What do you think?
Rate this book
Socialism: Past and Future
The author of The Other America discusses the evolving nature of socialism, examining its past, present, and future and discusses the work of Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and others. Reprint. NYTimes
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1989
59 people are currently reading
2147 people want to read
About the author
Michael Harrington
103 books72 followersEdward 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
March 13, 2017
On Feeling the Bern
During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist.
I wondered whether this term meant something different in the US, compared with British Commonwealth countries. Socialism is a derogatory term for a political philosophy that is condemned by many Americans as more or less the same as Communism, so it didn’t make sense to me that Bernie embraced the term with conviction and enthusiasm in the Post-Communist era.
During the primaries, I resolved to read (or re-read) some of my books about American socialism by authors such as Michael Harrington and Irving Howe, both of whom had greatly influenced my own political and cultural views. However, as a non-American, it was quite unusual to see the term “socialism” being embraced to describe what I have traditionally regarded as “social democracy”.
I can’t say I came away from this book with a clear understanding of the issues. However, I think the solution is in here, if you read it closely and spend some time digesting what you’ve read.
Irving Howe, friend of Mike Harrington, fellow democratic socialist and author of the introduction to this book, in 1989
Life and Death Matters
I don’t want to be too critical of Harrington for any apparent flaws in his account. He started to write this book the day he received a diagnosis that he had inoperable cancer. The book was published the month before his death in 1989. In the acknowledgement to his previous book, “The Next Left”, he also mentioned that his publisher contracted with him knowing he was a cancer patient. Thus, it seems that he wrote his last two books when he knew he was dying of cancer. This might explain his enthusiasm, his passion, and his sense of urgency, even though both books document his lifelong commitment (he was born in 1928) to what he calls “democratic socialism” and its future as a practical and democratic political philosophy.
Not One, But Many Socialisms
One of Harrington’s major points is that there is not one definition of socialism, but many rival definitions.
The first six chapters therefore seek to investigate these definitions and their history.
Harrington starts with a dictionary definition: “socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution”. There is no express discussion of the meaning of “public” in this context. However, it is implicit that it could be some variation of society or the state.
He then discusses “utopian socialism”. He quotes Martin Buber: “the goal of Utopian socialism is to substitute society for State to the greatest degree possible, moreover a society that is genuine and not a State in disguise.” (29)
Within state ownership, Harrington differentiates between statism and democratic state ownership. Statism is the ownership by a dictatorship or authoritarian state, such as occurred in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.
Democratic state ownership means that the state was elected democratically, that it acquired ownership by democratic means, that it submits regularly to the democratic process by way of elections and that it retains ownership by democratic means. Implicitly, it did not acquire control and ownership by a revolutionary process.
Harrington discusses Stalin in terms of War Communism, where the Soviet state was under internal threat from a civil war and an external threat from foreign capital and military intervention.
Next, Harrington discusses various versions of Third World Socialism, in which relatively backward countries tried to rapidly modernise their economies without embracing capitalism at any stage of their development.
Social Democracy
At various stages, Harrington mentions social democracy. He doesn’t use any one particular definition of social democracy. Readers must extrapolate it from the context:
“The social democrats came up with transitional programs that made capitalism more humane - even if it remained quite capitalist.”
At times he refers to it in terms of the problem posed by Karl Kautsky:
“How can you have a system that is half capitalist and half socialist?”
At others, he refers to it as (growth-oriented) “social democratic Keynesianism” - a precursor to the welfare state - and the mixed economy (in which there are elements of both private enterprise and public enterprise owned by the state). He frequently describes it as “the social democratic compromise”. It’s implied that it has compromised with capitalism (by allowing it to continue), while compromising the goals and values of socialism (i.e., by simply regulating and managing capitalism rather than overturning or replacing it.)
The welfare state might have been motivated by the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. However, the economic strategy was actually intended to benefit capitalism. It was “a legal floor...put under consumption”. If people had no money, they could not spend it on consumption. If there was reduced consumption, there would be reduced production and capitalism. Both jobs and profits are protected by the welfare state. Therefore, the welfare state props up capitalist production by subsidising public consumption.
Socialisation
It’s time to return to the concept of public ownership and what Harrington refers to as “socialisation”.
Harrington refers to “socialisation” as “a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority”. He also explains:
“One and the same word, socialisation, is used to describe counterposed phenomena: the growing centralisation and interdependence of capitalist society under the control of an elite; and the possibility of a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority.” (8)
“‘Socialisation’ describes two very different ways in which society can become more social: under capitalism, there is a trend toward a growing centralisation and planning that is eventually global, but it takes place from the top down; under socialism, that process is subjected to democratic control from below by the people and their communities.” (9)
Harrington believed that this capitalist socialisation was in fact anti-social. It was the role of socialism to address this problem:
“Socialism sought, precisely, the democratic socialisation of the process of elitist, irresponsible, and destructive socialisation of capitalism - a process that is very much at work today as revolutionary new modes of producing wealth are being introduced in ways that increase poverty and unemployment and widen the gap between the affluent and hungry areas of the world.” (15)
It’s this very sense of socialisation that requires socialism to be democratic. Democratic socialism is a direct consequence and precondition of the goal of democratic socialisation.
In the context of work, it requires worker participation in the decision-making process. Harrington aims to reconceive the nature of work, and the worker's relationship with it.
Mike Harrington in 1986
Giving Credit to Capitalism Where It Is Due
This also explains why Harrington doesn’t believe in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism:
“The capitalist - and antisocial - socialisation of the world is indeed subverting its most priceless accomplishment, the creation of the possibility of freedom and justice. And there must be a genuine - and social - socialisation if the precious gains of the capitalist era are to be retained and deepened.” (8)
Harrington believed that capitalism had taken us a long way along the path to freedom and justice from the oppression of feudalism, whether willingly or not. However, in a sense, it had stalled and was now obstructing further progress:
“The revolution we are now living through is creating a social and political environment that, if it is not subjected to democratic control from below, will subvert the possibilities of freedom and justice that capitalism did much - if reluctantly - to foster.” (7)
“There is no guarantee that socialism will triumph - or that freedom and justice, even to the limited degree that they have been achieved until now, will survive the next century. All I claim here is that, if they are to survive, the socialist movement will be a critical factor.” (3)
What is to be Done with the State?
The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism?
How do you acquire power or control over the privately-owned means of production, if their owners resist? Can you only do so by way of the authority of the state?
How is this kind of democratic socialism different from social democracy?
Is it intended that capitalism or capitalists will cease to exist under democratic socialism?
