An Exaggerated Dichotomy: A Reply to Sheri Berman
Sheri Berman has published a reply to this article in The Activist.
The harbinger of the Bowdoin College chapter of the Young Democratic Socialists abandoning the national organization was when we first discussed a name change. Originally called Students for Democratic Socialism, we had evolved into the Bowdoin Democratic Socialists after affiliating with YDS. Many new members felt uncomfortable with the term "socialism" and believed it was detrimental to our organizing. Not understanding that poor organizing skills contributed more to our relative weakness, some believed that ridding ourselves of the "socialist boogeyman" was the panacea for our woes. We ultimately selected the anachronistic anti-Stalinist name Democratic Left, but there was a suggestion to call ourselves Students for Social Democracy.
Our advisor at the time was a former Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) member and philosophy professor. He was pessimistic about the prospects of the democratic socialist project in the United States, but he discouraged us from adopting anything explicitly "social democratic." He believed that American students would not understand the term anymore than they would "democratic socialism."
I tend to agree. During my many travels and conversations as DSA’s Youth Organizer, I was occasionally asked: what’s the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. I would explain that as far as short-term political strategy goes, the difference between the variation of the two traditions in the United States are minor. To achieve democratic socialism –- a classless society — to exist there would need to be a transition phase out of capitalism called "social democracy." There would still be capital, corporations, and classes during this period. Democratic socialism would be achieved after the majoritarian movement that had established social democracy, pushed for a greater measure of workplace democracy, eliminated more social inequality – such as racial and gender injustice — that existed prior to, but are enhanced by, capitalism.
Social Democracy Returns?
I have generally assumed that most social democrats believe in working towards democratic socialism. I consider myself a social democrat, but do not consider the Scandinavian welfare states to be the highest potential form of human development. Thus, I take issue with the narrow view of what is possible in Sheri Berman’s article "Unheralded Battle: Capitalism, the Left, Social Democracy, and Democratic Socialism" in the winter 2009 issue of Dissent. We find Berman ready to bury the democratic socialist project in favor of capitalism –- albeit capitalism with a human face.
While flawed, Berman’s analysis is still spot on in many respects. She reminds us that the Left had predicted the problems of casino capitalism and neo-liberalism years ago. Now that our warnings have become reality, the openness to left alternatives exists again. She implores us to re-examine Marxism and its ideological children before we look forward.
Marx correctly deemed capitalism to be a progressive social and economic historical development. Capitalism increased human freedom (via eliminating feudalism and slavery) and created vast amounts of wealth through competition and trade. An economic system based on profit, however, could only be sustainable if exploitation and human suffering continued in new forms such as wage slavery and mass unemployment.
Berman illustrates how later leftists reacted when it became clear that Marx incorrectly predicted capitalism’s pending collapse and socialism’s bright future in advanced industrialized countries. In a concise fashion, she reminds us that Lenin and his followers abandoned the democratic road towards social progress in favor of vanguardism and authoritarianism. The battle she focuses upon is between two factions of the Western democratic Left: social democrats and democratic socialists.
The Exaggerated Dichotomy: Social Democrats & Democratic Socialists
I find problems in her historical view of the ideological "battle" between democratic socialists and social democrats. She quotes the early 20th century German revisionist social democrat Eduard Bernstein to showcase the view that Marxism was a dead end: "What is usually terms the final goal of socialism is nothing to me, the movement is everything." Bernstein and his followers believed that capitalism’s ability to evolve made its elimination improbable and consequently socialist alternatives illogical. If capitalism will never collapse, social democrats should focus only on making it more humane.
Berman cites twentieth century examples of left-wing parties becoming "responsible for actual political and economic governance, not simply for agitation and theorizing." Being "heirs" to capitalism’s crises forced the governing left parties to develop strategies for reviving the health of the capitalist economy. The Left, in Berman’s view, had no coherent strategy for abolishing capitalism. She also adds "democratic socialists…believed that leftists should not do anything about capitalism’s crises because ultimately it was only through the system’s collapse that a better world would emerge."
Berman is a fine scholar of European history and social democracy. But I find her viewpoint to be simplistic and inaccurate in its portrayal of the work that social democrats and democratic socialists did in their common parties. She does not consider that many of those left-wing governments during the Depression were in coalition with centrist parties that were against massive change. In addition, the 1930s were plagued by military conflicts, Stalinism, and fascism. Not exactly the calmest period in which to make democratic social progress.
(I am assuming here –- and would be happy to be proven wrong –- that nearly all social democrats and democratic socialists were in the same political parties. The parties of the Socialist International and its predecessor global associations were often the only major political groupings for both social democrats and democratic socialists. I find it hard to believe that democratic socialists were only "arm-chair revolutionaries" and only social democrats were the organizers, party builders, and governors. But Berman’s piece, perhaps unintentionally, paints democratic socialists as wide-eyed idealists and social democrats as the primary agents of change on the democratic Left.)
