You subscribe to one of two possibilities. Either socialism electorally (I do not), or socialism through revolution.
The range of possibilities is far broader than this. Any path to socialism will realistically involve a bunch of different tactics -- electoral participation (both mainstream and radical), labor organization (both formal unionization and informal shows of solidarity/support), and all kinds of direct action. It's not choosing one at the expense of all others; it's choosing which mix of tactics is best for the situation and time.
And each of these tactics can move the ball forward individually, or can help move the ball forward via another tactic. The mass protests of last summer pushed elected officials in New Mexico to get rid of qualified immunity for cops, and put that legislation on the agenda in a bunch of other places for the very first time. Legislatively making it easier to punish cops in turn makes protesting more viable. Marijuana legalization (which has been led by politicians, not protesters) puts a lot of people in a less precarious position and gives people better employment/education/housing opportunities, all of which makes any kind of political action more viable. You might be more likely to risk a political arrest if you don't have a drug prior, and you might be more willing to organize with coworkers if you aren't afraid of getting targeted by a "random" drug test. If you get healthcare from the state there's one huge thing you and your coworkers don't have to worry about losing as you organize, and one of the easiest ways for organized labor to flex its power is to put elected officials they like into power, who can then pass more union-friendly legislation.
I don't think there's any question that a lot of good can be done with this sort of toolkit approach, which itself is worth a lot if we both agree that waiting for civilization to collapse is not an optimal outcome. The question I see is whether this approach can get us from capitalism with improved guardrails to socialism. Either it can -- maybe capital's power can get constrained enough, and public services can get good enough, that a critical mass of people ask why we need private ownership of capital in the first place -- or it could erode reactionary institutions to the point where a revolution might be feasible without the world going to shit. It's worth considering if the revolutionary path doesn't appear viable.
I don't think you are describing achieving socialism. You are describing incrementally making capitalism more bearable. None of this achieves socialism. None of it moves anything towards socialism. Socialism is not achieved by making capitalism slightly more bearable bit by bit until "HAZAH! IT'S SOCIALISM NOW". Doesn't work.
You need to think about how all of this magically leads to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's very nice, I genuinely believe you are a good person, but I don't think you've thought through the nuts and bolts of actually achieving socialism itself within a country like the US, or the UK or France for that matter. It doesn't matter if a "critical mass of people" agree with us, they are too comfortable and will not die for the cause. Electoralism will be fixed against us. And if it ever looks like we might ever achieve socialism electorally a fascist coup will occur followed by the death of tens of thousands of communists as they clean out the rot (us). Assuming you get that far, you're looking at a collapse situation anyway.
I agree this is a pretty circuitous path to socialism. But if a revolution is off the table, you can't just vote socialism into place, and building labor power to the point where a general strike would be feasible is equally unlikely... what else is left?
You need to think about how all of this magically leads to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Here's how: through this toolkit approach, you get to the point where an increasing number of basic needs (healthcare, housing, education, employment) are guaranteed by the state. The effect of this is (1) shrinking the power private capital has over people and (2) providing a proof-of-concept, which leftists can organize around, for the idea that private control of the economy is not necessary. Increasing labor organization goes hand in hand with this -- it's much easier to organize if one's basic needs are guaranteed even if they get fired for joining a union. Finally, crucially, you simultaneously whittle down the police.
In that world, you're much closer to the conditions where a general strike might push you over into socialism. Or it might be feasible to do it electorally, not through one "socialism yes/no" vote, but through a gradual nationalization of industry (think of how much would already be "nationalized" if healthcare, housing, education, and employment are guaranteed -- you'd have that as a proof of concept for going farther, step by step). Or, if further progress keeps getting stalled by undemocratic reaction from capital, think of how a wave of protests like we saw last summer could go if the police have been whittled down, there's a much greater degree of leftist political organization, and people know that they aren't going to lose their basic needs if they get arrested.
So yeah, it would make capitalism more bearable in the near-term (which would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and can't be glossed over), but it would also make an eventual move to socialism feasible. It's not feasible now, so this would be a big step in the right direction, and -- unlike waiting for the collapse of civilization -- it's something you can organize around.
You're describing various european countries though, and we're not closer to achieving socialism here than you are there. It hasn't made things easier, things are the same, stalled between the dilemma of worsening everyone's lives vs electorally making things slightly nicer under capitalism.
Do you think it is easier to achieve socialism here in the UK? Or in Germany? Or Norway? Why do you think the conditions are better in these places than they are in America? You say it's easier to organise and yet we're not better organised here.
I'd say it's easier to achieve socialism in Europe than in the U.S., yes, if only because (it seems) most Europeans don't immediately scream "communism!" the second someone proposes a public solution to a social problem. The background level of resistance to addressing collective problems collectively appears to be much lower. There are a ton of state-owned companies in Norway -- wouldn't it be easier to talk about nationalizing other companies in a country like that vs. a country where you're called a commie before you can even finish your sentence?
And I'm suggesting going beyond what Europe has. I don't think most (any?) European countries have housing or job guarantees, for instance. If the U.S. not only had those, but implemented those policies in a modern political movement, that would open up all sorts of potential to go further. You'd have a political coalition that's already produced big results, results which to a degree would speak for themselves.
Disagree. We are further away from revolution than the US and electoral socialism is an impossibility. Greece and Italy are the closest mainland European countries to making something happen and they are the closest because they have had economic disasters that have created the material conditions for a rising and powerful left. They will not get closer unless the conditions tighten further though. Ireland is closest but has moved further away from the opportunity to achieve socialism since conditions improved in the 90s.