Do democratic socialists have to obtain control of the state by democratic means (i.e., by way of democratic election) or is there a case for the acquisition of power by way of revolutionary force? Is revolutionary force intrinsically anti-democratic, even if it is used in the name of a majority of the public? Once power is obtained, can it be retained by way of force (e.g., by the modern equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat)? Is it acceptable that all gains can be reversed at the very next election (just as the gains won by social democrats can be [and have been] reversed by a neoconservative or populist government)? How can democratic socialists protect their gains against a hostile democratically elected government?
It would be interesting to know whether and how these issues have been considered and resolved by Bernie Sanders and those who feel the Bern? Also, if the movement is genuinely democratic, why is the word “revolution” rolled out so often? Is it merely a metaphor, or does it genuinely foreshadow and support the need for violent overthrow of the state and/or capitalism?
During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist.
I wondered whether this term meant something different in the US, compared with British Commonwealth countries. Socialism is a derogatory term for a political philosophy that is condemned by many Americans as more or less the same as Communism, so it didn’t make sense to me that Bernie embraced the term with conviction and enthusiasm in the Post-Communist era.
During the primaries, I resolved to read (or re-read) some of my books about American socialism by authors such as Michael Harrington and Irving Howe, both of whom had greatly influenced my own political and cultural views. However, as a non-American, it was quite unusual to see the term “socialism” being embraced to describe what I have traditionally regarded as “social democracy”.
I can’t say I came away from this book with a clear understanding of the issues. However, I think the solution is in here, if you read it closely and spend some time digesting what you’ve read.
Irving Howe, friend of Mike Harrington, fellow democratic socialist and author of the introduction to this book, in 1989
Life and Death Matters
I don’t want to be too critical of Harrington for any apparent flaws in his account. He started to write this book the day he received a diagnosis that he had inoperable cancer. The book was published the month before his death in 1989. In the acknowledgement to his previous book, “The Next Left”, he also mentioned that his publisher contracted with him knowing he was a cancer patient. Thus, it seems that he wrote his last two books when he knew he was dying of cancer. This might explain his enthusiasm, his passion, and his sense of urgency, even though both books document his lifelong commitment (he was born in 1928) to what he calls “democratic socialism” and its future as a practical and democratic political philosophy.
Not One, But Many Socialisms
One of Harrington’s major points is that there is not one definition of socialism, but many rival definitions.
The first six chapters therefore seek to investigate these definitions and their history.
Harrington starts with a dictionary definition: “socialism is the public ownership of the means of production and distribution”. There is no express discussion of the meaning of “public” in this context. However, it is implicit that it could be some variation of society or the state.
He then discusses “utopian socialism”. He quotes Martin Buber: “the goal of Utopian socialism is to substitute society for State to the greatest degree possible, moreover a society that is genuine and not a State in disguise.” (29)
Within state ownership, Harrington differentiates between statism and democratic state ownership. Statism is the ownership by a dictatorship or authoritarian state, such as occurred in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.
Democratic state ownership means that the state was elected democratically, that it acquired ownership by democratic means, that it submits regularly to the democratic process by way of elections and that it retains ownership by democratic means. Implicitly, it did not acquire control and ownership by a revolutionary process.
Harrington discusses Stalin in terms of War Communism, where the Soviet state was under internal threat from a civil war and an external threat from foreign capital and military intervention.
Next, Harrington discusses various versions of Third World Socialism, in which relatively backward countries tried to rapidly modernise their economies without embracing capitalism at any stage of their development.
Social Democracy
At various stages, Harrington mentions social democracy. He doesn’t use any one particular definition of social democracy. Readers must extrapolate it from the context:
“The social democrats came up with transitional programs that made capitalism more humane - even if it remained quite capitalist.”
At times he refers to it in terms of the problem posed by Karl Kautsky:
“How can you have a system that is half capitalist and half socialist?”
At others, he refers to it as (growth-oriented) “social democratic Keynesianism” - a precursor to the welfare state - and the mixed economy (in which there are elements of both private enterprise and public enterprise owned by the state). He frequently describes it as “the social democratic compromise”. It’s implied that it has compromised with capitalism (by allowing it to continue), while compromising the goals and values of socialism (i.e., by simply regulating and managing capitalism rather than overturning or replacing it.)
The welfare state might have been motivated by the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. However, the economic strategy was actually intended to benefit capitalism. It was “a legal floor...put under consumption”. If people had no money, they could not spend it on consumption. If there was reduced consumption, there would be reduced production and capitalism. Both jobs and profits are protected by the welfare state. Therefore, the welfare state props up capitalist production by subsidising public consumption.
Socialisation
It’s time to return to the concept of public ownership and what Harrington refers to as “socialisation”.
Harrington refers to “socialisation” as “a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority”. He also explains:
“One and the same word, socialisation, is used to describe counterposed phenomena: the growing centralisation and interdependence of capitalist society under the control of an elite; and the possibility of a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority.” (8)
“‘Socialisation’ describes two very different ways in which society can become more social: under capitalism, there is a trend toward a growing centralisation and planning that is eventually global, but it takes place from the top down; under socialism, that process is subjected to democratic control from below by the people and their communities.” (9)
Harrington believed that this capitalist socialisation was in fact anti-social. It was the role of socialism to address this problem:
“Socialism sought, precisely, the democratic socialisation of the process of elitist, irresponsible, and destructive socialisation of capitalism - a process that is very much at work today as revolutionary new modes of producing wealth are being introduced in ways that increase poverty and unemployment and widen the gap between the affluent and hungry areas of the world.” (15)
It’s this very sense of socialisation that requires socialism to be democratic. Democratic socialism is a direct consequence and precondition of the goal of democratic socialisation.
In the context of work, it requires worker participation in the decision-making process. Harrington aims to reconceive the nature of work, and the worker's relationship with it.
Mike Harrington in 1986
Giving Credit to Capitalism Where It Is Due
This also explains why Harrington doesn’t believe in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism:
“The capitalist - and antisocial - socialisation of the world is indeed subverting its most priceless accomplishment, the creation of the possibility of freedom and justice. And there must be a genuine - and social - socialisation if the precious gains of the capitalist era are to be retained and deepened.” (8)
Harrington believed that capitalism had taken us a long way along the path to freedom and justice from the oppression of feudalism, whether willingly or not. However, in a sense, it had stalled and was now obstructing further progress:
“The revolution we are now living through is creating a social and political environment that, if it is not subjected to democratic control from below, will subvert the possibilities of freedom and justice that capitalism did much - if reluctantly - to foster.” (7)
“There is no guarantee that socialism will triumph - or that freedom and justice, even to the limited degree that they have been achieved until now, will survive the next century. All I claim here is that, if they are to survive, the socialist movement will be a critical factor.” (3)
What is to be Done with the State?
