Robert L. Heilbroner

What Is ?

Following this article are comments by Lewis Coser, Bogdan Denitch, Michael Harrington, and Michael Walzer, to which Robert Heilbroner in turn replies.-EDS.

B eyond the lies the terra characteristics that we would expect to be incognita we call socialism. It lies there more associated with a new chapter of human by assumption than by reconnaissance, for no history. one has yet observed this socialism in reality: This failure of nerve—for that is what I perhaps it will turn out to be a New Atlantis, think it is—carries serious consequences. It not a New World. But we assume that enables us to use the world "socialism" in a socialism lies "beyond" the welfare state way that is purely talismanic and devoid of because what we generally mean by Western any operational significance. Worse, it en- socialism is a set of institutions and cultural ables us to evade questions and dilemmas that attitudes, of social structures and lifeways, are posed by the analysis of socialism as a that is qualitatively different from those we chapter of history that lies beyond the welfare find under the prevailing state of affairs. state. These questions present painful, even Socialism, as most of us think about it, is not agonizing, choices to those socialists who are just an improved welfare state. It is another devoted to political rights and humanistic kind of society. culture as we know them in the West. That, What kind? That is a very awkward as well however, is a matter for later consideration. as difficult question, which most socialists, For we cannot discuss the structure of the especially Marxists, have been reluctant to culture of socialism until we have reached examine. When looking at past or present, agreement on the essential elements of the Marxists like to insist on the necessity of society that it is to displace. This leads us, as emphasizing the "socioeconomic formations" the first step in our argument, to consider the underlying each separate chapter of history. nature of the welfare state. In so doing, they force an observer to pay special attention to the interaction of social, A t first blush that seems an unmanageably" political, and economic dynamics characteris- complex task. There is not one welfare state tic of each epoch. But when socialism is but many welfare states. The misery of a mentioned, this tough-minded approach South Bronx drug "rehabilitation" center, the tends to be abandoned, even denigrated as crude measures of American anticyclical "counterrevolutionary." Socialism then be- fiscal policy are parts of the welfare appara- comes little more than a compass setting, an tus. So are the humane open penal institutions imagined landfall over the horizon, and no and sophisticated employment policies of effort is made to discuss even the most basic .

341 Nonetheless, I believe we can discern a privately owned aggregates of capital. This is common element that allows us to place all a fundamental aspect of —indeed, these varied institutions under a single rubric. its vital center—to which welfare reforms do This common element lies in the relation of not penetrate, or which they abridge only the welfare apparatus to its underlying slightly. That is why welfarism is a develop- socioeconomic formation, which is of course ment within capitalism and not beyond it, and capitalism. Welfare institutions, I think all it is why socialism must -hesitate before it will concur, arise mainly to cope with the declares that it can gain its objectives within difficulties and damages that are brought the boundaries of the welfare state. about by the workings of a capitalist system. There is also a second set of problems with The welfare state, in a word, is a kind of which welfare institutions deal. These prob- apotheosis of capitalism—the form that lems have to do with the culture of capital- capitalism takes in seeking its own salvation. ism—its bourgeois "superstructure"—rather Whether or not capitalism will find its than its operational stresses and strains. Here salvation, or whether it could survive its we find such symptoms as the anomic quality salvation, are questions we will disregard of life, the much-discussed malaise and here. For if we are to contrast socialism as a alienation of modern society, the degrada- socieconomic formation with that of the tions associated with commercialism, the capitalist welfare state, we must also agree on decay of the communal spirit, etc. To alleviate the difficulties and damages of capitalism to or offset these ailments we find a second array which welfarism addresses itself. And here of welfare measures that aim at restoring again, I think we can clearly identify the social morale, or at providing •a sense of sets of central problems. communality. The elaborate edifice of educa- They are two. The first are the difficulties tion is partly supported for this purpose. that emerge from the "anarchic" nature of Services are provided to the sick or the aged, capitalism. Anarchy does not mean an not only for economic but for "social" absence of any logic or order in capitalism— reasons. Indeed, the very presence of a there is the famed, and indeed remarkable, government that declares its interest in the "mechanism" of the market. The difficulty, protection of the environment, in "law and rather, is that the logic and order of capitalism order," and in the public weal, fills the need solves some kinds of problems only by for an explicitly moral social concern to which imposing others. The market resolves the the private sphere makes no contribution. The problem of "efficiency," for example, but it welfare state thus seeks to provide through the creates such problems as instability, unem- public sector a sense of communality that is ployment, maldistribution, and social neglect absent from the attitudes normally engen- of various kinds. dered by a bourgeois culture. The anarchy of the market is, of course, a To be sure, these attitudes of a bourgeois direct object of welfare redress. Fiscal and culture are themselves symptoms, not root monetary policy, urban renewal, unemploy- elements. Just as the anarchic aspect of ment compensation, social security, antipol- capitalism expresses deeper-lying problems, lution controls, industrial regulation and a so the familiar social ailments of modern long list of similar measures are typical capitalism also express more fundamental welfare measures that address themselves to attributes of the system—in particular, the the repair, containment, or suppression of the profoundly individualistic ideology and anarchic ills of capitalism. If the remedies are morality of a system built on a universalized often unsuccessful, the reason is that the competitive striving for . And just as anarchic malfunctions reflect the working-out the welfare state seeks to remedy the problems of still deeper-lying core elements in the of the market while bypassing its core socioeconomic makeup of capitalism—above institutions, so welfare capitalism tries to all, the direction of productive activity by undo the excesses of its culture while leaving

342 untouched the acquisitive, privatized ethos planning, and for its culture on some form of that is inseparable from its economic struc- commitment to the idea of a morally ture. conscious collectivity. These two elements This is not the place to discuss the limited seem to me to be the only alternatives to the efficacy of welfare reforms, either in the anarchic character and alienated culture of sphere of culture or . Rather, what welfare capitalism. I wish to emphasize is that we discover the Let us begin with the economic issue. There problems of economic anarchy and social are iron necessities that govern the economic alienation (to use catchwords) in all capitalist activities of all societies. Provision must be societies, from the crudest to the most refined. made to satisfy needs for current consump- Whether we investigate West Germany or tion and to replace the worn-out capital of any Norway, England or the , we see period. Moreover a society facing technologi- economic disorders stemming from the cal change within, or environmental change mechanism of the market, and disaffection, without, will have to alter its patterns of erosion of social morale, and a troublesome inputs and outputs in order to maintain a radicalism among students, arising from the steady state of final consumption and capital cultural milieu. replacement. And last, a society seeking to My aloof tone may suggest a scornful increase its wealth must refrain from consum- denigration of the efforts of the welfare state ing, and must invest the resources and labor to offset these problems. Of course, once one that have been saved. sees the failure of welfare measures to grapple These essential tasks require the coordina- with the deepest roots of the malfunctions to tion of activity, often on a vast scale. Speaking which they are addressed, some critical stance in stylized fashion, there are only three ways is inescapable. Yet I am far from dismissing in which this can be done. Societies can trust the achievements of the welfare state as to the guiding hand of tradition for the hypocritical or insignificant. Indeed, it may maintenance of a fixed configuration of well be that the welfare state at its most activities; this is the "system" of tradition by advanced—as we find it in the Scandinavian which primitive societies secure their con- nations or in certain policies of the Nether- tinuance. Tradition will not, however, lands or Austria, for example—is the best we arrange things when the environment can do today to achieve humanist goals changes, or when new technologies enter or without jeopardizing key political and social when growth is sought (the two latter cases rights. That, too, is a question to which we will unlikely in a tradition-bound milieu). The return. Here I wish only to hammer home the coordinating mechanism then becomes point that the welfare state, adequate or not, "command"—the conscious direction of must be considered as a form of capitalism—a social energies by some individual or institu- conclusion that impels us to ask again exactly tion empowered to allocate effort, determine what we mean by socialism. levels of consumption, etc. Finally, the integrating and directing economic task can III also be performed by the market. The market W hat do we mean by socialism? Historical is actually a form of highly decentralized imaginations are notoriously poor. The command, in which each person is trained by response I shall hazard may be ludicrously culture and impelled by self-interest (or at the wide of the mark from some future vantage extreme, self-preservation) to "obey" the point. Nonetheless one must do what one can, stimuli of the marketplace. and my imagination yields only one answer to Tradition is the operative system for the question. If socialism is to be a new nondynamic cultures; and it might in the socioeconomic formation-1 must hammer future become the operative system for home this premise—then it must depend for socialism. It conjures up the image of a its economic direction on some form of socialist economy as a congeries of kibbutzim,

