Again, if you missed the memo: there will be no final exam. Course grades will be based on participation (so let's all get busy posting comments and contributing to discussion threads) and reports... (see sidebar)T 7 - TL 6- Democratic Socialism (scroll down to *Th 9
LISTEN... "Socially available free time" @dawn: LISTEN
1. In a democracy we're answerable not to _____ but to _____. 270
2. Under capitalism we cannot transform what into what? 283
3. What "revaluation" and transformation is at the center of Hagglund's conception of democratic socialism? 294
4. What distortive vision of ourselves does capitalism reinforce, and how would it change under democratic socialism? 307
5. What ought everyone to have, and what does that require? 320
DQ
- In a democracy "we have to give reasons for our conception of the common good and deliberate on the best means to achieve our goals together." 271 What will it take for our country to become a democracy (again?) in that sense?
- If you had enough "free time to lead your life" (and time in quarantine doesn't count), what do you imagine you'd do with it that you're not doing now (or that you don't expect to be in a position to do, in the foreseeable future)?
- Would Bernie Sanders's version of democratic socialism achieve the transformation Hagglund advocates?
- Does our education system encourage students to discover and pursue what they love? If not, why not? Is it "utopian" to think it ought to?
- If the risk of wasting time is intrinsic to leading a free life (324), do we have reason to think that people would be less wasteful and more attuned to their true interests under democratic socialism?
- Do you expect a self-avowed socialist to be elected to the American presidency in your lifetime?
- Do you think the pandemic will fundamentally alter American politics, in either the near or long term? Will it make young people more, or less, politically active? Or will it make no difference?
JUNE 12, 2019 Senator Bernie Sanders Remarks on Democratic Socialism
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, spoke about his views on democratic socialism and why he believes it would be good for America. CSPAN
==
Did America Misjudge Bernie Sanders? Or Did He Misjudge America?Throughout his insurgent campaign, he remained steadfast in his radical vision — and forced a reckoning for the Democratic Party. (NYT Magazine)
On the afternoon of Saturday, March 7, Bernie Sanders stood in an empty conference room in a hotel in downtown Chicago, looking quietly agitated, like a man trying to figure out how to be in seven places at once. A couple of blocks away in Grant Park, where Barack Obama gave his soaring victory speech in November 2008, thousands of supporters awaited him as the sound system blasted a medley of songs with a familiar lyrical theme: “talkin’ ’bout a revolution” (by Tracy Chapman), “the revolution starts now” (Steve Earle), “burn, baby, burn” (the Trammps) “so let the revolution begin” (Flogging Molly). In a few minutes, one of his warm-up acts, a local teachers’ union organizer named Stacy Davis Gates, would be pointedly warning the crowd, “See, moderation is a dream killer.” And then, “Moderation is inhumane.”
At the park and in the conference room, the air was charged with a state of urgency that did not yet approach panic but was not so distant from it. After Joe Biden’s incredible string of victories on Super Tuesday, just four days earlier, a new phase of the Democratic primary campaign — one that greatly disfavored Sanders’s once-unstoppable candidacy — was now underway. Former opponents and media pundits were coalescing around Biden, the newly restored front-runner, all but demanding closure to the horse race — essentially, for Sanders to pack up and go back to Vermont. Sanders had a different view of the situation: In so swiftly closing ranks, his detractors were inadvertently proving the case he had been making all along... (continues)==
The Many, Tangled American Definitions of Socialism
As Donald Drumpf declares that “America will never be a socialist country” and Democratic Presidential candidates struggle to put a name to their progressive policies, the historian John Gurda would like to add some perspective to how we think about socialism. The term has been “ground into the dust over the years,” he told me, when we met in his home town of Milwaukee, and his aim is to rehabilitate it. “Part of my self-assigned role is to provide some of the context, the nuance, where it makes sense again. Because it’s the straw man, it’s the boogeyman for an awful lot of people.” (continues)
==
2019-09-09 | George Orwell was a democratic socialist all his life. So why are 1984 and Animal Farmcommonly read as indictments of socialism? more »
2018-08-27 | For some, socialism conjures the Soviet Union and the gulag; for others, Scandinavia and guaranteed income. What do we mean, in 2018, when we talk about socialism? more »
2019-06-07 | The most enterprising Marxist. Bhaskar Sunkara, founder of Jacobin, offers a manifesto for socialism that is thrillingly non-utopian more »
As the bubonic plague ravaged Florence, Boccaccio observed the putrid crisis at ground level. What did social distancing look like in 1347?... more »
The coronavirus marks the end of an era defined by liberalism and rising living standards. What will shape the new world order?... more »
What to read in quarantine? Colette, Hilary Mantel, and classic, 700 page academic tomes. It’s a good time for slow reading... more »
A pandemic is a time for rethinking everything,for changing one’s mind, for putting down books by fashionable theorists... more »
“Be of good cheer,” advises Geoff Dyer, reflecting on the pandemic. But inwardly he’s clutching his head like Munch’s screamer... more »
Arts & Letters Daily
==
4.8, 9 pm. John Prine has died. Damn.