The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism?
How do you acquire power or control over the privately-owned means of production, if their owners resist? Can you only do so by way of the authority of the state?
How is this kind of democratic socialism different from social democracy?
Is it intended that capitalism or capitalists will cease to exist under democratic socialism?
Do democratic socialists have to obtain control of the state by democratic means (i.e., by way of democratic election) or is there a case for the acquisition of power by way of revolutionary force? Is revolutionary force intrinsically anti-democratic, even if it is used in the name of a majority of the public? Once power is obtained, can it be retained by way of force (e.g., by the modern equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat)? Is it acceptable that all gains can be reversed at the very next election (just as the gains won by social democrats can be [and have been] reversed by a neoconservative or populist government)? How can democratic socialists protect their gains against a hostile democratically elected government?
It would be interesting to know whether and how these issues have been considered and resolved by Bernie Sanders and those who feel the Bern? Also, if the movement is genuinely democratic, why is the word “revolution” rolled out so often? Is it merely a metaphor, or does it genuinely foreshadow and support the need for violent overthrow of the state and/or capitalism?
January 6, 2017
I enjoyed this quite a bit. Clearly still relevant after almost 30 years, but definitely a shame that it came before Neoliberalism and the Trump era. It definitely challenged my thoughts on some things from both the left and the right. Mainly I found how it (mostly convincingly) related mainstream liberal (Keyensian) economics with reformist/revisionist Marxism and showed that they aren't fully divergent. Basically this justified how someone like Bernie could label himself as an Independent Socialist and run as a Democrat and not seem like just a complete opportunist. No doubt, some of the more avowed socialists would dismiss his take on socialism, but I think he was able to make a case that unambiguously clear divisions don't really exist. Finally, Harrington was certainly no Tankie, and so swiftly dismissed the authoritarian, antisocialist "socialists" to their well-deserved dustbin.
June 25, 2022
Wonderful summary of the development--political, societal, and economic--of the last twoish centuries of socialism. This inspired me to learn more about the ongoing movements and socialist groups today. I encourage anyone questioning the status quo to give this book's at times dense material a chance.
November 13, 2018
For all the talk in the US right now of socialism, it seems to be a topic a lot of people (some of the loudest) are uninformed about. There’s confusion about what it is, and more importantly, what it isn’t. Michael Harrington’s account is a good introduction in part because it admits to a multitude of “socialisms,” given deviations in definition. He also goes to great lengths to explain some of the examples that come to mind most readily when many people think of socialism – examples that are rightfully frightening and have little in common with socialism at all, even given a range of accepted and contested definitions.
It might be noted that Harrington’s book was published in 1992, now more than 25 years past. Based on that, it might be said that his account is hardly appropriate to today’s political climate. I don’t think that’s the case, though. For one thing, many of his propositions seem to hold true. More important than arguments (generally) standing the test of time, it’s still a valuable book despite its age because many of the negative associations being drawn with socialism today predate publication, so Harrington is giving a historical and cultural context that is still necessary.
Among the topics tackled are misunderstood economic turns, especially Reagan-era, that seem to be failures of socialist legislation when capitalist initiatives or wider cultural circumstances are really at work. Harrington elucidates these instances as well as seeming victories of capitalism that in context can be traced back to socialist initiatives. He makes it easy to trust him, not just because of the attention to detail, but because he’s willing to admit to the ways in which capitalism has done good. In posing the routes to a functioning socialism, or maybe better put, in teasing out the problems with different routes to a functioning socialism, Harrington makes clear that capitalism served its purpose historically, was/is necessary in some way, especially in light of attempts at socialism in Third World countries that have not fully entered into capitalism beforehand. In his final analysis, however, he sees capitalism as an ideology with its own destruction built into its tenets and better approached as a stepping stone to a more benign, from the ground-up order.
If I take issue with anything in this book, it is a general haziness. Part of this is my relative newness to the topic, and part of it is that the historical forces at work in his analysis of the past (and his present) are simply too many and too complex to offer a crystal-clear picture – even with Harrington’s attention to detail and analysis. The future the title hints at is, of necessity, more vague, but Harrington does cover a lot of ground in the kinds of real-world considerations that will need to accompany both the development of socialist theory and practice, considerations like planning, incentive towards innovation and creativity, education, room for failure, consumer choice, environmentalism, women’s rights, global involvement, etc. Harrington is pragmatic, but it seems utopian and idealistic to think any kind of global socialism could take hold any time soon – especially one that is pure, not built into or around a pre-existing capitalism. That is not to say it’s impossible, though, given time and a much needed surge in human empathy.
It might be noted that Harrington’s book was published in 1992, now more than 25 years past. Based on that, it might be said that his account is hardly appropriate to today’s political climate. I don’t think that’s the case, though. For one thing, many of his propositions seem to hold true. More important than arguments (generally) standing the test of time, it’s still a valuable book despite its age because many of the negative associations being drawn with socialism today predate publication, so Harrington is giving a historical and cultural context that is still necessary.
Among the topics tackled are misunderstood economic turns, especially Reagan-era, that seem to be failures of socialist legislation when capitalist initiatives or wider cultural circumstances are really at work. Harrington elucidates these instances as well as seeming victories of capitalism that in context can be traced back to socialist initiatives. He makes it easy to trust him, not just because of the attention to detail, but because he’s willing to admit to the ways in which capitalism has done good. In posing the routes to a functioning socialism, or maybe better put, in teasing out the problems with different routes to a functioning socialism, Harrington makes clear that capitalism served its purpose historically, was/is necessary in some way, especially in light of attempts at socialism in Third World countries that have not fully entered into capitalism beforehand. In his final analysis, however, he sees capitalism as an ideology with its own destruction built into its tenets and better approached as a stepping stone to a more benign, from the ground-up order.
If I take issue with anything in this book, it is a general haziness. Part of this is my relative newness to the topic, and part of it is that the historical forces at work in his analysis of the past (and his present) are simply too many and too complex to offer a crystal-clear picture – even with Harrington’s attention to detail and analysis. The future the title hints at is, of necessity, more vague, but Harrington does cover a lot of ground in the kinds of real-world considerations that will need to accompany both the development of socialist theory and practice, considerations like planning, incentive towards innovation and creativity, education, room for failure, consumer choice, environmentalism, women’s rights, global involvement, etc. Harrington is pragmatic, but it seems utopian and idealistic to think any kind of global socialism could take hold any time soon – especially one that is pure, not built into or around a pre-existing capitalism. That is not to say it’s impossible, though, given time and a much needed surge in human empathy.
