Can Radicals Be Liberals, Too?

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (8)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  you’ve got to be kidding me. Sell-outs are trying to popularize their ever-uninspiring stand to the new vibrant generation that is putting men like Gitlin to shame. 

  Posted by janice on Jun 20, 2003 at 12:58 PM

  it would be best if this guy stuck to working with the democrats and left the dirty work to us. that’s right a leaderless movement with a hell of a lot more spine then his generation. if it weren’t for the panthers and riots the 60’s wouldn’t have happened.

  Posted by bill ganz on Jun 20, 2003 at 6:22 PM

  I am 54 years old and still radical,not to the degree that I once was of course.
  You have to maintain a portion of
  the radical to keep the sharp edge on
  the liberal or you have a tendency to drift to the center or you become progressive.Their is know place for the centerist ideology in the democratic party. For us the democrats and those old radicals that
  moved to the center are going to have to get rid of the Dockers and get the jeans back on and make the democratic party the great and powerful party it once was.
  

  Posted by mr gary wayne butler on Jun 21, 2003 at 1:15 AM

  damn straight gary....Im 18 and oh what a time to be young...its bittersweet really. On one hand there is this social revolution brewing i can feel it in my bones, but on the other hand it is coming because of so much evil coming on so fast. I am so excited about the election next year I am going to be working my ass off trying to get Bush out of office and get republicans out of office by throngs. We dems need our strength and our zeal. That is what leads people to us. Radicalism is saying NO to being moved to the center where evil is tolerated and allowed to fester. lets do as the consvervatives say and “just say no” heh

  Posted by lana on Jun 26, 2003 at 10:26 PM

  It’s about time that the left disowns Gitlin, who has been pawning himself as an “expert” on activism for way too long. The problem with Gitlin isn’t so much his confused politics, rather the nonsense about activism that he spouts off to the media that see him as an expert. Gitlin is more out of touch with contemporary activism than even the most reclusive ivory tower leftist. He can’t get his facts straight and his advice is more worthless than a penny lying on a subway platform.

  Posted by Chuck0 on Jun 30, 2003 at 3:31 PM

  Once again G. William Domhoff has cast aspersion on economic planning, ìwhether centralized or decentralized,î (ìCan Radicals Be Liberals, Too?,î July 21), and by extension the idea of socialism.  He claims to be for ìplanning through the market,î but in reality all this means is heís for social-democratic regulation of markets.  Social-democratic regulation of markets is a good thing.  But it doesnít eliminate all market ills.

  Letís get back to basics.  Capitalism, as Marx and many subsequent socialists understood, amounts to production for the sake of production, rather than the satisfaction of the needs of society. The individual firm represents nothing other than a particular interest. It acts as if it were the center of the universe. It lays hold of as much means of production and raw materials and employs as many workers as its capital and its sales prospects enable it to, without asking itself if these means of production and this labor power might not be more useful in another field of activity. It produces as many of its particular commodity as it can dispose of on the market without asking itself if other goods might not be more useful for society. And it is even prepared to go as far as to wage a ìpsychological warî against the whole population in order to convince it that it has a need for this particular commodity.  The logic of the commodity relation is for every individual to regard and treat all others as means to earn his or her living. Random genetic lotteries of skills and talents, rather than the intensity of oneís labor, determine income allocation. ìPlanning through the marketî does not affect these fundamental aspects of capitalist markets.