He asked a good question, in When I Get to Heaven, pithily expressing Martin Hagglund's thesis: "What are you gonna do with time after you've bought the farm?" So glad he made such great use of the time he had, sharing the fruits of his creativity with us. I'm afraid I think his daddy was right (listen to When I Get to Heaven).
==
*Th 9 - TL Conclusion-Our Only Life
LISTEN-The point of American Philosophy, and how we move forward
1. In what way did MLK say, in 1967, he'd changed his mind about social reform? 339
2. The key to making dreams realities, said Marx, is what? 349
3. To lead a spiritual life is always to live in relation to what? 361
4. What was "the spirit of Memphis"? 372
5. Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything is a telling example of what? 381
DQ
LISTEN-The point of American Philosophy, and how we move forward
1. In what way did MLK say, in 1967, he'd changed his mind about social reform? 339
2. The key to making dreams realities, said Marx, is what? 349
3. To lead a spiritual life is always to live in relation to what? 361
4. What was "the spirit of Memphis"? 372
5. Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything is a telling example of what? 381
DQ
- As we conclude This Life, are you persuaded (or were you already convinced) that secular faith is prerequisite to spiritual freedom? Do you understand the concepts of secularism and spirituality in light of human finitude differently from Hagglund in any important respects?
- Do we need a revolution, reconstruction, or some other variety of reform in our society?
- Why do you think MLK said Hegel was his favorite philosopher? 351
- Do you agree with Hegel/Hagglund about the meaning and significance of human burial rituals? 359
- Do you agree with Hegel/Hagglund (and Thomas Jefferson, as implied by his Bible) about the meaning and significance of Jesus? 366
- In the absence of the kind of "revaluation" Hagglund favors, would democratic socialism focused on redistribtionism be a good thing for America?
- Have you read Naomi Klein? Is she on the right track? Is Hagglund's critique fair? (I have a particular interest in this question, I've used This Changes Everything and other books by Klein in Environmental Ethics in the past, and will use her latest book this Fall.)
- I know Ed, and perhaps others of you as well, think Hagglund should have omitted the late chapters and his advocacy of democratic socialism, but I really like the last paragraph: "We only have a chance to achieve democratic socialism if we grasp that everything is at stake in what we do with our finite time together. We only have a chance to make it a reality if we help one another to own our only life. This is how we overcome and how we move forward..." COMMENT?
Discussion question: Do you think the pandemic will fundamentally alter American politics, in either the near or long term? Will it make young people more, or less, politically active? Or will it make no difference?
ReplyDeleteI will go to my grave believing that America’s decline began with William F. Buckley and the rise of “movement conservatism.” Buckley’s great insight was that if conservatives based their arguments on facts and reason, they could not prevail over the liberals. Their arguments and appeals had to be based on emotion. Their triumph was with Ronald Reagan, and the idea that government is a problem, and not a solution. Now after 40 years of this kind of thinking, we have a decimated government run by the less than competent and the greedy. A kakistocracy, a kleptocracy, an idiocracy. One can hope that the pandemic will result in a reevaluation of all our social and economic policies based on reason, and a return to meritocracy. But my fear is that, just like the alcoholic, we have not yet hit bottom.
Surely there aren't LESS capable kleptocrats in the wings, my modest and guarded hope for better days depends on there being no where to go (at least in the executive branch) but up.
DeleteI confess I went through a very brief phase in my late HS and early college days when I thought WFB was cool. He had the only tv show about ideas, featuring actual intellectual conversation. (This was before I discovered Bill Moyers and his "World of Ideas".) I'd like to think he'd not approve of Trumpism. But then, the mainstream GOP said they didn't approved of him, 'til he won.