May 27, 2019
Michael Harrington comes from the Kautskian “school” of gradualism- advocating for a transition to socialism through electoral processes and reform. His desire in this country was to eventually use the left wing of the Democratic Party to push the party into being a legitimate social-democratic party a la the German SPD, or the British Labour Party. And for a time he and his work seemed to be doing precisely that. His work on poverty proved very influential for the Kennedy-Johnson Great Society programs, and he advised Tom Hayden on the formulation of The Port Huron Statement. When he died he was the last (and likely only) actual socialist that major publishers, publications, and news channels treated as legitimate political theorist and authority.
That being said, Harrington probably owed a lot of his respectability not to any pointed criticism of the harsher edges of capitalism (although, no mistake, he was very good at that) so much as for his harsh(er) criticisms of the East Bloc which was in the process of its disintegration as he breathed his last. Harrington himself certainly would have shrugged off the Soviet Union’s final collapse in 1991 as immaterial to the viability of socialism. But that’s not the way that it was taken by the left wing parties of Europe, Oceana, and North America. It wasn’t long before these dutiful social democratic parties quickly became some of the staunchest allies of capital and the capitalist order when they weren’t surrendering or helping to roll back their previous gains!
In Britain Clause IV of the Labour Party’s Constitution which had advocated for the common ownership of big capital was excised by Tony Blair after he assumed leadership of Labour in 1994. The Blair and Brown governments strengthened the neoliberal reforms of the Thatcher and Major eras and gave wholesale support to Bush II’s Middle Eastern forays.
In Germany the SPD has been more than happy to govern together with the right wing Christian Democrats.
In France Hollande’s socialist party gladly instituted austerity measures.
Spain’s socialist party dropped its Marxist roots. Italy’s socialists simply abandoned the party.
In the United States the small progress that Harrington championed was extremely temporary. The Clinton years saw a decrease in assistance to the poor, cuts to social services, a far harsher criminal justice system, the destruction of consumer protections and antitrust laws that almost culminated in a partial privatization of Social Security that was narrowly avoided thanks to the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Of course things have further degenerated since then.
The prior examples represent Harrington’s biggest flaw by way of two assumptions he made in his thinking. The first assumption is that the social democratic parties would NOT betray the working class or their ideals. The second assumption is that he assumed barring some kind of dictatorship that the reforms that had been won would remain in place allowing for a peaceful progression to socialism give or take the occasional bump.
I can’t necessarily fault Harrington for the second assumption because most of the examples showing outright regression and abandonment of reforms occurred after his death. The sole exception I’ve brought up that he would have known about was the Spanish Socialist Party abandoning its Marxist roots in 1979. This ought to have been a warning sign although Harrington was by no means attached to a Marxist analysis or a Marxist direction as he explains in later chapters.
However, Harrington can and should be held to task for the first assumption and very harshly so. Before World War I the socialist parties of Europe- and most especially Karl Kautsky whom Michael Harrington follows very, VERY closely in this book had promised a general strike should war break out. Not only did the French Socialist party and the SPD not call for a strike once war was declared but the French socialists, the SPD and Kautsky-most especially!- encouraged the war and voted for FULL war credits. One of the few exceptions to this madness was Rosa Luxembourg who does not figure much in this book EXCEPT where Harrington uses her criticisms of Lenin whereupon he promptly forgets her which is also tragic because of her role by the end of the War- also forgotten by Harrington. When Wilhelm II abdicated on November 9th, 1918 a provisional government was formed by the SPD. At the same time Bavaria had declared itself as an independent socialist Republic and workers in Berlin had formed themselves into worker’s councils also planning a socialist republic. Though independent, these councils were nominally led by the aforementioned Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht. Instead of inviting these deputies into government and acknowledging the demands of the workers the leaders of the new SPD government of Germany allied itself with the far-right including both monarchical factions and the proto-fascist friekorps; crushed the workers and killed Luxembourg and Liebknecht. This seems to be a deliberate omission by Harrington and one that really damages his thesis.
I would say then that while Harrington is an important figure on the left and it’s important to understand his brand of socialism in the context of the New Left of the ‘60s and ‘70s that this book is more of a historical interest and not applicable to the situation today. I’d say that even Harrington’s desire to reform the Democratic Party is not feasible, or particularly worth the effort. We saw how extremely difficult it was to wring even extremely moderate concessions on a non-binding platform for the Democratic Party in 2016 much less secure the nomination of an outright social-democrat to the presidency despite his overwhelming personal popularity and overwhelming popularity regarding his ideas. The Democratic Party AS A BODY preferred the less popular, less electable albeit neoliberal friendly candidate.
As difficult as it is to achieve: socialism in this country needs its own new party committed not just to reform- although reforms are important and worthy goals- but equally to the overthrow of capitalism by revolutionary means. Considering the initial success that Lenin and the Bolsheviks achieved before the Stalinist Thermidor I believe that that experiment represents a better lesson than Michael Harrington’s model.
January 30, 2012
This is an excellent, unbiased history of global Socialism. My only issue with this 2011 reprint edition is that it has not been brought up to date past its initial 1989 publishing date. So much has happened on this front in the intervening 23 years (the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of China, 9/11) that "the future" put forth in the book is really the past.
February 5, 2019
After being in DSA for a year and a half now I finally decided to get around to reading some Michael Harrington, a figure that everyone seems to have strong opinions about but whom few of the young’uns talk about having actually read. To that end, I picked up his last book, Socialism: Past and Future, published in 1989 just before his death from cancer.
Socialism: Past and Future is listed as an "Introduction to Socialism" book on the YDS reading list that I have, one which I don't have any idea when it was compiled or by whom. But I was surprised and annoyed to see that I have not read a single book on it, so I'm planning on working my way down the whole thing (it should take me about 5 years, at this rate). This book was first on the list.
At about 275 pages, not including the notes, it's a reasonably "full-sized" book, in contrast to the bite-sized primers I've read like The ABCs of Socialism or Socialism... Seriously. (It also has many fewer jokes.) t's also certainly older than either of those, thus providing an interesting history of socialist thought that stops just about when I was born.
