Alternative Societies for a Pluralist Socialism Luke Martell (2023)
Chapter 1 covers alternative economies of communism; co- ops and other forms of alternative and participatory economy; non- work and slow society; eco- localism, especially in the Global South; and tech and digital alternatives.
Chapter 2 looks at social alternatives in education, intentional communities, food countercultures, alternative social centres, alternatives to prison and policing, and political institutions of welfare and social democracy. In these cases, I look at the ends and means of change. These chapters raise themes and examples, some of which are mainly discussed there while others are expanded on in the remaining chapters. Many alternative societies are regarded as utopian. While giving talks about alternatives and discussing them during the writing of this book, I was confronted with fierce criticisms of utopianism, often from people committed to political alternatives.
Chapter 3 looks at common criticisms of utopianism from Marxist and liberal perspectives, arguing that it is very defendable against their judgements, and that this is possible from within these perspectives rather than by rejecting them. Utopianism as materialist and not idealist, and as liberal rather than totalitarian, is advocated.
Chapter 4 explores criticisms of socialism from liberal, neoliberal, green and feminist perspectives. I think the most telling concerns about socialism can be found in questioning from these approaches. I argue that sometimes these viewpoints give reasons for socialism expanding, as a good way to tackle their concerns. But sometimes I believe they lead to socialism needing to limit itself to some extent, where the points critics make hit home. Criticisms of socialism lead to both arguments for socialism and arguments for a more pluralist socialism. For me, the most defining aspect of socialism is democratic and collective ownership in the economy, which has come back more into mainstream politics in recent years.
Chapter 5 looks more closely at this, focusing especially on proposals for, and practices of, local, decentralized, and democratized social ownership, about which there have been new thinking and experiments, often localized but relevant also at levels above the local. I sympathize with such proposals and trials of the democratic economy but see dangers in localism and in optimism about winning support for them. I argue for national public ownership in a democratized form and well-planned strategies for political actors so they can be ready to fight back against resistance and opposition from interests like international capital and the political Right.
Chapter 6 looks at the global dimension, discussing the way anti- and alter- globalization movements have gone, their energies channelled more into national and local forms, and what promise these may hold. It looks with hope but pessimism at proposals for political globalization in support of social democratic and social policies, arguing instead for a sub- global internationalism. I argue that hopes in global change for a better world rest more with opening borders to the free movement of people. I believe there is a very strong case across the board for open borders and more positive hope and possibility for them than both critics and supporters often see.The concluding chapter ties together what I have been arguing for. I draw together arguments about globalism, sub- global internationalism, national and local approaches, and experimental, prefigurative, and political approaches to change towards, and organizing of, an alternative society. I argue against dichotomous and polarized thinking about different levels and approaches to social change, and against false oppositions between materialism and idealism, utopianism and Marxism.
This book is based on grounded theory, looking at concrete alternatives and then developing analytical, theoretical, and political discussions founded on this. The concrete alternatives come in Chapters 1 and 2 before the more theoretical and analytical Chapters 3, 4, and 5. This follows the learning process that happens in many of these alternatives, and the one that I went through in studying this area, writing this book, and coming to its conclusions. I also think starting the book with concrete alternatives is the best way to make it accessible to less academic lay readers. The two parts of the book, on concrete alternatives and then more theoretical and analytical discussions, are not separate; the first leads to the latter, and they go together and are one whole. There is some minor reiteration across chapters because while the whole book makes a case with all the chapters together, some will read just parts. So occasionally something mentioned in an earlier chapter or section is brought up again briefly in another one where it is important for someone not reading the whole book. Where this happens, I point this out, so readers of the whole book can skim issues that may have been discussed earlier.
It become less and less reasonable to think that capitalism might be keeping any of the promises made on its behalf by its supporters. Wealth was not trickling down; the gap between the rich and the poor was growing daily. Even the lucky ones who capitalism enriched were not happier than before. While at the same time the results of electoral politics seemed increasingly questionable, public corruption was on the rise and democracy moribund as the economy alternatively boomed and burst. Capitalism had not brought us peace and security, neither at home nor abroad, but instead involved us in endless warfare and mass slaughter. It daily became a more intense threat to the natural environment and human survival on earth. Nor have the moral requirements of racial and gender equality made great inroads. Overwhelmed by these realities, we thought that socialism is clearly what the world needs. But, at the same time, we found that the large anticapitalist literature had little to tell us about the detailed features of a socialist society. Hence we asked a group of our friends to write papers about their thoughts about a socialist society. They did and what emerged is a really interesting book.
