I originally found this piece on Jacobin, and I wanted to say how much I enjoyed it. It’s refreshing to see such a concrete discussion around labor movement strategy. Thanks for putting this together.
Progressives and SocDems think "democratizing economic power" is compatible with capitalism and the private ownership of the MoP.
What we need is collective/state ownership, socialist organization and structure, and socialist governance institutionalized. These are more important than democracy, although democracy should be a part of the project for sure.
I don't disagree with your second paragraph, that's why I wrote that we need a concept of socialism that "treats socialism as a destination, a different kind of society where public and cooperative ownership over the economy predominates." I think the slogan "democratize economic power" is useful politically to get at what we're talking about here, taking economic power out of the hands of a small group of investors, even if it is a little vague. I don't think you can meaningfully democratize that kind of power while preserving capitalist relations in the workplace and private ownership of the means of production. An economy on those lines will revert back to a highly unequal distribution of resources and power.
Agreed. Thus, I edited the first paragraph. I would think the contradiction would be obvious to progressives/SocDems but I guess not. They think they can have their cake and eat it too. Its the fundamental difference between Neoliberal governance, and Social Democratic governance. Yes, you can mash them together like the Nordic countries, but its still unjust.
Glad to meet likeminded socialists. Whats your view on the market and competition?
I think having markets and competition between small-scale producers (whether they're organized as worker coops or small businesses) for some consumer goods (clothes, dining, etc) is reasonable and probably unavoidable. Markets have been a feature of every social formation and long before the transition to capitalism. But there has to be strict limits placed on their role and limits placed on the growth of small-scale producers. If a company grows beyond X size it gets taken over by the public sector.
I am not bothered by any of the goals for the larger project you lay out, but even so, I find your description of it chilling. It is as though you imagine a future where great power behaves rationally and is directed towards benign ends. Perhaps the real issue is not the distinction between capitalism and socialism, but rather something inherent to systems of concentrated power and authority.
I'd want to know more about why you think it is "chilling." But I imagine there's an age old debate about whether or not a state is necessary and whether or not it can be democratically controlled. If it is necessary, which I think it is, I'd prefer a democratic one to what we have now. That's why I think democratic socialist politics has an incredible emancipatory potential. If you think a state isn't necessary and you think an idyllic society without the need for authority and centralized coordination is possible though, I can see how democratic socialism might seem less freeing.
Building that robust movement demands robust struggles today: not only for Medicare for All, for example, but for conceivable healthcare abundance for all. Look at https://www.americasundoing.com/p/curing-healthcare-with-public-competition
I originally found this piece on Jacobin, and I wanted to say how much I enjoyed it. It’s refreshing to see such a concrete discussion around labor movement strategy. Thanks for putting this together.
Thanks Godfrey!
Progressives and SocDems think "democratizing economic power" is compatible with capitalism and the private ownership of the MoP.
What we need is collective/state ownership, socialist organization and structure, and socialist governance institutionalized. These are more important than democracy, although democracy should be a part of the project for sure.
I don't disagree with your second paragraph, that's why I wrote that we need a concept of socialism that "treats socialism as a destination, a different kind of society where public and cooperative ownership over the economy predominates." I think the slogan "democratize economic power" is useful politically to get at what we're talking about here, taking economic power out of the hands of a small group of investors, even if it is a little vague. I don't think you can meaningfully democratize that kind of power while preserving capitalist relations in the workplace and private ownership of the means of production. An economy on those lines will revert back to a highly unequal distribution of resources and power.
Agreed. Thus, I edited the first paragraph. I would think the contradiction would be obvious to progressives/SocDems but I guess not. They think they can have their cake and eat it too. Its the fundamental difference between Neoliberal governance, and Social Democratic governance. Yes, you can mash them together like the Nordic countries, but its still unjust.
Glad to meet likeminded socialists. Whats your view on the market and competition?
I think having markets and competition between small-scale producers (whether they're organized as worker coops or small businesses) for some consumer goods (clothes, dining, etc) is reasonable and probably unavoidable. Markets have been a feature of every social formation and long before the transition to capitalism. But there has to be strict limits placed on their role and limits placed on the growth of small-scale producers. If a company grows beyond X size it gets taken over by the public sector.
I am not bothered by any of the goals for the larger project you lay out, but even so, I find your description of it chilling. It is as though you imagine a future where great power behaves rationally and is directed towards benign ends. Perhaps the real issue is not the distinction between capitalism and socialism, but rather something inherent to systems of concentrated power and authority.
I'd want to know more about why you think it is "chilling." But I imagine there's an age old debate about whether or not a state is necessary and whether or not it can be democratically controlled. If it is necessary, which I think it is, I'd prefer a democratic one to what we have now. That's why I think democratic socialist politics has an incredible emancipatory potential. If you think a state isn't necessary and you think an idyllic society without the need for authority and centralized coordination is possible though, I can see how democratic socialism might seem less freeing.