Sheri Berman v. Michael Harrington

DiscussãoProgressive & Liberal!

Aderi ao LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Sheri Berman v. Michael Harrington

Este tópico está presentemente marcado como "adormecido"—a última mensagem tem mais de 90 dias. Pode acordar o tópico publicando uma resposta.

1nickhoonaloon
Fev 20, 2009, 8:46 am

Following on from a link provided by BGP in the `progressive periodicals` thread not so long ago -

In a recent issue of Dissent, Sheri Berman takes issue with the views of the late Michael Harrington. In her view, social democracy,by which she means an acceptance of capitalism, an approach that "promotes growth and social solidarity together" is the only way forward for progressives today. Harrington`s beliefs, she argues, were counter-productive in that he believed that capitalism would and should come to an end. She argues that the `democratic socialism` he advocated was too vague to be convincing.

In general, I`d rather see one person , say, campaigning on behalf of democracy activists abroad, than half-a-dozen people having yet another mind-numbing debate about "what next for the left" or whatever. However, I do think the distinction she makes is an important one.

Who has/had the best arguments, Berman or Harrington ?

2jmcgarve
Editado: Fev 21, 2009, 11:55 pm

The link is here: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1332

Harrington's arguments seem a little stupid, at least in retrospect. He spoke of the twilight of capitalism just as capitalism was really taking off in eastern Europe and India and China, and as a period of moderate growth replaced cyclical crisis in most of the developed world. Capitalism is still crisis prone to be sure, as the present crisis shows, but over the last several decades it has proven to be very robust and dynamic.

I think the real problem with capitalism is that the entire psychology and control mechanisms of the system are predicated on growth. What happens to capitalism when consumption can't grow any more, because of environmental constraints? I believe we will reach this point in the coming century. There will be scarcities of water, topsoil, and energy. Disposal of the aggregate wastes of human civilization, CO2, plastic, feces, chemical wastes, and so on, will threaten the resources needed to keep the system going. Suppose population and average consumption stabilize at some sustainable level. Growth stops. Can capitalism handle that? Of course, a smooth transition to a steady no growth state is the optimistic scenario. It is also possible that there will be unsustainable growth followed by collapse and massive population decline.

Harrington remained something of a Marxist. Well, Marxism is dead. A world working class as a subjective actor on the world stage never formed and never will, and without this Marxism makes no sense. Most people's identities are tied to belief structures that are not about class and that do not promote class solidarity. And that is not changing and is not going to change.

3nickhoonaloon
Fev 26, 2009, 12:58 pm

#2

Well, no argument from me on those points.

I find Marx interesting, but the point you make is certainly valid. Another point is that, for the pure Marxist, all the institutions of civil society - democracy, the legal system etc have no validity, they are the instruments of the ruling class. I personally find that an objectionable point of view.

Having said that, I don`t necessarliy insist they were never true. I`ve just finished Victorian Murders by Roy Hartley Lewis and, although it`s not an overtly political book by any means, one point that is quite clear is how much the courts of that time were biassed in particular ways by the assumptions of the day, and particularly by the assumptions of the ruling class of the time.

However, that`s just a digression I thought was quite interesting.

My general feeling is that socialists have been of more use for the questions they raise than for the answers they`ve provided. That doesn`t necessarily detract from their actual activities. I have a much-treasured copy of Red Roses for Isabel by May Hill, which concerns itself with the life of Yorkshire Communist Isabel Brown. Undoubtedly, I would have many points of disagreement with a person like her ! On the other hand, her trade union activities, campaigning over the Spanish Civil War, and for Georgi Dimitrov when he was framed for The Reichstag Fire and her campaigning for better air raid shelters etc for beleagured Londoners during World War Two seem to me to be quite admirable. I suspect her actual works were rather more important than any glowing visions over some future socialist utopia she might have harboured !

4nickhoonaloon
Mar 5, 2009, 2:36 pm

#3 "the legal system"

At risk of contributing to `thread drift`, does my defence of civil institutions such as the courts apply so well in the US ?

I have to admit to being at a disadvantage here as for many years I had a job that gave me first -hand working knowledge of the courts (in the UK) and the system generally, whereas my knowledge of the US legal system is limited to the fact I used to sometimes watch Law and Order on a Friday night !

The impression I have from that impeccable source is that the US system is more prone to political interference. Of course, that could be bollocks based entirely on my taste for naff TV.

Any thoughts ?

5geneg
Editado: Mar 5, 2009, 4:56 pm

This is the kind of crap that affects our judicial system.

Our state courts are subject to corruption because the judges are elected rather than appointed. The above is typical of corruption in US courts.