343 each reducing to a minimum the "cash nexus" Perhaps socialism can induce or legislate a within its boundaries, and each affiliated in high standard of law-abiding behavior. There the larger economy by a web of long- still remains another objection to the market established exchange relationships that would as the "system" of socialism. If the market is to involve a minimum of either market dealings work, marketers must follow its dictates. or command directives. Life would then Because we can assume that socialism will not follow a steady inertial course, presumably permit individuals to suffer economic misery, with a minimum of self-generated or external- we can assume that marketers will not follow ly imposed change. these dictates by necessity, for survival's sake. However attractive such a vision, at today's They will follow them for gain. juncture of history it is futile—worse, Now comes the crucial question: is this dangerous—to imagine that tradition could motivation compatible with the collective solve the problems of material reproduction moral commitment that is to replace the self- and adaptation. The problem of change, centeredness of bourgeois society? Socialists stemming both from the continuous pressure have always railed against the invidious of science and technology and from the striving of the market that forces individuals tightening constraints of the environment, are to subordinate their full personalities to aspects of our era that will not disappear with narrow economic roles. Moreover, it is not the advent of socialism. Society will have to only the motivations of capitalists that are at alter its structure of production continuously stake—perhaps, under socialism, managers whether or not it seeks growth. Moreover, let could be trained to obey price signals simply us not forget that the stated purpose of as a guide to steering their nationalized socialism is to change the patterns of present- enterprises, with no thought of personal day income distribution and employment. profit. The issue is the motivation of working Tradition cannot accomplish that. people. For the market mechanism is not Could the market system, under suitable merely a means to profit. It is also a means to guidance, accomplish these ends? Here the individual betterment by the maximization of problems are two-fold. The first is whether the one's income. Without this drive, the conventional means of guidance for a market mechanism will not work. system would be sufficient to bring about the But is the drive for private gain compatible desired or needed changes. Would taxes, with the goal of socialism? I do not see how it subsidies, regulations, and the like effectively can be. The market system, in order to alter income distribution, or would in- function, requires attitudes of self-seeking dividuals following their acquisitive impulses that are in direct conflict with the goal of an (how else would a market system work?) "other-oriented" society. If socialism seeks to nullify these intentions as they have been so avoid both the anarchy and alienation of often frustrated in the past? Would guid- capitalism, it must seek to break the hold of ance by taxes and subsidies be powerful the market, not merely over the economy but enough to overcome the profound inertias of over the mind.' occupational and industrial patterns of activity, or would these too persist, finding ways around the tax or subsidy structure to IV achieve ends at variance with those of the Thus the market cannot become the main planners? I raise these questions in an order-bestowing system underlying socialism apparent mood of skepticism, disillusioned as a new order. Some limited reliance on a with respect to the "reforming" powers of the market mechanism may be necessary to market in the face of the wholesale cheating achieve efficiency, for I doubt whether an and evasion that seem to be endemic and industrial society could operate without price irrepressible in a market system. signals; some areas of market activity may But that is not my deepest cause for doubt. serve as a vent for unwanted but insistent

344 aspects of human behavior, much as do the socioeconomic formation must be coor- controlled red-light districts of certain dinated, if socialism is not to become even countries. But I do not see how the market more anarchic than capitalism. And this mentality can be encouraged within socialism, coordination must entail obedience to a if socialism is to be distinguished from capi- central plan.' talism by a different kind of socioeconomic formation. With much reluctance I am led to conclude that the market process, for all its 'Vt is clear by now that a great deal hinges on flexibility, extreme decentralization, and self- the determination that socialism be defined in regulation—indeed, ultimately because of terms of a distinct socioeconomic order, these properties, all of which depend on "beyond" that of welfare capitalism. Before market behavior—is not congenial to we examine that question further, I want to socialism as a new kind of social order. explore one remaining aspect of the idea of If tradition cannot, and the market system such a new socioeconomic order, an aspect on should not, underpin the socialist order, we which my argument has repeatedly turned, are left with some form of command as the although it has not yet been placed at stage necessary means for securing its continuance center. The issue concerns the culture that and adaptation. Indeed, that is what planning must characterize a social order deserving the means. Command by planning need not, of name of "socialism." course, be totalitarian. But an aspect of Surely socialism will have its unique cul- authoritarianism resides inextricably in all ture. Every major chapter of socioeconomic planning systems. A plan is meaningless if it history—primitive life, "Asiatic despotisms," is not carried out, or if it can be ignored or classical antiquity, medieval life, capital- defied at will. Some form of penalty must ism—has been identifiable by a distinct assure the necessary degree of compliance. culture, recognizable not only in styles of art Compliance need not be total, and penalties and philosophy and religious imagination, need not be Draconian. Incentives may but in the habits and customs, folkways and succeed where punishments fail. But planning moralities of daily life. will not assure a socialist society of a capacity The culture of capitalism is "bourgeois." By to endure or adapt unless the planning is a bourgeois we mean a culture that celebrates, system of effective command. From that supports, encourages and breeds the idea of conclusion I see no escape. the primary importance of the individual. This does not mean that socialism is Certainly, that is the theme on which current doomed to repeat the disasters of central ideology endlessly harps. If the culture of planning in the , where things socialism is to be different, I presume that it are so bad that the system teeters on the verge must celebrate, support, encourage and breed of its own kind of anarchy. Perhaps the idea of the primary importance of the associations of workers, long the ideal form of collectivity. In addition, I believe that the socialist "ownership," can replace rigid culture of socialism must depart from that of hierarchies of managership. Perhaps capitalism in a different way. Bourgeois democratic and participatory procedures can culture is focused on the material achievement break up the bureaucratic inertia of planning of the individual. Socialist culture must focus systems. on his or her moral or spiritual achievement. Nevertheless an inescapable necessity must A socialist society should be as suffused and be faced. The economy must be concerted. preoccupied with the idea of moral purpose as However democratic the internal organiza- capitalist society is suffused and preoccupied tion of society, however much the principle of with that of personal gain. workers' control, or civil-servant stewardship, I do not think there is much disagreement are carried into practice, the factories and that some such collective morality is generally stores and farms and shops of a socialist assumed to constitute an integral part of a

