The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality

by Bhaskar Sunkara

The success of Jeremy Corbyn's left-led Labour Party and Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign revived a political idea many had thought dead. But what, exactly, is socialism? And what would a socialist system look like today? In The Socialist Manifesto, Bhaskar Sunkara, editor of Jacobin magazine, argues that socialism offers the means to achieve economic equality, and also to fight other forms of oppression, including racism and sexism. The ultimate goal is not Soviet-style planning, but to win rights to healthcare, education, and housing and to create new democratic institutions in workplaces and communities. The book both explores socialism's history and presents a realistic vision for its future. A primer on socialism for the 21st century, this is a book for anyone seeking an end to the vast inequities of our age.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, History, Philosophy, Theory, Sociology

288 pages, Hardcover

First published April 30, 2019

Reviews

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Half-hearted Manifesto, "Capitalist Realism" and "Crisis Realism"...

Preamble:
--Sept. 2023 update: in short, my main critique of this book is it seems to assume the perpetuation of the status quo Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, which reached its heights with the collapse of the USSR and the opening of China/Eastern Bloc labour markets to global capitalism.
--By assuming "There is No Alternative" will continue its stranglehold, Leftists resort to:
a) half-hearted "let's hold onto the welfare state", maybe have some worker co-ops
b) cynicism
--This fails to forecast the drastic changes in material conditions hinted in this book's subtitle ("in an Era of Extreme Inequality"). We are leaving "Capitalist Realism" and entering "Crisis Realism", a post-normal material reality of escalating climate/ecological crises disrupting capitalism's systemic fragility. COVID-19 is just a hiccup.
-Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century
--In this new era of chaos, reactionary forces will be emboldened. Tepid "maybe socialism isn't evil, guys" from the Left will not be heard.
--"Manifestos" much better fitted for "Crisis Realism":
i) Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
ii) Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World
iii) A People’s Green New Deal
iv) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist

The Adequate:
1) The Intent of Accessibility for US audiences:
--We certainly need to engage the US public as liberal centrism escalates the age of inequality and fuels the cancer of reactionaries. This book (author is founder of Jacobin magazine) makes an attempt.
--The big question tied to "accessibility": who is the target audience? I assume it is the same mass crowds the Bernie Sanders campaign has been able to bring out, i.e. a broad range of progressives/independents and "default liberals" (my way of distinguishing from "devoted liberals" i.e. Democrat Party hacks). Indeed, Bernie's messaging is an important case study:
i) 2016 defeat to Hillary, who lost to Trump: Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In
ii) 2023 defeat to Biden: It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism
--Some reviewers I follow laud the first chapter of the book, which describes a simple, fictional socialist transition within a Western factory. Economic democracy within the workplace (micro-level) is a promising start, but there are much better intros to the topic:
-Richard D. Wolff (micro): Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism
-Yanis Varoufakis (micro + macro): Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present
...I expected more than a brief and rather unambitious micro-level story, since we are already brushing over the tough bits:
i) Realistic threats of capitalist reactionary violence.
ii) Macro-level social imagination especially from a global perspective (global trade, imperialism, etc.)
--If our imagination is so moderate, how will we have the fortitude to sustain ourselves through these struggles?

2) History of socialism (esp. Germany, Sweden, USSR, China, US):
--The bulk of the book is crash-course case studies. Once again, a useful component but questionable execution.
...Accessibility and crash-course "armchair" histories lead to my concern of the lack of historical context (discussed later). While I can see radicals picking up this book and engaging with the commentaries (filling in certain contexts, debating the author's views), I have trouble imagining the average Bernie supporter appreciating the meaning of socialism to the global oppressed especially in the Global South from this book.
--Building this context takes time (I provide suggestions at the end). Instead, we may be left with what another reviewer (Avery) describes:

The majority of this book is just a fairly trite and tepid history of socialism. I'm wondering what the point of this book was, especially considering it hardly makes socialism look viable or appealing.

The Good:
The contradictions of Social Democracy (i.e. capitalist economy + state redistribution + parliamentary democracy):
--In the case studies (especially Sweden), this is spelled out. Let us unpack it...
--The social democracy class compromise is predicated on economic growth. This means the redistribution principle (which attempts to guarantee some level of existence for the masses, as opposed to just their economic values on the labour market) is still predicated on capitalist profits; while booming, capitalists may consent to sharing some scraps from the table (cost-effective, as opposed to dealing with labour disputes).
--However, unlike the rhetoric of capitalist/free market utopia (some natural, harmonious equilibrium of perpetual growth raising all boats), capitalism in the real world is a dynamic engine of lurching instability (and social power conflicts). In fact, capitalism's very dynamism is its systemic volatility! This is not examined here; see:
-Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails
-World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction
--Those whose survival depend on wage labour are often swept up by the tides of "creative destruction" mechanization (leading to structural unemployment, forced migrations, overproduction leading to crisis of profitability), rising inequality (accumulation: money makes power, money makes money), financial crises (as credit disappears from speculative bubbles bursting, debts become unpayable), etc.
--Thus, during inevitable downturns, the social democracy compromise unravels as the capitalist class (owning the capital) reconstitutes their class power. This can take 2 forms:
a) More technocratic: for example, Neoliberalism (including social democracy going the “Third Way”) following the decline of post-WWII boom/Bretton Woods/Golden Age of Capitalism, relies on abstract economic processes: privatization, austerity, hording, threats (capital flight, embargo, or worse), and externalizing risk with new forms of extraction (ex. Financialization/debt peonage, corporate globalization by expanding property rights into intellectual property while outsourcing production).
b) More vulgar: scapegoating (with xenophobia + cruel nationalism) to unleash direct violence (including escalating the military industrial complex), like Nazism/Fascism following the endless Great Depression and Global Trumpism following the continuing Great Recession.
...see: And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future
...Vijay Prashad illustrates this vividly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z11oh...

