Democratic Socialism

या लेखात मुख्यत: नुकत्याच पार पाडलेल्या निवडणुकांच्या संदर्भात समाजवादी कार्यकर्त्यांनी घेतलेली भूमिका, त्यांनी निवडलेला राजकीय पर्याय या संदर्भात काही विचार मांडण्याचा प्रयत्न करतो आहे. समाजवादी राजकारणाच्या दीर्घ वाटचालीचा साराच आलेख इथे मांडलेला नाही, लेखाचा तो हेतू नाही. समाजवादाचे, राजकारणाचे अभ्यासक याहून कितीतरी पटीने अधिक सखोल मांडणी करू शकतील याची मला जाणीव आहे. पण तशी त्यांनी करावी हा हेतू ठेवूनच ही सुरुवात केलेली आहे. निव्वळ विश्लेषणापलीकडे जाऊन समाजवादी विचारसरणीच्या राजकारणाच्या संघटनासारख्या अनुषंगाचा, त्याच्या गुणावगुणांचा, त्याच्या वाटचालीचा वेध घेण्याचा हा एक प्रयत्न आहे. एक सामाजिक हिताची भूमिका घेणारी विचारसरणी आज राजकीयदृष्ट्या अस्तित्वहीन होऊ पाहते आहे हे वेदनादायी वास्तव ज्याला खुपते आहे आशा एका सामान्य माणसाने 'हे असं हा घडलं किंवा घडतं आहे नि अजूनही ही परिस्थिती बदलावी म्हणून काही निश्चित प्रयत्न होतात का, नसल्यास का नाही?' असे प्रश्न विचारून त्याची उत्तरे शोधण्याचा आपल्यापरीने केलेला हा एक प्रयत्न आहे. पण असे असताना उंटावरून शेळ्या हाकण्यासारखे निव्वळ दोषारोप केलेले नाहीत, मूल्यमापनाचा हेतूच मुळी 'हे कसं बदलता येईल?' या प्रश्नाची आपल्या परीने उत्तरे शोधण्याचा आहे. कारण ही परिस्थिती बदलावी अशी प्रामाणिक इच्छा मनात धरूनच हा सारा घाट घातला आहे. माझ्या परीने मी केलेले हे विवेचन, समाजवादी गटांच्या पीछेहाटीची मी शोधलेली कारणे, त्यावरचे सुचवलेले संभाव्य उपाय हे काही सर्वस्वी निर्दोष, सर्वस्वी अचूक आहेत असा माझा दावा नाही. पण अलीकडेच आलेल्या एका अनुभवामुळे हे आता आपण मांडून दाखवले पाहिजे, या विचारमंथनाला विस्कळीत का होईना पण एक सुरुवात करून द्यावी अशी ऊर्मी निर्माण झाली नि हे समाजवादी अभ्यासकांसमोर ठेवण्याचे धाडस केले आहे.

la revue socialiste 60 le dossier Pour répondre à cette question, une remarque préliminaire classique s'impose : ce qui réfère au modèle organisationnel social-démocrate concerne, au premier chef, deux des trois types de profils isolés pendant longtemps dans l'analyse des partis socialistes en Europe : les types « social-démocrate » et « travailliste ». Quoique différents au plan idéologique et de leur rapport au syndicat, ces deux types répondent aux critères de définition qui seront développés, ci-après. En revanche, le type « socialiste », qui se rapporte essentiellement aux partis socialistes de l'Europe méridionale, échappe classiquement au modèle dans les analyses réalisée sur cette famille de partis. À la fin du XIX e siècle, la naissance et le développement de la famille socialiste/sociale-démocrate impriment l'avènement d'un nouveau modèle organisationnel partisan ; pour être plus correct, d'un nouveau modèle organisationnel partisan, social et sociétal. Les nouveaux partis socialistes, sociauxdémocrates ou ouvriers se donnent rapidement à voir comme des partis de masse, selon la terminologie de Maurice Duverger, reposant « sur les sections, plus centralisés et plus fortement articulés » 1 . Plus largement même, ce sont des partis d'intégration sociale face aux formations de représentation individuelle 2 ou des partis de contre-société ouvrière 3 qui sont édifiés. Que recouvre le modèle organisationnel qui leur est petit à petit prêté dans l'analyse scientifique ?

