What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Socialism
Is socialism an impossible, discredited dream or the only realistic path for human survival? If you're not sure of the answer, or are just curious about what the Left really believes in, you need to read Maass. He's the Tom Paine of the contemporary American left."--Mike Davis, author of Planet of Slums"This is a vivid, fluent and rare book about socialism for those uninterested in tracts and excited by new prospects."--John Pilger, author of Freedom Next TimeGrowing numbers of people are disgusted by the disaster of poverty, war, oppression, and environmental destruction caused by global capitalism. But is there an alternative? Author Alan Maass argues that socialisma democratically planned economy based on workers controlis rational, necessary, and possible. With an afterword by Howard Zinn.Alan Maass is the editor of the website SocialistWorker.org."
184 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 30, 2005
24 people are currently reading
430 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
May 4, 2011
I'm giving this book five stars not because I agree with the author's analysis or conclusions, but because it was well-written and honest. "Socialism," of course, has become a word that's analogous to "child-molester" or "terrorist" in our nation's current political discourse, and for understandable reasons: socialism/communism is responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million human beings in the last century. To this day, the economic systems of places like China and North Korea continue to spread oppression and slavery under the aegis of planned economies. No matter what socialism started off as, it has, for the most part, resulted in death and totalitarianism. There are exceptions, of course (one thinks of the W. European nations) but overall, socialism has been a complete failure. It's intentions may have been noble, but the results have been horrific.
With that said, capitalism has its own problems, and the author does a thorough job of shinning a very bright spot light on damn near all of them. I found myself in agreement with several of the author's points: America has become a plutonomy, America has become an empire, and both political parties largely represent the interests of the wealthy; the environment cannot support unlimited growth, global economic systems favor a very small percentage of humanity, etc. As I read, it occurred to me that the criticism of both socialism and capitalism is largely the same: in theory, both systems are wonderful. In practice, however, both systems tend to result in unpleasantness for the one reason that socialists tend to misunderstand: human nature.
Human beings are not born good and made bad by society. The socialist belief that--were everyone given adequate food, shelter, health care and education--society's ills would somehow magically vanish is not born out by either history or common sense. While I admire the appeal to what Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature,' it is foolish to try and build an economic/social system on what human beings are demonstrably not: angels. Under capitalism, for all of its warts and scars, human beings are free to try, and to fail. Under socialism, there is no incentive to be anything other than a drone. Yes, there is greater equality and economic security under a socialist model (until demographics bite you on the ass, as is happening in W. Europe),but in a capitalist system, the individual is the most important piece of the economy, not the collective. I realize this is an American way to view the issue, but I am a child of the New World,and I believe that the individual is sacred.
So a mixed system, I think, is the best of both worlds, but one that leans more toward the capitalist side of the balance beam than the socialist one. I believe that our American system has the greatest potential to maximize both freedom and security. We did have, for decades, an economy that for the most part balanced economic liberty with a social safety net. We'd tug and pull in one direction or another; we never reached a perfect balance (which is probably impossible), but for the decades between the 1940s and the 1990s, we did pretty well. Now, I'm afraid that what I believe is necessary in a capitalist society--a safety net--is being dismantled because first, it's grown too cumbersome, and second...people have forgotten history.
The middle class in America--once the envy of the world--did not arise spontaneously from some fantasy free market (which doesn't exist). It was created by tax and social policies. As we enter into a new period of corporate dominance--the third in our nation's history, by my reckoning--people will have to remember why programs like unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc., came into existence in the first place. Not that these programs are perfect: they aren't. Not that they shouldn't be updated to reflect the realities of the nation we find our selves in at the start of the 21st century: they should. But removing them will come at a tremendous social cost, and will tilt the balance too far toward the pure capitalist side. One of my favorite sayings is, "Don't tear down a fence before you know why it was put up to begin with." These federal programs--socialist though they may be--exist for a reason. We cast them aside at our peril.
