Workington, Harrington & Moss Bay Through Time

Product Information

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) 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. This work "demonstrated - what all the succeeding poetry volumes would amply confirm - the exceptional number of different stanza forms and metres, whether inherited or invented, that Hardy was able to deploy... Hardy always disclaimed possession of a consistent philosophy, and in the preface to Poems of the Past and the Present described his poems as 'a series of feelings and fancies written down in widely differing moods and circumstances' - adding, perhaps with The Dynasts already in mind, 'Unadjusted impressions have their value, and the road to a true philosophy of life seems to lie in humbly recording diverse readings of its phenomena as they are forced upon us by chance and change'" (ODNB). Description

In Germany the SPD has been more than happy to govern together with the right wing Christian Democrats.One of Harrington’s major points is that there is not one definition of socialism, but many rival definitions. The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism? Socialism: Past and Future is prominent thinker Michael Harrington’s final contribution: a thoughtful, intelligent, and compassionate treatise on the role of socialism both past and present in modern society. He is convincing in his application of classic socialist theory to current economic situations and modern political systems, and he examines the validity of the idea of “visionary gradualism” in bringing about a socialist agenda. He believes that if freedom and justice are to survive into the next century, the socialist movement will be a critical factor.

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. 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.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. 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: 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. 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. Written by an avowed socialist in 1989 just after the market crash, this is a pretty useful overview of the roots of a mediated form of socialism presupposed by much of the educated class of America and Europe today. He argues for a form of socialism that works, in theory, with the market, rather than presupposing the abolition of the market. Harrington wants to make a case that this new democratic socialism is the hope for the 21st century, and, most of all, is not reducible to the authoritarian or dictatorial centralized socialism of Stalinism, Leninism or Third World communism. Communism for Harrington is an antisocialist system of bureaucratic collectivism not part of the history of socialism. I won't go into the details here, but in effect the book wants to refute the conservative argument that socialism is like squaring the circle, that any socialist policy leads inexorably down a royal road to serfdom, since it necessarily involves some sort of central planning, and central planning is the fastest way to frustrate the market's means of setting price according to supply and demand, ultimately concerning the efficient allocation of scarce resources.

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. 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. 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. 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)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. 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.) 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.

Ink ownership inscriptions on front endpapers dated 1902 (one crossed out, the other decorated with a large floral sketch). Faint marks to otherwise bright cloth, endpapers foxed, contents clean. A very good copy indeed.

A look at Workington from the mid-20th Century to the early 21st Century

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: 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. 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. 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) Octavo. Original dark green cloth, spine lettered in gilt, gilt monogram medallion to front cover, top edge gilt, other edges untrimmed.