Leftist movements in the USA have always emerged as a result of, a reaction to, and a struggle against circumstances of widespread disparity and socioeconomic biases. However, the American left-wing had undergone a long period of political absence and marginalization due to numerous factors. This dissertation thus set out to explore the contemporary resurgence of the left in mainstream American politics and the factors behind its recent emergence. The present study achieved its main research objectives by meticulously examining relevant literature and exploring the case study of Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidacies from different critical approaches to the Social Movement theory. The methodology followed in this research revolves around investigating the reasons behind the emergence of Bernie Sanders’ Electoral Movement based on using the following approaches: (1) the Relative Deprivation theory, (2) the Emancipatory theory, and (3) the Resource Mobilization theory. Accordingly, the inquiry engendered numerous key findings. First, the socioeconomic fallacies generated by ‘the neoliberal crisis’ created a political opening for an alternative ideological challenge. In this vein, the research inferred that the reemergence of the left is a symptom of the decreasing adequacy of the American sociopolitical system. Second, the case study analysis deduced that Sanders’ Electoral Movement shaped the youth and working-class’s contention with the system into a tangible electoral constituency. Hence, the resurgence of the left sprouted out of a culmination of public discontent with the socio-economic conditions and the neoliberal system which dates back to the Occupy Wall Street protests and the Great Recession. Third, the heavy and creative reliance on social media coverage helped spread awareness about the Movement’s ideas and agenda. Taking advantage of the freedom, inclusiveness, rapidity, and interactivity of the internet attracted, introduced, and recruited many people to the left. Overall, this research tried to provide an insightful reassessment of the status of the left in the United States. It critically presented as well a correlation between the phenomenon of resurgence and the American politico-economic neoliberal apparatus.

Thomas Piketty's Capital and Ideology constitutes a landmark achievement in furthering our understanding of the history of inequality, and presents valuable proposals for constructing a future economic system that would allow us to transcend and move beyond contemporary forms of capitalism. This article discusses Piketty's conceptions of ideology, property, and "inequality regimes", and analyses his approach to social justice and its relation to the work of John Rawls. I examine how Piketty's proposals for 'participatory socialism' would function not only to redistribute income and wealth, but also to disperse economic power within society, and I discuss the complementary roles of redistribution and predistribution in his proposals, and Piketty's place in a tradition of egalitarian political economy associated with James Meade and Anthony Atkinson. Having elaborated on Piketty's account of the relationship between economic policy and ideational change, and his important idea of the "desacralization" of private property, I present "seven theses" on his proposals for participatory socialism, examining areas in which his approach could be enhanced or extended, so as to create a viable twenty-first century version of democratic socialism.

Democracy is generally considered to be a core element of cooperatives. However, other than elected boards of directors, it appears to play little part in either the governance or operations of most cooperatives. Two challenges to democracy are identified. One is the idea that cooperatives will tend to lose their democratic character over time. The other is that many cooperatives are founded primarily for economic reasons, and democracy is a second-order concern. The paper explores the question of how important democracy is to cooperatives, identifying warning signs and encouraging cooperatives to take a more active approach to promote participation. Democracy cannot be taken for granted, or it may fade away entirely.

Marx and his social engineering ideas seductively calls to many of our youth today (and some that are not so young as well). They seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never heard of the words of Winston Churchill, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery” (in Perth, Scotland, 28 May 1948). The question that begs to be asked is: “Why are so many youths attracted by the extreme left?” Socialism seems to be à la mode. It was not long ago, at least in American politics, that being called a leftist or a socialist was the highest pejorative as well as a political albatross. However, millennials largely fueled the presidential aspirations of Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, during the 2016 elections in the United States. “The Iowa caucus entrance poll found Sanders garnered an overwhelming 84 percent of the 30 and under vote. Exit polls from New Hampshire found 85 percent support for Sanders among voters ages 30 and younger” (Ekins & Pullmann, 2016).
“Immunized” through the educational system against Nazi ideology, and familiar with the horrors perpetrated by that regime, the young simply have not received a like immunization against socialism. For them, the Cold War is a distant historical occurrence with little current relevance. The Soviet Union and its bloc is no more, and the Chinese communists are now über Kapitalisten. They are unaware of either the writings or the deeply moving life stories of Armando Valladares, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, SreyRam Kuy, Jan Petranek, Liao Yiwu, Jerzy Popiełuszko, Thích Huyền Quang, Lech Wałęsa, las Damas de Blanco, Cong Thanh Do, Vera Lengsfeld, or Luis Manuel Diaz. 
For the young and naïve, socialism is cool. “They’ve never witnessed the spirit-crushing methods of autocratic regimes or the grinding failure of centrally planned economies....Indeed, for many millennials, ‘socialism’ is simply shorthand for ‘vaguely Scandinavian in the best way’” (Emba, 2016).

