PyramidHead
Contributor
I'm reading an interesting book by Axel Honneth called The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal. He lays out the history of socialist thought and pinpoints three ways that early socialists set themselves up for failure:
1. They assumed that all of the problems of society were caused by the capitalist economy, and thus a perfect society could be built by changing to a socialist economy, with no need to account for other functional spheres of life such as governance or family structures. They thought that liberal conceptions of individual rights would become superfluous once workers banded together and took control of economic production for mutual goals. He speculates that this is why centrally planned economies were sometimes seen as the most obvious path to the goals of socialism, when experimenting with different models might have proven more effective.
2. They pinned their hopes on a pre-existing population of outraged industrial workers who were (they assumed) chomping at the bit for an opportunity to overthrow their masters and wrest control of the economy--and therefore society itself, related to the previous point--from their grasp. In other words, it was simply taken as an obvious truth that everybody in the working class was already socialist. When the post-industrial economy arose in the last century, this assumption quickly proved detrimental, as white-collar jobs provided a relative degree of comfort for enough people that socialist thought was denied its captive audience. Translating the ideals of socialism to the new economic styles of post-WWII civilization simply wasn't given enough priority, so they were lost in the noise of history.
3. Strongly influenced by philosophical notions of inevitability in human progress, especially by Hegel, early socialists were convinced that they weren't actually pushing forward a strategy which should be evaluated among others, and accepted if it turned out to be something workable; they pre-supposed that the arc of human evolution was heading towards a socialist utopia in the near future regardless of what anybody had to say about it, so political action was often undertaken reluctantly. For, if they acknowledged that socialism was not the inexorable destination of human civilization, it would mean socialism was just a normative theory that could be accepted or rejected depending on one's moral views.
Honneth then sets out to suggest ways that socialism could be revived in this day and age without falling into the same problems. Basically, he recommends open experimentation with different models, integration into spheres of public life other than just production, and above all else adherence to the principle of free communication. His view is that the early socialists weren't totally wrong about the arc of history, but rather than specifically slouching toward socialism, history has tended to gravitate towards the struggle of voiceless groups in society making their voices heard. Restoring the value of democratic "will-making" to the concept of socialism, which often outright decried democracy in governance as something we need to transcend as a species, should be a guiding principle.
The goal of socialism as it became known was specifically aimed at the means of production, but perhaps this was a mistake owed to getting too caught up in the technological marvels of the industrial revolution; perhaps the goal should be returned to its original conception of reconciling the contradictory aims of the French Revolution, which placed importance on liberty, fraternity, and equality. Socialism is correct that the liberal notion of negative freedom, as an individual right that can only be infringed upon by others or by government, creates a tension between these three values, leading as it does to a lack of fraternity and equality to secure private liberty. Social liberty, in which each person's freedom is mutually dependent on everyone else's and participation in society rather than withdrawal from it produces the most freedom for its members, could be a better organizing principle for socialism. All of the usual tenets of worker ownership and collective rule flow naturally from there, but there are no longer any restrictions on how to best realize social liberty because it is not considered a purely economic problem, and even in economic terms it remains open to experimentation.
I usually don't have much patience for utopian ideas of any stripe, and I doubt this would ever get socialism any serious traction in the near future, but I agree with Honneth about the flaws in how it was envisaged and implemented in the past.
1. They assumed that all of the problems of society were caused by the capitalist economy, and thus a perfect society could be built by changing to a socialist economy, with no need to account for other functional spheres of life such as governance or family structures. They thought that liberal conceptions of individual rights would become superfluous once workers banded together and took control of economic production for mutual goals. He speculates that this is why centrally planned economies were sometimes seen as the most obvious path to the goals of socialism, when experimenting with different models might have proven more effective.
2. They pinned their hopes on a pre-existing population of outraged industrial workers who were (they assumed) chomping at the bit for an opportunity to overthrow their masters and wrest control of the economy--and therefore society itself, related to the previous point--from their grasp. In other words, it was simply taken as an obvious truth that everybody in the working class was already socialist. When the post-industrial economy arose in the last century, this assumption quickly proved detrimental, as white-collar jobs provided a relative degree of comfort for enough people that socialist thought was denied its captive audience. Translating the ideals of socialism to the new economic styles of post-WWII civilization simply wasn't given enough priority, so they were lost in the noise of history.
3. Strongly influenced by philosophical notions of inevitability in human progress, especially by Hegel, early socialists were convinced that they weren't actually pushing forward a strategy which should be evaluated among others, and accepted if it turned out to be something workable; they pre-supposed that the arc of human evolution was heading towards a socialist utopia in the near future regardless of what anybody had to say about it, so political action was often undertaken reluctantly. For, if they acknowledged that socialism was not the inexorable destination of human civilization, it would mean socialism was just a normative theory that could be accepted or rejected depending on one's moral views.
Honneth then sets out to suggest ways that socialism could be revived in this day and age without falling into the same problems. Basically, he recommends open experimentation with different models, integration into spheres of public life other than just production, and above all else adherence to the principle of free communication. His view is that the early socialists weren't totally wrong about the arc of history, but rather than specifically slouching toward socialism, history has tended to gravitate towards the struggle of voiceless groups in society making their voices heard. Restoring the value of democratic "will-making" to the concept of socialism, which often outright decried democracy in governance as something we need to transcend as a species, should be a guiding principle.
The goal of socialism as it became known was specifically aimed at the means of production, but perhaps this was a mistake owed to getting too caught up in the technological marvels of the industrial revolution; perhaps the goal should be returned to its original conception of reconciling the contradictory aims of the French Revolution, which placed importance on liberty, fraternity, and equality. Socialism is correct that the liberal notion of negative freedom, as an individual right that can only be infringed upon by others or by government, creates a tension between these three values, leading as it does to a lack of fraternity and equality to secure private liberty. Social liberty, in which each person's freedom is mutually dependent on everyone else's and participation in society rather than withdrawal from it produces the most freedom for its members, could be a better organizing principle for socialism. All of the usual tenets of worker ownership and collective rule flow naturally from there, but there are no longer any restrictions on how to best realize social liberty because it is not considered a purely economic problem, and even in economic terms it remains open to experimentation.
I usually don't have much patience for utopian ideas of any stripe, and I doubt this would ever get socialism any serious traction in the near future, but I agree with Honneth about the flaws in how it was envisaged and implemented in the past.