  In the words of economists Pat Devine and Fikret Ademan, the operation of market forcesóbe they under neoliberal or social-democratic capitalismóallows ìno scope for generalised participation, indeed for any real participation, in the determination of the overall allocation and reallocation of economic activity. Instead of the process of economic change being consciously shaped in accordance with peopleís explicit and tacit knowledge as to how they might be affected by it, the outcome is what no one willed.î

  Posted by Jason Schulman on Jul 17, 2003 at 8:46 PM

  Domhoff argues that a deliberately and democratically coordinated economyósocialism, some of us call itóis impossible.  I will not provide the details of a feasible socialist economy here in order to prove him wrongóothers have done so in other publications. (See the Spring 2002 issue of Science & Society for various examples). I will say that one of the best arguments for socialist planning is the experience of capitalism in the twentieth century. It is well known that monopolies seek to remove as much uncertainty as possible from their economic calculations. Investment decisions and profit projections are vulnerable to the inherent chaos of the market and competition from rivals. By capturing as much as possible of a given market or supply of raw materials, by engaging in ìprice-fixingî with their supposed rivals, monopoly firms attempt to inject as much certainty and planning into decision-making as they can. There are real tendencies within capitalismóabove all, computer-integrated manufacturingóthat prove both the possibility of planning on a far more inclusive scale and the need to abolish private property in the means of production in order to fulfill the intrinsic possibilities of planning.

  Most contemporary proposals for socialism do include some form of markets, or at least market exchange (the exchange of consumer goods with wages), but with a large degree of planning, regulation, taxes, subsidies and political social choice that are necessary to achieve socialist goals that markets on their own will not achieve. This doesnít mean that comprehensive planning can be accomplished overnight or that market pricing will be suddenly abolished. Market prices currently reflect supply and demand in socially embedded markets. What would be the difference with more planning? Presumably, better prices, which would actually reflect real socially-constituted priorities and needs as determined by more democratic social choices, plus many important decisions which try to take into account social goals, and some ìshadow pricesî that more accurately reflect externalities and future social development goals than present market prices.

  Posted by Jason Schulman on Jul 17, 2003 at 8:47 PM

  Social versus individual choiceóìplanning versus marketsîówill require case by case adjudication, with markets generally circumscribed by longer-term, more deliberative, and broader-scoped planning.  The Left must emphasize that although markets can be for decisions that that are truly private (in that they have negligible externalities), important allocation decisions which social impact should be subservient to conscious, value driven, democratic political allocation, to the extent that accountable and democratic mechanisms can be devised which do improve upon market allocation. This should be our guiding principle which in practice politically de-legitimates market forces.

  Leftists should not be lending further credence to the marketization of society but rather, as we have historically, working full tilt against it. The subtleties beyond the labels can be addressed if necessary, i.e. that we donít dogmatically reject all markets; it will only be possible to plan in broad terms, based on market research and watchful of past trends, in anticipation of consumer needs; managed competition (excuse the phrase) is probably necessary to stimulate innovation and achieve greater accountability for many socialized enterprises (see the models of Pat Devine and David Laibman for examples); but while acknowledging that we do take this into account, we need to emphasize the importance of equity and of long-term planetary and human development, which demonstrate how markets are fundamentally undemocratic, unjust, unfair, and will ultimately lead us to barbarism if they are continued to be upheld as a core allocational principle.
  At this juncture anything not tied to ìthe marketî is difficult to promote politically.  But it certainly our job is to do everything we can to point out clear examples and sectors where planning has functioned well in the past and where non-market solutions are absolutely necessary. To use a popular ìThird Wayî word, if one considers expanding ìstakeholderî enterprises to include the true ìstakeholdersîóin the case of large industries, all of societyóthat means essentially a networked system of democratic planning, especially if coupled with more centralized determination of key interest rates and pricing policy.

  There is no way to avoid social choice. Trying to hide it behind a market may be politically expedient for the short term but will not serve us well for longer-term historic socialist objectives or for political education. 

  Posted by Jason Schulman on Jul 17, 2003 at 8:49 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by G. William Domhoff

• Not a Dead Ender
  
• Can Radicals Be Liberals, Too?
  
• Which Side Are We On?
  Redefining Who’s Us and Who’s Them
• Playing the Market
  The start of a new egalitarian politics might be found where you least expect it
• Greens or Green (Egalitarian) Democrats? continued
  
• Greens or Green (Egalitarian) Democrats?
  A Commentary on the Nader 2000 Campaign.