Socialism

by Michael Harrington

I found Michael Harrington's Socialism by accident in a dusty used bookstore. The large red letters in the title attracted me to the book and as a young student trying to understand how to make this world a better place, I decided to pick it up. I thought I new everything about socialism and its history in the world. I was wrong. Michael Harrington highlights very important concepts such as the idea that socialism was impossible to construct in poor nations like Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and even the U.S.S.R. and that thus the governments of these countries had to resort to repressive measures in order to maintain their control. Instead, he proposes (as Marx did too) that socialism must gain hold first in nations with "abundance" like the United States, England, France, Germany, etc. Furthermore, he reiterates that socialism MUST be democratic or it is not socialism. It either is people's socialism (bottom-up socialism) or it is anti-socialist "Socialism" (top-down socialism). Michael covers a lot of theoretical AND practical ground (a rarity in books regarding socialism) and it is great for beginners as well as serious readers of socialist ideas (like myself). The book gave me hope and I'm sure others will get that feeling too. It is a shame that God claimed his life already (Michael died of cancer in 1989), but I hope his life's devotion (struggle for democratic socialism) some day gives fruit. Thanks Michael. Rene Gonzalez

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Economics, Nonfiction, Political Science

524 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1972

About the author

Edward Michael Harrington was an American democratic socialist, writer, political activist, professor of political science, and radio commentator.

Early life

Harrington was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended St. Louis University High School, College of the Holy Cross, University of Chicago (MA in English Literature), and Yale Law School. As a young man, he was interested in both leftwing politics and Catholicism. Fittingly, he joined Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker movement, a pacifist group that advocated a radical interpretation of the Gospel. Above all else, Harrington was an intellectual. He loved arguing about culture and politics, preferably over beer, and his Jesuit education made him a fine debater and rhetorician. Harrington was an editor of The Catholic Worker from 1951 to 1953. However, Harrington became disillusioned with religion and, although he would always retain a certain affection for Catholic culture, he ultimately became an atheist.

Becoming a socialist

This estrangement from religion was accompanied by a growing interest in Marxism and a drift toward secular socialism. After leaving The Catholic Worker Harrington became a member of the Independent Socialist League, a small organization associated with the former Trotskyist leader Max Shachtman. Harrington and Shachtman believed that socialism, the promise of a just and fully democratic society, could not be realized under authoritarian Communism and they were both fiercely critical of the "bureaucratic collectivist" states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Harrington became a member of Norman Thomas's Socialist Party when the SP agreed to absorb Shachtman's organization. Harrington backed the Shachtmanite realignment strategy of working within the Democratic Party rather than running candidates on a Socialist ticket.

Socialist leader

During this period Harrington wrote The Other America: Poverty in the United States, a book that had an impact on the Kennedy administration, and on Lyndon B. Johnson's subsequent War on Poverty. Harrington became a widely read intellectual and political writer. He would frequently debate noted conservatives but would also clash with the younger radicals in the New Left movements. He was present at the 1962 SDS conference that led to the creation of the Port Huron Statement, where he argued that the final draft was insufficiently anti-Communist. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. referred to Harrington as the "only responsible radical" in America, a somewhat dubious distinction among those on the political left. His high profile landed him on the master list of Nixon political opponents.

By early 1970s Shachtman's anti-Communism had become a hawkish Cold War liberalism. Shachtman and the governing faction of the Socialist Party effectively supported the Vietnam War and changed the organization's name to Social Democrats, USA. In protest Harrington led a number of Norman Thomas-era Socialists, younger activists and ex-Shachtmanites into the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. A smaller faction associated with peace activist David McReynolds formed the Socialist Party USA.

In the early 1980s The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee merged with the New American Movement, an organization of New Left veterans, forming Democratic Socialists of America. This organization remains the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, which includes socialist parties as diverse as the Swedish and German Social Democrats, Nicaragua's FSLN, and the British Labour Party.

Academician and public intellectual

Harrington was appointed a professor of political science at Queens College in 1972 and was designated a distinguished professor in 1988. During the 1980s he contributed commentaries to National Public Radio. Harrington died in 1989 of cancer. He was the most well-known socialist in the United States during his lifetime.

Reviews

[Fergus, Weaver of Autistic Webs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this back in '68! Did someone breathe the warcry Woodstock? Yeah. Got that right.

Woodstock was so me in 1968, but I couldn't mention that predilection to Dad - not if I valued my health!

Like I've said elsewhere, flower power was just a lame excuse for letting it all hang out to the Old Guard - the Greatest Generation...