That said, Harrington has still set himself a task of covering a great deal of ground in a single volume, and to that end I think he has done rather well. The first couple chapters, "Hypotheses" and "Socialisms," give broad-strokes overviews of the variety within socialist thought and why Harrington believes that socialism is still a meaningful and necessary framework for tackling the political problems of the '80s and beyond, whatever they may turn out to be. Since many of the problems we face have their roots in the neoliberal project that was already being implemented by Reagan, Thatcher, etc. when Harrington wrote this book, the result is perhaps not as outdated as one would wish.
The next couple chapters cover socialist history. Chapter 3, "Authoritarian Collectivisms," discusses the rise of the Soviet state and why it ended up looking so different from what the early Communists had envisioned. This section is guaranteed to piss off tankies, who think the Soviet Union was just fine, thanks; conservatives, who think the Soviet Union was nothing but evil from Day 1 and this is why you should never try to make things better; and possibly orthodox Trotskyists, who sometimes tend to put all the bad stuff on Stalin and get a bit defensive about everyone else. Harrington, before leaving what he called the "sectarian left," was a Shachtmanite, a type of heterodox Trotskyist, and the history he gives comes off as pretty balanced--he explains, with close attention to the material political and economic details, the difficulties the Soviet Union faced in developing anything workable out of the mess that was feudal Russia, without excusing the really disastrous decisions that some of the early leaders (especially Stalin, whomst sucked) made. Chapter 4, "The Realpolitik of Utopia," covers what basically became the other main 'branch of socialist influences: the various socialist parties in Europe and their accidental invention and implementation of a new hybrid system, social democracy. The history here is complex but fascinating, and Harrington explains it clearly and coherently, in a way that neither minimizes the achievements of the parliamentary socialists nor conflates welfare state capitalism with socialism itself. The look into the parallel development of the New Deal and the Swedish system is particularly interesting (assuming, of course, you are a big nerd who is interested in this sort of stuff, which is probably a prerequisite for picking up the book in the first place). Then there's a chapter on the decline of the socialist movement in the postwar period, which is pretty lolsob if you know what happened in, say, the '90s.
All this history only brings us up to about halfway through the book -- the subtitle is Past and Future, after all. This, to me, is where things really get interesting. Chapter 6, "The Third Creation of the World," looks at the rise of globally integrated finance capitalism (or "corporate socialization," as Harrington calls it). The economic impotence of newly freed colonies of the great empires in the face of early globalization is a big theme, as are the end of the Keynesian consensus and the rise of transnational (i.e., multinational) corporations. In short, we are looking at the rise of the modern economy, from a period much closer to when it was actually happening. It is from this perspective that Harrington calls for a "new socialism," to match the new form of capitalism eating the world. The later chapters lay out his ideas about what that new socialism should look like, a sometimes dated, sometimes prescient combination of proposed political program, predictions about the future of work and of economics, and a few very underdeveloped (but nonetheless there, which is not bad for 1989) remarks about climate change ("If the GNP goes up, no matter what its composition, it is thought that the society is advancing. But that advance could well be a stride toward catastrophe, for example, toward a greenhouse effect that will threaten life itself" p. 217). He also mentions the "precariat" in terms of the unemployment of the '70s; I had thought that word was only coined along with "gig economy" in the post-crash period. Shows what I know.
The last chapter is dedicated to something called "visionary gradualism," which as far as I can tell seeks to circumvent the usual "reform or revolution" debate by asserting that a transition to a functional, technically complex, fully democratic political economy is going to take some time, however power is acquired. As a known disliker of the "reform or revolution" debate -- and I seem not to be the only one these days -- I generally like Harrington's willingness to think far in the future, in terms of an epochal transformation that we must strive to bring into being on purpose. We've obviously not been on the right track for most of the 30 years or so since this book was published, but it's definitely got lots of food for thought.
Stylistically, some might find Harrington a bit dry; it took me entirely too long to finish reading this book, although some of that might have just been because it was an absurdly busy three weeks and I was too burned out to focus. I tend to rather like Harrington's authorial "voice"; it's occasionally got a bit of dry humor, but mostly I find it sort of... soothing, in a way? It's certainly less grandstandy than a lot of other well-known socialist writers, and noticeably less pompous than, say, Irving Howe, though Harrington and Howe were good friends and seem to be on a similar ideological wavelength. At any rate, I'm interested enough to have started reading another Harrington book, Toward a Democratic Left, written in 1968, some of which is distressingly relevant, but that's for another review.
Originally posted at History lessons from Grampa DSA.
Socialism: Past and Future is listed as an "Introduction to Socialism" book on the YDS reading list that I have, one which I don't have any idea when it was compiled or by whom. But I was surprised and annoyed to see that I have not read a single book on it, so I'm planning on working my way down the whole thing (it should take me about 5 years, at this rate). This book was first on the list.
At about 275 pages, not including the notes, it's a reasonably "full-sized" book, in contrast to the bite-sized primers I've read like The ABCs of Socialism or Socialism... Seriously. (It also has many fewer jokes.) t's also certainly older than either of those, thus providing an interesting history of socialist thought that stops just about when I was born.
That said, Harrington has still set himself a task of covering a great deal of ground in a single volume, and to that end I think he has done rather well. The first couple chapters, "Hypotheses" and "Socialisms," give broad-strokes overviews of the variety within socialist thought and why Harrington believes that socialism is still a meaningful and necessary framework for tackling the political problems of the '80s and beyond, whatever they may turn out to be. Since many of the problems we face have their roots in the neoliberal project that was already being implemented by Reagan, Thatcher, etc. when Harrington wrote this book, the result is perhaps not as outdated as one would wish.
The next couple chapters cover socialist history. Chapter 3, "Authoritarian Collectivisms," discusses the rise of the Soviet state and why it ended up looking so different from what the early Communists had envisioned. This section is guaranteed to piss off tankies, who think the Soviet Union was just fine, thanks; conservatives, who think the Soviet Union was nothing but evil from Day 1 and this is why you should never try to make things better; and possibly orthodox Trotskyists, who sometimes tend to put all the bad stuff on Stalin and get a bit defensive about everyone else. Harrington, before leaving what he called the "sectarian left," was a Shachtmanite, a type of heterodox Trotskyist, and the history he gives comes off as pretty balanced--he explains, with close attention to the material political and economic details, the difficulties the Soviet Union faced in developing anything workable out of the mess that was feudal Russia, without excusing the really disastrous decisions that some of the early leaders (especially Stalin, whomst sucked) made. Chapter 4, "The Realpolitik of Utopia," covers what basically became the other main 'branch of socialist influences: the various socialist parties in Europe and their accidental invention and implementation of a new hybrid system, social democracy. The history here is complex but fascinating, and Harrington explains it clearly and coherently, in a way that neither minimizes the achievements of the parliamentary socialists nor conflates welfare state capitalism with socialism itself. The look into the parallel development of the New Deal and the Swedish system is particularly interesting (assuming, of course, you are a big nerd who is interested in this sort of stuff, which is probably a prerequisite for picking up the book in the first place). Then there's a chapter on the decline of the socialist movement in the postwar period, which is pretty lolsob if you know what happened in, say, the '90s.