6JNagarya
Editado: Mar 5, 2009, 6:40 pm

#2 --

Another point is that, for the pure Marxist, all the institutions of civil society - democracy, the legal system etc have no validity, they are the instruments of the ruling class.
_____

That makes no sense, as democracy is leveling, in keeping with socialism, and legal systems can be designed and redesigned in keeping with whatever the social order.

What is your source?

In response to your radical oversimplification, I'll point out that some of the US's staunchest allies consist of complex social systems composed of the following:

1. Monarchy.
2. Democratically elected parliament.
3. Socialist economics

Four of those countries are:

1. Britain.
2. Denmark.
3. Norway.
4. Sweden.

Though the far-right lunatic fringe contstantly bashes socialism, while all along being ignorant of what it is, there are no complaints from those four countries of a lack of freedom because of "socialist oppression". And in view of the fact that several fund education for all, as far as they want to go, all the way through college, one would be hard pressed to show that they are -- unlike the gun-swamped US -- "incivil".

7JNagarya
Editado: Mar 5, 2009, 6:42 pm

In the US, access to the courts on the civil side, for the private citizen, requires a substantial amount of money. Thus it is affected by class/economics issues. One doesn't get her/his day in court if one cannot pay a lawyer; and litigation lawyers are expensive.

In recent years the far-right lunatic fringe, bashers of "defense lawyers," and the myth of Federal courts overwhelmed by private individual litigation against mega-corporations, succeeded in limiting acces to the Federal courts for the ordinary person. All along, the reality was that the most of the cases litigated in the Federal cases are Mega-Corporation v. Mega-Corporation.

OF course, Mega-Corporation doesn't like to be sued by "little guy," while they don't seem to have too much objection to suing and being sued by each other.

The "politics" is structural, in the classism/economics; it is rarely overt as shown on US TV.

8irsslex
Mar 5, 2009, 7:42 pm

In regard to the court system in the US: I speak as a 23 year lawyer. The Court system in the US is tilted to those with money. If you have money, you can buy the biggest law firms which can (and often do) bury smaller parties in discovery, motions and the like. I think if you were to ask a group of lawyers whether the legal system in the US is broken, 8 of 10 would say yes. The introduction of electronic evidence rules has also increased the costs of litigation tremendously. New rules recently promulgated concerning electronic evidence have spawned a whole new industry of e-discovery, where companies get paid a lot of money, by those that can afford it, to come in and scan a company's entire database for evidence. And if you can't afford it, you are at a fairly big disadvantage, because oftentimes cases turn on documents, and there can literally be millions of them, electronic and otherwise.

On the whole the federal judiciary is of a better caliber than the state judiciary for the reason that someone pointed out earlier: state court judges are mainly elected positions (but very political appointments to start) whereas Federal judges are in for life, assuming that they want to stay there. My experience, though, in both arenas is that most judges try to do the right thing. Some are just stupid and don't belong hearing, for example, a complex intellectual property litigation or some other kind of complex business litigation case. Too often, judges aren't as concerned with the dispensation of justice as they are with "administrating their caseload", which means cramming them in and getting them out and resolved, regardless sometimes of right and wrong.

The sad reality is that Judges are woefully underpaid when compared with their counterparts in big law firms and in the private mediation/ADR services, where those same judges who were earning $200,000 a year can earn 5x that being a private mediator. Obviously, it is a small percentage of Americans that can afford that kind of justice.

For all the whining and so forth about the state of the judiciary in the US, I would have to think that it rates among the best in the world, and that includes most judges, lawyers and court staff. There are always exceptions to the rules, but on the whole, we here in the US are lucky to have a court system that functions as well as it does, given all the possibilities for things to go wrong. And they do.

9nickhoonaloon
Editado: Mar 6, 2009, 5:09 am

#6

I think your comments are aimed at me, rather than jmcgarve who posted #2. The `pure Marxist` approach I mentioned is described in Tony Wright`s book Socialisms, among others. For the record, neither Wright nor I subscribe to that view. I would have thought I`d made my own views perfectly clear. I certainly have never been accused of being on the `far right` before.

As a matter of fact, I am in Britain. I consider myself a humanist and socialist, though having said that, I am not overly pre-occupied with labels.

#5 I`ve had a quick look at the link you`ve provided, Gene. I do personally have real problems with the idea of an elected judiciary.

In the UK, we have different levels of judiciary. There are Magistrates Courts for relatively `low-ranking` offenders. Magistrates are lay people who volunteer and are trained up to a point. They are paid expenses, but not a wage. There are also some `professional Magistrates` - they used to be called Stipendiary Magistrates - who are paid a wage.

Crown Courts, with professional judges, are for more serious matters. These are hired, not elected, and are subject to sentencing guidelines. There are minimum and maximum `tariffs` for given offences which they have to abide by, but within that, they use their own judgement.

County Courts, again with professional judges, are more for recovery of debts etc.

Adira para publicar