A truly original and excellent book: Martin Hagglund's This Life.

Since this is a work of non-fiction — of philosophy and political economy — I can safely cut to the end without spoiling it. Hagglund makes the case for democratic socialism, but defines it in a unique way. The journey to that point, however, is everything.

As mentioned above, I can’t remember another book that made me feel so much in sync with an author. I loved the way he gets to democratic socialism as a necessary foundation for the kind of society we all should want. I love that he takes us on a journey from Abraham and Isaac, through Augustine, all the way to Kierkegaard, Hegel, Marx, Proust and Hayek, plus a host of others.

His is primarily an immanent critique of both religion and capitalism, and why it’s necessary to critique both at the same time — borrowing a page from Marx who did this too. His main focus is on the finite nature of everyone’s life, and how this makes all life so precious, and how the quest for “eternal life” ironically goes against that sense of preciousness, diminishing the import of our one and only life in the Here and Now.

For him, and for me, capitalism is all too similar. While he doesn’t say this explicitly, he implies what I have long felt: That the faith we have in capitalism is religious, not rational, and the faith we have in the “invisible hand” and “the markets” is religious, not rational. Hagglund goes deeper by showing how incompatible it is with both democracy and personal emancipation, with developing our selves to the fullest extent, because we’re means to an end (profits), not ends in themselves.

On the distribution angle, which I’m less sure of, as far as accurate interpretations (of his book) go:

I think he sees this as a kind of Catch-22, and yet another major reason to dump capitalism altogether. Capitalism’s Grow or Die imperative, its need to endlessly expand capital resources, makes it somewhat counterproductive to tax and redistribute after the fact, which pushes it to screw workers and consumers even more (my inference). As in, it’s not set up to be the source for distributing more equitably to society. Its entire game is the concentration of more and more and more capital in just a few hands. Public redistribution plans mess that up and force capital to be even more aggressive in turn.

He definitely sees the social democratic model as preferable to what we have here now. I think he much prefers his Nordic model roots to his current location in that regard. But he also thinks it’s a short term answer and all too precarious.

The real answer is to make “redistribution” unnecessary up front, which I’ve always felt as well. Make the economy function up front as it should, so the government doesn’t have to redress inequality later, etc.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.

zn wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

If it wouldn’t break trust with your friends, any books, articles from them you’d recommend?

I’m afraid I don’t ask for much in the way of reading material from those guys. We tend not to talk shop. There’s kids with soccer injuries to discuss, things like that, and so on. Anyway. You know who I generally read on economics when I have time? Stiglitz. Who you of course know.

Understood. Soccer injuries. Perhaps there’s a way to analogize from that to democratic socialism. Who knows?

;>)

I like Stiglitz. He’s an excellent economist. But he’s basically in the camp of “Save Capitalism from itself,” like Robert Reich — and well before him, Keynes.

As you know, I’m for full repeal and replacement of capitalism with what Hagglund calls democratic socialism. I’m not stuck on the label, but I do think these fundamental pillars need to be in place, regardless:

1. Democracy extended to include the economy
2. All workplaces fully democratized
3. We the people own and hold the means of production in common, as co-owners and coequals, directly. Not through “the state.” Not via any political parties or other proxies. But directly. Under a new constitution.
4. Power dispersed away from any “centralized” organizing principle. Back to communities, and individual shop room floors . . . all of these linked, federated.
5. The “Commons” would include the means of production, schools, libraries, museums, parks, hospitals, transportation hubs, etc. but not one’s home or the “stuff” inside it. The Commons would end where your yard begins, etc.

For starters . . .

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by Billy_T.