The back cover of Arguments for Socialism describes Tony Benn as 'the most controversial man in British politics'. It is hard to think of Benn, now a national treasure, as a divisive figure but, of course, he was. As a result, the reception of Arguments for Socialism drew accusations of communist inspired demagogy from the right, and entrenchment in the establishment from the radical left. Both charges are

Ann Landers was a character/pen name created by the Chicago Sun-Times and used to offer “advice” through their syndicated advice column throughout the United States. In December 27, 2001, in response to a question by an “inner city English teacher” who wanted to know how to explain communism, socialism, and fascism without having to get into a history lesson, the paper reprinted the Parable of the Isms, or the “You have two cows” satire. 

Ann Lander’s version, which is included at the end of this piece, is at best a politically misinformed piece of satire. At worst it is intentionally distributed agitprop designed to airbrush all the flaws out of Capitalism. Now, however, with the ecology collapsing and global fascism on the rise, it might be time for an updated answer to the question, one closer to actual reality, and one more in line with the historical trajectory predicted by Hegel and Marx. With this in mind, here is my humble take on the Parable of the ISMS.

One of the most important debates in contemporary social and political movements concerns the importance and value of “prefigurative politics”. Its meaning, along with its origins, is often misconstrued, and it has come under intense criticism. This article defends a strategic sense of prefigurative politics on the basis of a Marxist theory of practice. Thus it reconstructs Marx's theory of practice, clarifies the relevant meaning of "prefigurative politics", and presents three arguments for why prefigurative politics is essential to bring about a free and democratic socialist society. Prefigurative politics is important for (1) developing revolutionary subjects with the powers or real possibilities needed to organise deliberation and decision-making in free and democratic socialist ways. Secondly (2), it is important for developing revolutionary subjects with the needs or drives motivating them to institute such forms of deliberation and decision-making when able to do so. Thirdly (3), it is important for developing revolutionary subjects with the consciousness – i.e. the right knowledge, outlook, values, etc. – required to understand and implement such free and democratic modes of deliberation and decision-making. Finally, I defend this strategic commitment from three common criticisms.

Forthcoming in Constellations.

Rad ima za predmet analizu poslednja dva književna dela Džordža Orvela, Životinjsku farmu i 1984, iz ugla ispitivanja njegovih političkih uverenja. Dela o kojima je reč, ostala su obeležena prvenstveno kao oštre osude staljinizma i totalitarnih mehanizama vlasti, odnosno svojevrsna opomena potomstvu o mogućnostima potpunog pokoravanja slobode i individualnosti. Ipak, ovaj rad se ne bavi Orvelovom kritikom totalitarizma, već mu je cilj da preispita ona mesta u delu u kojima se mogu pratiti stavovi Džordža Orvela prema teorijskom socijalizmu, kao i njegov pogled na kapitalizam i liberalnu demokratiju. Paralelno su analizirani stavovi iz Životinjske farme i 1984, sa ciljem da se ispita da li je došlo do promene u književnom pristupu autora kada je reč o pomenutim temama, pri čemu je uzet u obzir različiti karakter ova dva dela. Uz Orvelova dela, kao primarne izvore, istraživanje se oslanja na noviju literaturu koja se bavi odnosom Džordža Orvela prema socijalizmu. Istraživanjem je utvrđeno da je Orvel u oba književna dela, koja su bila predmet istraživanja, zadržao svoja politička uverenja, odnosno privrženost demokratskom socijalizmu. Ova doslednost, praćena kritikom kapitalizma, posebno je uočljiva u Životinjskoj farmi, usled drugačijeg karaktera tog dela, ali je ona prisutna i u 1984. Zaključak je da je Orvelovo delo, usled diskursa koji je tokom Hladnog rata formiran na Zapadu, pojednostavljivano, pri čemu nije u dovoljnoj meri naglašavana stvarna ideološka pozadina autora koja je bitno uticala na njegovo stvaralaštvo.

