although he abandons historical materialism in lieu of historical experimentalism which emphasizes the need for active change in order to make changes to advance social freedom in the economic realm, rather than sitting back and waiting for change to happen. The difference appears to lie in the possibility of whether a claim like fettering (the aforementioned incompatibility of certain modes with certain relations of production) may be true. However, depending on the stance one takes on the issue of fettering, historical materialism may be retained in the way I have outlined.

Honneth's next gripe considers the exclusionary nature of classical socialism. Honneth states that the drive for social freedom must be predicated not on the classical proletariat-bourgeoisie class struggle, but a struggle by all to have their demands highlighted, as history has shown that freedom is only advanced by previously excluded groups breaking down barriers and having their needs heard alongside the pre-existing ones, with no real reason existing to limit these marginalized groups to the proletariat. Rather, women, LGBT, children and animals, to name a few, may be some of the few historically-silenced groups that need be heard in order to better realize a culture of social freedom.

Lastly, Honneth touches on the restriction of socialism to the economic realm, primarily due to the pre-supposed base-superstructure relationship in which the economic base dictates all other things such as the political and social realms. Honneth sees this relationship as faulty and instead advances the idea that the economic, political and social realms are all ultimately individualistic, but must exist cohesively with each other in order to promote total, not simply economic, social freedom. Since this relationship is complex, Honneth believes it is only possible through a sort of democratic deliberation that transcends borders, as globalization shows us that it may not be possible for one state to make economic changes in isolation of the general global order. While the economic realm may be transnational, social and political realms are to some extent isolated. So, we must be able to democratically deliberate the conditions necessary to achieve social freedom transnationally, while retaining a strong enough coherent state at home that allows for social and political deliberation contained to the idiosyncrasies of a geographical state.

My main concern here is highlighted by Honneth himself - easier said than done. Even if we accept all of these premises and conclusions up to this point, the fact remains that an incredibly large load is placed on citizens to not only be active political citizens in deliberating and realizing the conditions necessary for social freedom, but to be able to deliberate well enough in the sense of a Roussean common will that allows for citizens to access the facts as to what it is that best advances not only their interests, but the interests of all. Even if one accepts everything up to this point, epistemic skepticism at this point, doubting whether it is possibly to conceive of a citizenry that is educated, selfless and intelligent enough to effectively do this, seems to undermine the whole. If one remains skeptical here, the whole socialist argument seems to fall unless they can find a way to either convince the skeptic of the possibility of this in the current political climate (or alter the climate to make it possible) or conceive of another way to realize social freedom. I personally fall in this skeptical camp - I am sympathetic to most of the socialist argument to this point, but remain utterly unconvinced of our collective ability to do what is necessary to realize social freedom.

Axel Honneth presents a very palatable, re-invigorated socialist argument for both classical socialists and non-socialists alike. However, I do believe I have highlighted two concerns, in particular the will, ultimately plague socialism until a stronger defense is arrived at (or perhaps it has been and I have yet to read it) - the idea that we require social freedom to ultimately flourish, and the idea that we are epistemically capable of realizing the common will necessarily to democratically advance the common will necessary for the actualization of total social freedom. I remain hopeful that it is possible to rectify my concerns about these premises for such a society would appear to truly be utopian. But, until these premises can be presented rigorously and persuasively, perhaps we are better with the current, non-perfectionist liberal state.

[Akseli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honnethin teos on painava puheenvuoro sosialismin päivttämiseksi 2000-luvulle yksilöiden sosiaalista vapautta tukevan markkinasosialismin muodossa. Laadukas suomennos ja mukaan liitetyt palkintopuheenvuorot ja suomentajien jälkisanat laajentavat teoksen näkökulmia ja Honnethin tuotantoa. Kirjan viesti on yksinkertainen ja selkeä, mutta valitettavasti liian käsitteellisen esitystapansa vuoksi 'Sosialismin idea' tuskin pystyy popularisoimaan aidosti sosiaalisen yhteiskunnan luomisen projektia laajalle kuulijakunnalle. Jäämme siis vielä odottamaan uutta "sosialismia jokamiehelle" -teosta.

[Barry Magid · Rating 4 out of 5]

Axel Honneth wants to restore the "social" in socialism, by which he means a public sphere characterized by communication, interdependency, intersubjectivity and mutual recognition. All of these, he contends, were displaced in the long dominant Marxist versions of socialism, by an exclusive preoccupation on the economic sphere. In Marxism, all forms of political and social inequality resulted from the unequal control over the means of production, and a restoration of this control to the working class would in and of itself lead to the abolition of all other manifestations of inequality. Honneth contends this resulted in a Marxist dismissal of all other arenas for the pursuit of liberty, inclusion or concern with democratic process. But, he writes, "There no longer seems to be any hope that capitalism will bring about its own demise nor that the working class bears within itself the seed of a new society."
Honneth's re-vitalized socialism would seek to establish the broadest possible access to a public sphere of communication and decision making, wherein the intersection of mutually dependent spheres of social life could be engaged and debated. Honneth derives this vision, not just as one would expect from Habermas, but more surprising to me at least, from John Dewey, a name rarely invoked these days. Socialism as an ideal of democratic inclusiveness and mutual respect, should by definition be international, offering the promise of openness to closed societies. It thus becomes less identified with any particular national political party or agenda, but more like "democracy" itself, a standard by which judge or hold to account the political process itself.

[Sari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honnethin palkitun teoksen alkusanat ovat lupaavat ja johdattelevat hyvin sosialismin uudelleenhahmotteluun pyrkivän kirjan ajatusmaailmaan. Teos jakaantuu karkeasti kahteen: ensimmäiset kaksi lukua taustoittavat ja jälkimmäiset kaksi hahmottelevat uutta. Siinä missä teoksen alkupuolisko lupasi, jälkipuolisko jätti toivomisen varaa. Teoksen täydentää ja kontekstualisoi suomentajien Arto Kuusterän ja Jussi Palmusaaren kirjoittamat mainiot jälkisanat. Teos tiivistyykin suomentajien tarkkanäköiseen viimeiseen huomautukseen: "Lukijan tehtäväksi jää arvioida, missä määrin olemassa olevat instituutiot edelleen rajoittavat radikaalin muutoksen mahdollisuutta." Honnethin uudistettu sosialismi olisi kaivannut lisää ruutia.

[roro · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5 kann der nicht mal kürzere Sätze schreiben

[Mz · Rating 3 out of 5]

https://bookpress.gr/kritikes/istoria...

[clive]

A short and readable book about that reconstructs the original idea of socialism and shows how the actually-existing socialism of the 20th-century had failed to live up to this idea due to (i) its reductive economism, (ii) its fetishization of the worker as the revolutionary subject, and (iii) its commitment to some grand historical teleology, presuppositions which ultimately stem from socialism's origins in the Industrial Revolution. I found Honneth's approach of historicizing socialism and reconstructing it in terms of its original intent to be very fruitful, but I don't agree with his reformulation of socialism in terms of communication as I found it to be crypto-reformist. He hints towards the end that socialism is primarily a political project that involves the figure of the citizen, so I don't understand why he doesn't take the further step of reformulating socialism in terms of the language of institutions and political structures instead. Nonetheless, his diagnoses are still sharp and the book still serves as a great way of thinking about socialism and about the reality of socialism in the new conditions of the 21st century. Recommended.

[Steffi · Rating 5 out of 5]

(English version: The Idea of Socialism will be published by Polity later this year.) Very uplifting and accessible read. The premise is clear: while the overall level of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs (neoliberal global capitalism) is at an all-time (post Cold War) high, there is no clear vision of a post-capitalist order. Socialism, which used to guide ideas of a just society for a century and more, has been historically discredited. The book's aim: outline a concept of socialism fit for the 21st century without the dead hand of early socialism's fallacies.

Honneth discusses the three major fallacies of early concepts of Socialism (including the 'neglect' of the political, i.e. democratic, dimension and equating capitalism with markets and hence abolishment of markets as such through centrally planned economies - the results of which we all know too well) and then develops a model of ‭socialism that addresses these these fallacies and which could guide strategies for a new ' experimental Socialism'/ radical democracy.

[Tero Vainio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Honneth does a good job pointing out the blind spots in early socialist theory that led the movement down a wrongheaded path. But his vision of socialism's future as a completely harmonious utopia is childish and his "solutions" stay safely on high-ground of theory with only hints of anything concrete. Not much different than some preacher's ramblings about the coming kingdom of God.

[Russell Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've been familiar with Honneth's writings as a political theorist for a long time, but this is the first full book of his I've ever read. It was very enlightening, not just in terms of what he suggests by way of new understandings of Marx and the socialist project generally, but in the glimpse it gave me of how a German philosopher in second decade of the 21st century takes up the sorts of questions and assumptions that the very label "socialism" necessarily entails. The good parts of the books (which far outweigh the bad) are when he digs into Marx's ideas in the light of the French Revolution, and that revolution's aims of "liberty," "equality," and "fraternity." For Honneth, that last one is by far the most important in terms of understanding Marx; in his reading and analysis, everything worth saving about Marx has to do with understanding the importance of "social freedom," and the community empowerment realizing such freedom entails, while everything about Marx that should be gotten rid of is a particular consequence of his writing at the high-water mark of the Industrial Revolution, which obliged him to wrestle with perspectives that led him away from that essential focus, and which we--as far as Honneth is concerned--fortunately have grown beyond. Honneth allows, as did Erik Olin Wright (whose book Envisioning Real Utopias is the best thing I've ever read on the possible meanings of socialism today), that there are many ways in which markets and liberal regimes may contribute to social freedom, and thus the socialist hostility to such needs to be recognized as a dated, 19th-century response. In his view, socialism is centrally a commitment to constant experimentation, measuring social and economic forms against the standard of increased fraternity and empowerment, in the same way that capitalism entails a constant experimentalism in the pursuit of profits. All of that is wise and needed deck-clearing, in my view. What is bad about the book? Not much, though I am bothered that Honneth--surprisingly, given his insistence that the turn Marxism made into economic determinism was both unnecessary and flawed--never turns his analysis to anything strictly structural or political, as oppose to theorizing about the relationship between the social and the economic. He never questions whether the modern state is a friend to social freedom, and dismisses the question as to whether or not real fraternity, much less real democracy, can be experienced outside of a small community without any serious thought. So in the end, I found this book a powerful and persuasive case for affirming the transformative possibilities of socialism, completely separate from the ways in which the ideology has contributed to evils in the past; I just wish the focus of the transformation it opened up was a little broader, if that makes sense.

[Lionel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sehr interessante Ideen. Die Analyse (der erste Teil des Buches) ist exzellent. Die Darstellung der sozialen Freiheit im Mittelpunkt der Idee des Sozialismus als Verwirklichung der Ideale der Freiheit, Gleichheit und Brüderlichkeit ist ausgezeichnet gelungen. Auch fantastisch war die Analyse der shortcomings der sozialistischen Idee (zB die auf bloße Hoffnung gegründete Vorstellung, dass das Proletariat notwendigerweise - als historische Notwendigkeit - aufbegehren wird oder der Fehler, den Sozialismus im ökonomischen Bereich nicht auf den politischen Bereich, also echte Demokratie, zu beziehen).
Leider hat mir der Schwung des ersten Teils im zweiten Teil gefehlt. Die Übertragung des Sozialismus in das 21. Jahrhundert ist eine klassische sozialdemokratische Analyse, bei der mir ein wenig der Mut gefehlt hat.

Insgesamt ein sehr sehr bereicherndes Leseerlebnis - der Schreibstil ist ein Genuss.

[Noel Selegzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging attempt to reimagine socialism that seems directed primarily at those who hold stubbornly to a socialism rooted in economic determinism and a belief in the proletariat as a revolutionary class. Original thought is couched in a vain attempt to show that the “socialism” developed in the nineteenth century can become relevant to the twenty-first so long as we jettison a lot of intellectual baggage. The biggest problem with this short read is that the ideal of social freedom posited by Honneth takes as a given that individual and social freedom can be reconciled with one another as long as we see individuals as part of an organic social whole. If only we see that our self interest is in the betterment of all can we embark on a series of experiments that will resolve all the presumed tensions between individual and social freedom.

[M. L. Gabriel]

Einerseits fesselnd, auch, weil Honneths Sprache extrem klar und trotzdem gehaltvoll ist. Andererseits enttäuschend, weil seine Vision so stark auf Habermas' flockig-naive Deliberationstheorie abstellt. Materielle Verhältnisse werden im Buch fast gar nicht mehr angesprochen. Die These, dass sich aus der Wirtschaft die Verhältnisse in Politik und im 'Privaten' ableiten – und deswegen der Sozialismus dort ansetzen muss –, versucht er gar nicht erst zu widerlegen, sondern erklärt sie schlicht für überholt.

[Reko Wenell · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting read overall with lots to think about. The most important takeaway for me was Honneth's framing of socialism's meaning as becoming free through our social working together. It was interesting to see that Honneth ended up with something that can be realised with what sounded a lot like the liberal democratic framework. What is bad about the book is how unnecessarily difficult it was to read. Honneth seems incapable of writing even decently clear prose.

[Javier · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated Honneth's criticisms of socialist tradition for being mired in industrialism and the author's redefinition of the revolutionary struggle as having 3 critical spheres: the economy, the State, and interpersonal relations. This sounds to me like a pretty good definition of the domination that anarchists often seek abstractly to overcome.

[Brian Weiss · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author does a good job of breaking down the mistakes of early socialists while touching on the damage the founders caused to the long-term future and viability of the movement. But his idea for a renewed socialism is certainly not completely fleshed out.

P.S. I didn't read the ebook version.

[Yilmaz Aksoy]

Eğer Marx, Hegel, Proudhon, Dewey, Fourier gibi düşünürlerin fikirlerine hakimseniz okuyabileceğiniz bir kitap. Benim bu konularda pek bilgim olmadığından bu kısa kitaptan belki sadece iki fikir kapabildim. Gerisini de anladığımı söyleyemem. Şansımı başka kitaplarda deneyeceğim.

[Santino Cagna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Buen libro con ideas interesantes que no le va a importar a nadie porque algún marxista ultra ortodoxo va a tener una crítica demoledora que demostrará que sólo esa interpretación es la correcta.
Mientras tanto la única alegría que tenemos de vez en cuando es cuando boletean a un CEO.

[Ahmet Emre]

Language: Turkish

[Clara Helm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good review of the flaws of early socialism, but Is it revising a more modern version of socialism or simply removing all of its core values?

[Mr T · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though the prose is like swimming in porridge, this is the best defence of democracy in the economy this century.

[graceofgod · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honneth basically is advocating for a type of """post-liberal""" socialist reformism.

[Antje Schrupp · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ziemlich aufwändig und etwas redundant entfaltet er die Idee, dass der historische Sozialismus (wobei er vorwiegend Saint-Simon, Proudhon und Marx betrachtet) daran gescheitert ist, soziale Freiheit allein aus der Ökonomie herzuleiten und dabei die Sphären der Politik und der persönlichen Beziehungen/Familie vernachlässigt hat. Mir ist nicht ganz klar geworden, wie er das nun heute ändern will. Gefallen hat mir, dass Honneth auch den Markt vor dem Kapitalismus retten möchte :)

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

In “The Idea of Socialism,” critical theorist Axel Honneth seeks to identify the founding concept behind socialism and explore how the socialist project has to change in the twenty-first century.

The concept of socialism, in Honneth’s presentation, traces back to the French Revolution and the need to synthesize liberty and fraternity. The classical liberal understanding of liberty in terms of private property and self-advancement sits at odds with a communal ethos. Socialism thus became a way of *socializing* the concept of freedom on the basis of mutual sympathy— “interpreting individual freedom as a kind of freedom in which each person complements the other.” The “community of solidarity” became the bearer of freedom, a recognition of the fundamental interdependence of society. Honneth’s view of the socialist impulse has a decidedly Kantian flair: whereas classical liberalism treats individuals as means, socialism requires treating others as ends in themselves (and equals at that).

However, Honneth argues that the socialist project had three “birth defects” that made it easily susceptible to legitimate criticism and hamstrung efforts to translate theory into practice. The first was the restriction of the community of solidarity to the economy. The second was the corresponding ignorance of the entire sphere of political deliberation, which resulted in a failure to clarify the relationship between the economic sphere and hard-fought political freedoms. And third was a metaphysical theory of history which made it difficult, if not impossible, to understand such intellectual contributions as experiments in introducing change in capitalist societies. If a socialist future is inevitable, why bother with gradual change?

He attributes these defects to the moment in time in which socialism arose—that of early industrialization. When looking at how socialist thought and practice has to evolve in the twenty-first century, Honneth argues for the need to focus on and embrace economic experimentation and what he calls a historical experimentalism, that is, not assuming that history has a defined telos or that we know in advance the totality of what the structure of an ideal society would look like.

Honneth likewise asserts that socialist thought needs to take into account non-economic barriers to the realizing of liberty as well. Elaborating on this, he explains, “Socialism must be viewed as the specific modern articulation of the fact that in the course of history and on the basis of varying social circumstances, new groups constantly seek to draw public attention to their own demands by attempting to tear down barriers to communication and thereby expand the space of social freedom.” We must break down such barriers in the economic realm, but also in the political and personal realms as well.

How does Honneth define success for such a project? In institutions (legal, social, political, economic, etc.) that reflect such a vision of the expansion of social freedom and elimination of coercion.