The Contentious:
What to make of the Socialism of Third World Revolutions?
--The book’s purpose is to make socialist history and concepts accessible to Western audiences. However, there is a danger in presenting examples from drastically different historical and material contexts, for example Swedish social democracy side-by-side the Russian and Chinese Revolutions/rapid industrialization amidst embargos.
--For Western audiences, Swedish social democracy is relatable with its level of established economic privileges and lack of foreign threats. The context of Russia and China prior to their revolutions is frankly unimaginable. Thus, without a serious and pain-staking attempt to establish this context, we end up with:
1) Romanticized views of Swedish Progressive social democracy, of its peaceful class collaboration and productive outcomes in a modern setting of (capitalist) "democracy", as if this was a ready option for those struggling in colonial/feudal backwaters. This same enthusiasm is reversed into hostility towards Third World Revolutions (i.e. "that's not Socialism, that's Communism", "we don't support [real world] Socialism, we want Democratic Socialism").
2) Focus on some inherent violence of communism/real-world socialism, as opposed to the overwhelming direct violence of capitalism (starting with underdevelopment over-exploitation from colonialism/global capitalism, then endless acts of military and economic terror/divide-and-rule to sabotage alternatives) to hold onto its global division of labour/resources and prevent alternatives, indirect violence of justifying domestic self-defense (thus authoritarianism), and the violence of rapid industrialization (which the West did in dark satanic mills, fueled by New World genocidal pillage and slave plantations).
--It is easy for those sitting in privilege to condemn others in profoundly different historical and material contexts. There seems much on the surface to condemn. But Marx relied on first investigating the historical and material contexts; in that spirit, we need to take a step back and consider the unequal exchanges between the Global North and South. These are not nations in isolation; one side exports violence and extracts wealth (i.e. imperialism). For those who bemoan the violence of the condemned, perhaps we should prioritize what we are responsible for and condemn the exportation of violence first and foremost.

Suggestions (for historical context of real-world socialism):
--I'm accumulating a playlist on Global South Socialism, featuring Vijay Prashad, Michael Parenti, Utsa Patnaik, etc.: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
--Highlights include:
i) Michael Parenti:
-on Cuban Revolution: https://youtu.be/npkeecCErQc
-full: https://youtu.be/O8k0yO-deoA?t=27
ii) Vijay Prashad:
-on ideological censorship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKcs...
-intro: Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism
--In-depth:
-Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations
-The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World
-The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World

--As for comparisons, other perspectives need to be included. The numbers in global mortality (let alone famine deaths) are impossible for the developed West to intuitively grasp. The Western anti-communist anthem is to recite famine deaths, particularly of 1959-61 China under Mao. Curiously, there is a neighboring country (India) with:
i) a similar historical context (large population of agrarian economy ravaged by colonialism, see: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World), and
ii) conveniently went a separate route of industrialization (parliamentary democracy + liberal market) during the same time frame.
--Consider the comparison made by 2 prominent social democrat(!) development economists in Hunger and Public Action:
1) China’s dramatic rise in life expectancy occurred prior to its 1979 market liberalization’s economic growth:

In fact, it seems fairly clear that the Chinese growth rate was not radically higher than that of India before the economic reforms of 1979, by which time the tremendous surge ahead in health and longevity had already taken place. In the pre-reform period, agricultural expansion in particular was sluggish in China, as it was in India, and the dramatic reduction in hunger and undernourishment and expansion of life expectancy in China were not ushered in by any spectacular rise in rural incomes or of food availability per head. […]

This is indeed the crucial point. The Chinese level of average opulence judged in terms of GNP per head, or total consumption per capita, or food consumption per person, did not radically increase during the period in which China managed to take a gigantic step forward in matters of life and death, moving from a life expectancy at birth in the low 40s (like the poorest countries today) to one in the high 60s (getting within hitting distance of Europe and North America). [p.208]

2) China’s focus on social support:

As far as support-led security is concerned, the Chinese efforts have been quite spectacular. The network of health services introduced in post-revolutionary China in a radical departure from the past—involving cooperative medical systems, commune clinics, barefoot doctors, and widespread public health measures—has been remarkably extensive. The contrast with India in this respect is striking enough. It is not only that China has more than twice as many doctors and nearly three times as many nurses per unit of population as India has. But also these and other medical resources are distributed more evenly across the country (even between urban and rural areas), with greater popular access to them than India has been able to organize.

Similar contrasts hold in the distribution of food through public channels and rationing systems, which have had an extensive coverage in China (except in periods of economic and political chaos, as during the famine of 1958-61, on which more presently). In India public distribution of food to the people, when it exists, is confined to the urban sector (except in a few areas such as the state of Kerala where the rural population also benefits from it, on which, too, more presently). Food distribution is, in fact, a part of a far-reaching programme of social security that distinguishes China from India. The impact of these programmes on protecting and promoting entitlements to food and basic necessities, including medical care, is reflected in the relatively low mortality and morbidity rates in China. [p.209]

3) Despite China’s Great Famine, how do life-expectancies compare?