Their inference of course being we'd someday blush bright pink and rue the day we said it, when we got to their age.

And they were right.

My sister, ever the wise gal among us easy-come-easy-go Junior Bird Men (me and my bro), simply said "Love don't pay the bills!"

Checkmate.

So true.

What she meant by that, in today's terms, is that our society's current astronomical budget bills will soon have to be paid for by us and our kids.

Free lunch?

No such thing in Realpolitik lingo!

And know what?

All the liberally strewn roses of all my Woodstock generation -

Will never (not even in ten trillion kalpas) -

Fill the Yawning Void of our many current Crosses.

[Bakari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Back I think n the mid-nineties, I read Micheal Harrington’s The Other America. It was one of the best books on the class divide I’ve ever read. Harrington weaved together a journalistic and sociological narrative to show the cost (politically, economically, and culturally) of poverty and wealth in this country. Sadly, the economic breakdown that he discusses are still alive and well today. And tonight as I write this review, the House just passed an historic health bill that though not radical in its scope challenges much of the selfishness and greed of the Republican ideology and the corporate greed of the insurance companies.

So one the reasons I decided to read Harrington’s Socialism was to try to get a sense of its history (both its failures and accomplishments) throughout the world. In the closing pages of his book, Harrington writes: “Socialism should therefore work toward making more and ore goods and services free: housing, transportation, a healthy diet, etc. [education, medical care, full employment (emphasis added):]. The standard response to many economist to such a proposition is that cliché of Economics I: there is nothing that is really free. All commodities cost something to produce and if the individual does not pay for them directly, someone doe indirectly. But this is to miss the enormous social gain that would occur if society were to decide to pay for all the collectively fundamentals of life. The change in moral atmosphere such a new mode of distribution would portend would be profound.”

That sums up pretty much my view and support of democratic socialism for the thirty or so years of my life. I’ve always felt that building a more equitable economy throughout the world would alleviate so much greed, hunger, illiteracy, needless death, etc. that is caused by humanity’s ongoing pursuit of wealth and consumption at the cost of the lives so many people. It just has always been common sense to me.

Well, Harrington’s Socialism does break down the historical failures of socialism in the old Soviet block, Vietnam, China, and some would say, Cuba. But unfortunately, the book is too academic to really be accessible. Some of this history and debates I have read else where, but I was thinking that this book would be kind of written in the style of The Other America. Plus, I think the book, first published in 1970, is a little dated now; however, it’s interesting to read about issues such as the government bailing out capitalist corporations like the banking system in this country are nothing new.

Despite the failures of socialist revolutions (which ultimately ended up being what Harrington called anti-socialist movements and governments of rule), I think the lack of alternatives visions of collectivism and ridding humanity of such sharp class divides will ultimately be our greatest downfall. We simply can not afford to think capitalism (and its greed, overproduction, competition) is the only way to live. What does it indeed say about humanity that its social existence is depended largely on the buying and selling of things? What it does say about our sense of humanity when wars are waged to essentially secure wealthy resources like oil? What does it say when single individuals can hold more wealth than the entire nations of people?

These are the questions that Marx and Engels raised in The Communist Manifesto and what Marx raised in Das Kaptial. Sure these books may sound scary and bankrupt, but we do ourselves a disservice by not even reading them, especially the former pamphlet. In other words, what I‘m saying is that we need to read books that helps us think about different ways of living and treating one another. Such visions help us build visions better societies and become better people. That’s really what socialism is about. But unfortunately, the practice is harder to achieve than the theory.

[Nadienne Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a good read! Yes, it took me forever, but it's very dense and packed with all sort of information, ideas, theories, postulations, etc. Well worth the read.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best introductions to Marx and socialism I've yet come across.

Although I'd gone to socialist meetings while in high school and had joined the party early on, I was never very active until one evening, upon dropping me off at the old 1634 Chase apartment in Rogers Park, Chicago, the chairperson of the Illinois affiliate of the SPUSA asked me to stand for office. Since he was an old friend and since I was riled up about the policies of the USA in Central America at the time anyway, I took him up on it and found myself elected state chair--a position held for the decade following.

My election was no testament to me. It was more a sign of how reluctant most members were to assume long-term responsibilities. For most of them it seemed primarily a debating club or simply something one does out of conscience or family or cultural tradition. I certainly had a bit of the tradition, both familial and cultural, nudging me, but very little interest in debating old topics again and again with old comrades. I was interested in building an organization which was efficient, effective and attractive.

