Abstract
An important political implication of theories of ‘late modernity’ is that socialism no longer appears to be a viable alternative. Different arguments are given for this, but the thrust is that social control over production processes to further equality and rationality in economic life has become either outdated, superfluous or has simply proved unfeasible. Matt Dawson’s book, however, aims at providing a socialist critique of, and alternative to, late modernity.
Dawson identifies four issues in the political sociology of late modernity, which correspond to four tenets of his own brand of libertarian socialism. How is choice exercised at an everyday level? What is the role of the state in (not) providing resources which allow these choices to be successful? How does neoliberalism influence, and limit, the impact of such choices? How is political action collectively conducted in late modernity? He then posits four tenets of libertarian socialism, before showing that they connect to the questions posed: Democracy relies upon pluralized, everyday outlets. The state will find it difficult to recognize the pluralized claims of modern society. The inequalities of capitalist society make justice impossible. Lastly, individualism can only flourish through political organization.
The ambition is to show that a libertarian socialist critique of late modernity is still relevant. His arguments to this effect are largely persuasive. Commendably, this critique is bolstered by Dawson’s parallel constructive mission to establish an alternative. He does this by doing what Russell Brand would not, in the famous Paxman interview: devise a utopian socialist system.
The scope of the book is impressive. It reviews key contributions to sociological theory and ensuing debates; engages in debates about politics and socialism and offers a more or less novel interpretation/synthesis of GDH Cole and Emile Durkheim to that end; and discusses a great deal of relevant research. All of this is kept within a modest 185 pages of text.
Dawson’s discussion of debate and research on individualization is impressive, and his discussion of recent social movements – Slutwalk, the green and the alter-globalization movements – is interesting. He addresses a broad range of literature and offers succinct accounts of core positions, and often draws interesting parallels and raises significant critiques. All of this is expressed in mostly elegant prose.
Things get less neat when he turns to his brand of libertarian socialism. The gist of it is that a form of socialism based on associations taking on many or most functions of government make for a democratization of democracy. Dawson argues that such a system could exercise democratic control over both production and consumption.
These chapters are somewhat hard to follow. This might be due to the fact that they are structured around a confrontation between one concept of ‘the political sociology of late modernity’, and one concept of ‘libertarian socialism’, both of which are interpretive constructs of Dawson’s own making. Dawson does some important interpretative work on the scholarship on late modernity and libertarian socialism. But when this as well as his discussion, based on a lot of earlier research, has to fit into such a short book, complex issues have to be addressed with a brevity that seemingly takes its toll on the prose.
In outlining his libertarian socialist alternative, Dawson is well-aware that providing, in the sarcastic words of Marx, ‘recipes for the cookshops of the future’ may amount to little more than elaborate day-dreaming. In an almost Marxian manner, he seeks to show that the seeds of the future libertarian socialist society are in fact in evidence now. The seeds are found in pre-existing associations like trade unions and professional associations, as well as various social movements. Unfortunately, it remains unclear just how a full forest of socialism would grow from these seeds.
I am guessing at least three things would be necessary. Firstly, there would need to be a vast expansion of voluntary associations in a range of fields. If the lion’s share of social life is to be democratically run or regulated by associations, one would need a significantly higher level of engagement in such associations, as well as many more of them. Secondly, constitutions and laws would probably have to be changed to allow associations to take over government functions, and this would seem to rely upon the election of a party or parties committed to this end. Thirdly, if associations were to control economic life, this would require expropriation of private capital.
Just how all of this is supposed to take place is left unclear, which is regrettable, but understandable: the book already feels somewhat crammed. Dawson does a good job at critiquing late modernity and outlining what just might be a swell social order, but left me curious about his political strategy, even if this is beyond his ambitions. If readers are convinced by his normative alternative, what should they do?