Democratic Socialists and Reforms
Berman’s critique of the late DSA Chair Michael Harrington has some validity. Yes, Harrington could be a bit naive in believing in capitalism’s imminent demise. I admit that I was not alive, like Berman, during the years of most of Harrington’s intellectual contributions; however, I don’t think that she correctly describes what the democratic socialist project accomplished or intends to be. Especially relevant to the work of DSA and its youth section, a Berman-type view fails to distinguish between our support of certain reforms which challenge power relations over others that do not.
Berman claims that Harrington was not only "wrong" about capitalism’s demise, but his views were "counter-productive." She claims that "he sought to persuade the left that its chief task was not to reform and humanize capitalism, but rather to press for its passing." Berman implies that Harrington only offered a vague conception of "democratic state planning" as his vision of a socialist society. This may be true of Harrington’s earlier writings on socialism; but from the mid-1970s until his death in 1989, Harrington became much more of a "market socialist." His final work, Socialism: Past and Future, argues for a socialist economy which includes worker-owned and -governed firms competing in a state-regulated market.
Berman does acknowledge Harrington’s work on reform projects, but it’s too little for my taste. If he was so much more passionate about killing capitalism, then why did Harrington work with the centrist Kennedy administration on the "The War on Poverty?" Why did DSA (and its predecessor organization the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee) commit time and energy to making the capitalist Democratic Party and a relatively conservative labor movement more progressive (but not socialist)? Why did the DSA Youth Section (now YDS) work diligently in the anti-apartheid movement and against United States intervention in Central America? We did so because as democratic socialists we do believe reforms are critical to creating a more livable world and that the struggle to win them prefigures the type of democratic empowerment necessary to create a democratic socialist society.
Daraka Larimore-Hall, former YDS organizer, tackles the importance of reforms for democratic socialists in the clearly Harrington-influenced "Taking Sides: Democratic Socialism and American Politics." Larimore-Hall writes:
"We must move beyond the "reform or revolution" debate, and understand that not all reforms are born equal. Some reforms are structural. A raise in the minimum wage is a good thing, but it doesn’t change the power structure. Changing our labor laws so that it is easier to form unions is a reform that shifts the balance of power between employers and employees. Our role as socialists is to transform the political debate in America so that such "non-reformist reforms" can be fought for and won. Even if a majority of Americans are never socialists, without a loud democratic socialist voice within a larger progressive coalition, such deep changes will never make it onto the agenda."
Berman doesn’t recognize clearly that democratic socialists prioritize "non-reformist reforms." Our work focuses on shifting balances of power to embolden the working-class and underprivileged through tangible victories. Only when people start winning do they believe that even greater change is possible. This is what some small Leninist sects and many anarchists often fail to understand. In a capitalist democratic republic, until people can organize a union without fear, they won’t be interested, let alone ready and willing, to overthrow capitalism. American workers and people of color did not settle with what they won by the 1970s; those social gains went under attack by a reorganized right wing. Since then, until the election of Obama, the primary work of the whole sane left was to protect existing reform programs and hope to expand upon them.
The Democratic Socialist Vision
Should Christians abandon their beliefs because, after nearly 2,000 years, not all of humanity accepts Jesus as their savior? This was Ho Chi Minh’s response to the question "why be a Communist if the Soviet Union and China have not achieved communism." Ho believed, as many ideologues do, that his actions were guided towards a long-term end. The greatest problem with Berman’s view is her complete disregard for the democratic socialist vision. She does not address the fact that many democratic socialists view socialism itself as a visionary goal –- not a short-term destination.
One of Berman’s major criticisms is that democratic socialists place "a lot of faith in ‘democratic planning’" and "there is little description about what such planning would involve or how it would achieve its goals." This is the classic myopic negative response to democratic socialism. Could the American founding fathers have accurately predicted how the country would have developed? Of course not. They created institutions to allow for slow change that favored those already in power. Over time, our society shifted in progressive ways but not without great battles.
Democratic socialists are no more able to predict what the needs of future societies shall be any more than any other political tendency can. What we argue for is a flexible economic and political system where the future wants and issues of the polity can be determined democratically. We’ve abandoned the utopian notion that after socialism is accomplished all political conflict will cease. What we strive for is a society where such strife can be resolved through democratic debate –- not brutal uprisings and fist fights. Blueprints are dead-ends, but democratic socialist vision is not.
Where We Should Listen to Berman
There are two important concepts in Berman’s piece that should be heeded. The first is the need for a vision. The second is for the radical left to acknowledge the benefits of capitalism over other systems. On the prior point, Berman may be critical of democratic socialism as a potential alternative. She reminds us, however, that Harrington and others pushed us to believe in a "sense of the possible" where "people working together could make the world a better place." Faith in the "achievable" helps movement builders and activists overcome skeptics and one’s own hopelessness in the face of adversity. The Obama administration will not bring us even social democracy, but a chance to make real change now has come. The work of social democrats and democratic socialists is to push for "the left wing of the possible" and have our progressive and liberal allies strive for better, too.
When reading Berman’s piece, it is hard to see the difference between liberal Democrat in the U.S. and a Social Democrat in Europe. She is convinced that we can only hope to achieve a soft version of capitalism. I remain more optimistic than her on that, but I do agree with her second argument at the end of her piece. My travels and readings have shown me that many poor people have benefited from corporate globalization and the abandonment of state-run "socialism" in China, Vietnam, and elsewhere. I do believe that it’s important to acknowledge this in discussions about "free trade" and the strength of capitalism.
But two wrongs do not make a right. Those same journeys and journals have confirmed my belief that many of wretched of earth are still exploited. Those who might no longer live in poverty in rural China now are abused in Shanghai sweatshops. The Left should not let the Thomas Friedmans of the world convince us of neo-liberalism’s benevolence.
We must acknowledge the benefits of trade and economic growth. We must find ways to "raise all ships." But this does not mean we should abandon a vision of a world based on principles of economic democracy and political equality, and where, as Marx and Engels put it, "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Such ideals go beyond social democracy and welfare capitalism. They form the foundation of democratic socialism.
I was totally going to respond to this article, but you beat me to the punch! OK, let me read it over now.
David’s very gentle criticisms are fair-to-understated.
I think it’s important to see this piece in the context of the publication in which it appeared. While Dissent has put out a lot of fun and important stuff over the years (and yes, I have read decades of back issues), the magazine is obviously pathologically obsessed with the question of just how radical the “democratic left” should be. It has been obsessed with this question for over a half century and Berman is now simply adding her own careful calibrations to those already narrow parameters and exacting standards.
Dissentnik Michael Walzer is probably not at all embarrassed that his most memorable contribution in the Bush era was his scolding indictment of a million straw men, “Can there be a Decent Left?” an essay written as if those little Stalinist sects and Noam Chomsky were really the obstacles to progressive change in America (not that I would lump Noam Chomsky in with any kooky sect, though Walzer probably would). As James Weinstein once said in response to a similar post-9/11 display of “decentism” from Todd Gitlin, we should all shut up and thank those sectarian nuts for the good work they do in getting the demo permits.
I’m not saying Sheri Berman is guilty of Walzer’s nonsense, but I’m just getting some anti-Dissent bile out of my system.
I would like to note that “corporate globalization” has not exactly taken place in China and Vietnam. In Vietnam the state controls most of the finance sector and carefully regulates capital. China, despite its SEZs, still has nationalized commanding heights and has been interventionist in its relation with capital.
It’s no wonder that these countries– like many of the East Asian tigers before them that have been able to use harness capital’s power as a tool for boosting productive forces have done so with public intervention and not by following neoliberal orthodoxy.
I can’t see anywhere besides Ireland where neoliberalist dogma has shown any vibrancy.
I’m glad to see that someone took on Berman’s weird article. This is a good job of critique. I’d note, though, that Berman perpetuates a common misconception about Bernstein. I don’t think his version of “reformism” should be interpreted as an argument that capitalism is eternal and we can only make it more humane. In my reading, Evolutionary Socialism argues that small reforms could eventually lead to a transition out of capitalism, so Kautsky and Lenin’s idea of sudden, clean-break seizure of power is unnecessary. The conversion of social democracy into a doctrine of “capitalism with a human face” was a later innovation. (I’d point to C.A.R. Crosland as the key figure here.) Also, I totally agree with Adrian about Dissent.
I also wanna endorse David’s point about the “exaggerated dichotomy.” Michael Harrington would sometimes call himself a social democrat when he wanted to sound a bit more respectable. Paul Berman will sometimes call himself a socialist when he wants to pink up his image. The two terms were once used largely interchangeably. Sometimes “social democrat” is hurled as a slur, sometimes it’s a euphemism, sometimes it’s a synonym. It all depends on the period and the context. I think the problem stems from a crude translation of a 19th-century German label into other languages.
It largely comes from the betrayal of the parties of Socal Democracy after before the Great War I believe. Lenin’s Communist movement was a return to the language of the manifesto and a response to the warmongering and nationalism of the “parties of the working class”. Since then post-capitalists haven’t associated with the term, even those that reject Leninism. After decades of Stalinism, there is a case to be made that no one in their right mind would still associate themselves publically with the term “Communist”—- perhaps “Social Proletocrats” would fit
Outside of core political and economic stances, the socialist–yes, whichever way you lean on that—movement should be launching itself off of the egalitarian concepts of sustainable living and so-called environmental movement that’s been shaping for a long time now. For Sheri Berman to bluntly suggest that there hasnt been alternative methods offered for empowering socialism in the 20th century is bothersome. Folks working within National Parks and the Forest Service have always had a taste of smaller, more tightknit social concepts where working and living together, eating the same local food, and living at a general level of acknowledgement has become not only enjoyable but practical. Murray Bookchin demonstrates it perfectly in Social Ecology: The Dissolution of Hierarchies. A green movement will be swallowed by Capitalism for what revenue can be generated off of it, spawning whats foreseeable as worse than neo-liberalism, Socialism will never function as its meant to be with the capitalist, bronze-age notion that “everything is a matter of supply and demand.” As far as social democracy goes, good luck in that transition phase between social democracy and democractic socialism without destroying what it was originally about and Capitalism having another real good laugh about it.
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1417
Another response to Berman written by Joanne Barkan