All this history only brings us up to about halfway through the book -- the subtitle is Past and Future, after all. This, to me, is where things really get interesting. Chapter 6, "The Third Creation of the World," looks at the rise of globally integrated finance capitalism (or "corporate socialization," as Harrington calls it). The economic impotence of newly freed colonies of the great empires in the face of early globalization is a big theme, as are the end of the Keynesian consensus and the rise of transnational (i.e., multinational) corporations. In short, we are looking at the rise of the modern economy, from a period much closer to when it was actually happening. It is from this perspective that Harrington calls for a "new socialism," to match the new form of capitalism eating the world. The later chapters lay out his ideas about what that new socialism should look like, a sometimes dated, sometimes prescient combination of proposed political program, predictions about the future of work and of economics, and a few very underdeveloped (but nonetheless there, which is not bad for 1989) remarks about climate change ("If the GNP goes up, no matter what its composition, it is thought that the society is advancing. But that advance could well be a stride toward catastrophe, for example, toward a greenhouse effect that will threaten life itself" p. 217). He also mentions the "precariat" in terms of the unemployment of the '70s; I had thought that word was only coined along with "gig economy" in the post-crash period. Shows what I know.
The last chapter is dedicated to something called "visionary gradualism," which as far as I can tell seeks to circumvent the usual "reform or revolution" debate by asserting that a transition to a functional, technically complex, fully democratic political economy is going to take some time, however power is acquired. As a known disliker of the "reform or revolution" debate -- and I seem not to be the only one these days -- I generally like Harrington's willingness to think far in the future, in terms of an epochal transformation that we must strive to bring into being on purpose. We've obviously not been on the right track for most of the 30 years or so since this book was published, but it's definitely got lots of food for thought.
Stylistically, some might find Harrington a bit dry; it took me entirely too long to finish reading this book, although some of that might have just been because it was an absurdly busy three weeks and I was too burned out to focus. I tend to rather like Harrington's authorial "voice"; it's occasionally got a bit of dry humor, but mostly I find it sort of... soothing, in a way? It's certainly less grandstandy than a lot of other well-known socialist writers, and noticeably less pompous than, say, Irving Howe, though Harrington and Howe were good friends and seem to be on a similar ideological wavelength. At any rate, I'm interested enough to have started reading another Harrington book, Toward a Democratic Left, written in 1968, some of which is distressingly relevant, but that's for another review.
Originally posted at History lessons from Grampa DSA.
August 7, 2018
I learned a lot about the socialist struggle reading this book, and I recommend it to anyone who loves history and wants to analyze it. It's a compelling argument for socialism in a world that is at the end of capitalism's reign.
July 2, 2021
Bernie 2020
December 7, 2024
Good, thoughtful content.
April 15, 2010
Early chapters, as I recall from reading decades ago, are turgid summary of Communist revolutionary history. Why is it the Right writes so much better than the Left ? I asked God, He said "Screw you Commies ! Worship authority and suck it up !"
March 26, 2021
I read this book shortly after it came out at the end of the 1980s and it helped me make my way leftward towards if not socialist politics at least social democracy it got me curious about the DSA in the 1980s or early 1990s it was a long time ago and I don't remember the date exactly. Harrington had spent some time in the Catholic Worker Movement although he later moved toward nonreligious flavors of socialism and I knew people involved in that at Fairfield University and I also knew a few Trotskyists at Fordham. Harrington covers the big tent of socialism and social democracy and all the plans and arguments from the 18th century through the 1980s. A good primer to navigate the many-headed varieties of socialism.
Like ∙ flag
following reviews
READING PROGRESS
1990 – Started Reading
1990 – Finished Reading
November 25, 2020 – Started Reading
November 25, 2020 – Shelved
November 25, 2020 – page 20
5.21% "Harrington's last work before he passed on. I think I either read this when it came out or shortly after. Probably turned me on to the DSA which I gave money to even tried to contact members by cold calling to no avail in the late 1980s or 1990s. I knew they had a member in Congress (Ron Dellums)"
November 26, 2020 – page 30
7.81%
November 27, 2020 – page 66
17.19%
November 27, 2020 – page 102
26.56% "This book was written in the 1980s and it shows after 40 years of a red scare beat down the left in America was so timid and fearful of sounding anything like Marx the language is so circumspect and afraid. I remember what it was like back then having some sympathy for some Marxist ideas back then and being terrified of being labeled a socialist."
November 27, 2020 – page 157
40.89%
November 27, 2020 – page 168
43.75%
November 28, 2020 – page 380
98.96%
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: american-history
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: early-twentieth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: early-twenty-first-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: east-asia
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: european-history
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: late-twentieth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: mid-twentieth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: middle-east
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: nineteenth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: russian-history
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: politics
November 28, 2020 – Finished Reading
Like ∙ flag
following reviews
READING PROGRESS
1990 – Started Reading
1990 – Finished Reading
November 25, 2020 – Started Reading
November 25, 2020 – Shelved
November 25, 2020 – page 20
5.21% "Harrington's last work before he passed on. I think I either read this when it came out or shortly after. Probably turned me on to the DSA which I gave money to even tried to contact members by cold calling to no avail in the late 1980s or 1990s. I knew they had a member in Congress (Ron Dellums)"
November 26, 2020 – page 30
7.81%
November 27, 2020 – page 66
17.19%
November 27, 2020 – page 102
26.56% "This book was written in the 1980s and it shows after 40 years of a red scare beat down the left in America was so timid and fearful of sounding anything like Marx the language is so circumspect and afraid. I remember what it was like back then having some sympathy for some Marxist ideas back then and being terrified of being labeled a socialist."
November 27, 2020 – page 157
40.89%
November 27, 2020 – page 168
43.75%
November 28, 2020 – page 380
98.96%
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: american-history
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: early-twentieth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: early-twenty-first-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: east-asia
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: european-history
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: late-twentieth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: mid-twentieth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: middle-east
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: nineteenth-century
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: russian-history
November 28, 2020 – Shelved as: politics
November 28, 2020 – Finished Reading
August 23, 2017
How I wish this fine man had managed to survive the cancer that took his life in 1988!
We so need his words of insight and humanity these days!
This last book written by the eminent American socialist -- composed, in fact, even as he wrestled with the cancer that was to take his life -- is, unfortunately (and, perhaps, unsurprisingly) dated with respect to the prescriptions he discussed for "the future."
In reading this work, I was struck by how dramatically things HAD changed even in the relatively few years since 1988.
However, as an overview of the history of socialism until our own times, this book remains vital and insightful. He shows how the great dream of the 19th century both fizzled and was diluted by the unexpected twists and turns of history in the early and mid-20th century, including the rise to dominance of Soviet communism masquerading as socialism, the wobbly internationalism of socialist parties prior to WW I, and the morphing of much of the socialist program into the all to brief post WW II success of democratic socialist parties in Western Europe.
One of the problems in reading Harrington is that his vast knowledge presumes some corresponding width and breadth of his readers as well, for many of his references assume some pre-knowledge. Moreover, his reasoning is often dense, followed by equally remarkable connecting leaps that even I -- as a fairly educated and seasoned reader -- often found difficult to follow without a rereading.
Nonetheless, in our own sadly diminished time, when angry, harsh words, increased tribalism, and a seeming loss of hope in a future possibly greater than our own materialistic time, this book is a wonderful reminder of the great dreams to which we are capable, IF ONLY we dare to raise our eyes from the muck at our feet, close our ears to the savage ranting of primitives, and remember to imagine a future that is happier and more just for all, rather than for just the few spoiled rich.
We so need his words of insight and humanity these days!
This last book written by the eminent American socialist -- composed, in fact, even as he wrestled with the cancer that was to take his life -- is, unfortunately (and, perhaps, unsurprisingly) dated with respect to the prescriptions he discussed for "the future."
In reading this work, I was struck by how dramatically things HAD changed even in the relatively few years since 1988.
However, as an overview of the history of socialism until our own times, this book remains vital and insightful. He shows how the great dream of the 19th century both fizzled and was diluted by the unexpected twists and turns of history in the early and mid-20th century, including the rise to dominance of Soviet communism masquerading as socialism, the wobbly internationalism of socialist parties prior to WW I, and the morphing of much of the socialist program into the all to brief post WW II success of democratic socialist parties in Western Europe.
One of the problems in reading Harrington is that his vast knowledge presumes some corresponding width and breadth of his readers as well, for many of his references assume some pre-knowledge. Moreover, his reasoning is often dense, followed by equally remarkable connecting leaps that even I -- as a fairly educated and seasoned reader -- often found difficult to follow without a rereading.
Nonetheless, in our own sadly diminished time, when angry, harsh words, increased tribalism, and a seeming loss of hope in a future possibly greater than our own materialistic time, this book is a wonderful reminder of the great dreams to which we are capable, IF ONLY we dare to raise our eyes from the muck at our feet, close our ears to the savage ranting of primitives, and remember to imagine a future that is happier and more just for all, rather than for just the few spoiled rich.
November 12, 2025
Michael Harrington may not be well known today, but he was certainly one of the architects and popularizers of democratic socialism in the 70s and 80s. This final book marks both his critiques of socialism and his vision for the New Left.
The problem is that Harrington over-believed in the a-political power of social democracy, meaning he failed to grasp the problem of original sin and its effects on our ability to pursue the true, good, and beautiful. Harrington seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, uplifting the bottom-up democracy, while at the same time emphasizing a kind of top-down controlled programming of socialization. His vision of a socialist democracy is a kind of utopian ideal (ironic given his fierce critique of Marxist utopianism), unable to distinguish itself from the moderate European socialists and their fascist counterparts. Overall, his vision of a socialist democracy relies on a deficient theology of humanity, and while his points of economic concern for the poor are well taken, his solutions are less desirable: giving control of a society to the masses, checked only by vague ideals and undefinable visions of justice. There’s a reason why the socialist democrats of today bear little resemblance to the gradualism of Harrington’s DSA. Not just because Harrington’s vision is too weak, but because it’s not radial enough.
The problem is that Harrington over-believed in the a-political power of social democracy, meaning he failed to grasp the problem of original sin and its effects on our ability to pursue the true, good, and beautiful. Harrington seems to want to have his cake and eat it too, uplifting the bottom-up democracy, while at the same time emphasizing a kind of top-down controlled programming of socialization. His vision of a socialist democracy is a kind of utopian ideal (ironic given his fierce critique of Marxist utopianism), unable to distinguish itself from the moderate European socialists and their fascist counterparts. Overall, his vision of a socialist democracy relies on a deficient theology of humanity, and while his points of economic concern for the poor are well taken, his solutions are less desirable: giving control of a society to the masses, checked only by vague ideals and undefinable visions of justice. There’s a reason why the socialist democrats of today bear little resemblance to the gradualism of Harrington’s DSA. Not just because Harrington’s vision is too weak, but because it’s not radial enough.
August 11, 2020
3.5/5. This work provides a solid picture of history and an exciting possible future. Harrington was extremely thorough in his explorations, chronologies, and especially references to other thinkers and their texts. I also took numerous notes on his visions of a just and equitable society. All in all, a pretty good read.
Personally, I found myself struggling to get through all the content and was often distracted by his writing style. What got to me most was that every paragraph is brimming with nested sentences—you know, those sentences that have another sentence tucked inside some parenthetical punctuation like an em dash—that qualify or explain some detail or other (many of which I didn't find essential, and only some of which were deeply interesting), to the point that a given sentence would be over 100 words long and take up the chief of a paragraph all on its own; by the time I got to a semicolon, I would be daydreaming about writing this snarky review. Suffice it to say I skipped a lot of those parens.
Call me a Millennial, but I think would have enjoyed and absorbed much more if this was a 40-page essay or treatise, or better yet a short YouTube serial. I learned a lot but skimmed more.
Personally, I found myself struggling to get through all the content and was often distracted by his writing style. What got to me most was that every paragraph is brimming with nested sentences—you know, those sentences that have another sentence tucked inside some parenthetical punctuation like an em dash—that qualify or explain some detail or other (many of which I didn't find essential, and only some of which were deeply interesting), to the point that a given sentence would be over 100 words long and take up the chief of a paragraph all on its own; by the time I got to a semicolon, I would be daydreaming about writing this snarky review. Suffice it to say I skipped a lot of those parens.
Call me a Millennial, but I think would have enjoyed and absorbed much more if this was a 40-page essay or treatise, or better yet a short YouTube serial. I learned a lot but skimmed more.