One final thought: twice before in our history--the Progressive Era and the New Deal Era--things have gotten too far out of balance, and the response has been periods of expanded government. History does not offer us a crystal ball to show us our future, but it can cast a little light on our path as we walk it. We are entering into a third such time period, I think. Big business, corporations, the wealthy, the powerful, have too much influence in America right now. The public will to defend the vestiges of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society (the Great Society being pretty much a catastrophe) is eroding. Labor unions have lost their power. We have a massive, largely unnoticed underclass. The traditional family has broken down completely for a great many people, placing enormous stresses on schools and social service agencies. There are millions of legal and illegal aliens in our country placing an even greater burden on our social systems. Our economy is making a painful transition from manufacturing to knowledge-worker/service based. America, right now, is ripe for something big. In the past, in response to periods of economic inequality, plutonomy, and social change, the government has stepped in and...let's say taken steps to ease the pressure. I can't help but think that we are at the beginning of such a period now.
What that will look like, I can't say, but the socialist are correct in this sense: people who are hungry, who are sick, who are poor, and who are ignorant are not likely to make good choices. We could be in for some bad history, my friends, coming down the pike very, very soon.
With that said, capitalism has its own problems, and the author does a thorough job of shinning a very bright spot light on damn near all of them. I found myself in agreement with several of the author's points: America has become a plutonomy, America has become an empire, and both political parties largely represent the interests of the wealthy; the environment cannot support unlimited growth, global economic systems favor a very small percentage of humanity, etc. As I read, it occurred to me that the criticism of both socialism and capitalism is largely the same: in theory, both systems are wonderful. In practice, however, both systems tend to result in unpleasantness for the one reason that socialists tend to misunderstand: human nature.
Human beings are not born good and made bad by society. The socialist belief that--were everyone given adequate food, shelter, health care and education--society's ills would somehow magically vanish is not born out by either history or common sense. While I admire the appeal to what Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature,' it is foolish to try and build an economic/social system on what human beings are demonstrably not: angels. Under capitalism, for all of its warts and scars, human beings are free to try, and to fail. Under socialism, there is no incentive to be anything other than a drone. Yes, there is greater equality and economic security under a socialist model (until demographics bite you on the ass, as is happening in W. Europe),but in a capitalist system, the individual is the most important piece of the economy, not the collective. I realize this is an American way to view the issue, but I am a child of the New World,and I believe that the individual is sacred.
So a mixed system, I think, is the best of both worlds, but one that leans more toward the capitalist side of the balance beam than the socialist one. I believe that our American system has the greatest potential to maximize both freedom and security. We did have, for decades, an economy that for the most part balanced economic liberty with a social safety net. We'd tug and pull in one direction or another; we never reached a perfect balance (which is probably impossible), but for the decades between the 1940s and the 1990s, we did pretty well. Now, I'm afraid that what I believe is necessary in a capitalist society--a safety net--is being dismantled because first, it's grown too cumbersome, and second...people have forgotten history.
The middle class in America--once the envy of the world--did not arise spontaneously from some fantasy free market (which doesn't exist). It was created by tax and social policies. As we enter into a new period of corporate dominance--the third in our nation's history, by my reckoning--people will have to remember why programs like unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc., came into existence in the first place. Not that these programs are perfect: they aren't. Not that they shouldn't be updated to reflect the realities of the nation we find our selves in at the start of the 21st century: they should. But removing them will come at a tremendous social cost, and will tilt the balance too far toward the pure capitalist side. One of my favorite sayings is, "Don't tear down a fence before you know why it was put up to begin with." These federal programs--socialist though they may be--exist for a reason. We cast them aside at our peril.
One final thought: twice before in our history--the Progressive Era and the New Deal Era--things have gotten too far out of balance, and the response has been periods of expanded government. History does not offer us a crystal ball to show us our future, but it can cast a little light on our path as we walk it. We are entering into a third such time period, I think. Big business, corporations, the wealthy, the powerful, have too much influence in America right now. The public will to defend the vestiges of the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society (the Great Society being pretty much a catastrophe) is eroding. Labor unions have lost their power. We have a massive, largely unnoticed underclass. The traditional family has broken down completely for a great many people, placing enormous stresses on schools and social service agencies. There are millions of legal and illegal aliens in our country placing an even greater burden on our social systems. Our economy is making a painful transition from manufacturing to knowledge-worker/service based. America, right now, is ripe for something big. In the past, in response to periods of economic inequality, plutonomy, and social change, the government has stepped in and...let's say taken steps to ease the pressure. I can't help but think that we are at the beginning of such a period now.
What that will look like, I can't say, but the socialist are correct in this sense: people who are hungry, who are sick, who are poor, and who are ignorant are not likely to make good choices. We could be in for some bad history, my friends, coming down the pike very, very soon.