Finally, it is important to note that despite the gigantic size of excess mortality in the Chinese famine, the extra mortality in India from regular deprivation in normal times vastly overshadows the former. Comparing India's death rate of 12 per thousand with China's of 7 per thousand, and applying that difference to the Indian population of 781 million in 1986, we get an estimate of excess normal mortality in India of 3.9 million per year. This implies that every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958-61. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame. [p.214-215]

...Note: stellar radical political economist Utsa Patnaik disputes the Western mainstream famine death methodologies cited by the liberal reformist authors; I summarize Utsa's critique in reviewing Hunger and Public Action.

[Steffi · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Socialist Manifesto (Basic Books, 2019) by Jacobin founder and publisher Bhaskar Sunkara. Spoiler: it’s not a manifesto, but it probably sells more copies calling it a ‘socialist manifesto’ than ‘a brief history of socialism or towards socialism of the 21st century’.

And this is a great thing because this book is part of the ongoing popularization of Marx, rescuing Marx from the Marxisms of the 20th century for the 21st century.

Yes, the ‘Marxist-Leninist’ experiments of the 20th century in Russia, Eastern Europe and the 3rd world were NOT democratic alternatives to capitalism. I think we can all agree on this. But neither was social democracy able to deal with the inherent contradiction and crises of capitalism. I think this much is also clear by now where social democracy is either fully centrist (US), dying (Germany) or already dead (France).

So what could a democratic socialist alternative look like and how do we get there? The book provides some of the latest thinking on this, with a practical focus on the US and a potential path towards democratic socialism under President Sanders come January 2021. Rather than providing (yet another) critique of capitalism, the book provides contours of democratic socialism in the 21st century, with all its globalized complexity.

The author reminds us that socialists from the beginning have been students of history and he provides a very useful overview of the 19th century origins of socialism, the defeat of the radical left in the west in favour of social democracy in post-war Europe and not even social Democrats in the US ; the revolutions in Russia, China and other parts of the 3rd world and the authoritarian nightmares that ensued. This is an important background to avoid making the same mistakes of authoritarian socialism from above (including a tyranny of bureaucrats and central planning disasters) but also the mistakes of social democracy’s futile attempt to administer capitalism with a social face.

If you don’t want to read this book, you can also listen to the recent The Vast Majority podcast episode with an interview with the author.

[Gerhard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anyone with a passing interest in science fiction will (should?) automatically be interested in social democracy. Or is it democratic socialism? This is one of the confusing aspects of the book that Bhaskar Sunkara does not spell out, and neither does he elaborate on socialism’s beef with neoliberalism.

If you were to ask a socialist to recommend a general primer to introduce the main tenets, thinkers, and examples (historic and contemporary) underpinning this political philosophy, you’re likely to start a bit of a bunfight. Sunkara alludes to this when he writes: “Socialists won’t be effective if we exist solely on college campuses or spend our time attacking one another on social media.”

Just look at reviews of his book. Kristian Niemitz, writing for the Acton Institute, for example, “disagree[s] with almost every word” and declares that Sunkara is “wrong about everything.” This is a bit puzzling when a large chunk of ‘The Socialist Manifesto’ is simply a rather depressing objective historic summary of the global failure of socialism in its various guises, and the puzzling persistence of capitalism despite its inherent contradictions, inequalities, and instabilities.

A more objective review is provided by the always dependable Kirkus, which describes the book as a “sharp, hopeful, and useful primer”. It does add the caveat that the book is “short on evidence that a socialist future is at hand”:

Jacobin founder and editor Sunkara (editor: The ABCs of Socialism, 2016, etc.) considers the present world of “extreme inequality” and argues that “we can do better than this capitalist reality you’re stuck in.” At a time of growing popularity for progressive politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders and of marked dislike of capitalism and affinity for socialism among American 18- to 29-year-olds (though “what young people understand as socialism is not clear”), the author finds a “surprising opportunity” today for socialism in Britain and the United States. In this accessible narrative, Sunkara describes the socialist tradition from Marx to the present and outlines the benefits of a socialist society of “expansive social services and public guarantees” that asserts “the moral worth of every person.” His lengthy opening explication of this idyllic view—a day in the life of a socialist citizen—will appeal strongly to readers dissatisfied with the “unnecessary pain and suffering” under capitalism. His subsequent recounting of the realities of socialist movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries in Western Europe and Russia is less enthralling, as the author is aware.

From a South African perspective, Mail & Guardian writers Benjamin Fogel and Sean Jacobs noted in a prescient 2019 article entitled ‘Why South Africa needs Democratic Socialism’:

After 25 [sic] years in power, one would expect that the African National Congress—the party that brought South Africans the Marikana massacre, 40% unemployment, 6-hour power cuts, systemic broken local governance, the corruption of Jacob Zuma and the Guptas and more — would be on the ropes, but for some reason the opposition has not been able to capitalise on this. When the results were announced, the ANC still won with a clear majority (57.60% of the national vote) and eight out of nine provinces. The opposition, despite the damage the ANC has inflicted on itself and the country, is still not a serious political threat, but why has a serious alternative to the ANC not emerged?

