Suchergebnisse

Let me begin by thanking Joanne Barkan for her thoughtful comments. On many points we agree, but on several big
ones we do not—about the distinctiveness of the social democratic tradition, its superiority to other traditions on the
democratic left, and the requirements for the Left's success today and in the future. Barkan is bothered by my linkage
of Michael Harrington's work, and American politics more generally, to older European political debates. But that was
precisely the topic the editors of Dissent asked me to address—and it was a challenge I accepted because I do
believe there are striking similarities between the two and that the older stories I tell have contemporary relevance
and, in Barkan's words, "apply to the Western world in general."

A reply to Joanne Barkan's comments on the author's "Unheralded Battle: The Left, Social Democracy, and Democratic Socialism" (both, 2009) stands by her linkage of Michael Harrington's work, & US politics more generally, to older European political debates, finding relevance in the European history for the contemporary US. Adapted from the source document.

The current economic crisis has once again bought debates about capitalism and globalization to the forefront of the political agenda. Until very recently almost everyone seemed to be convinced that the world was at the dawn of a new era. Yet, the issue at the heart of globalization debates—whether political forces can dominate economic ones or must bow before them—is not new at all. I show that many of the great ideological and political battles of the last century were fought over precisely this ground, and argue that because we have forgotten or misunderstood these earlier debates our current discourse is thin and impoverished. To understand where we are and where we are going, we have to first step back and look closely at where we have been.

Asserting that the left's fortunes are deeply entwined with those of capitalism, it is argued that the left can look to its past for lessons on how to grapple with the current crisis of capitalism. Historical background is provided, describing a split in the democratic left comprising, on the one hand, a faction that saw capitalism eventually collapsing, &, on the other, a faction that doubted capitalism's demise in the foreseeable future & advocated taking advantage of its benefits while addressing its flaws. This split is seen as a century-long battle between democratic socialism & social democracy, & it is contended that this clash, & particularly social democracy's incomplete victory, that has impeded the left's ability to respond to political challenges. The history of the debate is traced from the fin-de-siecle through the 1930s & the post-WWII period, highlighting key arguments & representatives of each side. It is contended that, amid the current capitalist crisis, the goals of social democracy remain viable. Further, the left is urged to regain its "old optimism & historical vision." the late-19th-early-20th-century social democrats recognized that politics can provide a sense of the possible; it is maintained that such an outlook is needed now. Adapted from the source document.

A rise in the power of Islamist parties has lent fresh interest to the old question of how revolutionary movements respond to participation in democracy. Pessimists argue that such movements will use any power they gain at the ballot box to subvert democracy, while optimists believe that participation can turn extremists into moderates. The example of 20th century European communist parties shows that political context can trump radical essence, for where democratic institutions and structures were relatively effective and legitimate, communist parties were moderated by participation. But such evolution was not universal or inevitable, and in weak democracies communist parties remained committed to revolution and presented a real threat to democracy.