March 25, 2013
This book should be called "The Case Against Capitalism." The majority of the pages are pointed toward criticism of capitalism, which, although interesting, was not what I hoped I would get out of this book.
October 16, 2014
How discouraging it must be for socialists that this book presumes to make their case. I have no idea what the views of the larger socialist community are regarding its content, but I can't understand how it results in anything but a net loss for the ideology. With socialism still being somewhat of a dirty word in America, I enjoy reading its proponents put forth their best arguments for embracing it and judging whether or not it deserves to be demonized the way it has been.
The book relies heavily on confirmation bias from readers who apparently already have to be sympathetic toward the idea of socialism to make it more than a few pages without hitting highly contentious claims about capitalism that are weakly supported. Other claims are demonstrably false outright. But for the sake of a shortish review, take the assertions the book makes as a given. Even with lying, can socialism be presented in a favorable light such that it might entice people to experiment with it? Absolutely! Only the most hardened bigots would not view favorably the end of discrimination and exploitation of humans that would usher in the full equality of every man and woman on the planet. Everyone is clothed, fed, housed, employed, educated and has access to health care. Wealth is not socked away under rich men's mattresses, but used to end hunger and disease. All scarcity is eliminated forever. It almost sounds too good to be true, but you sold me. Now what?
Well, there are a few caveats. Among several disappointments is the realization that the elusive implementation of socialism is not because evil capitalists are preventing it, but because it has simply never existed anywhere at any time regardless of any reason. Never mind the failings of the USSR, China, North Korea, Europe; they weren't true manifestations of the ideal. What the author proposes is the implementation of a "new society" we have never before seen. Well, what might that look like? "Socialists don’t have a blueprint for exactly what a socialist society will look like, because we believe it will be up to the generations who live in one to figure that out." In other words, the author is trying to sell you a utopian product while quietly sweeping under the rug the minor detail that neither he, nor anyone he knows about, has the vaguest idea about how to get there.
This is precisely the reason why "real socialism" never graduates from the pages of books to find its way to governing. The USSR, China, North Korea, and various countries in Europe are indeed manifestations of socialism and their failings are merely the theoretical Utopian musings of academics meeting reality. When the author is forced to address which economic system has done the most good for society in the real world, he amusingly credits capitalism for being the only system thus far that has "produce[d] enough to end scarcity for good. Only under capitalism has human knowledge and technology been raised to the point where it would be possible to feed every person on the planet, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, and so on." After hundreds of pages of railing against it, denouncing it, lamenting about it, we learn that, oh by the way, it's the best performing system the world has ever seen.
So naturally we must "overturn and remake the whole system," replacing it with some as of yet ill-defined, blurry wish of what the future could be if everyone cooperates just so and everything goes just right, and the sum total of human nature throughout all recorded history ceases to be, and becomes something else. And the only way socialists like this author will acknowledge the attempt as authentic is when it doesn't fail, however long that might take.
That same cop-out can as easily be made regarding capitalism; that "real capitalism" has never been attempted and that the only failings in the existing capitalist system are the direct result of it being interfered with by non-capitalist forces. What reason is there for the author to portray the current disposition of American capitalism as the best it can ever hope to be while making the point that socialism only fails when it's not done right? The logic is absurd. If things only fail when they're not done right, then anything will work with the right implementation. Communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, Islamism, feudalism ... they're all equally competent solutions to the problems humanity faces ... if only someone would do it right for once!
The book relies heavily on confirmation bias from readers who apparently already have to be sympathetic toward the idea of socialism to make it more than a few pages without hitting highly contentious claims about capitalism that are weakly supported. Other claims are demonstrably false outright. But for the sake of a shortish review, take the assertions the book makes as a given. Even with lying, can socialism be presented in a favorable light such that it might entice people to experiment with it? Absolutely! Only the most hardened bigots would not view favorably the end of discrimination and exploitation of humans that would usher in the full equality of every man and woman on the planet. Everyone is clothed, fed, housed, employed, educated and has access to health care. Wealth is not socked away under rich men's mattresses, but used to end hunger and disease. All scarcity is eliminated forever. It almost sounds too good to be true, but you sold me. Now what?