This paper examines the last two literary works of George Orwell with the aim to analyze his political beliefs. Although these works have remained characterized primarily as critiques of totalitarianism and the Stalinist version of socialism, the purpose of this study is to show Orwell’s attitude towards the ideas of socialism in theory with parallel comparison of Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four. Furthermore, in order to consider this problem more comprehensively, it was necessary to research the author’s attitude towards capitalism and liberalism. The article is divided into two main sections. The first section gives a brief overview of Orwell’s political evolution from the second to the fourth decades of 20th century. The second section examines the content of the books which are the subject of research. The article proves that Orwell remained committed to the ideas of democratic socialism in both of his literary works. Portrayal of Orwell as an anti-socialist is unjustified and was formed due to the Cold War context in the West. Additionally, the article concludes that Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984 contain a critique of capitalism and Western imperialism, which is more pronounced in Animal Farm as compared to 1984.

Les partis socialistes et sociaux-démocrates laissent peu d’observateurs et de citoyens indifférents. Depuis plusieurs années maintenant, nombre d’acteurs les présentent comme une famille de partis en crise, sans imagination ni tonus, incapable de se renouveler et appelée à dépérir. D’autres, au contraire, la dépeignent comme une famille à l’avenir prometteur sinon radieux. L’objectif du livre n’est pas de confirmer l’une ou l’autre de ces visions. L’ouvrage analyse en profondeur les transformations qui touchent, dans la période contemporaine, la social-démocratie dans ses différentes facettes : évolution des modèles organisationnels, changements dans les performances politiques et électorales, rapports modifiés avec les organisations syndicales et les associations de la société civile, réactions à l’émergence de nouveaux concurrents politiques ou de nouvelles valeurs, réorientations idéologiques et programmatiques. Pour la première fois, le propos n’est pas exclusivement centré sur la partie occidentale de l’Europe mais concerne autant les partis sociaux-démocrates des démocraties consolidées que les organisations se revendiquant du socialisme démocratique en Europe centrale et orientale, et met en évidence les spécificités et les points communs.

A l’aube du XXIe siècle, ce sont donc les défis et les manières d’y répondre qui sont décortiqués par plusieurs des meilleurs spécialistes européens des partis sociaux-démocrates en Europe.

The aim of this paper is to analyse the political language of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump during the 2015/2016 presidential primaries in the United States. The narrative delivered by both candidates is interpreted from the perspective of political science in order to show not only its ideological and political content, but also the electoral significance. The author stresses not only the highly particular nature of the analyzed primaries of the Democratic and Republican Parties, but also discusses the character of the candidates themselves. Sanders and Trump not only represented the populist answer to the 8 years of presidency of Barack Obama (on the left and right side of the political spectrum respectively), but were also the main candidates of the American anti-establishment circles, which becomes very clear in the analysis of their political language.

Christianity’s political voice in US society is often situated within a simplistic binary of social justice versus faithfulness. Gary Dorrien and Stanley Hauerwas, respectively, represent the two sides of the binary in their work. Although the justice-faithfulness narrative is an important point of disagreement, it has also created a categorical impasse that does not reflect the full depth and complexity of either Dorrien’s or Hauerwas’s work. Their concerns for both justice and faithfulness differ only in part because of their different responses to liberalism and liberal theology. Under all those issues are rival accounts of relational truth that indicate divergent understandings of reality. At the heart of Dorrien’s and Hauerwas’s theologies and differences are the issues of God’s sovereign agency and humanity’s subjectivity and agency. Dorrien emphasizes love, divine Spirit, human spirit, and freedom for flourishing. Hauerwas stresses gift, triune creator, human creaturehood, and flourishing in friendship. Those divergent positions issue forth in rival responses to political sovereignty. Dorrien’s panentheistic monism is integrated with the modern nation-state’s sovereignty. Hauerwas rejects the state’s hegemonic sovereignty as an attempt at autonomy that rejects God’s gifts and aspires to rival God’s sovereignty.

While Dorrien’s and Hauerwas’s discussion might then appear at an impasse, it can be opened and developed in reference to Rowan Williams’s horizon. Although his political work overlaps with much in Dorrien’s and Hauerwas’s positions, Williams goes beyond them by calling for the transformation of the modern nation-state’s sovereignty and by supplying a vision of it transformed. Williams’s advance opens Dorrien’s and Hauerwas’s disagreement by freeing them from their common assumption, the permanence of state sovereignty. Williams’s political horizon is underwritten by his theological horizon, which fuses love and gift within triune mutuality and plenitude. This account offers critical help to issues that Dorrien and Hauerwas find problematic in each other’s position. Such development thereby opens the possibility of a fresh and fruitful discussion. Therefore, Williams’s work offers important help for Dorrien and Hauerwas to address the heart of their disagreement over divine and political sovereignty, and human subjectivity and agency.