345 genuine socialist order. Even the critics of itself able to accept and ignore dissent to the socialism recognize this new moral commit- degree it does? ment, and only doubt that it can be reached in The answer has two aspects. One, which we practice. "You can't change human nature," is admire and like to advance, is that a culture the standard dismissal of the vision of a founded on the primacy of the individual society of heightened social concern. naturally asserts the rights of individuals to I shall not examine that objection here. speak their minds freely, to act as they wish Perhaps at some very deep level it is true. Yet I within reasonable bounds, to behave as John see no reason to doubt that something Stuart Mill preached in his treatise On resembling a socialist morality could be Liberty. attained, however slowly and painfully and I do not doubt that this is an important partially. Anyone who reflects on the reason for the bourgeois tolerance of dissent. difference between our own culture and that But there is another reason, less noticed of the Aztec or Incan, Bedouin or Eskimo because it consists in the absence of worlds, will be slow to affirm that a culture something, rather than in its forceful cannot be reached simply because it is so presence. This is the lack, within bourgeois different from ours, so contrary to the way we society, of a moral significance attaching to see "human nature." most political or social acts or ideas. Dissen- The issue I want to raise is quite different. It ting thought appears within bourgeois society has to do with a problem that I believe to be as as a mere commodity in the "marketplace" of deeply embedded in a true socialist culture, ideas, to use the common and illuminating once that culture is attained, as the necessity phrase. Alternative life styles, departures in for a command form of economic organiza- policies, new directions for individual or tion is embedded in its socioeconomic national activity are considered as "options" structure. This cultural problem is the yielding calculable costs and benefits, or as difficulty that a socialist culture will ex- "propositions" that can be considered in a perience in accepting the tolerant political and detached and pragmatic light. Of course, perhaps social attitudes of bourgeois life. there is always a threshold of sensitivity. I do not mean to exaggerate this tolerance Attacks on property, on the legitimacy of in capitalist societies. There is a vast amount government itself, on sexual or other pre- of repression in bourgeois culture. Yet one judices are very difficult (although not must ask oneself how it is that a magazine like impossible) for a bourgeois society to accept. Dissent, dedicated to the discussion—worse, But I must ask my readers to weigh the degree the advocacy—of socialism can be permitted of bourgeois tolerance for revolutionary to exist. Why does capitalist society allow its parties or "wild" ideas against their toleration subversive universities, presses, political in any nonbourgeois culture—primitive, movements to say and write and argue their despotic, religious, or "state capitalist." seditious ideas? One answer, of course, is that The reason for the difference, I suggest, lies bourgeois society is confident that the precisely in the divorce of bourgeois culture subversion of these ideas is negligible; that less from a sense of moral commitment and harm is done to the legitimacy of the prevail- concern. Dissident political and social beliefs ing faith by ignoring than by persecuting these in bourgeois society may be considered as ideas. But that answer does not explain the erroneous, foolish, shocking, deplorable, or relatively high threshold of psychological sec- dangerous, but they are not thought of as urity (of complacency, if you will) that allows blasphemous. Dissent is not intolerable capitalist society to permit these potentially because it does not breach a profound sense of dangerous expressions to exist. Medieval what is good. society did not tolerate them. Classical Greek Yet, if a socialist society is to attain the society did not. Soviet or Maoist society does culture of moral commitment to which it not. Why, then, does bourgeouis society find aspires, it must view its politics and its social

K1rel mores as guided by a desire to be good, not or unacceptable to many present-day merely expedient. Dissents, disagreements, socialists. and departures from norms then assume a far The first possibility is immediately evident. more threatening aspect than under bourgeois It is to avoid the difficulties of our position by society, for they hold out the possibility of undoing our original premise. Once we give destroying the very commitment to a moral up the insistence that socialism must be a new consensus by which socialist society differs departure in history, we bypass many of the from capitalist. hard conclusions to which we have been Nor can we wriggle off this hook by forced. We can maintain the self-correcting, asserting that, among its moral commitments, self-propelling mechanism of a market- socialism will choose to include the rights of oriented economy—a decision that vastly individuals to their Millian liberties. For that simplifies the organizational problem of celebration of individualism is directly op- socialism. We can retain an individualist, posed to the basic socialist commitment to a rather than collective, general orientation. deliberately embraced collective moral goal. Socialism can then be described as a program Perhaps we get a sense of the tensions that are rather than a new social order. Its program- likely to trouble socialist society when we matic content is not hard to describe: a search reflect on the difficulty with which democratic for economic equity in society, for the bourgeois society copes with those ideas or constriction of property rights, for humaniz- activities that threaten the democratic process ing the work process, for democratic par- itself. But under socialism, every dissenting ticipation, personal cultivation, civil liberties, voice raises a threat similar to that raised and the like. As I have mentioned before, I do under a democracy by those who preach not take such a program lightly; I repeat that antidemocracy. Because socialist society it may be the best we can do to cope with aspires to be a good society, all its decisions certain present evils without jeopardizing the and opinions are inescapably invested with liberties we desire to defend. moral import. Every disagreement with them, Yet, we must be clear about the conse- every argument for alternative policies, every quences of this choice. Socialism then nay-saying voice therefore raises into ques- becomes a movement within welfare tion the moral validity of the existing capitalism, not beyond it. The retention of the government, not merely its competence in market system implies as well the likelihood directing activities that have no particular of problems of "anarchy": the retention of an moral significance. Dissents and dis- individualistic orientation probably brings agreements thereby smack of heresy in a many of the problems of anomie, malaise, manner lacking from societies in which "alienation." The idea of radical change expediency and not morality rules the roost. would therefore be relinquished in favor of incremental change—a slow and uneven advance that would keep, perhaps indefinite- VI ly, some of the most important characteristics These conclusions will distress or even of capitalism. Socialism then becomes an outrage many readers, because they seem to unending and perhaps ultimately futile be nothing but the familiar conservative or struggle to "humanize" a society based on the reactionary warnings that socialism is incom- inhuman imperatives and ideologies of patible with freedom, and therefore reprehen- capital. sible. But I do not intend to join this chorus of Revolutionary socialists will reject such a admonishing voices. Instead, let us ask what defeatist position. They must then accept the consequences follow from my argument that price of a leap into the future. There are socialism, as a chapter of history truly beyond respectable arguments for such a position. welfare capitalism, is likely to present struc- One can press for socialism as a new chapter tural and cultural aspects that are distasteful beyond welfare capitalism because one