Well, there are a few caveats. Among several disappointments is the realization that the elusive implementation of socialism is not because evil capitalists are preventing it, but because it has simply never existed anywhere at any time regardless of any reason. Never mind the failings of the USSR, China, North Korea, Europe; they weren't true manifestations of the ideal. What the author proposes is the implementation of a "new society" we have never before seen. Well, what might that look like? "Socialists don’t have a blueprint for exactly what a socialist society will look like, because we believe it will be up to the generations who live in one to figure that out." In other words, the author is trying to sell you a utopian product while quietly sweeping under the rug the minor detail that neither he, nor anyone he knows about, has the vaguest idea about how to get there.
This is precisely the reason why "real socialism" never graduates from the pages of books to find its way to governing. The USSR, China, North Korea, and various countries in Europe are indeed manifestations of socialism and their failings are merely the theoretical Utopian musings of academics meeting reality. When the author is forced to address which economic system has done the most good for society in the real world, he amusingly credits capitalism for being the only system thus far that has "produce[d] enough to end scarcity for good. Only under capitalism has human knowledge and technology been raised to the point where it would be possible to feed every person on the planet, clothe them, put a roof over their heads, and so on." After hundreds of pages of railing against it, denouncing it, lamenting about it, we learn that, oh by the way, it's the best performing system the world has ever seen.
So naturally we must "overturn and remake the whole system," replacing it with some as of yet ill-defined, blurry wish of what the future could be if everyone cooperates just so and everything goes just right, and the sum total of human nature throughout all recorded history ceases to be, and becomes something else. And the only way socialists like this author will acknowledge the attempt as authentic is when it doesn't fail, however long that might take.
That same cop-out can as easily be made regarding capitalism; that "real capitalism" has never been attempted and that the only failings in the existing capitalist system are the direct result of it being interfered with by non-capitalist forces. What reason is there for the author to portray the current disposition of American capitalism as the best it can ever hope to be while making the point that socialism only fails when it's not done right? The logic is absurd. If things only fail when they're not done right, then anything will work with the right implementation. Communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, Islamism, feudalism ... they're all equally competent solutions to the problems humanity faces ... if only someone would do it right for once!
February 19, 2022
This book does a good job of outlining the problems with capitalism as it currently stands, but leaves the solutions to be solved by future generations. The method by which it advocates for change is to organize and protest, which in the past has been the real driving force behind incremental change. There is no real plan for inducing radical change. There are suggestions as to how things should be improved in a future society, but there has to be a comprehensive plan for a socialist economic structure before anyone who isn’t already radicalized will take it seriously. The ideals behind this book are certainly something to aspire to and fight for, but one should keep in mind that most people (in my experience) prefer the certainty of what we already have to the uncertainty of what could be better. What we need is a plan for how everything should be structured, and how people in positions of power are going to be held accountable. We need a plan that’s practically foolproof, and can’t be taken advantage of by bad actors. There are far too many examples of socialism gone wrong, and that’s what people think of whenever the topic is brought up. Those are the people that need to be convinced not only that socialism can work at all, but that it can continue to work for the good of everyone.
September 12, 2022
More of "The Case Against Capitalism."
I think this serves as a fine introduction for some of the beginnings of Marxist ideas, but ultimately falls a bit flat in the sense of demonstrating functional components of Socialist development- the idea of logistics is very commonly debated in addressing Marx, and this book shies away quite a bit.
Some good books to read in the afterward, the essay from Howard Zinn on Debs was nice.
I think this serves as a fine introduction for some of the beginnings of Marxist ideas, but ultimately falls a bit flat in the sense of demonstrating functional components of Socialist development- the idea of logistics is very commonly debated in addressing Marx, and this book shies away quite a bit.
Some good books to read in the afterward, the essay from Howard Zinn on Debs was nice.
July 12, 2020
Didn't feel as if he came up with a WORKING definition of socialism that can be APPLIED to this place versus that place. He says America isn't socialist and that's true but Scandanavia isn't either...
Nor is the USSR, but it seems to that piont that Sweden is on the whole more socialist than America. That should be taken into consideration when judging the merits of a society and the people's well-being. More of a critique of capitalism, so for that I read in the Google preview; 3 stars.
A good place to start might be the "economic freedom index" or at least parts of it from the Heritage Foundation (I say part of it because there are variable of judicial corruption and a socialist economy versus capitalist economy isn't nessecarily any more corrupt; there may be indirect influences on the two though) and then clean air ratings, union power and density and top marginal tax rates and transfers through social programs around the world: Sweden is great compared to Hong Kong in these three areas (taxes and transfers, air, and union power). Air quality or lack there of is something that is inherently socialist and can't be comodified and sold at Walmart. Culture also plays a role and it is largely a common we all share built through family, civic centers and religion. Corporate will sell whatever product it can from McDonald's to tobacco; Hong Kong is largely healthy not because good air quality but a health diet due to proper culture.
