Against Socialist Fusionism Sage Brush

The summer issue of the socialist quarterly Dissent carries a fascinating symposium on “What is socialism?” It consists of a lead-off article by Robert Heilbroner; then rejoinders by such stalwarts as Lewis Coser, Bogdan Denitch, Michael Harrington, and Michael Walzer; followed by a reply from Heilbroner. For Heilbroner, socialism is “not just an improved welfare state,” but “another kind of society.” Moreover, Heilbroner is one of those socialists who insists that “no one has yet observed this socialism in reality”—thereby relieving himself of the inordinate burden of having to defend Soviet, Chinese, or some other extant form of socialism. And yet he wants to come down out of the clouds and get a handle on what authentic socialism really would be like. He notes accurately that “most socialists, especially Marxists,” have assiduously avoided doing this. He warns that his conclusions will “distress or even outrage” many readers of Dissent. And no wonder. He comes right out and says it: “Socialism cannot be the best of all worlds.”

It is axiomatic for Heilbroner that the welfare state is not socialism, for it lacks centralized planning and a cultural superstructure grounded in a sense of collective morality; moreover, it cannot achieve radical redistribution of income or an alteration in current employment patterns. But he would not entirely do away with market mechanisms or traditional pre-capitalist economic arrangements. He would be hospitable to workers’ control of the workplace and other participatory, anti-bureaucratic devices. And yet, he insists that socialism requires central economic coordination, which requires planning, which means “we are left with some form of command.” Heilbroner comes clean, and for that he should be congratulated. He announces that “an aspect of authoritarianism resides inextricably in all planning systems.” What Heilbroner is saying is that socialism is incompatible with “freedom” as that term is understood in bourgeois societies. It is a delusion to think we can have “a socialist cake with bourgeois icing,” he says. So there! Libertarians: pat yourselves on the back. You figured that out long ago.

DV

About the Author

Dale Vree

Featured Tags

The summer issue of the socialist quarterly Dissent carries a fascinating symposium on “What is socialism?” It consists of a lead-off article by Robert Heilbroner; then rejoinders by such stalwarts as Lewis Coser, Bogdan Denitch, Michael Harrington, and Michael Walzer; followed by a reply from Heilbroner. For Heilbroner, socialism is “not just an improved welfare state,” but “another kind of society.” Moreover, Heilbroner is one of those socialists who insists that “no one has yet observed this socialism in reality”—thereby relieving himself of the inordinate burden of having to defend Soviet, Chinese, or some other extant form of socialism. And yet he wants to come down out of the clouds and get a handle on what authentic socialism really would be like. He notes accurately that “most socialists, especially Marxists,” have assiduously avoided doing this. He warns that his conclusions will “distress or even outrage” many readers of Dissent. And no wonder. He comes right out and says it: “Socialism cannot be the best of all worlds.”

It is axiomatic for Heilbroner that the welfare state is not socialism, for it lacks centralized planning and a cultural superstructure grounded in a sense of collective morality; moreover, it cannot achieve radical redistribution of income or an alteration in current employment patterns. But he would not entirely do away with market mechanisms or traditional pre-capitalist economic arrangements. He would be hospitable to workers’ control of the workplace and other participatory, anti-bureaucratic devices. And yet, he insists that socialism requires central economic coordination, which requires planning, which means “we are left with some form of command.” Heilbroner comes clean, and for that he should be congratulated. He announces that “an aspect of authoritarianism resides inextricably in all planning systems.” What Heilbroner is saying is that socialism is incompatible with “freedom” as that term is understood in bourgeois societies. It is a delusion to think we can have “a socialist cake with bourgeois icing,” he says. So there! Libertarians: pat yourselves on the back. You figured that out long ago.