This essay is concerned with the question of what kind of economic system would be needed in order to realise Rawls’s principles of social justice. Hitherto, debates about ‘property-owning democracy’ and ‘liberal socialism’ have been overly schematic, in various respects, and have therefore missed some of the most important issues regarding the relationships between social justice and economic institutions and systems. What is at stake between broadly capitalist or socialist economic systems is not in fact a simple choice in a single dimension, but rather a range of choices across a range of different dimensions. This essay, then, has a dual objective: firstly, it aims to provide a richer account of this normative territory, while showing how issues of economic democracy, decommodification and the limits of markets, and the role of democratic economic planning, all raise questions of justice that are not well-captured by focussing only on questions of ownership. Secondly, it aims to show how the case for democratic socialism can be developed from Rawlsian foundations, in a way that is sensitive to the normative affinities between Rawlsian liberal egalitarianism and themes in socialist political thought, and which attends carefully to the different kinds of institutional elements which a stable, just, and democratic society would require. Taking these aims together, the hope is that we can move onwards to a richer debate about the ways in which the realisation of democratic socialist institutions may be seen as a requirement of social justice.

Si la recherche dans les domaines institutionnel, juridique ou économique de l'évolution des Communautés européennes est abondante, force est de constater que les "Europe que dessinent les partis politiques" ne sont que très peu étudiées. Cet ouvrage se veut donc une contribution à l'étude des acteurs politiques face à la Communauté européenne et à leurs jeux d'influences réciproques. L'analyse offre, dans une perspective historique, un tableau de l'évolution du mouvement socialiste en Europe occidentale depuis 1945 et des rapports complexes de la social-démocratie à la construction européenne. Tant il est vrai qu'au-delà de leur internationalisme proclamé, le champ d'action privilégié des partis socialistes, au cours du vingtième siècle, a été l'espace national. L'édification des différents modèles d'Etat-providence s'est réalisée à cette échelle et les rapports de forces sur lesquels se sont appuyés les partis socialistes étaient également nationaux. Dans ces conditions, l'édification de la Communauté européenne s'est posée comme un défi.



A partir d'un examen minutieux des partis socialistes belge, français et du parti travailliste britannique, l'auteur examine, dans une approche comparative, les différences d'attitudes des socialistes face à la construction européenne, l'évolution des points de vue et les enjeux contemporains du positionnement des socialistes face à l'Union européenne.

Socialist and Social Democratic parties leave few political observers and citizens indifferent. For several years, a certain number of actors on the political scene have presented it as a political family in crisis, lacking in imagination and dynamism, incapable of renewal and doomed to fade into insignificance. Others, on the contrary, describe it as a grouping with a promising, even brilliant future. 

This book does not set out to confirm either of those two visions. Its aim is to analyse in-depth the transformations which are affecting, at the current time, the different aspects of Social Democracy: new organisational models, changes in political and electoral performance, changing relations with the trade unions and civil society associations, reactions to the emergence of new political rivais and new values, new ideological trends and political programmes, etc.

For the first time, the analysis does not concern exclusively Western Europe, but also deals with the Social Democratic parties of the consolidated democracies and the organisations that claim to be part of democratic socialism in Central and Eastern Europe, and highlights the specific characteristics and points in common. At the dawn of the 21st century, it is therefore the challenges and the different responses to those challenges that are analysed by several of the leading European specialists in Social Democratic parties in Europe. "

While the U.S. celebrates Labor Day (another telling instance of the ideological meaning of American 'exceptionalism') on the first Monday in September, May 1 st is recognized around the world as a workers' holiday, a global (or international) day of solidarity between workers of all nationalities. It was bound up with the struggle for the shorter workday-a demand of major political significance for the working class: "Eight hours for work-eight for rest-and eight for what we will." Thus, in many parts of the world today is the true "Labor Day." The auspicious nature of this date goes back to celebratory spring festivals and is still an excuse for Morris dancing: in the words of Emma Goldman, "If I can't dance, I won't be part of your revolution!" Eric Hobsbawm writes that "From the start the occasion attracted and absorbed ritual and symbolic elements, notably that of a quasi-religious or numinous celebration ('Maifeier'), a holiday in both sense of the word.

