Workington, Harrington & Moss Bay Through Time

Product Information

During much of the 2016 US Democratic Party presidential primaries, I was confused by Bernie Sanders’ claim that he was a Democratic Socialist.

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

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) 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.)

First edition, first impression, one of 500 copies printed, of Hardy's second volume of verse, following Wessex Poems and Other Verses (1898). 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. The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism?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.

Socialism: Past and Future is listed as an "Introduction to Socialism" book on the YDS reading list that I have, one which I don't have any idea when it was compiled or by whom. But I was surprised and annoyed to see that I have not read a single book on it, so I'm planning on working my way down the whole thing (it should take me about 5 years, at this rate). This book was first on the list. During the primaries, I resolved to read (or re-read) some of my books about American socialism by authors such as Michael Harrington and Irving Howe, both of whom had greatly influenced my own political and cultural views. However, as a non-American, it was quite unusual to see the term “socialism” being embraced to describe what I have traditionally regarded as “social democracy”.

See Also

In Germany the SPD has been more than happy to govern together with the right wing Christian Democrats. Within state ownership, Harrington differentiates between statism and democratic state ownership. Statism is the ownership by a dictatorship or authoritarian state, such as occurred in the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.

This last book written by the eminent American socialist -- composed, in fact, even as he wrestled with the cancer that was to take his life -- is, unfortunately (and, perhaps, unsurprisingly) dated with respect to the prescriptions he discussed for "the future." English: habitational name from any of the three places called Harrington (Cumberland Lincolnshire Northamptonshire). The Cumberland placename derives from the Old English personal name Hæfer + Old English connective -ing- + tūn ‘farmstead estate’. The Lincolnshire placename derives from the Old English personal name Hearra + Old English connective -ing- + tūn. The Northamptonshire derives from an Old English personal name Hǣthhere + Old English connective -ing- + tūn ‘farmstead estate’. Compare Herendeen . Irish: adopted as an Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó hArrachtáin ‘descendant of Arrachtán’ a personal name from a diminutive of arrachtach ‘mighty powerful’. Irish: in Kerry this name was adopted as an Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó hIongardail later Ó hUrdáil ‘descendant of Iongardal’ a personal name of uncertain origin. Irish: sometimes a variant of Harrity . 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. 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. The social democrats came up with transitional programs that made capitalism more humane - even if it remained quite capitalist.”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.