The range of possibilities is far broader than this. Any path to socialism will realistically involve a bunch of different tactics -- electoral participation (both mainstream and radical), labor organization (both formal unionization and informal shows of solidarity/support), and all kinds of direct action. It's not choosing one at the expense of all others; it's choosing which mix of tactics is best for the situation and time.
And each of these tactics can move the ball forward individually, or can help move the ball forward via another tactic. The mass protests of last summer pushed elected officials in New Mexico to get rid of qualified immunity for cops, and put that legislation on the agenda in a bunch of other places for the very first time. Legislatively making it easier to punish cops in turn makes protesting more viable. Marijuana legalization (which has been led by politicians, not protesters) puts a lot of people in a less precarious position and gives people better employment/education/housing opportunities, all of which makes any kind of political action more viable. You might be more likely to risk a political arrest if you don't have a drug prior, and you might be more willing to organize with coworkers if you aren't afraid of getting targeted by a "random" drug test. If you get healthcare from the state there's one huge thing you and your coworkers don't have to worry about losing as you organize, and one of the easiest ways for organized labor to flex its power is to put elected officials they like into power, who can then pass more union-friendly legislation.
I don't think there's any question that a lot of good can be done with this sort of toolkit approach, which itself is worth a lot if we both agree that waiting for civilization to collapse is not an optimal outcome. The question I see is whether this approach can get us from capitalism with improved guardrails to socialism. Either it can -- maybe capital's power can get constrained enough, and public services can get good enough, that a critical mass of people ask why we need private ownership of capital in the first place -- or it could erode reactionary institutions to the point where a revolution might be feasible without the world going to shit. It's worth considering if the revolutionary path doesn't appear viable.
I don't think you are describing achieving socialism. You are describing incrementally making capitalism more bearable. None of this achieves socialism. None of it moves anything towards socialism. Socialism is not achieved by making capitalism slightly more bearable bit by bit until "HAZAH! IT'S SOCIALISM NOW". Doesn't work.
You need to think about how all of this magically leads to overthrowing the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. It's very nice, I genuinely believe you are a good person, but I don't think you've thought through the nuts and bolts of actually achieving socialism itself within a country like the US, or the UK or France for that matter. It doesn't matter if a "critical mass of people" agree with us, they are too comfortable and will not die for the cause. Electoralism will be fixed against us. And if it ever looks like we might ever achieve socialism electorally a fascist coup will occur followed by the death of tens of thousands of communists as they clean out the rot (us). Assuming you get that far, you're looking at a collapse situation anyway.
I agree this is a pretty circuitous path to socialism. But if a revolution is off the table, you can't just vote socialism into place, and building labor power to the point where a general strike would be feasible is equally unlikely... what else is left?
Here's how: through this toolkit approach, you get to the point where an increasing number of basic needs (healthcare, housing, education, employment) are guaranteed by the state. The effect of this is (1) shrinking the power private capital has over people and (2) providing a proof-of-concept, which leftists can organize around, for the idea that private control of the economy is not necessary. Increasing labor organization goes hand in hand with this -- it's much easier to organize if one's basic needs are guaranteed even if they get fired for joining a union. Finally, crucially, you simultaneously whittle down the police.
In that world, you're much closer to the conditions where a general strike might push you over into socialism. Or it might be feasible to do it electorally, not through one "socialism yes/no" vote, but through a gradual nationalization of industry (think of how much would already be "nationalized" if healthcare, housing, education, and employment are guaranteed -- you'd have that as a proof of concept for going farther, step by step). Or, if further progress keeps getting stalled by undemocratic reaction from capital, think of how a wave of protests like we saw last summer could go if the police have been whittled down, there's a much greater degree of leftist political organization, and people know that they aren't going to lose their basic needs if they get arrested.
So yeah, it would make capitalism more bearable in the near-term (which would improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and can't be glossed over), but it would also make an eventual move to socialism feasible. It's not feasible now, so this would be a big step in the right direction, and -- unlike waiting for the collapse of civilization -- it's something you can organize around.
You're describing various european countries though, and we're not closer to achieving socialism here than you are there. It hasn't made things easier, things are the same, stalled between the dilemma of worsening everyone's lives vs electorally making things slightly nicer under capitalism.
Do you think it is easier to achieve socialism here in the UK? Or in Germany? Or Norway? Why do you think the conditions are better in these places than they are in America? You say it's easier to organise and yet we're not better organised here.
I'd say it's easier to achieve socialism in Europe than in the U.S., yes, if only because (it seems) most Europeans don't immediately scream "communism!" the second someone proposes a public solution to a social problem. The background level of resistance to addressing collective problems collectively appears to be much lower. There are a ton of state-owned companies in Norway -- wouldn't it be easier to talk about nationalizing other companies in a country like that vs. a country where you're called a commie before you can even finish your sentence?
And I'm suggesting going beyond what Europe has. I don't think most (any?) European countries have housing or job guarantees, for instance. If the U.S. not only had those, but implemented those policies in a modern political movement, that would open up all sorts of potential to go further. You'd have a political coalition that's already produced big results, results which to a degree would speak for themselves.
Disagree. We are further away from revolution than the US and electoral socialism is an impossibility. Greece and Italy are the closest mainland European countries to making something happen and they are the closest because they have had economic disasters that have created the material conditions for a rising and powerful left. They will not get closer unless the conditions tighten further though. Ireland is closest but has moved further away from the opportunity to achieve socialism since conditions improved in the 90s.