I guess Hong Kong teaches you to eat your veggies and sweden teaches you to support progressive (not nessacarily socialist) candidates as I see it though socialists do play an important role in the coalition.
Nor is the USSR, but it seems to that piont that Sweden is on the whole more socialist than America. That should be taken into consideration when judging the merits of a society and the people's well-being. More of a critique of capitalism, so for that I read in the Google preview; 3 stars.
A good place to start might be the "economic freedom index" or at least parts of it from the Heritage Foundation (I say part of it because there are variable of judicial corruption and a socialist economy versus capitalist economy isn't nessecarily any more corrupt; there may be indirect influences on the two though) and then clean air ratings, union power and density and top marginal tax rates and transfers through social programs around the world: Sweden is great compared to Hong Kong in these three areas (taxes and transfers, air, and union power). Air quality or lack there of is something that is inherently socialist and can't be comodified and sold at Walmart. Culture also plays a role and it is largely a common we all share built through family, civic centers and religion. Corporate will sell whatever product it can from McDonald's to tobacco; Hong Kong is largely healthy not because good air quality but a health diet due to proper culture.
I guess Hong Kong teaches you to eat your veggies and sweden teaches you to support progressive (not nessacarily socialist) candidates as I see it though socialists do play an important role in the coalition.
December 5, 2019
A must read for everyone who works for a living.
Everyone must understand why we have our current economic and climate disasters, and clearly understand what forces are in play, but more importantly, grasp a vision of a better world that is possible. The old saying of, You can't get there if you don't know where you are going....is true. We must first understand and embrace the vision of what kind of society we want, must understand the steps to get there, but most importantly, the forces that wish to prevent a better world from taking place. Those forces are at the core selfish, malevolent, determined, and cruel. Do we continue to endure, or do we envision, and fight for, a better world for our children, grandchildren, and their children?
Everyone must understand why we have our current economic and climate disasters, and clearly understand what forces are in play, but more importantly, grasp a vision of a better world that is possible. The old saying of, You can't get there if you don't know where you are going....is true. We must first understand and embrace the vision of what kind of society we want, must understand the steps to get there, but most importantly, the forces that wish to prevent a better world from taking place. Those forces are at the core selfish, malevolent, determined, and cruel. Do we continue to endure, or do we envision, and fight for, a better world for our children, grandchildren, and their children?
April 18, 2018
Four stars for being quite good at what it claims to be; a beginner's guide to Socialism.
I had some faults with it, there was a lot of argument from anecdotal evidence and sometimes it was a bit overly emotional. But Maass offers a thought-provoking introductory argument in favor of Socialism. He was approachable and resonant. The cherries on top were the bibliography (always a rating raiser for me) and the very interesting essay by Howard Zinn included as an afterward.
I had some faults with it, there was a lot of argument from anecdotal evidence and sometimes it was a bit overly emotional. But Maass offers a thought-provoking introductory argument in favor of Socialism. He was approachable and resonant. The cherries on top were the bibliography (always a rating raiser for me) and the very interesting essay by Howard Zinn included as an afterward.
January 2, 2024
A pretty shallow book, based on the conception of socialism as a solution for all problems, without explaining how such a change would work. It lacks economical data and doesn’t present examples for the points the author makes. I’m all for toppling the capitalistic regime, but this book doesn’t help the cause, because it makes a transition or a revolution look totally impossible, with its dreamy attitude. Bah.
June 4, 2018
More of an indictment of capitalism than a program for instituting socialism, the author does lay clear some of the problems we face in the grip of capitalism. A clearer plan for getting to socialism as well as a detailed program of what socialism would do would have been helpful.
The article on Eugene Debs by Howard Zinn at the end of this book was great.
The article on Eugene Debs by Howard Zinn at the end of this book was great.
August 14, 2024
Pretty, pretty good. There aren't many concise books making the argument. It is not Piketty or Marx, but a hell of a lot more accessible.
