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. The question remains: what is the role of the state, if any, in the achievement of the goals of democratic socialism? One of Harrington’s major points is that there is not one definition of socialism, but many rival definitions.

The welfare state might have been motivated by the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. However, the economic strategy was actually intended to benefit capitalism. It was “a legal floor...put under consumption”. If people had no money, they could not spend it on consumption. If there was reduced consumption, there would be reduced production and capitalism. Both jobs and profits are protected by the welfare state. Therefore, the welfare state props up capitalist production by subsidising public consumption. The capitalist - and antisocial - socialisation of the world is indeed subverting its most priceless accomplishment, the creation of the possibility of freedom and justice. And there must be a genuine - and social - socialisation if the precious gains of the capitalist era are to be retained and deepened.” (8) Democratic state ownership means that the state was elected democratically, that it acquired ownership by democratic means, that it submits regularly to the democratic process by way of elections and that it retains ownership by democratic means. Implicitly, it did not acquire control and ownership by a revolutionary process.Socialism sought, precisely, the democratic socialisation of the process of elitist, irresponsible, and destructive socialisation of capitalism - a process that is very much at work today as revolutionary new modes of producing wealth are being introduced in ways that increase poverty and unemployment and widen the gap between the affluent and hungry areas of the world.” (15) 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.) 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)

Harrington was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He attended St. Louis University High School, College of the Holy Cross, University of Chicago (MA in English Literature), and Yale Law School. As a young man, he was interested in both leftwing politics and Catholicism. Fittingly, he joined Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker movement, a pacifist group that advocated a radical interpretation of the Gospel. Above all else, Harrington was an intellectual. He loved arguing about culture and politics, preferably over beer, and his Jesuit education made him a fine debater and rhetorician. Harrington was an editor of The Catholic Worker from 1951 to 1953. However, Harrington became disillusioned with religion and, although he would always retain a certain affection for Catholic culture, he ultimately became an atheist. I read this book shortly after it came out at the end of the 1980s and it helped me make my way leftward towards if not socialist politics at least social democracy it got me curious about the DSA in the 1980s or early 1990s it was a long time ago and I don't remember the date exactly. Harrington had spent some time in the Catholic Worker Movement although he later moved toward nonreligious flavors of socialism and I knew people involved in that at Fairfield University and I also knew a few Trotskyists at Fordham. Harrington covers the big tent of socialism and social democracy and all the plans and arguments from the 18th century through the 1980s. A good primer to navigate the many-headed varieties of socialism.

However, as an overview of the history of socialism until our own times, this book remains vital and insightful. He shows how the great dream of the 19th century both fizzled and was diluted by the unexpected twists and turns of history in the early and mid-20th century, including the rise to dominance of Soviet communism masquerading as socialism, the wobbly internationalism of socialist parties prior to WW I, and the morphing of much of the socialist program into the all to brief post WW II success of democratic socialist parties in Western Europe. 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”. There is no guarantee that socialism will triumph - or that freedom and justice, even to the limited degree that they have been achieved until now, will survive the next century. All I claim here is that, if they are to survive, the socialist movement will be a critical factor.” (3) 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. 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.

For all the talk in the US right now of socialism, it seems to be a topic a lot of people (some of the loudest) are uninformed about. There’s confusion about what it is, and more importantly, what it isn’t. Michael Harrington’s account is a good introduction in part because it admits to a multitude of “socialisms,” given deviations in definition. He also goes to great lengths to explain some of the examples that come to mind most readily when many people think of socialism – examples that are rightfully frightening and have little in common with socialism at all, even given a range of accepted and contested definitions. 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. The revolution we are now living through is creating a social and political environment that, if it is not subjected to democratic control from below, will subvert the possibilities of freedom and justice that capitalism did much - if reluctantly - to foster.” (7)Do democratic socialists have to obtain control of the state by democratic means (i.e., by way of democratic election) or is there a case for the acquisition of power by way of revolutionary force? Is revolutionary force intrinsically anti-democratic, even if it is used in the name of a majority of the public? Once power is obtained, can it be retained by way of force (e.g., by the modern equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat)? Is it acceptable that all gains can be reversed at the very next election (just as the gains won by social democrats can be [and have been] reversed by a neoconservative or populist government)? How can democratic socialists protect their gains against a hostile democratically elected government?