Radical Critique, Meliorist Perspective

We often fail to successfully examine whether the inferential connections between various claims to which we are committed are reflectively stable. As many on the Left have rightly pointed out- there is often a large gap between the actual practices of a society on the one hand, and the ideals or values that society uses to justify them on other. Marx certainly saw this- hence why it is necessary to continue to show liberals that their own purported highest principles, liberty and equality, simply cannot be fully instantiated within the confines of capitalism.

But this gap is not only found among those who, in the US at least, are called liberals. A similar gap is also to be found on the reformist/social-democratic left as well.

Let me preface what I'm about to say by noting that I thoroughly enjoyed most all of this thoughtful and carefully argued post. I highly recommend reading it and thinking through lots of the interesting issues it raises that I don't address here.

Though the post is interesting and, I think, correct in all kinds of important ways, I think it's worth pointing out the following. It would benefit from some reflection on the inferential relationships between various claims it makes. The critical resources and ideals it invokes to make its argument actually undo the conclusions it suggests that we draw.

Take the following series of claims, for instance.

The rhetoric of austerity is based on a lie: that we have suddenly entered a world of scarcity, in which there is less wealth for all and so we must all collectively suffer. But this is not a scarcity dictated by the material state of the world–it is not as if our factories have been destroyed by an asteroid, or our people wiped out by a plague. This scarcity is entirely a result of the dysfunction of the capitalist economy, in which idle resources confront unmet human need.

I couldn't agree more.

the politics of austerity is not driven by some inevitable economic necessity, and it has little to do with ensuring economic growth or prosperity. It is a purely political project, an attempt to shore up and renew ruling class power and neoliberalism.

Right on.

Rather than giving in to the ruling class’s politics of fear, we can be inspired by a vision of a better possible future. It is a vision that is profoundly optimistic about the potential of human societies, while questioning the ability of capitalism to deliver on that potential.

OK, great. Even better.

A world of material abundance requires a new kind of politics. We must, of course, reject the capitalist insistence on maintaining artificial scarcity in order to prop up the profit system. But we must also revise the canonical model of 20th century social democracy, predicated on full employment at high wages.

Ummm.... you think?

Let me see if I've got this straight (and, admittedly, I'm moving quickly over large parts of the post): So, capitalism is the problem here (insisting on artificial scarcity, empowering the ruling class to subordinate the needs of the vast majority to the dictates of profit, etc.). And this language of austerity and scarcity is misplaced in a society in which the productive forces are developed to such a degree that widely-shared material abundance is possible. But we're supposed to also keep in mind that the "canonical model of 20th century social democracy" might need revising?

If the above is all true, how could it not require revision, if not outright rejection? Moreover, if the above is in fact true, and I think most of it certainly is, how could it have ever been the case that the managed capitalism of "canonical 20th century social democracy" was a serious solution to the internal problems of capitalism itself?

This inconsistent perspective is something that perplexes me about the DSA, and by extension the YDS. On the one hand, much of the analysis in the post is basically right on. Capitalism, as such, really is the problem, on this I agree. Yet the DSA remains wedded to tactics and politics that fundamentally betray this insight. That is to say, their critique of capitalism (as undemocratic, unjust, etc.) seems correct, but it seems impossible to derive either their tactics (e.g. requiring that the Left work within the conservative straight-jacket of the Democratic Party, etc.) or their historical/political views (e.g. their rejection of revolutionary change and their embrace of the managed capitalism of the social democratic movement) from that very critique.

If the problem is capitalism as such (i.e. not just the severity of its effects), that must mean that the problem has something to do with capitalist social relations. That means that the exclusive ownership and control of the means of production by capitalists has got to go: we must bring the means of production under democratic control. But this project is precisely not what social democracy is about at all.

Social democratic reformism is predicated on maintaining capitalist social relations intact, while moralistically insisting on power-sharing arrangements between trade unions and capital. Moreover, social democracy requires that there be high rates of return for capitalists in order to fund the tax-and-spend setup that forms the basis of the social democratic system.

Now, it goes without saying that I'd prefer such a system to the bare-knuckles neoliberal capitalism we have today. But let's not kid ourselves that such a tradition of politics (i.e. Social Democracy, 2nd International Marxism, etc.) ever truly stood for a radical break from capitalism. On the contrary, this tradition has always been about demobilizing pressure from below and attempting to maintain capitalism with a far more human face.

History is an excellent guide if you want to understand how the social democratic project worked out. During the run-up to the First World War, 2nd International parties were swept up in chauvinism. When serious challenges to the liberal capitalist political order arose, social democrats chose to ally themselves with the ruling class rather than fight for a different kind of society.

It's worth saying something general about the infeasibility of social democracy as well. It is radically unstable as a political formation for many reasons, but the most important is this: when capital becomes unhappy with the compromise with labor, or when rates of profit are sinking and starving the state of its capacity to function, there is little to be done except to acknowledge that capital's power must finally go (and thus go in for revolutionary change to the basic structure of society... thus obviating the need for social democratic politics at all), or to say that capitalism must stay and the social democratic compromise must be suspended in favor of arrangements that capital is comfortable with. It's worth noting that the social democratic parties of Western Europe more or less all chose the latter course after the economic landslide of the early 70s.

If capitalism is really the problem, and I agree that it is, I think we should follow David Harvey's advice, and talk about how to organize into anti-capitalist organizations, not reformist ones that siphon off radical energies and redirect them into licit, reformist undertakings. Like Harvey, I agree that organizational forms need to be dynamic and appropriate to the concrete conditions in which they are to intervene. But unlike Michael Harrington and like-minded folks (the neoliberal "socialist" parties that form the SI, for example), I sharply disagree that we can ever hope to change anything by working within the Democratic Party.

We won't even win the social democratic reforms that the Harringtonians are after unless we reject their tactical-political trajectory. That they can't see this is perplexing. The gap between their critical resources and the instantiation of these resources in their political positions is astonishing.