Over the years as I have examined Socialism I still come away recognizing its major failures. In the book by Arthur McGovern S.J., Marxism an American Christian Perspective, we have a Marxist Jesuit, yes folks one of them, detailing not only Marx but the need to convert the United States to Socialism as a religious imperative. He notes:
But the great majority of socialists in this country,
including some Marxist groups, are clearly committed to democratic socialism
both as a means of attaining socialism and as fundamental to socialism itself.
The very purpose of socialism is that people should control their work and
their lives. Hence “democratic socialism” is not just a stratagem to gain
support, but expresses a fundamental goal of socialism itself.
“Socialism = State Control.” This view of socialism is quite
prevalent, and indeed it is a form socialism can take. When the papal
encyclicals spoke of a “total collectivity” or contemporary critics speak of
“the government running everything,” this is the model of socialism they have
in mind. Current feelings about government spending and waste, and criticisms
that government workers are less energetic and less efficient than workers for
private enterprises, tend to reinforce negative views of socialism. But many
contemporary socialists would advocate a decentralized economy, with local
groups and organizations carrying through planning. Some would have in mind a
“market socialism” as in Yugoslavia. Some would see the maintenance of small
businesses and family farms as fully compatible with socialism. A socialism
which contains this kind of “mix” could, I believe, even be an expression of
the traditional Roman Catholic social teachings on "the principle of
subsidiarity.”
That public ownership would kill initiative is quite
disputable. (Not really!) Initiative depends on a host of factors—ambition, degree of
responsibility, pride and fulfillment in work, and material and social
incentives—and not just on private versus public ownership. Do top government
officials work less hard than top business executives? Do professors at state
universities work less hard than their colleagues at private ones? Examples of
initiative are almost always drawn from the business class, not from the masses
of factory workers, clerks, and the millions whose work consists of routine
tasks. A decentralized, democratic socialism in principle, I believe, is quite
consistent with democracy, Christianity, and even traditional Roman Catholic
social thought. But whether it is only an ideal, and how a transition to such
an economic system could occur, remain serious problems.
“Socialism = Welfarism.” When some Americans complain that
we already have “creeping socialism,” they reflect one of the most common
misconceptions about socialism—that it is a system to provide for those who do
not feel like working. Ironically, the issue of work is one point on which most
socialists and staunch conservatives agree. The Communist Party Program of the
U.S.S.R. puts it strongly: “He who does not work does not eat.” Welfare is not
a product of socialism but of capitalism, at least where unemployed but
able-bodied persons are concerned. One hopes that no society will disavow
responsibility for the sick, the handicapped, and the elderly. The fact that
many view "socialized medicine” as the next step toward socialism only confirms
this misconception. Doctors do not control the chief means of production in
American society. Whatever other reasons might be given for socialized
medicine, it would not fundamentally alter the basic property relations of
society. Ownership and control of production, and not a giant welfare system,
are the objectives of democratic socialism.
“Socialism = Utopianism.” Any hope or plan for a new social
order has to contain some utopian element. Christianity itself is filled with
utopian hopes for the coming Kingdom of God. The great American dream of
success was a utopian vision that attracted immigrants. But at some point
utopian vision must appear concretely realizable or at least able to be approximated.
This includes a clear sense of the problems involved and how to meet them.
Let me set down my own position so that my problems with
socialism on this score may be clear. My problems are not with the ideals of
democratic socialism, but with the assumption that if capitalism is replaced
with socialism these ideals will be fulfilled, at least to a significant
degree. I don’t think it is quite that simple or certain. Socialist enthusiasts
point to China, Cuba, and the early years of Allende as example of what can
happen positively through socialism. Poor people who had nothing, who were
treated as nothing, found new hope in socialism, new pride, new meaning in
their lives. I believe this did happen. But I do not believe that the majority
of people in the United States are at this starting point. Most have jobs and
education; 97 percent even have televisions. Hence a closer parallel would be
socialism in Eastern Europe where worker alienation is great, productivity and
wages low, and enthusiasm for socialism much less evident. The fact that the
United States is already a highly developed industrial nation could create more
problems for socialism, not less, especially if a significant part of social
ownership was in the hands of the state. For as is evident from strikes and
protests at present, no group in society feels satisfied, not even sports stars
with $200,000-plus salaries. Each contending group in society will continue to
make demands for its share whether the economy is socialist or not. Without socialist
attitudes, Julius Nyerere has said, true socialism is impossible. But such attitudes
will be more difficult to attain in the United States, where individualism has
long been stressed.
At the same time I disagree with the conclusions which
conservatives draw from this kind of argument: “For all its faults capitalism
is still the best, so let’s stay with it.” No social change would ever occur on
this basis; the Marxist- socialist critique has convinced me that monopoly
capitalism undermines democracy and too often does not promote the common good;
hence simply to stay with what we have is for me un-Christian. What I see as a
solution of this dilemma is not original; it stresses structural reforms; it
embodies my own interpretation of Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, and of
building on positive steps as opposed to only negative criticisms. But before
going to it, let me return to the issue of socialism and utopianism.