August 17, 2025
A stark and passionate criticism of capitalism and the ways we organize our society, there is a glaring lack of detail on how we should organize instead
January 6, 2026
Skip this one. This book offers no real insights into socialism, only Mr. Maass’s angry, misguided opinions. He dismisses critics with childish comments. Maass’s logic is flawed and naive.
December 10, 2014
The intention of the book is to persuade the reader against Capitalism and towards the sharing of wealth, i.e. Socialism. It overplays the merits of Socialism in a very idealistic form as it also downplays Capitalism in a very idealistic form. This said, it does provide a very good basis for the over concentration of wealth in the world.
"According to Forbes, the world's 793 billionaires as of 2009 still had a combined worth of $2.4 trillion. That's twice the combined GDP of all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Bank-and more than the total annual income of the poorest half of the world's population. Yes, you read that correctly. There are 793 people with more money than three billion people."
-Alan Mass
"The basic idea is that capitalists control what gets produced and how, but they make their decisions according to what people buy. So consumers use their dollars as a sort of 'vote' and capitalists compete with each other to provide the products consumers 'vote' for. But there's a problem with the theory: what if you don't have any money? Then you don't get a vote- and capitalists won't produce what you want. in order for the free market to produce what's need for everyone in society, there would have to be a roughly equal distribution of money to 'vote' with. But in the real world, the rich have far more 'votes' than anyone else. So the system is bound to put a priority on making products to meet their needs."
-Alan Mass
"According to Forbes, the world's 793 billionaires as of 2009 still had a combined worth of $2.4 trillion. That's twice the combined GDP of all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, according to the World Bank-and more than the total annual income of the poorest half of the world's population. Yes, you read that correctly. There are 793 people with more money than three billion people."
-Alan Mass
"The basic idea is that capitalists control what gets produced and how, but they make their decisions according to what people buy. So consumers use their dollars as a sort of 'vote' and capitalists compete with each other to provide the products consumers 'vote' for. But there's a problem with the theory: what if you don't have any money? Then you don't get a vote- and capitalists won't produce what you want. in order for the free market to produce what's need for everyone in society, there would have to be a roughly equal distribution of money to 'vote' with. But in the real world, the rich have far more 'votes' than anyone else. So the system is bound to put a priority on making products to meet their needs."
-Alan Mass
December 26, 2016
A modern introduction to Socialism, which tells why it is an idea which should be revisited now that we live in a time of abundance while a large number of people live in abject poverty without basic needs. At times reading this felt like reading propaganda, because it is a short book and only gives a bare overview of the ideas without much nuance and detail. In that way it is a great introduction but further reading would be required in order to really get a good grasp of the ideas presented and the history behind them. I was intrigued by the historical figure Eugene Debs and plan to read more about him, and more about the uprising in Russia before it was corrupted. I would suggest this book as required reading for anyone who is curious about what socialism is and wants to know some of the basic history behind this idea.
September 27, 2011
If you've been noticing, as I have lately, how often the term "socialism" keeps popping up in news articles, blogs, political debates, etc., it might be a good idea to read this book. Of course, the term is usually used by Republicans (and Democrats even) as a form of slander, but the unusual (to me) reiteration of the term kept making me suspicious that deep down perhaps many wealthy, powerful government officials and corporate CEOs are really voicing their fear: an eruption of socialist values or even the rise of a working-class socialism. Considering we see many of the results of the current capitalist system displayed before our eyes every day--and many are disillusioned with it--perhaps socialism is a very real danger. I'd like to think so. Everybody should read this.
October 27, 2014
This book is written in journalistic style, so it is very accessible to read. It does not explain Marxism in detail but it does explain why capitalism is destructive and is not beneficial for working-class and poor people. Maass does indeed make a case for socialism, but his book could use a few more chapters on that topic. Many more people these days are interested in what socialism is all about, so we need more books (also blogs, videos, podcasts, daily commentary) like this in order to explain how socialism can help us build a more sustainable future, if we organize and fight for it.
October 27, 2015
I really enjoyed this book, which examines the brutality/inequality of our present capitalist society and frames an alluring alternative. Not just a pie-in-the-sky affirmation of socialism, the book also presents realistic ways to implement socialism by using the power of the masses to organize, strike, and plan. Not for right-wing hysterics who scream "Socialism!" at someone as mainstream as Obama, for for the thoughtful reader who seeks an alternative to our present corrupt, rotten rule of the One Percent.