It wasn't hard to get my roommate, Michael, involved as the affiliation with a national political party had one great perk: postal privileges. An aspiring writer, new to politics, the idea of starting a national journal appealed to him as it did to me. So we did it, creating Left Court (aka The Journal of the Socialist Party of Illinois), a craven imitation of Monthly Review, which eventually grew to a press run of over 2,000 copies per issue during the years of its existence.

Left Court was a success from a number of perspectives. We produced a rather attractive product at very little cost, editing and printing the thing, except for its two-color covers, ourselves at virtually no cost. It was labor intensive, but the work attracted a lot of people to our little office near the El tracks. Some were interested mostly in writing. Others were interested in learning the skills involved in compositing a publication by computer. Still others were there for the enjoyment of working and socializing on the nights we actually did the printing and binding. I was into it because I like facilitating the growth of others. Indeed, that was my primary satisfaction in the party, prospects of a socialist revolution in the States being dim.

I also reformed our state committee meetings by making them more business-like, focusing on things like event planning, budget allocations, membership retention and recruitment. Larger affairs like state conventions started featuring speakers, even media presentations--events which were intended to be interesting. Transcripts of all of our meetings were published in our journal for all to see. We started actually enforcing dues requirements.

It was no big affair. The Socialist Party of Illinois never had more than sixty members who were in good standing at any time--"good standing" meaning being paid in full as regards both state and federal dues. Of course, our mailing list, which we computerized, went into the thousands, hundreds of whom may have thought themselves members because they sent in money on occasion, if only years ago.

The aforementioned debates between old comrades which we generally managed to avoid included such things as Harrington attempted to deal with in his book: What did Marx and Engels really believe? Should the SPUSA be a Marxist party? What about Lenin and "actually existing socialisms"?--about the USSR, about Yugoslavia, Peoples' China, Vietnam, Sweden, the FMLN, the FLN et cetera? What about those self-styled socialists, like Harrington and his DSA, who saw the correct strategy as working through the labor wing of the Democratic Party? What, by god, about the Fourth International!?--or the Second, for that matter? While I liked reading about these things, I really wasn't very interested in debates which divided progressives, but tried to keep our group open to all democratic, egalitarian and humanitarian tendencies.

Then, a decade later, I moved, buying a building with three friends. My wife, with whom I'd been active in both the party and in the disabled rights movement, decided to leave me about a year later and I, probably symptomatically, decided I'd been too long chair and declined to run again for the office.

[Russell Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

I plowed through this long book in a couple of days--partly because I'd assigned it as a textbook, and I needed to finish it! To my chagrin, I realized that it wasn't going to work in the way I'd hope it would in my upcoming class. The first three chapters are simply wonderful; they present a set of general--and historically persuasive--hypotheses about what modern socialism is, and then move into a series smartly written, deeply informed, but always clearly partial (Michael Harrington was a lifelong socialist, the founder of Democratic Socialists of America, and therefore is clearly someone with a particular point of view!) takes on the early history of modern socialism. First Marx, obviously, but also Henri Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, and other romantic utopians; then Karl Kautsky, Edward Bernstein, and other essential figures in the development of European socialism; and of course Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemberg, and other key figures in the Russian Revolution. From these sketches in intellectual and political history, Harrington brings his theses to life, showing how socialism evolved, backed itself into corners, was misunderstood, and just plain got some things horribly wrong. If that was the whole book, or if my class was solely and intellectual history of the socialist idea in 19th-century Europe, Harrington's book would be perfect.

Unfortunately, though, Harrington is committed enough to his cause to want to detail all of socialism's successes and (more often) failures through the social-democratic experiments of Western Europe and elsewhere through the 20th century, the various socialist and communist parties and movements that characterized (and devastated) so many post-colonial states in Africa and Asia following WWII, and much more up until the present day. Which is the most fundamental problem of the book--despite Harrington's enormously broad and well-considered mastery of the relevant sources, he was still telling this story right at the moment when everything changed. He wrote the book while he was dying, and it was published in 1989--just before Gorbachev's glasnost led, unintentionally, to the opening of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In other words, Harrington's 30-year-old survey of socialism is missing a chapter (or chapters) that would have radically changed so much of what he said as he attempted to draw out both theoretically consistent and up-to-date lessons about the socialist experiment in modern times. It wouldn't have require a radical change in everything he wrote by any means; so many of his observations--about the New Deal, about John Maynard Keynes, about Henry Ford, about the problems of growth, about the tension between gradualism and revolution, and more--would have still been very much worth reading. But he would have been obliged to write them differently, and so now that's an obligation left to the reader.