November 25, 2020
A thorough review of past definitions and conceptions of socialism. I certainly learned a lot reading this, from the inaugural ideas of Marx and Engels to experiments in socialist practice throughout the 1980s (since Michael Harrington died of cancer in 1989, the book cuts off then). He offers a fairly concise historic overview of conceptual evolution, which is no mean feat in that it is not at all straightforward, since Marx himself was contradictory on several key points, especially the meaning of 'socialization'. I particularly appreciated Harrington's breakdown of why the Communist states were not actually socialist, as well as his clear and authoritative overview of how and why the 'market' would play a role in a socialist society. Although it is a bit dry overall, I came away with a much more nuanced view of what socialism was, is, and could be and with a sense that 'visionary gradualism' is as much of a path to a free and just future now as it was in 1989. Highly recommend for a view of the term (and ammunition for never-ending Internet arguments) that is historic as well as forward-looking.
May 13, 2024
I give four stars because the writing style is very academic and dense. There is no skimming this book. You really have to comb over every sentence and paragraph.
That being said, this book really is an incredible critique of not only current capitalist systems but perversions of socialist ones as well. There is a deep and varied discourse between different socialist thinkers and Harrington summarizes them well.
If you don’t want to commit to a whole book, I STRONGLY recommend at least just reading the chapters “Socialisms”, which is more a historical account of attempts at socialism throughout the previous centuries with commentary from Harrington. He discusses how communism can be the downfall of socialism but why simply waiting and hoping won’t get you anywhere either. And, I recommend “Market and Plan” an incredible look at how markets are neither a capitalist tool for control nor a true ‘invisible hand’ that some might want you to believe. This is kind of the *solutions* portion of a paper if you will and it’s really interesting and much more moderate than you might think.
That being said, this book really is an incredible critique of not only current capitalist systems but perversions of socialist ones as well. There is a deep and varied discourse between different socialist thinkers and Harrington summarizes them well.
If you don’t want to commit to a whole book, I STRONGLY recommend at least just reading the chapters “Socialisms”, which is more a historical account of attempts at socialism throughout the previous centuries with commentary from Harrington. He discusses how communism can be the downfall of socialism but why simply waiting and hoping won’t get you anywhere either. And, I recommend “Market and Plan” an incredible look at how markets are neither a capitalist tool for control nor a true ‘invisible hand’ that some might want you to believe. This is kind of the *solutions* portion of a paper if you will and it’s really interesting and much more moderate than you might think.
August 12, 2019
I have to be honest, although I've been a moderate conservative most of my life (take it what you will) this book is horribly written. I found this book to be incoherent and at times jumping between points to where I could not grasp the broader message. Harrington does give good case studies for his argumens and backs up his point with economic statistics but his writing style comes off as verbose and dense. I decided to give it three stars though because I like that he introduces his readers to new perepectives in socialism besides just the usual Marx. He is also very forth coming about the pros and cons of his vision for a socialist economy instead of just spouting off basic utopionism; but his core argument boils down to reinventing socialism to a lite version that leaves room for markets to make the system more efficient and less wasteful. A bit flowery if you ask me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 29, 2020
I read this book shortly after it came out at the end of the 1980s and it helped me make my way leftward towards if not socialist politics at least social democracy it got me curious about the DSA in the 1980s or early 1990s it was a long time ago and I don't remember the date exactly. Harrington had spent some time in the Catholic Worker Movement although he later moved toward nonreligious flavors of socialism and I knew people involved in that at Fairfield University and I also knew a few Trotskyists at Fordham. Harrington covers the big tent of socialism and social democracy and all the plans and arguments from the 18th century through the 1980s. A good primer to navigate the many-headed varieties of socialism.
September 13, 2024
Picked this up at the library used book sale. Interesting history about the breadth, depth, and conflict amongst socialist thinkers over the last 100+ years. This book came out 35 years ago (right before fall of the Soviet Union interestingly enough) so it was cool to see how certain aspects of our society and economy have not changed at all, while other aspects have fundamentally changed. I do not have nearly enough background knowledge to understand a lot of the material covered, and I think there was far too much jargon and detail for the layman, but I don't know what the target audience was. It still developed my conceptualizion of socialism and what it needs to look like in order for its core values and goals to flourish. Looking forward to reading more recent books on the subject.
June 14, 2021
4.5 stars. I liked this book for its analysis of democratic socialism as developing out of marxism and social democracy. His vision of visionary gradualism and realism is refreshing, he really takes other socialists to task. It's a little old and the writing style can be awkward at times, but there's a lot of value in chapters 1-3, 6.3 & 7-9 the 80 pages of economic history and annoying writing in between can be skipped without losing much. I'd recommend this to an undergraduate familiar with socialism. For highschool grads unfamiliar with socialism I'd point to how to be an anticapitalist by erik olin wright instead, although they do complement each other fairly well.
August 20, 2019
Written 30 years ago, Harrington does a better job of diagnosing the ills of neoliberalism than anyone in the mainstream media today. Socialism is more necessary than ever but also more difficult to achieve in the age of on-demand economy. It's clear the problems created by Capital's control of the political and economic functionings of our society can't be undone without mass collective action, so go vote for Bernie.
October 26, 2021
A decent review of socialism's past and a proposal for the future. It doesn't attempt to ignore or deny the evils of socialism (even acknowledging the socialist Character of Nazi Germany and distinguishing it from their preferred form as "anti-social socialism"), nor does it offer utopian fantasies. This is a grounded and respectable review of socialism for anyone, right or left, looking to learn more in from an honest, well researched source
August 21, 2023
Where AOC and Bernie went to school. Michael Harrington was a teeen idol of mine, though I am not now nor have I ever been a democratic socialist, or a social democrat. Harrington is at his best in explaining and expounding on Marx's CAPITAL as the unsurpassable text for socialists of all stripes, and at his worst in trying to persuade those socialists to join the Democratic Party. I miss Mike. The DSA, still around, not so much.
November 24, 2017
The writing was a little confusing toward the ending, however, an amazing book and very interesting thoughts on "Visionary Gradualism".
December 20, 2019
want to read the book
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 31, 2020
Presupposes an understanding of a lot of historical and philosophical concepts. Find an overview of Hegel, Marx and Russia/Chinas' early 20th century revolutions before reading this book.
September 13, 2022
The past part is decent; the future part not so much
Want to read
September 30, 2022Written while dying.
June 27, 2025
Word-y. Land the plane!!! Get to the point!!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews