The fundamental text of the Democratic Socialists, hated by liberals, conservatives, and most other socialists alike! It was a good read, and Harrington makes his points well. There is an interesting read on a wide variety of socialist thinkers, and a great history of the socialist movement. I'll say that I didn't agree with all of his assessments. I am no patron of overly authoritarian socialist strains, I'm not a Stalinist or Maoist, but I think to proclaim that Communism is an "unsocialistic" movement is a step too far. I think that his decision to uniformly cast aside the explicitly socialist states in favor for a largely intellectual history of socialism, as well as a legislative history of socialism and social democracy, is a questionable one. There are, in my opinion, some highly favorable things in countries like Cuba and even in Lenin's original vision for the Soviet Union. The blanket condemnation is unfortunate, and I think it is to the detriment of the work. Especially when this is mixed with things like a tacit endorsement of Keynes, a man who, despite crafting a kinder capitalism, was explicitly capitalist. Socialisation’ describes two very different ways in which society can become more social: under capitalism, there is a trend toward a growing centralisation and planning that is eventually global, but it takes place from the top down; under socialism, that process is subjected to democratic control from below by the people and their communities.” (9) First edition, first impression, one of 500 copies printed, of Hardy's second volume of verse, following Wessex Poems and Other Verses (1898).

He then discusses “utopian socialism”. He quotes Martin Buber: “the goal of Utopian socialism is to substitute society for State to the greatest degree possible, moreover a society that is genuine and not a State in disguise.” (29) By early 1970s Shachtman's anti-Communism had become a hawkish Cold War liberalism. Shachtman and the governing faction of the Socialist Party effectively supported the Vietnam War and changed the organization's name to Social Democrats, USA. In protest Harrington led a number of Norman Thomas-era Socialists, younger activists and ex-Shachtmanites into the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. A smaller faction associated with peace activist David McReynolds formed the Socialist Party USA. 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. 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. 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. 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.) All this history only brings us up to about halfway through the book -- the subtitle is Past and Future, after all. This, to me, is where things really get interesting. Chapter 6, "The Third Creation of the World," looks at the rise of globally integrated finance capitalism (or "corporate socialization," as Harrington calls it). The economic impotence of newly freed colonies of the great empires in the face of early globalization is a big theme, as are the end of the Keynesian consensus and the rise of transnational (i.e., multinational) corporations. In short, we are looking at the rise of the modern economy, from a period much closer to when it was actually happening. It is from this perspective that Harrington calls for a "new socialism," to match the new form of capitalism eating the world. The later chapters lay out his ideas about what that new socialism should look like, a sometimes dated, sometimes prescient combination of proposed political program, predictions about the future of work and of economics, and a few very underdeveloped (but nonetheless there, which is not bad for 1989) remarks about climate change ("If the GNP goes up, no matter what its composition, it is thought that the society is advancing. But that advance could well be a stride toward catastrophe, for example, toward a greenhouse effect that will threaten life itself" p. 217). He also mentions the "precariat" in terms of the unemployment of the '70s; I had thought that word was only coined along with "gig economy" in the post-crash period. Shows what I know.

In Germany the SPD has been more than happy to govern together with the right wing Christian Democrats. Irving Howe, friend of Mike Harrington, fellow democratic socialist and author of the introduction to this book, in 1989Harrington refers to “socialisation” as “a democratic, bottom-up control by the majority”. He also explains: 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. 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.