For all the difficulties of the middle chapters, Harrington's conclusion is hopeful. A convinced socialist to the very end, he wrote this book thinking to inspire and guide those whom are captured by the socialist vision, whoever they are or whenever and wherever they live. The final passages of the book return, as they should, to the real promises of socialism: that is, the promise of community, fraternity, equality, and freedom. He talks about the necessity of decentralization to avoid the terrible mistakes of state socialism, and the way a socialist ethos, one that can be articulated in a diverse way across a society, is so obviously the better route than to understand socialism as the material interest of the working class. It's a noble book, telling the story of a noble idea. May it ever return, in whatever guise it must.

[Ryan O'Malley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m surprised that this book is not better known. I thought it was a fascinating argument for democratic socialism. Written in a time of the USSR, his critique of the authoritarian masquerading of communism is eye opening. He places his democratic socialism by showing critiques of capitalism, welfare capitalism, and top down communism.

[Matt Gunderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can't imagine a better introduction to Socialism. Incredibly accessible to just about anyone, and very comprehensive, laid out in a clear-cut structure making it a stunningly insightful, yet easy read. Harrington seemed to analyze and interpret marxism and it's strongpoints, as well as it's weak, in a very non-bias approach (at least that's how it felt). The sections on capitalism and it's inevitability to properly function as a system and how we can transition towards a more Socialistic organization was extremely fascinating.

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book back in the mid-1970's and remember it as a fascinating history of the socialist movements and Harrington's vision of how his version of socialism was relevant to the future of America.

[Brett · Rating 5 out of 5]

A surprisingly quick and relevant read. Probably the most cogent and succinct description of the history of socialism and the urgency of the modern socialist program to democratic societies. This book covers the major topics of conversation in development of socialism and the ongoing controversies in socialist thought. It was published in the early seventies, so certainly it is not completely up to date in terms of present politics, but it provides a good grounding in how to think about creating a humane and egalitarian world.

Harrington achieved a moderate fame for publishing an earlier book entitled the Other America about poverty in the United States. That book inspired President Kennedy and launched the major social programs that were put into place in the US in the sixties. This book is a more comprehensive follow up about how to address the problems raised in the Other America. There is a somewhat lengthy explication and defense of Marx and Engels in the early chapters, followed by Harrington's thoughts on socialism in the US and the proper aims and objectives of a democratic socialist left in the US. I found Harrington to be thoughtful and non-dogmatic. He is rightfully critical of the failures of so-called socialism in the USSR and the third world, while reminding us why socialism is the one real hope for a livable planet for the vast majority of the human beings.

While I wish an updated version of Socialism would be published, you're still unlikely to find a clearer, more accessible text on the subject. Harrington's book is challenging, gratifying, and ultimately uplifting in its reminder that we are laboring for a world that is fair and just and free.

[Kamil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fabulous book, particularly if you buy Harrington's social democratic variant of socialism, and/or are driven to understand the origins and evolution of left-wing though. More pressing for me right now, however, is the last chapter of John Nichols' The S Word, which deals with how Harrington effected US policy - am halfway through the book and will update this review once I get some perspective on what Harrington managed to accomplish. As a theoretical text, however, this is great and comprehensive. If a little scanty on details about the Russian Revolution - for that Terry Eagleton and Hobsbawm have done a much better job.

[Nativeabuse · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really wanted to like the guy and this book, but I simply cannot get over the fact that he is clearly writing this from a Social-Democrat prospective, which is really alien to me.

The books is alright, but he has a different definition, and a different opinion on tons of topics that is contrary to what most actual Socialists believe. So I take most of what he writes here critically and with a grain of salt.

Not bad, but the guy was just not Leftist enough in my opinion.

[Jeff · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can't criticize Socialism if you don't really understand what it was intended to be. This is especially true if you think the old Soviet model was the be all and end all of deffinitions. The Russians under Putan have what they call Democracy now, but only a fool would think to have that be any kind of definition by example.

[John Curnutt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent review of the history of socialism without any glossing over of the abuses made in the name of "socialism". Ends with a way to work toward a socialist USA - a bi dated, the digital revolution has made the dream even more attractive

[Will · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very optimistic, which socialists have to be, considering their success rate.

"... so long as the technologists are acting within capitalist institutions, however fine their personal values may be, they will be overwhelmed by the structures they serve."

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

read this many years but I go back to it. It is excellent...