Michael Lerner’s The New Socialist Revolution exemplifies
the kind of socialist position I find questionable. For nearly three hundred
pages he criticizes U.S. capitalism and discusses at length the need to crush
bourgeois hegemony. He devotes a scant four pages to the transition to
socialism and then describes in glowing terms the democratic institutions which
will flourish under socialism. He makes no attempt to address, or even show an
awareness of, the great difficulties which such a radical social transition
would entail. What the new society will look like, he says simply, will depend
on what we do with it.14 Though addressing only one of the same points Lerner
takes up, Erik Olin Wright is much more candid and honest when he states that
in the United States no strategy for socialism is particularly plausible at
present.15 Much more hard, creative thinking is needed, I believe, both about
workable forms socialism might take and transitions to socialism, before most
people in the United States can begin even to think about opting for socialism.
In a series of articles for In These Times, entitled “For a
Socialism That Works,” Leland Stauber addressed one aspect of the issue we have
just been discussing. While noting that the U.S. press and politicians have
created an ideological bias against socialism, he accuses socialists of
contributing to this bias by not proposing any fresh alternatives. The
twentieth century, he contends, has been a graveyard for inadequate socialist
ideas. The only socialist alternative which he sees as able to avoid defeat is
one that promises as much efficiency as capitalism. He proposes a “market
socialism” drawing on both the successes and failures of Yugoslavian socialism.
The socialism he envisions includes a public or government sector, a market
socialist sector which would not be government-owned but publicly-owned by
groups operating along the lines of private firms today, a private sector to
include small businesses and family farms, and a cooperative sector.16
His proposals triggered numerous rejoinders in subsequent
issues of In These Times, ranging from support to complete rejection. His
effort, I believe, is an example of the kind of creative, long-range thinking
needed to make democratic socialism more plausible. The negative responses
indicate how little agreement exists on what constitutes a workable but genuine
socialism. Perhaps some other proposal would have generated more support. The
controversy over Stauber’s articles may only confirm the need for “putting
socialism on the agenda” so that more creative thinking will be stimulated. But
the controversy also indicates why proposing socialism as a solution is to
present a very unclear option.
The problem of a transition to socialism is also important.
The worst possible transition that I could imagine would be one that counts on
“waiting to work it out until we get there” or one that is necessitated by a
sudden collapse of capitalism. To try to build up a new society out of the
chaos and anarchy left by the collapse of an old one offers the least amount of
hope that a truly just and democratic social order will emerge. Hence to
promote a strategy of “the worse the better” seems to me even immoral. Some
look to the Swedish Social-Democrats and their plans to socialize Sweden as a
possible model for democratic transition to socialism. Theoretical work about
strategies of transition from capitalism to socialism is needed, but a
successful example of such a transition would aid the socialist movement most.
In Michael Harrington’s strategy of long-range vision and
realistic approximations I found personally the kind of approach I had been
looking for. I would express my long range vision as “economic democracy”
rather than socialism at this point. But I agree fully with the approach
Harrington takes. He calls for a long-range vision of structural, anti-capitalist
change, but adds:
We do not, however, assert this ultimatistically, insisting
that America suddenly convert to socialist values in toto. We address immediate
problems and seek immediate solutions. We join with trade unionists and
minority activists and feminists and Democratic Party reformers— and, for that
matter, with all women and men of good will. We do not reject increments of
change—but we seek to influence them, to design them, to move them, in the
direction of the massive transformations which alone can solve the present
crisis.
What, as a conclusion to all of this, can socialism
contribute and what stance might a Christian take? If socialism cannot claim to
have “the” solution, capitalism certainly does not. Socialism points to an
important alternative possibility, and offers a needed critique of capitalism.
For a Christian to work for a democratic socialism would seem a perfectly
justifiable option. The very uncertainties about socialism might be all the
more reason for Christians to be part of the movement, to help shape its
direction and values.
A Personal Strategy
If Erik Olin Wright is correct that there is no plausible
strategy for socialism at the present time in the United States, then it would
certainly be pretentious to offer an even broader strategy which might lead to
democratic socialism or to economic democracy in some other form. What follows,
then, is not an argument for “the” correct strategy Christians in the United
States should follow. It is perhaps a “philosophy of social change” which
dovetails with Michael Harrington’s strategy of long-range vision and immediate
tasks. It is a strategy of moving toward a fundamental restructuring of society
through “increments of change” and reforms. But underlying this strategy is a
conviction that such a process is not just a matter of political realism but
the process most apt for achieving the desired results. This brief philosophy
of social change is offered in the hope that some other Christians who share
the same concerns, values, and misgivings, may be helped in their reflection.
First, I believe that any option taken should be both idealistic and realistic.
Given many of our current Progressives, neo-Socialists, perhaps one should think on this. One thing Socialism does is destroy the entrepreneur. You see the Socialists have central control. Imagine medicine being controlled by the Postal Service, yes, that is what happens. Dead letter box will have a new meaning. Read what the good Jesuit states, then think a bit, just a little bit.
Posts