347 believes that ills to which socialism would that every such society become a grotesque address itself are greater by far than those it version of its latent tendencies. Rather, from will create. The anarchy of capitalism is, after this perspective, socialism becomes a all, an immense evil for millions of persons in historical drift that can no longer be viewed the West, hundreds of millions or even uncritically as a deliverance, but must be billions, if we widen our view to include the regarded as a process that will bring unwanted globe. The anomie, alienation and pur- changes as well as desired ones. poselessness of an individualistic way of life What is important, in trying to think about extend far and deep under capitalism, robbing socialism, is to resist the delusion that history existence of the stabilizing certainties that is so soft and indeterminate that we can have a have guided it under all other forms of social socialist cake with bourgeois icing. A organization. Capitalism alone exposes its searching examination of the requirements constituents to the anxiety of life without the for a truly new order forces us to recognize succor of a collective morality. One can argue that deep qualitative differences must that the repair of these damages is worth far separate such a socialism from the society in more than the curtailment of economic which we live. The new order of socialism may freedom or the diminution of personal liberty display many surface variations and some that socialism will require. And then, too, vestiges of bourgeois ways, but at bottom it there is the thought that those who will live must differ from capitalism as capitalism, under socialism will no more regret the despite its variations and aristocratic rem- absence of vanished privileges than we regret nants, differs at bottom from feudalism. This those of earlier ages. We do not lament the requires a much more sober estimation of vanished rights of aristocracy. A generation socialism than is now generally to be found. accustomed to the supporting discipline of Above all, it requires the bitter admission that socialism will not miss those of bourgeois socialism cannot be the best of all worlds, as individualism. we creatures of bourgeois society judge what There will remain some socialists who is best. If we wish to bestow the name cannot accept this rationale. There remains socialism on the next chapter of history, we for them a third choice. Socialism can then be must not expect it to be written in the viewed as a direction of historic change whose vocabulary of a period that is finished. ❑ underlying tendencies are those I have described. That does not require the conclu- sion that every socialist society must sink to the worst levels of tyranny and oppression, Notes any more than the presence of anarchic and alienating tendencies in capitalism requires This is the logic behind Marx's opposition to money itself. "Greed," he writes, "as such [is] impossible without money; all other kinds of accumulation and of mania for accumulation appear as primitive, restricted by needs on the one hand and by the restricted nature of products on the other (sacri aura fames)." Grundrisse (London: 1973), p. 163.

2This general argument is given special urgency if we emphasize two historic problems that I have deliberately passed over in this essay. The first is the necessity to intervene deeply, and probably ruthlessly, into the economy in order to establish the socialist order in the first place. The second is the need to continue a policy of painful intervention to accommodate the socialist economy, once set into place, to the constricting limits of the environment. ❑

348 Lewis Coser

"S ometimes," says the protagonist in life. I hold no brief for even an advanced Robert Pirsing's novel Zen and the Art of welfare state, indeed I wish ardently to go Motorcycle Maintenance, echoing Mon- beyond it, but I must still insist that to see in it taigne, "it is a little better to travel than to the zenith of capitalism, rather than an arrive." The trouble with Robert Heilbroner's indication that it might have reached its nadir, argument is that he is unwilling to consider seems rather short-sighted. this possibility. As in much of his previous To be sure the welfare state has not writing, Heilbroner is so obsessed with what abolished capitalism and the profit motive, it allegedly awaits us at the end of the road that still contains many of the evils that marked he is rather unattentive to the benefits that the preceding epoch, but it is emphatically a may accrue to us as, hesitantly and stumbling- very different animal than classical capital- ly, we make our way on it. But it won't do to ism. One may, of course, always argue that it disdain the real gains in the human condition is still "basically" capitalism, but this term is that have been made on the road from analytically so vacuous that it can hardly unrestricted capitalism to the welfare state. serve as well. As a matter of fact, "basic" Though he permits himself in places to say breaks in human history are extremely rare. some nice things about the welfare state, the Powerful analysts, such as de Tocqueville, overall drift of his argument is designed to have even argued that prerevolutionary and denigrate it and to characterize it as just postrevolutionary France were "basically" another face of capitalist domination. He more similar than dissimilar. Most transfor- even argues that "the welfare state ... is a mations on the human scene proceed relative- kind of apotheosis of capitalism." This is ly slowly, gradually, and in an incremental about as useful as calling 17th-century manner, rather than through apocalyptic absolutism a kind of apotheosis of feudalism. breaks. Is the New South "basically" the same The social and political structure of, say, as the Old South? Is the Germany of today France in the 17th century, its culture and its "basically" the same as that of Bismarck? Is life styles, were qualitatively different from the role of women "basically" the same as it those of the Middle Ages—even though was in the Victorian age? Such questions certain key institutions of the ancien regime really are no more enlightening than the were only swept away by the French Revolu- famous dispute on whether the glass of water tion. In the same way, an advanced welfare is half full or half empty. It all depends on state, in which planned policy has partly your point of view. replaced the unplanned operation of the Heilbroner's fixation on the "basic" conti- market, and in which the unseen hand of God nuity of capitalism from laissez faire to the has given way in many sectors of the polity welfare state leads him to another mistake. He and the economy to the visible powers of fails to see that the welfare state, far from regulating agencies, may be called an "apothe- developing "naturally" out of unrestrained osis of capitalism" only in a Pickwickian capitalism, came into being largely through sense. All of this is not to deny the enormous the continued struggle of labor and union weight of the corporate giants that bestride organizations. It continues to exist and many an industry and can exert inordinate develop because of the unrelenting struggle of sway in the economy as a whole. It is only to these forces. The welfare state, even though it assert that in the advanced welfare state other has proved congenial to certain sectors of powers have been able to contain and managerial and capitalist interests, is largely countervail them in major sectors of public the result of continuous pressures on the

349 haves by the have-nots. It is not a novel primary importance of the collectivity," it measure of social control, as Marcuse and his argued instead that only a fundamental friends assert, but, like the eight-hour day of restructuring of the conditions of collective an earlier time, a result of the assertion of life would permit the full development of power on behalf of the underdog. As Alistair human autonomy. Maclntyre (in his fine critical appraisal of But no matter what the initial intentions of Herbert Marcuse, Viking, , 1970) its founders might be, Heilbroner argues, a says so well: "The notion that the ruling elite future socialist society, being necessarily built are now able to treat welfare as an institution on the primacy of command over self- of social control is at very best a quarter-truth, direction, will have to be anti-individualistic. and a very dangerous one." It cannot, he asserts, permit the kind of laissez I suppose that others will address them- faire attitude in the sphere of manners and selves in some detail to this part of Heilbron- morals that characterized the bourgeois age. er's paper, and prefer therefore to deal in But this laissez faire attitude is, I think, mainly greater detail with what I think is Heilbroner's a creature of Heilbroner's imagination. In the most powerful argument: the contention that period of bourgeois ascendancy, in the period socialism must necessarily enforce a collectiv- of primitive accumulation, bourgeois culture istic morality in counterpoint to the rampant was built on severe repression, even among its individualism of the bourgeois age. leading strata. The world of the Protestant I cannot follow him when he characterizes Ethic and of Mr. Gradgrind was hardly a bourgeois culture as one "that celebrates, world of hedonistic pleasures, sensory indul- supports, encourages, and breeds the idea of gences, or assertion of unfettered human the primary importance of the individual." autonomy. Only the self-denying ordinances Individualism, however, emerged in courtly of Protestant and utilitarian culture allowed and aristocratic circles during the Renaissance the accumulation of the capital needed for the and is by no means a bourgeois invention. It emergence of capitalism triumphant. At later later was developed largely in struggles stages of bourgeois development such restric- against bourgeois society. More important, I tions came to be progressively removed. And had supposed that, if there was any basic under late capitalism, and in the age of the agreement among socialist critics of bour- welfare state, hedonistic enjoyment (to the geois culture, it involved the notion that this sorrow of Daniel Bell) came to be a valid culture rested on the enhancement of the option in an increasingly pluralistic moral individualism and autonomy of some individ- universe. uals at the price of the repression of the But if that be the case, why must we assume individuality of most others. If that is not the that under socialism such pluralistic options message that is conveyed by Fourier or will no longer be available? I suppose that we Proudhon, by Marx or , are all agreed that a socialism of scarcity is a then I have misread all of them through a contradiction in terms. Given a relative lifetime of study. abundance of resources, there will be no need of excessive restraint. Heilbroner argues that THE WHOLE SOCIALIST TRADITION has centered a socialist society must enforce common upon the criticism of bourgeois society as uniform standards because it wishes "to be stultifying, thwarting, and stunting the good, not merely expedient." But this is not, capacities of human beings. What else did as they say, necessarily so. Richard Tawney Marx mean when he talked about the answered Heilbroner over half a century ago alienating conditions of bourgeois life? Most when he wrote: of the classical socialist tradition maintained It is obvious, indeed, that no change of system or that socialist culture would for the first time machinery can avert the causes of social malaise allow the full flowering of individuality. Far which consist in the egotism, greed, or quarrel- from advocating, as Heilbroner claims, "the someness of human nature. What it can do is to

