I guess that’s why I”ve always preferred ELR, because it emphasizes shifting the economy from a private sector “create more useless widgets for people to buy” only model to more of a public sector public-goods model.

Another example might be establishing a right to a job, with the government as employer of last resort. Again, the idea is something big, bold, easy to explain, that deals with a central problem with the current economy.

Support for a 100% carbon-free alternative energy economy might be another.

You get the idea.

(Cf Erik Wright’s argument for “basic income as a socialist project”.)

What makes this confusing is that a lot of left liberals in the U.S were social democrats in all but name (and perhaps a less developed sense of class politics) – John Kenneth Galbraith, the Keyserlings, Paul Douglas, and a lot of the other surviving New Dealers who continued in politics through the 40s-60s. What makes things even more confusing is that a lot of social democrats became liberals out of survival when the Cold War took off and anti-communist witch hunts made being a social anything the political kiss of death.

Interestingly, one of the things that ties the union figures together is that they tended to come out of industrial unions in industries that were dysfunctional in some fashion – the extreme seasonal swings of the auto industry, the fragmentation and cut-throat competition of the textile and garment industries, and so on. Workers in more stable industries had the luxury of focusing entirely upon the labor vs. capital struggle, but these leaders had to turn to the state out of both ideology and necessity.————————————————————————————————-
In regards to the article, am I the only one who sees a contradiction in Berman’s argument. On the one hand, she wants “the left [to] regain its old optimism and historical vision.” On the other, she wants the left to focus on”Helping people adjust to capitalism, rather than engaging in a hopeless and ultimately counterproductive effort to hold it back…managing globalization—promoting economic growth and increased competitiveness even as they ensure high employment and social security…[and]agitating for policies—like reliable, affordable, and portable health care; tax credits or other government support for labor-market retraining; investment in education; and unemployment programs that are both more generous and better incentivized.”

The policy just doesn’t match the politics here. From the list of remedies, the political spirit that links them together is a heavy brand of technocratic pragmatism, making the best of the situation as it is. But there is such a thing as politics created by policy – and this kind of policy isn’t conducive to optimism and historical vision. Indeed, these policies aren’t new; they’re more or less what the mainstream of European social democracy and the U.S Democratic Party have been pushing for almost 15 years now. Arguably, one of the reasons why the left has been in such shabby shape recently (with the noted exception of the U.S, ironically), is that these policies lack either the size or scope to deal with the problem, and thus do not sufficiently impress a majority of working class voters.

Consider the list. Among the items, universal health care is the only really major systemic reform. Retraining, education, and better unemployment benefits are all small-bore attempts to deal with the major issue of our time – the “new social question” of increasing unemployment, underemployment, and employment insecurity, to say nothing of increasing inequality and economic insecurity. The first two are basically labor supply measures but without any understanding that the labor demand isn’t there in the private sector. The current incarnation of capitalism just isn’t producing enough living wage jobs, and increasing the number of college grads isn’t the answer, especially when the earnings of college grads have become stagnant/declining. Likewise, retraining credits/U.I/”wage insurance” are unlikely to make up for the lost income that should have been coming, given increases in productivity.

Was it not until recently optimised for the maximum profitability of the insurance market, in part so that pension funds had a reliable market in which to invest, so that they could deliver on their policies? (obviously also in part so that insurance company directors could get rich at the expense of the people they were denying health care.)

Now of course, not so much, and given that it was always pessimised(?) for delivering a healthy population, there should be a tremendous opportunity for BHO and his buddies to point out that since it no longer does the one thing it was good for well, it might be a good time to look at some assumptions again.

We shall see.

Seriously, I was just trying to point out that the word “socialism” originally meant popular, democratic control over the whole of social life, including the economy. Bolsheviks, Nazis, and Maoists misappropriated the term to legitimate their party dictatorship over the whole of social life, allegedly in the name of the people. Apologists for capitalism were happy to go along with this usage, since it identified a noble ideal—radical democracy—with tyranny. There’s no reason for contemporary radical democrats like you and me to acquiesce in this terminological travesty.

Social Democrats / Democratic Socialists really need a hard left to scare people with. Maybe if the economy collapses entirely, they’ll get one. Until then, Social Democrats are horrible, unspeakable Communists in American eyes.