But the book did not answer the question that needs answering. When you ask someone about their conception of socialism, you may very well get a description of their fantasies about a better world. They will give you their dreams and wishful thinking. But wishful thinking will not repair the ravages of capitalism. What we need are alternative institutions that we can build in the present. We need not only to ask ourselves how we imagine a better world but also how we are going to construct it in the prefiguative process of reconstructing ourselves and our social relations.
Socialism has been on the agenda for close to 200 years. It began its career as the name for a society based on cooperation and equal economic and political rights. Becoming then associated with the Marxist theory ofhistory, socialism became a future state that would follow capitalism once that mode of production met its inevitable demise. Not much needed to be known about socialism because we would find out, when the time came, how we needed to construct a society not dominated by the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism was going to be the opposite of a society where means of production were privately owned. For a variety of historical reasons that was taken to mean that in a socialist society the state would own and direct the economy. This conception spawned numerous socialist experiments—most of them brutal failures.
Socialists have recommended political strategies which have not worked. They have organized labor unions that turned out to be solidly anti-communist. They have organized “socialist” political parties that became staunch supporters of capitalist institutions. They have talked grandly about international working class solidarity only to find workers flocking to their national colors when war broke out. They have created schools and families that have reproduced the very authoritarianism they were intended to overthrow.
Many theorists today, however, critical of capitalism follow in the footsteps of Eduard Bernstein and deny that capitalist collapse is inevitable (without adopting Bernstein’s electoral strategies). If capitalism is not expected to fall apart it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to replace the entire capitalist system with an alternative—socialism. The anti-capitalist project needs to be reoriented. Instead of organizing an entirely new society from the ground up, our task as the enemies of capitalism, is to develop projects which can restrict the dominance of capitalist institutions and values. No longer in the business of changing everything all at once or in a short period, the enemies of capitalism are becoming enormously inventive in thinking about what specific changes they want to make. None of these projects will bring about a better society by itself. All together they may—we hope—help. Absent serious thought about how socialism will come into the world in concrete incarnations our descriptions of aspects of a socialist society must remain utopian. It is time for socialists to abandon the comforting generalities of the past and the pleasing fantasies with which we maintain our sanity in an insane world.
Taking Socialism Seriously ed Antole Anton and Richard Schmidt (2012)
It become less and less reasonable to think that capitalism might be keeping any of the promises made on its behalf by its supporters. Wealth was not trickling down; the gap between the rich and the poor was growing daily. Even the lucky ones who capitalism enriched were not happier than before. While at the same time the results of electoral politics seemed increasingly questionable, public corruption was on the rise and democracy moribund as the economy alternatively boomed and burst.
Capitalism had not brought us peace and security, neither at home nor abroad, but instead involved us in endless warfare and mass slaughter. It daily became a more intense threat to the natural environment and human survival on earth. Nor have the moral requirements of racial and gender equality made great inroads. Overwhelmed by these realities, we thought that socialism is clearly what the world needs. But, at the same time, we found that the large anticapitalist literature had little to tell us about the detailed features of a socialist society. Hence we asked a group of our friends to write papers about their thoughts about a socialist society. They did and what emerged is a really interesting book.
But the book did not answer the question that needs answering. When you ask someone about their conception of socialism, you may very well get a description of their fantasies about a better world. They will give you their dreams and wishful thinking. But wishful thinking will not repair the ravages of capitalism. What we need are alternative institutions that we can build in the present. We need not only to ask ourselves how we imagine a better world but also how we are going to construct it in the prefiguative process of reconstructing ourselves and our social relations. Socialism has been on the agenda for close to 200 years. It began its career as the name for a society based on cooperation and equal economic and political rights. Becoming then associated with the Marxist theory of history, socialism became a future state that would follow capitalism once that mode of production met its inevitable demise. Not much needed to be known about socialism because we would find out, when the time came, how we needed to construct a society not dominated by the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialists have recommended political strategies which have not worked. They have organized labor unions that turned out to be solidly anti-communist. They have organized “socialist” political parties that became staunch supporters of capitalist institutions. They have talked grandly about international working class solidarity only to find workers flocking to their national colors when war broke out. They have created schools and families that have reproduced the very authoritarianism they were intended to overthrow.