This essay charts a normative framework to defend the politics and principles of democratic socialism. It argues that the tradition of democratic socialism can be best understood as consisting of the connection of three spheres of social reality: the material, the political and the cultural. Each also possesses a respective principle that organizes them, that of cooperative interdependence, non-subordination, and self-realization. The paper ends by considering how social movements can see their own struggles in terms of the structure of these three spheres.

This article analyzes the different positions adopted by political parties, members of Socialist International, in the Anglo-Argentine conflict around the Falklands Islands/Malvinas Islands. The war generated an unbridgeable rupture between Latin American and European leaders, which affected Socialist International’s plans, at the time under the leadership of Willy Brandt. The article shows a more comprehensive picture of international politics of the time, emphasizing transnational actors that are understudied in this regard: political parties.

One person’s freedom is another’s constraint. The Dutch post-war conflict between Left and Right is articulated around two conceptions of freedom: one neoliberal, the other socialist. Two thinkers are attached to these conceptions. There is Friedrich Hayek, doyen of neoliberalism and intellectual inspiration for the Dutch conservative-liberal party, VVD. In 1944, Hayek published The Road to Serfdom, which grew out to become a foundational text of the neoliberal movement. And there is Den Uyl, the foremost thinker and leader of Dutch post-war social democracy, and co-author of The Road to Freedom, the 1951 plan that outlined the socialist vision of the Dutch social democrat party (PvdA). As the title makes clear, the plan served as a rebuttal to Hayek. The conflict took the form of a dialectic of freedom: both sides used opposing conceptions of freedom in pursuit of hegemony, while both maintained that the opponent’s freedom was a pathway to oppression.

Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny (1994) have used Public Choice analysis to criticize market socialism. Peter J. Boettke (1995) and Peter T. Leeson and Boettke (2002) have argued that F. A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom (2007 [1944]) constituted a form of Public Choice analysis as well. Boettke and Leeson say that Hayek adumbrated a form of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. This essay shows that Hayek was joined by John Jewkes in presaging a form of the Arrow theorem. In addition, this essay expands on the analysis by Boettke and Leeson, elucidating the broader implications which the Arrow theorem has for democratic socialism in particular. Democratic socialism is demonstrated to be impossible, in the sense that it cannot successfully accomplish the goals of its advocates. This is because the Arrow theorem implies that democratic political institutions are fundamentally incompatible with socialist economics.

After the end of the World War II, the SPD undertook a deep transformation, evolving from a «workers part» to a «citizens party», which aimed at building a «Western» form of democratic socialism. This process culminated in the Congress of Bad Godesberg, when the SPD formally abandoned its Marxist tradition. The consequences were twofold. On the one hand, the Spd represented itself as a responsible political force that could credibly enter the government. On the other, the Spd began to pressure and encourage other European Social Democratic forces to follow the «German model», and marginalize the Communist parties operating in their domestic political systems. This was the case of 1970s’ Italy, where the Spd played a substantial role in influencing the Psi’s transition, particularly after the election of Bettino Craxi as General Secretary.

In recent years, radical movements from the Arab Spring to Occupy and beyond have been calling for “democracy.” These movements also claim to reject representation—a keystone of many contemporary liberal understandings of democracy. How can we make sense of this? There is ongoing debate about this in these movements and their descendants, part of which consists in figuring out what we should take “democracy” to mean. This article tries to contribute to this process of collective self-clarification by reconstructing one notion of what we could take “democracy” to mean. Thereafter, we will see how we can use this concept to make sense of the critique of representation in many contemporary radical movements and how useful it can be for helping to guide social change and the practices seeking to bring it about. I will thus argue that a coherent conception of democracy can be found, and that it can be a powerful tool both for understanding and critiquing the shortcomings of contemporary societies and for guiding our efforts to overcome them.

This article is part of Abolition’s second issue.

P. S. This was written a couple of years ago.Parts of it are a bit dated, and of necessity other parts a too briefly discussed. Its main idea of a radical concept of democracy may, however, still be of interest.

Hard questions must be asked: what errors did Bernie Sanders, his staff, his followers commit that could have been avoided? Would a better understanding of the theoretical and practical contradictions in his campaign clarify the ways in which his strategy misfired? It is not my purpose to give Sanders a theoretical legitimacy (as I attempted in an earlier version of this paper) but to question whether Bernie’s stated public understanding of a political revolution was matched by the reality of his campaign, and whether this conflict played a role in his political demise.

Milton Friedman (1962) is associated with the claim that political and economic freedom cannot be distinguished (cf. Lawson and Clark 2010), using the famous example that there can be no freedom of speech where the government owns the printing presses. Less well-known is F. A. Hayek's example, drawn from labor economics, used to illustrate the same principle. Hayek was joined in this by his less well-known colleague, John Jewkes. Hayek and Jewkes argued that without a freely operating price system, central economic planning cannot function without compulsory regimentation of labor. Similarly, no state may simultaneously fix “fair” wages and demand a given pattern of productive output and employment. It is impossible to both achieve income equality and accomplish an economic plan. Hayek's and Jewkes's examples help explain why democratic socialism is impossible, in the sense that it cannot accomplish what its advocates desire.

Democratic socialism is back. From Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain, to Jeremy Corbyn (the leader of the British Labour Party) (Panitch 2015), and Bernie Sanders (the runner-up in the Democratic Party’s 2016 nomination contest for the presidency of the United States), political forces proclaiming a connection to the tradition of democratic socialism have been growing in popularity in recent years. In the face of the financial crisis, the subsequent sovereign debt crisis and growing wealth inequality across Europe and North America, there is a thirst for a more just social, political and economic system. To a greater extent still than democratic socialism, however, far right nativist and xenophobic politics are on the ascent across the democratic world. Casting the forces of liberal democracy in the role of ‘vested interest’ and ‘protectors of the status quo’, far right political actors (such as Nigel Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Donald Trump in the USA) are capitalizing on popular anger and fear resulting from economic uncertainty and the reduction in the provision of public goods (largely resulting from austerity and rampant inequality) by scapegoating various ‘Others’ (from Muslims to Mexicans, via immigrants, refugees, and Jews) for the sake of a promised nationalist ‘renewal’. In response, democratic socialism promises to offer a ‘live’ alternative by articulating a vision of a democratic politics that neither harks back to an outdated political ideal (i.e. Communism), nor retreats from the need to radically reshape the basis of economic relations. That is why this article seeks to revive and reconsider Dewey’s democratic socialism. In particular, this article argues that Dewey’s pragmatist democratic socialism offers a rich and appealing political ideal for our times, provided that we understand it as an ethical and dynamic egalitarian notion of social change, rooted in democratic dialogic practices across the lifeworld. To this end, it begins by discussing how Dewey’s pragmatist democratic socialism emerges as a response to Classical Liberalism, before offering a positive account of what Dewey’s democratic socialism actually consists of and considering some important objections to the project of reviving Dewey's democratic socialism.

"The often-criticized "vagueness" of socialism since the rise of DSA is not a weakness of the movement, but rather a constitutive element of its populist nature.  As Laclau writes of populist movements, they are not the stereotype of a "people" against an "elite" but a democratic "social demand" that produces itself discursively to define an irreparable social antagonism."
https://thenorthmeridianreview.org/blog/a-socialist-horizon?fbclid=IwAR0rPsFcqkdeUgfCHQGNvdG2yffAOGRjI1elkwOgEWbYRYUdA1T1TNTzeHk

Over the past two decades, the left has increasingly embraced European integration as a bulwark to globalisation. However, the view that the EU provides the potential for realising a progressive social and economic policy is problematic, since its approach is antithetical to traditional democratic-socialist objectives. Thus, the left either has to redouble its efforts to realise a fundamental reform of the EU's institutions and policy framework, or consider nationally-orientated alternatives which inevitably question the nature of the UK-EU relationship. This paper outlines a number of these policy options and evaluates their potential benefits and costs from within a political-economy framework.

Yet under democratic socialism no one is forced to participate in social labor, since each one is provided for in accordance with his or her needs just by virtue of being part of society. The idea, however, is that we will be intrinsically motivated to participate in social labor when we recognize that the social production is for the sake of the common good and our own freedom to lead a life. Capitalist wage labor is inherently alienating, since we are not part of deciding the purpose of what we are producing. .. . A single ought of survival or profit alienates us from our spiritual freedom, since it commands us to work on the basis of a perceived necessity rather than in light of a responsibility to which we have bound ourselves.