I was surprised to read that the Socialist Revolutionary Workers’ Party (SRWP) participated in our 2019 general election. It was the brainchild of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA), our largest trade union. The SRWP was established by Irvin Jim “on a platform largely sourced from Brezhnev-era Soviet dogma,” which is not socialism’s brightest moment, as Sunkara is at pains to point out. The SRWP only launched its manifesto two days before the election (maybe it wanted it to be ‘hot off the press’) and then proceeded to spout chunks of Lenin at voters. Now we all know South Africans’ innate antagonism towards foreigners…

In South Africa, where our opposition politics is so fractured and inward-looking, you would think democratic socialism an ideal rallying point to unite all this unfocused and fractious energy and ideas into a potent political force to counter a bloated, centrist, and increasingly inflexible and out-of-touch state. But no. It is a similar situation in the US, where the Democratic Socialists of America have 50 000 card-carrying members (SF author Kim Stanley Robinson is one of them) out of a total population of 330 million, to quote Sunkara’s statistics.

It is difficult to argue against Sunkara’s conclusion (though one suspects Niemitz would do so merely for the sake of starting an argument, which is a problem inherent in both democratic socialism and South African politics: A basic and fatal failure to get along despite our differences):

But does socialism really have a future? I have the utmost moral confidence that a world in which some thrive by depriving others of freedom, billions needlessly suffer amid plenty, and we move ever closer to ecological catastrophe is unacceptable. I also believe that as long as we live in a society divided into classes, there will be natural opposition to inequality and exploitation. Technical and political barriers to progress can’t be underestimated, but if we are to make something better of our shared world, socialist politics, broadly conceived, offer us the best tools we have for getting there.

[celestine · Rating 2 out of 5]

First of all, the title is misleading. Basically all but 50 or so pages of this book is a history of socialism, and the remaining pages are hardly a distinct manifesto. I hope this mistake was the publisher’s and not the author’s.

And the history is not good. Sunkara spends about half of the book, maybe more, recollecting the experience of the USSR, and to a lesser extent the PRC, poorly. He reviews the history of revisionist socialism turned Western social democracy, and the American socialist movement, to better results, but that in itself is revealing. He falls victim to the same disease as many of the progressives attempting to repopularize socialism in Western capitalist nations. I am extremely tired of supposed socialists starting their historical analysis of socialist nations/projects from a fundamentally bourgeois and liberal basis. There is no need to apologize for the previous failures of the socialist movement worldwide, but Sunkara can’t help himself. His analysis is late-Kautskyian, at best, despite his own critiques about the aforementioned’s turn against the nubile USSR.

To expand on my previous statement, modern socialists should not shy away from the tragedies, errors, and struggles, of previous and current socialist experiments, but their analysis should be firmly planted within a truly Marxist analysis, a scientific, materialist, dialectical sense. The projects must be placed within a proper context of comparison against capitalist realities. And Sunkara, instead of this, is quick to accept the liberal-bourgeois notion of the socialist projects.

Socialism will not march forward without an honest *materialist* assessment of its previous experiments. Accepting the false bourgeois narrative about their totalitarian tendencies will always lead to a dead-end.

Sunkara argues for a synthesis of marxist political economy, the kind that works for him (Bernstein, Kautsky, Yugoslavia), with social democratic parliamentarian tactics, with street-level class struggle. It doesn’t feel like a bad idea… devoid of the context of theoretical struggle through the 20th century that continues today.

Sunkara has his heart in the right place, but the book reeks of bourgeois socialism. He tries to synthesize Marxism with revisionist socialism of the Bernstein ilk, and it ultimately doesn’t work. The manifesto part of the book, while having some good points about the futility of reform within the hegemonic “democratic” parties, is ultimately not much of a manifesto, and the history part of the book plays far too much into the hands of capitalist revisionists.

[Barbara Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to socialist history and to the current democratic socialist agenda. Sunkara points to where repressive communist regimes went wrong while creating a hopeful narrative of socialism's successes and humanitarian potential. Those who wish for more in-depth analysis of communism's tragic episodes should delve into the abundant academic literature. Sunkara surveys history accurately and accessibly for a young, popular audience of democratic socialists while also providing a road map to building a socialist movement. There are moments of subtle humor.