Discussion question: In a democracy "we have to give reasons for our conception of the common good and deliberate on the best means to achieve our goals together." 271 What will it take for our country to become a democracy (again?) in that sense?
ReplyDeleteFor the majority of my working life I was, in various circumstances, a manager. Here is a bedrock principle: leaders set goals, develop plans to achieve those goals, then act to implement those plans. For us to have a democracy, as stated in chapter 6 (271), the purpose and practice of our economy must itself be a matter of our democratic deliberation. We need to have agreed-to social goals. For us to set those goals, we need to have a universally accepted principle upon which we base our goal-setting. And this is the big problem; we do not have that today. Imagine if we all agreed that the principle upon which all else was based was that the state exists to make possible for all citizens the achievement of Eudaimonia. That seems to be what democratic socialism is about. The sad fact that is that many Americans reject that as a guiding principle, and I would say it’s because of the notion of American individualism, which is antithetical to the concept of the common good.
Discussion question: Do you expect a self-avowed socialist to be elected to the American presidency in your lifetime?
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt. Oh wait, in my lifetime? Perhaps not. But before an atheist. Have you noticed how that democratic socialist AOC is admired for her incisive professional questioning as a committee member? Not some crazy radical, but an intelligent and educated reasonable advocate of responsible policies. Younger people see the difference between her and people like Devin Nunes, Louis Gomert, and most of the highly visible Republicans. Millennials and Generation Zs are not blinded by labels like the older generations. They see an economy failing for them but a strong stock market. They see failing social conditions among the populace, but great wealth among the privileged. They see a role for government is addressing social and economic ills, and they don’t give a damn about labels. As long as “establishment” politicians continue to protect special interests over common interests, pressure will build among this growing section of the electorate to elect a “socialist.” Just look at how far Bernie has come in the last few years, and see that his strongest supporters are the youngest voters. Well, maybe in my lifetime after all.
Do you think the pandemic will fundamentally alter American politics, in either the near or long term? Will it make young people more, or less, politically active? Or will it make no difference?
ReplyDeleteI think that the pandemic has and will forever change many aspects of our society and culture, including our politics. I wouldn't be surprised if young people became even more politically active (especially on issues like health care), because this pandemic is really revealing how broken our government systems are, and the fact that our lives depend on this administration doing their job is very scary right now. I already cared about political issues, but what we are experiencing now has me feeling particularly heated about the changes we need to make. I hope that we don't lose hope and that we refuse to give up so that we can learn from what is happening and make things better now and for the future.
Many see the difference, but will they vote en masse? Apathy and resignation seem pretty prevalent, much as I'd like to believe that Greta represents the tip of an activist iceberg among her cohort.
ReplyDeleteHagglund of course will say it doesn't matter, unless the progressive candidate runs under a banner of revaluation and not just redistribution.
But I'm going to do my best to persuade myself that the afterlife here on earth is going to be wonderful. There may even be an atheist/democratic socialist in the WH one day, though like you I don't expect to see it myself. But here's a scenario where I hope I'm wrong about that, a pre-summer fantasy. I'm going to predict that AOC becomes POTUS in 2032. Her campaign theme: "Happy days are here again," again.
If you had enough "free time to lead your life" (and time in quarantine doesn't count), what do you imagine you'd do with it that you're not doing now (or that you don't expect to be in a position to do, in the foreseeable future)?
ReplyDeleteI would write, paint, create music, hike, and travel a ton. I love doing these things, but it is hard to fit it all in my schedule, especially with other responsibilities. Plus, the financial aspect is a killer! I have really been enjoying school and I am grateful for how much it has been expanding my mind, but I do wish there was more time in a day so that I could do it all. I have many things that I love to do, and it is hard to pick what to give most of my attention, because there is only so much "free time." I don't see that problem getting any easier once I start my career.
Well... that sounds like a pretty compelling case for a revaluation of the dominant capitalist values of our system, as well as those of our time and place. One of the reasons I'm drawn to sci-fi is that invites speculation about a future world where that revaluation has already transpired. Maybe some of us were just born too soon.
