Several reactions are taking a rather narrow view of what constitutes socialism and a pretty introductory take on comparative political economy. The range of what socialism means is both a strength and a weakness, but it should at least be acknowledged.
The reduction of economic systems to either market capitalism (with or without redistribution and regulation) or centrally-planned command economies ignores the range of existing and potential forms of economic organization.
One thinker whose perspective might be close to some hearts is that of John Stuart Mill. That eminent utilitarian also considered himself a socialist. He was a liberal who supported markets, but also a socialist. John Maynard Keynes has been claimed both as a liberal (contra socialism) as well as a liberal socialist.
Such liberal socialism, close to democratic socialism, might support a range of programs that include and go beyond social democratic or Nordic style managed capitalism policies. These nevertheless could qualify as genuinely socialist inasmuch as they shift economic control away from private capital ownership. Garrison mentions several of these. Mill was keen on worker cooperatives and Keynes argued for the socialization of investment.
The developing world might also benefit from some socialist or socialist-adjacent ideas. Import substitution development strategies, structuralist and post-keynesian development economics, while not inherently socialist, are possible alternatives to the IMF and World Bank’s failed structural adjustment approaches. More broadly, while not excusing their human rights abuses, the USSR and China have shown that planned rapid industrialization is possible.
The political tradition of socialism is wider than most think and is a lot more sophisticated than either “socialism is when the government does stuff” or “we should violently overthrow capitalism.” At its best, it has a concern for human well-being at its center. Through combining union and electoral efforts, it has limited the worst excesses of capitalism and led to the most important economic reforms (8 hr day, 5 day work week, child labor laws, minimum wage) the modern world has seen.
Several reactions are taking a rather narrow view of what constitutes socialism and a pretty introductory take on comparative political economy. The range of what socialism means is both a strength and a weakness, but it should at least be acknowledged.
The reduction of economic systems to either market capitalism (with or without redistribution and regulation) or centrally-planned command economies ignores the range of existing and potential forms of economic organization.
One thinker whose perspective might be close to some hearts is that of John Stuart Mill. That eminent utilitarian also considered himself a socialist. He was a liberal who supported markets, but also a socialist. John Maynard Keynes has been claimed both as a liberal (contra socialism) as well as a liberal socialist.
Such liberal socialism, close to democratic socialism, might support a range of programs that include and go beyond social democratic or Nordic style managed capitalism policies. These nevertheless could qualify as genuinely socialist inasmuch as they shift economic control away from private capital ownership. Garrison mentions several of these. Mill was keen on worker cooperatives and Keynes argued for the socialization of investment.
The developing world might also benefit from some socialist or socialist-adjacent ideas. Import substitution development strategies, structuralist and post-keynesian development economics, while not inherently socialist, are possible alternatives to the IMF and World Bank’s failed structural adjustment approaches. More broadly, while not excusing their human rights abuses, the USSR and China have shown that planned rapid industrialization is possible.
The political tradition of socialism is wider than most think and is a lot more sophisticated than either “socialism is when the government does stuff” or “we should violently overthrow capitalism.” At its best, it has a concern for human well-being at its center. Through combining union and electoral efforts, it has limited the worst excesses of capitalism and led to the most important economic reforms (8 hr day, 5 day work week, child labor laws, minimum wage) the modern world has seen.