350 create an environment in which these are not the One last word: Heilbroner subscribes to the qualities which are encouraged. It cannot secure kind of "historicism" against which Karl that men live up to their principles. What it can Popper has directed his shafts for many years. do is to establish their social order upon He somehow assumes that a reified "history" principles to which, if they please, they can live drives people inevitably into some predeter- up and not down. It cannot control their mined future. Against any such deterministic actions. It can offer them an end upon which to scheme one needs to insist that the future can fix their minds. never be predetermined since men and women It is not true, as Heilbroner says, "that in the here and now make it happen. If the celebration of individualism is directly op- future is, in fact, open (although partly bound posed to the basic socialist commitment to a by structural conditions and trends), then it deliberately embraced collective moral goal." behooves us to reject messages of despair such The society of which Tawney dreamed, and of as those of Heilbroner since they might well which I dream, does not force people to be turn into self-fulfilling predictions if they good, it simply removes some of the impedi- attract a wide hearing. The myth of inevitable ments that previously did not permit them to progress served to emasculate transformative be good. It provides incentives for autono- capacities by seemingly making voluntary mous individuals, no longer driven by the activity supererogatory. The myth of the compulsions of an acquisitive society, to inevitable tyranny of the collective could serve choose paths of self-realization that do not to emasculate the prepotent desire of human conflict with the collective well-being. Solid- beings to reach a society in which the free arity and fraternity do not contradict the need development of each is based on the free for self-realization; they make it possible. development of all. ❑

Bogdan Den itch

R obert Heilbroner raises a cardinal ques- mechanical definition of what a socialist tion: can socialism be democratic? Clearly, it society would have to look like. There is a is not a question of whether socialists are commonly held definition, espoused not only democrats, nor whether the various reforms by such as Paul Sweezy who have of capitalism that socialists propose here and no problem with the question, since their now are consistent with democracy. response is that socialism shall not be Heilbroner poses the more serious question: democratic, but also held by most of the in a socialist society, the one presumably Fabians and the more moderate social beyond the welfare state, the one in which democrats who all had the notion that socialists are no longer just adding one more centralized planning was a feature that is reform to a pyramid of welfare-state indispensable to socialism, and that cen- reforms—in short, in a society in which the tralized planning would inevitably involve an basic means of production, distribution, and enormous concentration of political and exchange are socially owned, and no capitalist economic power in the hands of those who class is left as a class, can democratic in- plan. In socialist critiques of the Soviet stitutions, as we understand them, continue to dictatorship, the formulation often used was: exist? in a society where the state owns all the means Part of the problem lies in the relatively of production, distribution, and exchange,

351 the sole relevant question is who "owns" the planning and control there is ambivalence. state. Socialist critics of the Soviet Union Heilbroner stresses only one tradition. It has concluded that, since the political an honorable pedigree, but nevertheless it has, bureaucracy had a monopoly on the relevant in my opinion, little to do with what a decisions, it "owned" the state, and that the modern, highly industrialized socialist society state therefore represented the interests of this would or should look like. The socialism of class (stratum, group, or whatever) rather centralized planning is, in one way or another, than those of the working class and the a socialism of scarcity. population as a whole. In a socialist society where the monopoly of THERE is another approach that could be power would presumably not be as highly called self-governing or self-managing concentrated in a layer of top planners and socialism. It has an increasingly wide accep- bureaucrats and where parliamentary in- tance both among West European Socialists stitutions and normal civil liberties would and East European dissident democratic continue, this criticism would still maintain Communists. The second have had direct and some force. It is, after all, a truism in modern painful experience with the problem of political democracies that less and less power centralization while the first are in part is wielded by the legislatures, and more reacting to the dull welfare states established and more is transferred to bureaucracies. in Europe in the post-World War II period. Granted, these can be selfless, well-wishing Here the tradition is more syndicalist than bureaucracies; but the notion is that modern centralist. It is based on a set of assumptions society requires a level of expertise that can be that have been submitted to prolonged testing mobilized at decisive points and that, for in Yugoslavia, though under far from optimal practical purposes, makes the experts the conditions. rulers. This would be all the more so if the Whatever one thinks of Yugoslavia—and it economy as a whole were in the hands of the is a one-party state—the economy has shown same government experts who control the a great deal of autonomy from the center and, political mechanisms. more to the point, numbers of previously Heilbroner's second point—that a socialist uninvolved individuals have become bureaucracy would be more actively involved successfully involved in running complex in governing because it is concerned with enterprises and institutions. The result is a doing good and therefore more impatient more efficient and effective system than any with obstacles, disagreements, and centralized economy in Eastern Europe. inefficiency—all characteristic of the demo- While the Yugoslav experience does not tell us cratic process—is a separate and extremely much about the political system appropriate interesting point, though I do not choose to to a democratic socialist society, it does posit pursue it at this time. If one grants the first an economy run essentially by elected bodies assumption of bureaucratic planning at the of workers and other employees. These center, in a society fundamentally unchanged elected bodies have had ever widening from the present one in terms of values and powers. They have acted—and this is distribution of power, the second point does crucial—not merely as institutions managing follow. But there is more than one tradition of sectors of the economy, but as organs of socialism, and it is important to stress this political socialization creating a new nexus of diversity of socialist traditions. Whether one values and links in an industrialized society. calls it socialism from above or socialism from Two issues are involved. One is: can elected below, refers back to the debates between workers' councils run an economy without Shaw and Wells among the British Fabians, prohibitive costs in terms of efficiency? The or stresses the centralist versus the syndicalist answer seems clearly to be, yes. To be sure, strands of the socialist tradition in Europe, it there are problems. Sometimes wrong is clear that on this question of centralized decisions are made, but apparently not more

352 often than in centrally planned economies. must have genuine economic power and must What is remarkable is not that there are take responsibility for decisions they make, problems, but how sustained the rate of including bad ones. This had dictated the growth produced by such an economy was in development of a socialist the decade before the general European slump for a very simple reason. Something, some of the 1970s. During that decade Yugoslav institution or mechanism that at least appears growth figures approximated those of Japan. reasonably impartial had to be developed to It is that, after all, which made the Yugoslav replace the bureaucratic planning center. The economic model so attractive to the liberaliz- mechanism that seemed most adaptable was a ing reformers of Eastern Europe. The second limited market. Socialist theorists, with such issue, however, is more interesting for the rare exceptions as Oscar Lange and some of prospect of a , and this is the more recent Yugoslav and Polish the nature of institutions developing within theorists, have had a dogmatic, almost such an economy. The economic enterprise puritanical attitude toward the market. also becomes a socio-political community. It Presumably, harking back to the young is the place from which political and economic Marx, the market reifies commodities and power is aggregated in the system as a whole. work and encourages the development of It is the place through which the newly some kind of consumer sovereignty that industrialized peasants learn the rules of the socialist intellectuals all too often think is bad game of an industrial society. It is the place for ordinary mortals. through which the notion of individual and There are two sides to this aversion. One is a collective rights is taught and asserted. And it predilection of socialist intellectuals toward is a community in which a set of values neat, organized plans run by experts not too consistent with the new socialist civilization unlike themselves; the other is a notion that if will have to develop, if there is to be such a consumers of the lower orders are turned civilization. loose, they will not choose things that are Here the problems are even more good for them. Both are elitist conceptions troublesome, for this means a society in which and have only survived in the socialist there is considerable pressure to participate movement for so long because of the associa- and take responsibility. It means a society in tion of the market with private ownership and which, since the work enterprise is one in great concentrations of wealth and power. which you expect to spend a good part of your But there is no reason why a modified market life, one does not push differences to the knife. cannot be used, on the one hand, as a The mechanism, the style, is communitarian yardstick to measure the performance of and consensual rather than conflictual. The enterprises and, on the other, as a determinant pressures are toward egalitarian leveling, of the consumer goods that the public wants. I since in enterprise work councils the more have never found it a moral question that skilled cadres are forced to argue why they teenagers in Yugoslavia, or in Poland, yearn should be paid more than other employees— for Levis. Apparently centralized planners do. sometimes a painful experience for surgeons There seems to be a moral feeling that talking to nurses and other workers in a centrally designed, badly fitting pants are hospital but one that I would argue has a good more appropriate for socialists than Levis. bit to do with socialist democracy. There, I suspect, the authoritarian There are two key elements that seem bureaucrats of Eastern Europe probably have indispensable to a working decentralized self- a good deal in common with the tradition in managing economy. Again looking at the the Western socialist movement that parts of Yugoslav experience, it seems clear that the British Labour party represented. I without these, the workers' councils become a sometimes believe that Sir Stafford Cripps sham, as they indeed have become in Poland preferred to have rationing. A market and Hungary. The first is that the councils economy in a socialist society may well lead to

353 some hedonistic waste and frivolities for the A socialist culture would, in my opinion, have plebeians; I believe it to be a good thing. to center on the process of production, the term being taken in its widest meaning. There is no reason to assume that history came to a A MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM with a socialist mar- stop with the development of liberal political ket economy, at least in Yugoslavia—I am institutions of the Anglo-Saxon peoples; that still using it as a model—is that various the end of history and the sole model of institutions other than plants are also run by democracy is the multiparty polity based on workers' councils operating in a market geographical representation. After all, a good setting. This has posed painful debates in the case can be made for functional representa- field of culture and in some service delivery tion in geographically mobile societies, and institutions. Do the local cultural funds go to whatever else the virtues of multiparty build more football fields or chamber-music representation have been so far, they have orchestras? It is surprising how readily been remarkably successful in keeping the socialist intellectuals spring to elitist lower strata from participation in governance solutions. The truth is that within that other than in occasional elections. A particular market economy, workers' councils democracy that will result in government by dominated by blue-collar workers have lawyers, or at best professional trade-union proven more generous in subsidizing "high functionaries, seems to me a somewhat culture" than have their betters, either in narrow definition of that term. And while state-run "socialism" or under capitalism. Yugoslavia is clearly not the image of a This is not to say that they have not made democratic socialist society, at least it mistakes. It is simply to say that it does not challenges our imagination in regard to ways follow that if blue-collar workers are given that popular participation can be built into an power over social and cultural expenditures, economy and to the various possible social which presumably is what we mean by saying and cultural institutions. Without this par- "to extend democracy into the economy and ticipation, I believe that most of the talk about society," that an era of barbarism would democracy in an industrial society of the follow. The Yugoslav metal industry, with modern type is a sham. two-thirds of the councils composed of blue- Nothing in the argument so far should be collar workers, has generously subsidized taken even as a hint that the classic civil chamber music, avant-garde theater, operas liberties won in bourgeois societies (not and the like—in fact, somewhat more "bourgeois" democracy but democracy won generously than the previous centralized from the bourgeoisie) would not need to be system had done. The painful process in- maintained in a socialist society. What I am volved was that various intellectuals were addressing myself to, rather, is the more forced to go before the councils and argue troublesome question of how to create their case for funding, an indignity they object autonomous pockets of power in a society to far less when it has to be done before a local where the economy is socially controlled. The equivalent of the Ford and Carnegie foun- more serious critics of socialism have always dations. picked on this feature of a socialist society as This dwelling on what seems an almost the one that facilitates the development of peripheral issue of the democratic financing authoritarianism. Under capitalism, of culture in a democratically managed presumably, independent centers of power socialist economy is to lead up to my central exist in the economy that can control what point. Democratic socialists have had, all too happens in the civil society or at least set limits often, far too mean and narrow an image of to it. Therefore, it is necessary in thinking what a socialist democracy could look like. It about a post-welfare socialism to think of is in response to this mean and narrow image how, in such a society, centers of that Heilbroner's polemic makes some sense. autonomous, legitimate, and institutionalized

354 power could be created. This is far more term in its wider meaning to include the important than the question of whether or not technical and white-collar strata who are political parties, which would also exist, often, if anything, better educated than their would be able to offer alternate platforms supervisors. every once in a while. What institutions would The rising educational level of the working have the capacity, politically and economical- population may not argue for the establish- ly, to say no? This in turn means that there ment of self-managing institutions in the would be a continual tension in a socialist economy, but it certainly does challenge the society between two goods—the autonomous, maintenance of rigidly hierarchical models self-governing institutions and the need to that are prevalent under capitalism and state coordinate these institutions for greater "socialism." Just as there has been a rising public good. Within this tension, continual involvement of sectors of the middle class in debate and dialogue would continue. local government, urban decentralization, and school management, it would seem that My last point is that the underpinning of a an analogous development is occurring in self-governing economy requires a working large-scale institutions and industries in population with capacities to utilize such an Western Europe. Unions and workers in- institutional framework. This problem has creasingly show an impatience with the been grossly exaggerated by some critics assumption that decisions affecting their lives because of a tendency to place too much cannot be made democratically within the emphasis on expertise and formalized train- workplace. I believe ultimately, therefore, ing. The modern industrial working class is that it is in this direction that the real answer far better educated than was its 19th-century to Heilbroner's argument lies. Can socialism predecessor, and it is no longer willing to be democratic? Yes; otherwise, of course, it concede legitimate authority in the economy will not be worth its name or worth suppor- based on a supposed monopoly of expertise ting. But more to the point, yes—provided held by the owners and managers. This is so socialists do not permit their imaginations to whether one thinks of the working class as be crippled by the limits of liberal democracy limited to blue-collar workers or takes the under capitalism. ❑

Michael Harrington

I think it may be possible to have a "socialist fears. There are, I think, two polar extremes cake with bourgeois icing." But I must that will define the social space in which the immediately add that posing the issue that postcapitalist future will develop (is develop-' way obscures some of its essentials. ing): authoritarian, bureaucratic collectivism, In saying this I do not dismiss Robert and democratic, communitarian collectivism. Heilbroner's argument out of hand, for he Heilbroner is quite right to warn us against touches on a real problem. My objection is that first possibility, but by giving it the name that Heilbroner has somewhat simplified and of its polar opposite—by calling it mislabeled a complex trend in a way that, "socialism"—he unwittingly makes it all the ironically, might contribute to the worst of his more difficult to fight against it.

355 Bourgeois society, Heilbroner argues, gives its grimmest necessities as freedoms. The primacy to the individual as part of its worker is not forced to pay a tribute economic focus on personal gain. It tolerates established by tradition and exacted by the dissent, and even revolutionary criticism, sword. He or she freely contracts to work or because it is, in some considerable measure, freely decides to starve. The role played by the indifferent to ideals, even its own. Socialist various despots of precapitalism is taken over society, on the other hand, will require by the impersonal laws of the market, which "command" planning and, precisely because impartially apply to the rich and the poor. of its passionate moral commitment to the And bourgeois democracy—political equality common good, is likely not to tolerate structurally limited, and sometimes vitiated, dissidence in the way its amoral, pragmatic, by economic inequality—is not only ideally and cynical predecessor did. suited to a system in which economic power is To my mind, Heilbroner vastly overstates juridically private. It also reinforces the the tolerance that capitalist society voluntari- individualistic illusions that facilitate the ly grants to its opponents. But it would be growth of the most productive social system unfair to pursue such details, because he has humanity has ever known. Capitalism needs obviously compressed his analysis into a small democracy—but democracy of a certain, compass and would, I suspect, agree with antidemocratic type. most of my historical amendments to it. Even Indeed, the politicalization of economic more to the point, I want to concentrate on power in late capitalism is, as Jurgen the basic differences between us. They have to Habermas has brilliantly analyzed, one of the do with the relationship between political and sources of a crisis of legitimacy in the system. economic power in bourgeois, socialist, and As the invisible hand is replaced by the bureaucratic collectivist societies. visible—groups, regions, and even nations Capitalism is the first social-economic begin to demand that the results be fair. The formation in which political and economic problem is, of course, that even though non-, power are separated and the surplus is and sometimes anti-, capitalist means are pumped out of the direct producers by being used to preserve capitalism, the essen- economic, rather than political, means. This is tial foundations of bourgeois power have not an exceedingly complex reality, and I will here been disturbed. This is why the welfare state ignore aspects of it that would be important in normally follows corporate priorities. a rounded analysis. I propose to focus narrowly on one strand of this phenomenon that is most relevant to Heilbroner's case. WHAT is the socialist response to this I think that Heilbroner fails to analyze both situation? The socialist essential, it must the function and the (related) limitations of always be remembered, is not the plan; it is the personal freedom within capitalism. It is not democratic power of the people over the plan the "icing" of that system but a structural and the planners. The very core of capitalist constituent of it. On the one hand, Heilbroner power is the domination of a tiny minority does not give capitalism sufficient credit over the basic investment decisions that shape because he does not see how central democra- the future of society behind the backs of the cy was to its development; on the other hand, people and perpetuates the maldistribution of he does not recognize the profound limits of wealth at the same time. When that structure bourgeois democracy, limits that derive is transformed, the "icing" of bourgeois precisely from its functional necessity. And democracy is not placed on top of the socialist this failure to grasp the historic and systemic cake. Rather, the possibility of democracy particularity of capitalist democracy keeps tout court is established for the first time. him from seeing the possibilities of socialist Fine words. But isn't Heilbroner right that democracy. planners' decisions could lead in the direction It is the genius of capitalism that it presents of authoritarianism? Of course he is. My

356 objection is not that he identifies that very control the "base." The critical question is, real possibility—but that he tends to treat it as whose "superstructure"? the only possibility. This narrow focus One example: as society continues to becomes quite apparent in the choice of a develop its planning mechanisms, will there critical word: "some form of command" is be formal, legal provisions and subsidies for necessary to the socialist order. The term counterplanners and counterplans? If not, the "command" predetermines the judgment that dictatorship of some or another bureaucracy will be made by anyone who uses it. What on the basis of monopolizing the means of must be done—in theory and in practice—is decision-making is likely; if so, there is the to counterpose democratic planning to possibility of new forms of genuine democra- command planning. Obviously, that counter- cy, which would be as central to a socialist position is easier said than done. But it is a system as skewed democracy is to the possibility, and one that Heilbroner ignores. bourgeois system. All possible forms of postcapitalism will see So I would not reject Heilbroner's argu- the reintegration of the political and the ment. I would amend it. Specifically, I would economic, a trend that is already in furious rewrite the last sentence in his next-to-last motion in every country in the world. But paragraph in this way: there is a wide variety of political structures and—this is the great lesson that Stalinism From this perspective, collectivism becomes a historical drift that can no longer be viewed should have taught us—they will determine uncritically as a deliverance, but must be who holds economic and social power. If I can regarded as a process that will bring unwanted use a distinction that I find misleading and changes as well as desired ones. Socialism is the dangerous in most other contexts, in the movement for the democratization of that consciously directed societies of the future it is collectivist trend which points in the direction guaranteed that the "superstructure" will of, and struggles for, the desirable changes. ❑

Michael Waizer

R obert Heilbroner's argument about "mor- of themselves, they are in a certain sense, not al culture" can be summed up in this way: an unimportant sense, set free. But they are capitalist laissez-faire makes for toleration not set free in ways that encourage political and liberty, if only because it leaves us utterly activity. They have more room in their private indifferent to each other's opinions, while lives, but their lives are overwhelmingly socialist solidarity would give us new reasons private. They live in the narrow circle of to worry about dissent and incline us toward family and business. They have friends, but repressive policies. It is a serious argument, not comrades. And, partly for these reasons, and I don't think it is wholly wrong. But one they are radically exposed to the pressures of might tell the same story in a rather different the market. To some extent, these are fashion. pressures to conform, and surely the ability of When men and women are cut loose from the market to shape the tastes and opinions of every kind of communal support, conceived masses of people ought to be disturbing to as rational egotists, encouraged to think only anyone who loves liberty. "They like in

357 crowds," wrote, not of seek a remedy for passivity and privatization socialist but of bourgeois society. in a radical democracy, opening new opportu- But market pressures work also to exploit nities for collective decision-making, so that and trivialize, rather than eradicate, our the beliefs of ordinary citizens become personal, religious, and political differences. important. Men and women acquire dignity Heilbroner makes this point in explaining the and strength by taking a stand among their range of contemporary tolerance, but it is peers. But taking a stand can also be relevant also to the issues of depth and dangerous: it invites disagreement and con- seriousness. I am indeed free, let's say, to flict, and it can in certain circumstances breed celebrate a black mass in my living room; and political fierceness and intolerance. If politics if I am unlikely to escape television coverage, is serious, it cannot be entirely without risk. my neighbors will complain only about the But Heilbroner is wrong to suggest that cameramen on their lawns; they won't say a socialist democracy requires everyone to take word about my "religious preferences." But the same stand or that it involves the triumph what is the point of a black mass that everyone of a single idea of the good. It involves finds interesting? A similar argument holds something very different: the creation of a with regard to secular and political forms of new forum in which ideas about the good can dissent. Dissent is parasitic on belief, and a be disputed. Or better, a series of forums: society that privatizes and trivializes belief since we are not primitivists and don't intend a takes much of the meaning out of dissent. And return to undifferentiated social structures or then toleration is too easy. preindustrial economies, socialist politics is I have no doubt at all as to the value of entirely compatible with pluralism. And if religious freedom; nor of political freedom. arguments go on within different and over- But I'm not sure that either can be sustained lapping organizations, there must also be, and for long without the experience of conviction, there will be, negotiation and compromise. solidarity, and struggle. Within bourgeois Value attaches to the arguments themselves, society, this experience has been provided, not to particular outcomes. Some disagree- above all, by the effort to create a more just ments will be expressed in moral language, and egalitarian social order. Conceived others in the language of expediency. It's not ideally, however, the private lives of likely that a proposal, say, to reorganize the individuals-as-egotists do not generate enter- steel industry, though it may well be called prises of this sort and therefore do not test the erroneous, foolish, dangerous, and so on, will seriousness of toleration. Private men and be denounced as blasphemous. Indeed, I don't women are shaped instead by those patterns see any reason to think that the formal of inequality and passivity central to capitalist structure of disagreement will be so different organization, into consumers and spectators, from what it is in bourgeois democracies. It is perpetually excited, sometimes satiated, often the participants who will be different. frustrated, but fundamentally dependent and acquiescent. Meaningful freedom depends, by BUT PERHAPS I have not confronted the contrast, on the existence of an active public strongest feature of Heilbroner's argument. I life. Here again, I am following Mill: "the am assuming that the deep morality of a spirit of a commercial people," he wrote, "will socialist society will be self-respect and be essentially mean and slavish wherever mutual respect, and that these will provide a public spirit is not cultivated by an extensive better basis for freedom than can possibly be participation of the people in the business of provided by mere egotism and indifference. government in detail...." But this may be true only for political Now, extensive participation of that kind freedom. The fellowship of the forum may is, I think, the core of socialism. The moral encompass only those committed to the culture of socialism is rooted in a shared forum. One can imagine socialist democracy citizenship, the fellowship of the forum. We generating a kind of political highminded-

358 ness, intolerant of people without strong socialist, as in capitalist society, vigilance will opinions and public interests. Perhaps this is continue to be the price of liberty. what Heilbroner means when he speaks of If we fail to produce an extensive participa- "the primary importance of the collectivity." tion of ordinary people in the business of Socialist citizens would expect one another to government, then Heilbroner's collectivism think about and to work for the common would be very dangerous. A statist regime, interest. It would be more offensive in controlling economic as well as political life, socialist society than it is in bourgeois society authoritarian in character, might well find it to evade jury duty, cheat on your taxes, stay convenient to stir up among its citizens (or home from critical meetings. Certain forms of subjects) a new sense of moral purpose. It withdrawal might be harder to manage, might encourage them to ask, for example, private interests harder to defend. Every "not what your country can do for you, but solidarity, I suppose, produces a new set of what you can do for your country." It might strangers. But I am not inclined to view this use the language of socialist solidarity problem in the ultimate terms that Heilbroner ideologically, to mask an actual impoverish- sets. As bourgeois society has adjusted to a ment of public life. And that impoverishment, certain level of commitment among its together with the coercive power of such a citizens, so socialist society could adjust to a state, would certainly reduce the range of certain level of apathy. Of course, we will have personal and political liberty. But this would to make sure that it does adjust and find ways not represent the triumph of socialism, but to accommodate individual waywardness. In only one more defeat. ❑

Robert L. Hei Ibroner: A Reply

• think that Lewis Coser is out of sympathy will be so obliging. Perhaps this is what makes with my purpose and therefore misconstrues me guilty of "historicism" in his eyes. my argument. My purpose is to examine the I must add a word of sharp disagreement idea of socialism as a new socioeconomic about the meaning and origins of "individual- formation. These italicized words do not seem ism." By individualism I think we generally to get through. Mr. Coser avoids the mean a conception of the relation between problems they pose, or insists that there is no the person and society that puts the person such problem. Well, I must humbly repeat my first, society second. J. S. Mill's On Liberty is conviction that welfare capitalism is capital- the most famous exposition of this view. We ism, however much nicer than nonwelfare also imply, I think, a strong emphasis on the capitalism, and that socialism presumably equality of persons: equality before the law, means something "basically" different. I have equality in voting, equality in economic life as spelled out the basic difference, which can be "equal" parties in exchange. Of course these compressed into planning and morality. views are often cruelly betrayed in bourgeois Coser's comment boils down to an insistence society, but that does not detract from their that we can have socialism with the same bourgeois origin or their bourgeois identity. political and ideological constraints as in the Show me the John Stuart Mill of Greece or best of capitalism. I do not think that history Rome, of feudal life or the aristocratic

359 courts, or of socialism in any of its have just argued against Coser? We can hope realizations to date, and I will cede the point. they will be compatible with socialism, as they Messrs. Walzer, Harrington, and Denitch are (in part) with highly developed welfare do see what I am driving at, for which I am capitalism, but we cannot deny their bour- grateful. In one way or another they all think I geois identity—to repeat, as we define them. overstate my case, and perhaps they are right. Bogdan Denitch's comment interests me It is arguable that socialism as a new because he goes the furthest in specifying the socioeconomic order would present a spec- nature of an institutional structure that is not trum of variations, just as capitalism does and capitalist and that might admit the kinds of feudalism or the slave orders did, and perhaps freedoms that we bourgeois-thinking self- some of these socialist societies of the future styled socialists would like to see preserved. I will tolerate the particular social relations that have always felt it was a great pity that we celebrate. These relations remain, how- associationist socialism had to have its first ever, bourgeois in concept, however much trial in a country so burdened with history as they may use the "socialist" vocabulary of Yugoslavia. I would agree with Denitch that equality and democracy. For are not equality this is a road many of us would like to see and democracy, as we define these terms, socialism follow, although whether that will quintessentially bourgeois conceptions, as I be a historical possibility is difficult to say. 0

BOOKS (continued from page 288) comparatively good record on human rights issues great rights") because of the necessary re- is incontestable. But this may be explained not by quirements of a rational social contract. the legal and social patterns both books describe Neither of these books, indeed, successfully but by the impact of our Judeo-Christian heritage, drives from the field those who seek to establish a notably the widespread belief in God-given rights good society solely on the basis of people's to which it has given rise, and its religious unfettered wills, and not on some external and conceptions of the unassailable human soul. "objectively" right standard. Those positivists and Even if the practice of rights forms a secular utilitarians who believe the question of human pattern in democratic states, it is still not certain rights, as all political questions, involves claims in that the treatment of rights differs significantly competition with other claims, to be resolved by from that of other well-established social policies, agreement, still have what appears to be the e.g., the graduated income tax. Majority rule, it can strongest arguments. If rights are more inviolable be argued, requires procedures that entail discus- than other prerogatives, privileges, or freedoms, sion, a respect for minorities, and a weighing of that is only because in some communities people individual and social needs quite similar to the have agreed to treat them that way, perhaps only procedures necessary for any operational defense for the moment, and as a matter of social policy, of rights. Whether approached as a prima facie not necessarily as a fundamental moral tenet. good in terms of Flathman's liberal principle, or Consequently, rights are not sacrosanct. They do simply argued for as wise social policy, the not fall outside the scope of legitimate social stringent protection of rights depends critically agreement and hence of restraints. No certainty upon the way in which conflicts about rights are about their fate in democracies can be vouchsafed, resolved and upon the manner in which enforce- for we have nothing to depend on besides fallible ment mechanisms are brought into play. Most human judgment. This should make us modest, but majority-rule systems, with or without a practice of not necessarily afraid—for rights or for any other rights, will probably respect civil liberties ("the aspect of human welfare. ❑

360