DeleteI am ready for a reevaluation of our present system! There is so much more to life than just work. I have family living outside of the United States, and the work culture is so different. We need more time to spend with family, explore our hobbies, take breaks... AKA live our multifaceted lives!
DeleteDiscussion question: Do we need a revolution, reconstruction, or some other variety of reform in our society?
ReplyDeleteRevolution, no; reform, yes. Too many of our institutions and policies are detrimental to social welfare of us all, and destructive of democracy. Just look at national opinion on issues like climate change, gun control, education, workers’ rights, health care – the public opinion is not reflected in the positions of the political leadership. The political leadership reflects the position of people with money who want more money. We need tax reform, health care reform, labor rights reform, campaign finance reform, voting rights reform; the list goes on and on. The People want these things. If We the People could take back control of Congress from these damn Republicans, we could have these things. If not, then maybe revolution.
If we think Hagglund is right about the change we need, a revaluation of the measure of value and not just redstribution based on capital accumulation as that measure, the question becomes: can we reform our way to revaluation? It seems like a radical shift in priority and collective existential identity, and not something we can slowly evolve into. But is that just the impatience of a short-lived organism speaking?
DeleteIn the absence of the kind of "revaluation" Hagglund favors, would democratic socialism focused on redistribtionism be a good thing for America?
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t help thinking as I read chapter six and the conclusion that Hagglund should have stopped with chapter five. When I read his three principles of democratic socialism (not Bernie’s) as including “collective ownership of the means of production, and the pursuit of labor from each according to her ability, to each according to her need,” I thought, oh boy, this is just music to the ears of those who cry “Socialism!” at every government effort to help improve the lives of ordinary Americans. (Not corporations, the job creators, of course.) We need redistributionism. Income inequality is devastating this country, and ensuring the dominance of the kleptocracy. The tax system is absurd. We need better health care for all, better child care for all, better education for all, better financial security for all. That would be a good thing for America. Conservatives decry any of this as the dreaded socialism, and like lemmings the uninformed follow in opposition. The word socialism carries too much baggage. And in what universe could the idea of collective ownership of the means of production be accepted in America?
But aside from collective ownership and the "S" word, do you agree that we as a culture have accepted a standard of value in terms of capital and the intensive labor required to generate it that needs to be replaced? And that, short of replacing it, redistributionism alone will not be the progressive change we need? In other words, is there an inherent contradiction in the idea (as he says) that capitalism is proposed by progressives as the problem AND the solution?
DeleteYou don't have to answer, Ed, unless you want to. I put this as a rhetorical question (and would love to hear what others think).
DeleteDo you expect a self-avowed socialist to be elected to the American presidency in your lifetime?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's likely that a self avowed socialist will be elected president in my lifetime only because most Americans current opinion on socialism is not positive. I saw this NPR poll that shows that even among Gen Z and Millenials only 38% has "a favorable impression of socialism". (https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-but-socialism-isnt-popular-with-most-americans)
I feel their is still a stigma associated with identifying as a Socialist.
Quiz Questions
ReplyDeleteQ: Why for Marx were capitalism and actual democracy incompatible?
A: Under capitalism the purpose of economic production is beyond democratic discussion. (pg. 271)
Q: According to Hagglund, as long as we accept the measure of value that is based on _____ ____, the exploitation of proletarian labor will remain necessary for the production of wealth.
A: Labor Time (pg. 273)
Q: According to Hagglund what is Postone's only concern with regards to freedom?
A: His only concern is that we are free from submitting our living labor to the process of production. (pg. 277)
DQ: Would Bernie Sanders's version of democratic socialism achieve the transformation Hagglund advocates?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe so, Sanders is more focused on critiquing distribution of resources more than critiquing our actual measure of value. I think that Sanders' version of democratic socialism would leave both the mode of production and measure of value intact.
If you had enough "free time to lead your life" (and time in quarantine doesn't count), what do you imagine you'd do with it that you're not doing now (or that you don't expect to be in a position to do, in the foreseeable future)?
ReplyDeleteI am a content creator so i create content, if I had more free time I would take my time in creating my content and making it nice and crispy with meaning and purpose . I would spend more time with my family because i am in such a rush to build this "Great" life that I don't really spend time with them like I should.
Do we need a revolution, reconstruction, or some other variety of reform in our society?
ReplyDeleteWe need all three. It will start with a revolution then after that we will reconstruct our society , which will lead to its reform.