Rosa Luxemburg wrote Reform or Revolution? in 1899, and before that Marx talked about the concentration and centralisation of capital in 1867, in Vol 1 of Capital. Ultimately, Keynesian economics and the New Deal (reformist approaches) delayed this, but with the rise of neoliberal economics in the political sphere, we see this happening now. Ultimately, the concentration of capital accumulation would be accompanied by the immiseration of the working class, and ultimately this would create the conditions for revolution.
SocDems aren't Marxists. If they were, they would be critical of the welfare state, which is a part of the state apparatus that enables the continuation of capitalism. That said, its tough for someone like me who grew up in a time when the welfare state was strongest to see the impact that its erosion has had on the working class. I have witnessed first hand that a strong welfare state dramatically improves the lives of ordinary people, and combined with good legislation can lead to positive impacts on society as a whole. But .... on the other hand it has dumbed us down to the reality of class relations. We are less equipped than ever before to engage in the revolution that we now need.
Most of the Marxists I've seen are SocDems. They claim to be Marxists, use Marxist analysis, but somehow arrive at proposed solutions that are social democratic (Grace Blakeley for example.)
The problem with Marxists is that they don't have a vision and proposals for socialism, its all "dialectical." In fact, a Marxist fundamentalist is against having any proposals.
I believe you underestimate the radical nature of the New Deal.
The lesson of the previous 60 years had been that unsupervised markets are literally murder machines.
Without the New Deal, the Great Depression was going to be the Great American Famine.
The core of New Deal policy was that every significant realm of economic activity had some kind of government watchdog.
I believe the New Deal State created the most prosperous society that has ever existed.
Two features stand out for me; the maximum wage (about $1.4 million a year) and the failure to overtly and unambiguously socialize credit.
We actually had single-payer health insurance. State-level Blue Cross/Blue Shield insured all comers for the same low rate. For-profit insurance companies were allowed to destroy that by recruiting healthy young boomers.
My biggest question: Where is the proof of concept? The happiest, healthiest societies today are the Nordic countries--all social democracies. These are socialist-capitalist hybrids that leverage the best of both the markets and public interest. Has pure socialism of the kind you describe succeeded anywhere? I'm skeptical that you can excise capital from a free society. I'm not sure whether that's because it's impossible, or because it hasn't been done yet.
I respect DSA's values, but I'm not convinced that private interests have no place in a society. There should be no billionaires, but getting rich (enough) is motivating for many. Why not let markets and moderate riches spur innovation and competition, then tax it mightily to benefit all? Then you're harnessing avarice to serve altruism rather than pretending that human selfishness can be structured out of a society.
It's funny, in a way, to draw these distinctions on our leftist message boards. We'll be lucky to see a social-democratic America in our lifetimes, let alone a socialist one. I'm much more interested in progress than purity. I also recognize that the Socialist banner gives people an ideal to fight for that is free of human nature's impurities. It's very punk rock. More power to you.
I would not say socialism has been achieved in any country. Even China admits it's not socialist but state capitalist. Critics of socialism admit it will take a lot of wealth to transition to socialism, and they're right. Most capital is held by international companies, which means it's difficult for one country to harness it entirely. It will take a while to make this transition, there's no doubt about that.
I do think the private sector can be eliminated, at least not in the immediate future. Markets have value, though I prefer cooperative and unionized businesses to those we currently have.
I'll admit it is difficult to imagine a world without private capital. But there was a time a world without kings was seen as a pie in the sky. Now, we look back on feudal societies as childish and infantile.
For the record, that graph about senior poverty is misleading because it only references those seniors with incomes below the official poverty line. The reality is that nearly 40% of seniors are at or only marginally above that poverty line thanks to inadequate COLAs that are basically canceled by accompanying increases in Part B premiums.
Strong piece, Joe. The argument that social democracy is just a truce with capital rings true from here, too. Australia still clings to the myth of the “fair go” while selling off every part of it that can turn a profit. We’ve replaced solidarity with a service contract and called it compassion.
I keep thinking the problem isn’t just ideological, it’s biological. Social democracy needs a political class that’s still capable of shame, and that gene’s long extinct. Between the hacks, the frauds, the gutless wonders, and the toxic right in full media camouflage, no one’s left who’ll take a risk that can’t be focus-grouped. You can’t regulate your way to justice when the regulators are building their post-politics careers on the side.
Do you see any way redistribution happens inside systems this captured, or does anything honest now have to start outside parliamentary politics altogether?
Highly recommend Reform or Revolution by Luxembourg! I’m not a big theory reader but I really enjoyed it. The basic argument is that the purpose of social democracy is to get the boot off the working class’s neck + instill a sense of class consciousness and an awareness of what is possible with even marginal redistribution. Education and organization are critical even after victories.
Several countries in central/South America and Asia tried to transition to socialism via electoral politics in the 1950s-90s, only for the CIA to intervene. I think something major would have to change in the imperial core for any single country to be able to pull it off electorally at this point
YESS JOE! Glad to have you on my team. However, you now need to learn the socialist arguments to defeat SocDems as they are the ones who stand in the way to a just socialist society. This article is a good beginning.
I was going to ask that question without the snark: Are there any socialist economies that are considered a success? Also, Joe wrote: "America’s welfare protections and social programs are weaker than our peer nations." Are these peer nations capitalist or socialist? If the former, why don't we try to emulate them? If the latter, who are they?
This is a stark statement about a serious flaw with capitalism. At the very least we need to have a figure like FDR who can really make a stand against the far right oligarchs. I think people like Sanders and now Mamdani clearly want to make the rich pay their fair share and for the average person to get real opportunities!
dude. I am that person. " A common critique of socialism from progressives and liberals is that it’s unnecessary. In their view, society could be significantly improved by regulating and reforming capitalism " I am not a "progressive or liberal" but I do say this. Try reading....
Rosa Luxemburg wrote Reform or Revolution? in 1899, and before that Marx talked about the concentration and centralisation of capital in 1867, in Vol 1 of Capital. Ultimately, Keynesian economics and the New Deal (reformist approaches) delayed this, but with the rise of neoliberal economics in the political sphere, we see this happening now. Ultimately, the concentration of capital accumulation would be accompanied by the immiseration of the working class, and ultimately this would create the conditions for revolution.
The cathedral of the welfare state cannot endure on the sands of capitalism.
Exactly. You never hear the Marxist critique of the welfare state because most of these Marxists are actually SocDems.
SocDems aren't Marxists. If they were, they would be critical of the welfare state, which is a part of the state apparatus that enables the continuation of capitalism. That said, its tough for someone like me who grew up in a time when the welfare state was strongest to see the impact that its erosion has had on the working class. I have witnessed first hand that a strong welfare state dramatically improves the lives of ordinary people, and combined with good legislation can lead to positive impacts on society as a whole. But .... on the other hand it has dumbed us down to the reality of class relations. We are less equipped than ever before to engage in the revolution that we now need.
Most of the Marxists I've seen are SocDems. They claim to be Marxists, use Marxist analysis, but somehow arrive at proposed solutions that are social democratic (Grace Blakeley for example.)
The problem with Marxists is that they don't have a vision and proposals for socialism, its all "dialectical." In fact, a Marxist fundamentalist is against having any proposals.
First, fundamentally agree.
I believe you underestimate the radical nature of the New Deal.
The lesson of the previous 60 years had been that unsupervised markets are literally murder machines.
Without the New Deal, the Great Depression was going to be the Great American Famine.
The core of New Deal policy was that every significant realm of economic activity had some kind of government watchdog.
I believe the New Deal State created the most prosperous society that has ever existed.
Two features stand out for me; the maximum wage (about $1.4 million a year) and the failure to overtly and unambiguously socialize credit.
We actually had single-payer health insurance. State-level Blue Cross/Blue Shield insured all comers for the same low rate. For-profit insurance companies were allowed to destroy that by recruiting healthy young boomers.
My biggest question: Where is the proof of concept? The happiest, healthiest societies today are the Nordic countries--all social democracies. These are socialist-capitalist hybrids that leverage the best of both the markets and public interest. Has pure socialism of the kind you describe succeeded anywhere? I'm skeptical that you can excise capital from a free society. I'm not sure whether that's because it's impossible, or because it hasn't been done yet.
I respect DSA's values, but I'm not convinced that private interests have no place in a society. There should be no billionaires, but getting rich (enough) is motivating for many. Why not let markets and moderate riches spur innovation and competition, then tax it mightily to benefit all? Then you're harnessing avarice to serve altruism rather than pretending that human selfishness can be structured out of a society.
It's funny, in a way, to draw these distinctions on our leftist message boards. We'll be lucky to see a social-democratic America in our lifetimes, let alone a socialist one. I'm much more interested in progress than purity. I also recognize that the Socialist banner gives people an ideal to fight for that is free of human nature's impurities. It's very punk rock. More power to you.
I would not say socialism has been achieved in any country. Even China admits it's not socialist but state capitalist. Critics of socialism admit it will take a lot of wealth to transition to socialism, and they're right. Most capital is held by international companies, which means it's difficult for one country to harness it entirely. It will take a while to make this transition, there's no doubt about that.
I do think the private sector can be eliminated, at least not in the immediate future. Markets have value, though I prefer cooperative and unionized businesses to those we currently have.
I'll admit it is difficult to imagine a world without private capital. But there was a time a world without kings was seen as a pie in the sky. Now, we look back on feudal societies as childish and infantile.
For the record, that graph about senior poverty is misleading because it only references those seniors with incomes below the official poverty line. The reality is that nearly 40% of seniors are at or only marginally above that poverty line thanks to inadequate COLAs that are basically canceled by accompanying increases in Part B premiums.
Strong piece, Joe. The argument that social democracy is just a truce with capital rings true from here, too. Australia still clings to the myth of the “fair go” while selling off every part of it that can turn a profit. We’ve replaced solidarity with a service contract and called it compassion.
I keep thinking the problem isn’t just ideological, it’s biological. Social democracy needs a political class that’s still capable of shame, and that gene’s long extinct. Between the hacks, the frauds, the gutless wonders, and the toxic right in full media camouflage, no one’s left who’ll take a risk that can’t be focus-grouped. You can’t regulate your way to justice when the regulators are building their post-politics careers on the side.
Do you see any way redistribution happens inside systems this captured, or does anything honest now have to start outside parliamentary politics altogether?
Highly recommend Reform or Revolution by Luxembourg! I’m not a big theory reader but I really enjoyed it. The basic argument is that the purpose of social democracy is to get the boot off the working class’s neck + instill a sense of class consciousness and an awareness of what is possible with even marginal redistribution. Education and organization are critical even after victories.
Several countries in central/South America and Asia tried to transition to socialism via electoral politics in the 1950s-90s, only for the CIA to intervene. I think something major would have to change in the imperial core for any single country to be able to pull it off electorally at this point
Thank you for this, Joe!
Bernie!!!
YESS JOE! Glad to have you on my team. However, you now need to learn the socialist arguments to defeat SocDems as they are the ones who stand in the way to a just socialist society. This article is a good beginning.
Socialist economies that have succeeded: *crickets*.
Countries building actual socialist economies that weren’t “liberated” by the CIA: *crickets*
Iceland?
I was going to ask that question without the snark: Are there any socialist economies that are considered a success? Also, Joe wrote: "America’s welfare protections and social programs are weaker than our peer nations." Are these peer nations capitalist or socialist? If the former, why don't we try to emulate them? If the latter, who are they?
This is a stark statement about a serious flaw with capitalism. At the very least we need to have a figure like FDR who can really make a stand against the far right oligarchs. I think people like Sanders and now Mamdani clearly want to make the rich pay their fair share and for the average person to get real opportunities!
The rich pay 80+% of the taxes in this country. Half my paycheck is gone before it hits my bank account. How much more do you demand?
That’s a result of the immiseration of the lower 50%, who do pay sales and other non graduated taxes and fees. They are too poor.
dude. I am that person. " A common critique of socialism from progressives and liberals is that it’s unnecessary. In their view, society could be significantly improved by regulating and reforming capitalism " I am not a "progressive or liberal" but I do say this. Try reading....