[Julesreads · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Socialist Manifesto isn’t a manifesto. So, right there, it fails on its title’s intention. Streamlining an incredible amount of history (the coverage of socialism’s/communism’s failures in Germany, Russia, and China takes up most of the book) into an easy narrative, and keeping the book under 250 pages, is actually a disservice to Sunkara’s attempt to really reach its audience. Someone unfamiliar with all of this stuff and perhaps on the fence about socialism (and god help us if you are one of those “on the fence”) will likely be swallowed up by the amount of information being tied together. Indeed, as a friend put it, much of the book comes off as this: “okay, here’s what’s happened so far, and now that you’re caught up, trust me, here’s how it’s gotta be.” This kind of approach to a vast and complicated subject is a risk. And I’m not sure why it had to be so. This book could’ve (and should’ve) been 500+ pages. Naomi Klein, another pop-political writer, has mild tomes in her name, and they’re readable and incredibly informative. Sunkara should’ve gone for it. Instead, what we have is a compromised project. There isn’t enough analysis for someone familiar with the history and/or ideas presented, and not enough time to breathe and review for a layman.
That said, it is a fun narrative and it is impressive how well he puts it all together. I read the book rather quickly, never felt overwhelmed (though sometimes I did feel a bit bored), and understood his arguments (and with the help of my other reading pursuits, was able to parse out where I thought he was being a bit too prescriptive/dismissive of communism).
Part of this understanding came from the last couple of chapters, one of them entitled “How We Win,” which is often a forced inclusion to such a book, and here it still lacks the emotional force of a manifesto-like screed on the necessity of socialism.
Democratic socialism is not my bag, per se (marxism all the way), but I didn’t feel the passion in Sunkara’s decry. On page 235, he says: “With the bedrock of a class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individual qualms can be addressed but structural inequalities cannot.” I wanted more of this throughout the book, not 8 pages from the finish. It stands to reason that a book aimed at a general public supposedly virgin to (or at least only mildly familiar with) socialism enough to be intrigued by a “manifesto” would probably respond to more rousing statements such as the one found in the middle of pg. 235 rather than a swirling history of failed (and specious/abusive) communist enterprises (though is may also be my biases). Sunkara has seen it as important to admit the failures of communism, and not to run away from their history, but at the same time, I don’t see the point in creating a socialist manifesto around the most massive “failures” of communism, which is intertwined with socialism in many fundamental ways (and more importantly is intertwined in a way I think many layman’s will see them). This is giving ground to right-wing and neoliberal criticisms more than it is inspiring the troops, so to speak. This is just my opinion, of course, but I see Sunkara’s vast efforts as coming off more “dud” than “thud.”

[Doug McNair · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a useful, enjoyable, and oddly misnamed book that succeeds on many levels but fails to deliver on its stated promise. I suppose Mr. Sunkara named it “The Socialist Manifesto” to show his Marxist bona fides and possibly lay claim to Marxism for the Millennial socialist movement in America. But instead of a manifesto, almost all of the book is a well-written and engaging short history of socialist movements in Europe, the Third World, and the United States. The author, a self-described pessimist, pulls no punches in describing how and why the socialist movements of the19th and 20th centuries failed to achieve their goals -- and in particular how authoritarian communism came about in Russia and China. I was particularly fascinated by his history of Maoism, which was an attempt to impose socialism from above on a society that had none of the preconditions for socialism that Marx had laid out. As such, it was an authoritarian project from the get-go, making China’s current status as an authoritarian regime a foregone conclusion. His history of socialism in the United States through the 20th century doesn’t fill one with hope for socialism’s future either. Instead, he pins his hopes on Millennials, who have no memories of the Cold War or Tienanmen Square and therefore aren’t automatically turned off by socialism the way we older folks are.

The problem is that the author’s excellent historical narrative and analysis gives us the expectation that he is leading up to an equally excellent plan for bringing a successful non-authoritarian socialist movement to the United States. It’s here that he falls flat. He acknowledges up front that “We can’t rely on the professed good intentions of socialist leaders: the way to prevent abuses of power is to have a free civil society and robust democratic institutions.” (p. 39) But while at the end of the book, he gives a 15-point plan for transforming the most capitalist nation on earth into a socialist nation, that plan includes measures that would vastly increase central government authority while providing no checks on that authority and no plans for stopping the slide into authoritarianism that his 20th century history of socialism warns us against. He argues that American federalism is antidemocratic and that it should be replaced by a strong central government with a unicameral legislature and mechanisms for passing national laws by popular referendum. But . . . how to keep that increase in central government power from causing an increase in central government corruption and abuse of power? To that, he devotes just two sentences:

“Naturally, there are lessons from the Communist movements’ time in power: the difficulties of central planning, the importance of civil rights and freedoms, what happens when socialism is transformed from a democratic movement from below into an authoritarian collectivism. But pluralism and democracy are ingrained not only in civil societies in the advanced capitalist world but within the socialist movement itself.” (p. 249)

That’s all -- just a statement of faith that we won’t slide into authoritarianism because we’re too attached to pluralism and democracy. Well . . . everybody in the 1920s and ‘30s knew Germany was the most enlightened nation on earth, and so they dismissed Hitler and the Nazis as a joke.

The lesson of history here is that authoritarian leaders are dazzling at eliminating the very checks on authority that Mr. Sunkara puts his faith in to keep us free. The Nazis and the Communists removed the obstacle of civil society not by banning it outright, but by co-opting it: establishing government-run organizations that duplicated the functions of independent civil organizations, then incentivizing people to join them (with a carrot or a stick, as needed). Soon, the government was dictating what sorts of civil organizations were acceptable and what weren’t, and it was just one easy step beyond that to dictate what forms of speech, expression, and thought were acceptable too. Those who got with the program got government approval and the power that went along with it. Those who refused got sent to gulags or concentration camps.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sunkara’s actual manifesto at the end of the book does contain some things Millennial socialists need to hear. Of particular importance is his takedown of identity politics and callout culture, which he says “will lead us down the path to a hyper-individualized and antisolidaristic politics. Hyperbole and the politics of personal shaming are a recipe for demoralization, paranoia, and defeat.” (p. 248) Amen to that. But his call for a return to class-based politics faces an uphill battle in a social-media age where everyone is sorting themselves into tribal groups rather than finding ways to build bridges to natural allies. I agree with Mr. Sunkara that identitarianism is antithetical to socialism in a multicultural society. Any American socialist movement must be universalistic, or it’s doomed.

So overall, this is a good history book but not much of a manifesto. He needs to develop a plan that’s based not on faith in capitalist societies’ devotion to pluralism and democracy but on mechanisms designed to keep the system democratic and non-authoritarian. Frankly, there’s none of that here.

[Avery · Rating 2 out of 5]

The majority of this book is just a fairly trite and tepid history of socialism. I'm wondering what the point of this book was, especially considering it hardly makes socialism look viable or appealing.

[dobbs the dog · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was really disappointed by this book!
Maybe it would be great for someone who knows nothing about Socialist history or theory, but for someone who does it just doesn’t go far enough.
I was also disappointed that there was no mention of Venezuela, a very brief touch on Cuba, and zero mention of socialism in Canada. It seemed like the author only wanted to talk about instances where Socialism became authoritarian, not where it has been successful.
Also, the fact that it spent all of about 2 minutes talking about the climate crisis was quite surprising. As the biggest threat to our society right now and only leftist/socialist parties and candidates are demanding action on it, how could this be brushed over so quickly?
Overall, really disappointing.

[Jules · Rating 1 out of 5]

The intro hooked me with it's look at workplace inequalities and precarious position of American workers and the idealization of what workplaces could be under a democratic socialist system. I expected an interesting book on the history of socialism, issues with/affects of capitalism and how it can be implemented or something generally tangible. It's more of a bro-cialism book downplaying historical issues with socialism (gulags, famines, etc) because things did improve!

The section on modern socialism/future of socialism lionizes Jeremy Corbin and rehashes Bernie's loss to Clinton. I have 41min left and I can't decide if I can stomach any more.

[Eric Bottorff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beginning and end sections are the strongest. The middle chunk of the book, which traces the history of socialist movements and policies over the years, is competently done, though is both over- and under-detailed, depending on the particular focus. (Too much on the interwar German left, not enough on socialist movements of the Global South.)

[Andrew]

OK, I’m a regular Jacobin reader. I occupied, then I slapped a Bernie sticker on my notebook. I pretty much fit the millennial socialist profile to a T, messenger bag and all. And yet this seemed like a retread more than anything else. I mean, I don’ think it’s designed for me in mind – it sounds a bit shitty to say, but it seems designed for the sort of airport bookstore audience that doesn’t have any kind of intimate familiarity with socialist ideas, but is interested in policy questions more broadly. And this is better than Nudge or Freakonomics. Sadly, that audience will probably never read this, leaving it to jaded fucks like me. Oh well.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be a socialist today is to believe that more, not less, democracy will help solve social ills – and to believe that ordinary people can shape the systems that shape their lives.

Bhaskar Sunkara's whole short career on the American left has been building to this moment, when he can release a book proudly claiming the Marxian legacy and defend socialism in layperson's terms as the most democratic, most humane and most logical replacement for a rapacious, corrupt and dehumanizing capitalism.

Unfortunately, Sankara manages to do all of that in the first chapter – which, to be clear, is excellent, one of the best leftist essays I've ever read. That leaves the rest of the book, which is essentially a series of brief histories of major socialist movements and why they failed, followed by a brief list of steps that Sunkara lays out for effecting the transition from capitalism to socialism.

In the end, none of it holds a torch to that first chapter, in which Sunkara displays a dry wit and an easy ability to grasp and relay in real-world terms the nature of capitalism and why it seems increasingly to stifle rather than enhance our lives today, using a farcical example of a pasta-sauce bottling plant owned by rock star Jon Bon Jovi. The histories are enlightening – and a useful counterweight to the reflexive anti-left narrative that has held sway in U.S. history books since the Cold War, although Sunkara still acknowledges and condemns the devastation of Stalin's purges and Mao's incompetence, among other failures.

But ultimately this is not a manifesto. Certainly, it makes a strong case that socialism ought to be recovered from the dustbin of history where it was thought to permanently reside after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that capitalism is itself much more an obstruction to true democracy than Americans especially are likely to assume. But there's nothing here as memorable as Marx and Engle's opening line of their own manifesto ("A spectre is haunting Europe") – or the closing one ("Workers of the world, unite!"), and the book despite its relatively svelte 243 pages feels a trifle too long. To modify a famous phrase, when you imitate the king, you best not miss. Sunkara doesn't necessarily miss, but he doesn't hit it either. Of course, it's not like Marx and Engles' work holds up perfectly today either.

In the end, Sunkara thankfully sheds his more acerbic, you might say arrogant, style to write a short, engaging and pleasant argument against capitalism – and conversely for socialism. However, his argument for how to get from the former to the latter isn't much more than tacked on, when it should be central to the book, and that ultimately has always been the trouble with socialism. For all the sense it makes on paper, getting it to work in real life has been elusive. Sunkara remains optimistic in the possibilities for socialism; I hope for all our sakes that his optimism is not misplaced.

[lindsi · Rating 2 out of 5]

i really wish i had enjoyed it more! it honestly just wasn’t cohesive, and while i really enjoyed the first chapter, the book just wasn’t what i was looking for. i assumed it would be somewhat of a blueprint for how to transform our current society, but it was mostly history with few parallels drawn to the present. i also found sunkara’s rhetoric to be a bit class reductionist, which was disappointing.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Why waste time choosing among 10 000 yogurt flavors? Your leaders could tell what is the best flavor and you could spend your time foraging the streets like rats, mice, raccoons or homeless dogs.

[Justin Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Socialist Manifesto by Bhaskar Sunkara is a straight-forward, readable, and thorough book on the theory, history, and practice of socialism and its renewed relevance in the United States. As opposed to Nathan J. Robinson and his book, How to Be a Socialist, (which I reviewed earlier this year), Sunkara writes from an unapologetically Marxist perspective that I found refreshing. In the first half, he discusses various socialist experiments around the world, from the Scandinavian experiments of the mid-20th century to Soviet and Chinese-style approaches, and explains how their successes and failures inform our own struggle today. He also delves into the history of socialism in the United States, from Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice to Eugene V. Deb’s union-oriented socialism. In the last few chapters, Sunkara argues that in order to build a viable socialism that works in the United States, we must fight first for what he calls “class struggle social democracy.” This approach is most typified by Senator Bernie Sanders, whose own politics are informed by this style. As a dedicated Jacobin reader, of whom Sunkara is founding editor and publisher, I really enjoyed this book. It has a lot of style as well as substance. If you’re interested in learning more about what socialism is, this book is an excellent start.

[Ang · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book deeply disappointed me. History is fascinating when delivered well. This wasn't, in my opinion. The main bulk of this book, tracing the history of communism and socialism in nearly every applicable country on earth, read like the most boring history textbook. As someone who has read several books about indigenous history this year and been utterly captivated, I hoped for the same with this book. No. His conclusions about socialism in the final pages, and what needs to be done to accomplish socialist ideals in the US, are in my opinion, self explanatory. I felt I wasted my time and my money with this one.

[Hairold Gelderkorn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Chim-Harry-Andrew book club (II). A good, broad historical primer. Misleading title and subtitle, though; 200 pages of history and <50 pages of more “manifesto”-like prose. A lot of historical context packed into 200 pages as the setup for the brief payoff chapter, “How We Win.” Helpful though in demystifying socialism and recognizing its successes, which are fully dismissed by any mainstream establishment record. Still much left desired as a reader, so will probably go and leisurely read the real Manifesto and maybe a couple thousand pages of Das Kapital if I have a few hours to spare.

[June · Rating 5 out of 5]

Part 1 (history of socialism) is succinct, sharp, a well curated guide, a nice surprise out of my expectation.
Part 2 (acclaim the roadmap!) at least changed my (a catch 22) perspective towards the socialism and the states.

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

'The Socialist Manifesto' is the work of the founding editor of Jacobin Bhaskar Sankara, in which he attempts to explain socialism, its principles and roots to a very broad audience.

Its content goes way beyond what we would call a traditional manifesto:
The first quarter or so starts off with a chapter titled 'A Day in the Life of a Socialist Citizen', a hypothetical scenario where the United States evolve from its current system into a democratic socialist nation. This all plays out from the point of view of a regular worker, and the development of his workplace, the state and eventually his life are being used to explain to the reader what socialism is first-hand, without much political theory. I really like this preface, as it makes clear early on that this book is not about brand new ideas, but serves to bring the important ones to readers of all sorts alike.
After that, in the most extensive part of the book, Sunkara goes over the attempts of socialism and communism in the past, as well as different socialist movements in especially the US.
This is the part I am not entirely happy with. Whereas Sunkara gives a somewhat comprehensive overview of the history of socialism, I don't think he entirely succeeds at synthesizing the learnings for our future from the different attempts, parties and movements.
More importantly, he gives no clear take on the role of revolution, which I really would like to know more about, since his whole concept builds upon social democracy as a means to democratic socialism and change through the democratic institutions that already exist.
What bugs me the most though is how Sunkara manages to mention not just Venezuela but the whole of South America not even once. Whereas the book doesn't shy away from bringing up events from centuries ago to very recent years, it goes beyond me how the choice was made to ignore some of the most important recent socialist movements.
The book concludes in its last part with the actually manifesto-like chapter 'How We Win'. In this part the author declares with 15 clear propositions as how to directly tackle this issue.
Although I hoped that at least this part would not be as directly focussed on America, it still resonated with me, and except for the super well-read marxist theory nerd, I'd recommend this book to absolutely everyone.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sunkara provides a brief, yet informative overview of the history of socialism, bringing to light both its positive and negative impact on society, and argues that a return to the most hopeful aspects of this political philosophy is the best path forward for preventing unrestrained capitalism from further increasing inequality and the deterioration of our planet.

In other words, the author might say, when nothing goes right, go Left.

[Dave Sebille · Rating 5 out of 5]

The history in this book is well paced and interesting, there was more of it than I expected. The second section of the book is what I was looking for after reading the subtitle, some very solid meaningful arguments for socialism, some so simple it helped remind me why I started learning about all of this in the first place. A world that values people over profit. Would recommend to anyone thinking they are going to make a move toward a more serious role within local politics. The audiobook at 1.5 was smooth and enjoyable.

[Shannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

While not exactly a manifesto, that is a statement of principles and beliefs, this does go into many beliefs and principles of socialism and Marxism. More than a manifesto, I’d call it an introduction to the history and principles of socialism. Don’t mistake me to imply this is a 101 book, an intro text. This is deep and rife with history. I came away with a bit more connection to the long history of worker strikes, walkouts, and more in this country.

The author knows his stuff. Only the smallest bit has permeated my thick skull. Heartily recommend this book for any and all Americans or citizens of the world, if you believe in Democracy.

[Ross Williamson]

041520: reason stricken: there’s a reason people don’t get excited about socialist potentialities (it’s that socialism is inherently transitory). eta: ok looking at this without having taken way too much benadryl this is a bad take but i’m still not interested in this book

[David Flood · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Socialist Manifesto is an excellent primer on how Socialism has developed over the course of the last century. The first few chapters clearly and simply define all the terms you need to navigate the last few chapters. Throughout it speaks plainly on where socialism has come from, how it has faltered but more importantly, what we have learned and how we can use the outlook of socialism to more effectively seize the power of the working class to win political gains for all. Sunkara does an excellent job covering all the bases of an increasingly fractured political landscape (particularly in the US) and effectively relating how socialism speaks to the concerns of the groups.
This is probably an excellent read for anyone who’s recently gotten into Bernie Sanders and the things he’s talking about.

[Jordan Phizacklea-Cullen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite a bold (and slightly misleading) title for this polemic from the founder of Jacobin magazine, it's more concerned with giving an overview of socialist societies of the past, the ones that worked (Olof Palme's brand of Swedish social democracy) to those which have been justifiably abominated (Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong's perversions of communism from on high), and only gets around to suggesting a blueprint for how socialism can be the answer for our current times in the final chapter, taking in such recent phenomenons as Occupy, Corbyn's Labour and Sanders' presidential bid amongst others. If you're enthused by these movements, you'll find plenty to enjoy here, but best to see it more as history than manifesto-making.

[Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Esse livro é uma boa leitura para quem está interessado em entender melhor o que pensam os socialistas americanos dentro do partido democrata. Particularmente, achei interessante que esses socialistas se veem como herdeiros de uma tradição democrática cujas grandes referências históricas são Rosa Luxemburgo e Karl Liebknecht. Apesar de rejeitarem as experiências autoritárias soviética e chinesa, esses socialistas não deixam de ser radicais e de fato propõem uma completa mudança no modo de produção da sociedade. Crucial nessa mudança seria submeter a esfera econômica da vida social ao crivo democrático, com decisões de produção sendo baseadas no voto. O autor dedica o primeiro capítulo do livro para ilustrar como isso seria na prática.

O socialismo, assim, seria alcançado por meio de uma revolução democrática, com o objetivo de aprofundar a democracia. Há um só tempo daria solução aos nossos problemas com desigualdade, crise ambiental e asseguraria a paz mundial ao diminuir o nacionalismo dentro de uma visão globalista.

Muito bom para ser verdade? Bom, também acho. Mas talvez nesses tempos de ascensão da extrema-direita no mundo, um contraponto que defenda a democracia, direitos humanos e olhe para o futuro com esperança, não há de fazer mal.

Nota: Essa entrevista com o autor (podcast) pode interessar: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/jaco...

[Zihad Azad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Took a bit of a time with this one. The author tried to squeeze the entire history of socialism and its various strands into a compact 300-page book. Not an easy undertaking by any stretch of the imagination. But he largely succeeded in his endeavors. Although packing up so much information and history within such a short volume inevitably led to a trade-off between reading facility and comprehensive analysis.
As you can already tell from my review, this is not a "Socialist Manifesto" per se. And clearly the author chose this title to invoke obvious similarities to the Communist Manifesto. A marketing ploy well-executed. However, the book does conclude with a well-defined set of rules and caveats that socialist should keep in mind while building a social democratic, mass mobility-driven bottom up revolution that ties together class struggle and workers movement to change the system. The similarity with the earlier manifesto starts and ends there. It is basically an evenhanded historical treatment of Socialism, in that it talks about the success of the Swedish social democratic model but does not sugarcoat the atrocities of either Stalin or Mao. And that's the reason this book is an essential read for anyone who wants a solid introduction to socialism.

[Elise Garrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

this took FOREVER for me to get through. praise on the front cover calls it « accessible, irreverent, and entertaining » and i just don’t agree with those descriptors for the majority of this book. the imagined future chapter at the beginning was a great way to start. however, after this the middle section of the book was dry history of the different movements (very important but … hard to get through). author did a good job at getting me to understand some definitions better (capital, capitalism, etc) but i’m still left with confusion over some definitions like social democracy vs democratic socialism. i liked that bernie sanders was included in the analysis of the contemporary leftist movement in the US, and it was disheartening to read a book published before Biden won. this book is an ok primer on this topic and makes me want to seek out other books that might be more engaging/less dry.

[Scott · Rating 3 out of 5]

As the saying goes, "never judge a book by its cover". This book is more about a history of "radical politics" than a radicalized plan for Leftists going forward. I believe the manifesto piece isn't really laid out until chapter 9 - "How We Win", which did not appear so radical. For me, many of the points made in this chapter were more common sense.

-Winning an election isn’t the same thing as winning power.
-They’ll do everything to stop us
-Socialists won’t be effective if we exist solely on college campuses or spend our time attacking one another on social media.

To be fair, alot of these things may be more meaningful to those that are new and have just started to open their minds to Leftist political positions. This book may have also been more meaningful 5 years ago when "Feeling The Bern" was still a thing.

But alot has changed in the last 5 years!!