January 11, 2015
As a lot of other reviewers and readers have noted, this is more accurately titled "What's Bad about Captialism," rather than "What's awesome about Socialism," but the last few chapters do begin to set out a positive case for it, which I found fascinating. The discussion of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union actually *not* being socialist at all was captivating and I am now much more interested in reading up on that historical period than before.
December 9, 2011
This book gives a brief introduction to modern socialist ideas. However, my problem with the book is that although it has pointed out many problems with the capitalist world, it does not provide much solutions to it. The author does a good job in destructing but not in reconstructing.
October 20, 2008
TWO COPIES
May 22, 2009
for a book that i completely disagree with it makes some good points
June 12, 2012
A great introduction to socialism. It was very understandable and modern. And I recommend it to anybody that doesn't understand what socialism is.
January 12, 2013
Amazing. Defines socialism for a new generation that often lumps together Marxism and Socialism into one category.
October 21, 2013
A book that fails to live up to its title and instead offers a convincing critique on free market exploitation.
September 26, 2012
thought provoking and a necessary book. however, it was a bit dry and repetetive at parts.
April 18, 2017
I enjoyed this - it was fine, I just hoped for a bit more from it. As someone inclined to socialism, I found some of the arguments against capitalism a bit thin. The brief historical overviews of some major socialist revolutions were interesting, as were the bits about active citizenship (with socialism as its end-goal) but the critiques of capitalism and the fundamentals (even predictive ones, of course) of how socialism would actually work were a bit thin.
November 23, 2017
Local elections on Nov 8th, 2017 yielded 15 candidates endorsed by or direct members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Many of these candidates unseated Republicans in territory rarely ceded to Democrats. Organizations like the DSA and PSL have seen a staggering rise in involvement. If you find yourself increasingly curious about socialism, Marxism, Communism, etc you are evidently not alone. That makes it a good time to read up on the subject. I’ve been reading a number of soft introductions to Democratic Socialism since Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign really put it on my radar. The Case for Socialism by Alan Maass is probably the least of which I would recommend.
Bernie Sanders may have endeared me - as well as a large swath of young people - to Democratic Socialism and he might identify as a Democratic Socialist (along with people like Howard Zinn, Hellen Keller, and Martin Luther King Jr.), but he isn’t necessarily so. As Noam Chomsky said, “Bernie Sanders is a good man, and I supported him, but his views were closer to a new deal democrat; they would be very familiar to someone like, say, Eisenhower”. This is exactly why colloquial, accessible, and introductory texts are needed. Otherwise, we have a bunch of millennials out there thinking FDR was a Marxist.
This isn’t to say Alan Maass doesn’t address misconceptions about Socialism (the idea that Denmark or Finland or China represent shining examples when none of these states are run by the people/laborers was a particularly well-written section). It’s just that a lot has been written on this subject and if you want to bring people into the fold of your ideology there are a number of things you need to do that Maass doesn’t.
The most important thing is coherence. When someone comes looking for a text to introduce them to a subject they want to be immediately enthralled by a compelling and straightforward argument. I should know, as someone who has gone to a number of texts portending to introduce socialism to the masses I am often astounded by the lack of organization in some of these pieces. Maass suffers from overtly passionate and tangential political writing; the rate at which he switches topics from the Russian Revolution, to Obama, to the nature of war, to the ‘08 recession can be measured in sentences. He ends up talking a little bit about a lot of things while lacking in substantial discussion of any one subject.
The Case for Socialism bills itself as, well, as a “case”. For doing so, it doesn’t imagine a world in which socialism has fully replaced capitalism. I don’t understand this. Anyone is capable of criticizing the state of the world while drawing express connections to capitalism as the primary reason. Liberals and Social Democrats do this extensively, it is, in fact, part of the very fabric of their political philosophy. Socialists are not seeking to mitigate the effects of capitalism, they are trying to replace it. For newcomers, it is difficult to imagine what socialism would look like (Scandinavia? Cuba?). Maass is particularly remiss in his scant covering of the role democracy will play in socialism. While his critiques of capitalism and its effects are biting they largely overshadow his solutions. His explanations on labor’s ability to get us to a socialist utopia are sporadic and focus on how terrible our current system is. The question of practicality plaguing socialism as it does, it is a shame Maass doesn’t take more time to address it.
Finally, an introductory text should not try to stand on its own, it should...well...introduce you to other works! The Haymarket Books edition puts an addendum to the book titled “What Else to Read” (which is a testament to Haymarket Books, not Maass). In it, Maass freely admits that the book is devoid of sources and that he isn’t remotely interested in citing them. While this end section has some more to read on certain subjects, in-text citations help the reader build a crucial relationship with other texts in the context of your arguments. Not only that, but if your reader doubts your numbers, statistics, or historical accounts for a second you could potentially drive them to sources explicitly seeking to discredit your ideas!
Ultimately, Maass does craft some good arguments. He has very convincing sections on what Socialism is or isn’t and some fairly imaginative sections on what Socialism could look like. I wouldn’t recommend this book to someone curious about Socialism, but who hasn’t quite bought into the idea. I’d rather push the ABC’s of Socialism put out by Jacobin Magazine or Danny Katch’s Socialism Seriously. If you’re sold on Socialism and you're already trying to satiate your endless hunger for better arguments, you should consume the whole of The Case for Socialism if only for the few morsels to be found there.
Bernie Sanders may have endeared me - as well as a large swath of young people - to Democratic Socialism and he might identify as a Democratic Socialist (along with people like Howard Zinn, Hellen Keller, and Martin Luther King Jr.), but he isn’t necessarily so. As Noam Chomsky said, “Bernie Sanders is a good man, and I supported him, but his views were closer to a new deal democrat; they would be very familiar to someone like, say, Eisenhower”. This is exactly why colloquial, accessible, and introductory texts are needed. Otherwise, we have a bunch of millennials out there thinking FDR was a Marxist.
This isn’t to say Alan Maass doesn’t address misconceptions about Socialism (the idea that Denmark or Finland or China represent shining examples when none of these states are run by the people/laborers was a particularly well-written section). It’s just that a lot has been written on this subject and if you want to bring people into the fold of your ideology there are a number of things you need to do that Maass doesn’t.
The most important thing is coherence. When someone comes looking for a text to introduce them to a subject they want to be immediately enthralled by a compelling and straightforward argument. I should know, as someone who has gone to a number of texts portending to introduce socialism to the masses I am often astounded by the lack of organization in some of these pieces. Maass suffers from overtly passionate and tangential political writing; the rate at which he switches topics from the Russian Revolution, to Obama, to the nature of war, to the ‘08 recession can be measured in sentences. He ends up talking a little bit about a lot of things while lacking in substantial discussion of any one subject.
The Case for Socialism bills itself as, well, as a “case”. For doing so, it doesn’t imagine a world in which socialism has fully replaced capitalism. I don’t understand this. Anyone is capable of criticizing the state of the world while drawing express connections to capitalism as the primary reason. Liberals and Social Democrats do this extensively, it is, in fact, part of the very fabric of their political philosophy. Socialists are not seeking to mitigate the effects of capitalism, they are trying to replace it. For newcomers, it is difficult to imagine what socialism would look like (Scandinavia? Cuba?). Maass is particularly remiss in his scant covering of the role democracy will play in socialism. While his critiques of capitalism and its effects are biting they largely overshadow his solutions. His explanations on labor’s ability to get us to a socialist utopia are sporadic and focus on how terrible our current system is. The question of practicality plaguing socialism as it does, it is a shame Maass doesn’t take more time to address it.
Finally, an introductory text should not try to stand on its own, it should...well...introduce you to other works! The Haymarket Books edition puts an addendum to the book titled “What Else to Read” (which is a testament to Haymarket Books, not Maass). In it, Maass freely admits that the book is devoid of sources and that he isn’t remotely interested in citing them. While this end section has some more to read on certain subjects, in-text citations help the reader build a crucial relationship with other texts in the context of your arguments. Not only that, but if your reader doubts your numbers, statistics, or historical accounts for a second you could potentially drive them to sources explicitly seeking to discredit your ideas!
Ultimately, Maass does craft some good arguments. He has very convincing sections on what Socialism is or isn’t and some fairly imaginative sections on what Socialism could look like. I wouldn’t recommend this book to someone curious about Socialism, but who hasn’t quite bought into the idea. I’d rather push the ABC’s of Socialism put out by Jacobin Magazine or Danny Katch’s Socialism Seriously. If you’re sold on Socialism and you're already trying to satiate your endless hunger for better arguments, you should consume the whole of The Case for Socialism if only for the few morsels to be found there.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews