Jacobin maganize have been doing a series of interviews with Vivek Chibber, a prominent Marxist sociologist whose recently released a couple of pamphlets on the basic orientation of socialist politics, which I think are really nice and gentle introductions to what socialism is. Of particular interest however, is Chibber's effort to distinguish between socialist politics, and the politics of progressive liberalism. I think this is an important project, because a great deal of people who see themselves as left leaning tend, I think, to identify themselves with the progressive liberal side of things, while eschewing, misunderstanding, or even confusing the specificity of what counts as a specifically socialist politics.

So here are the first two videos (there's a third to be posted tomorrow I think) and I'll post a quick summary of the main point for each video after.





(1) The main thrust of the first video begins by marking threefold distinction between neoliberal politics, progressive liberalism, and socialism. The distinction roughly breaks down as follows: Neoliberalism only recognises individuals as political and social actors, and does not give any credence to structural or societal inequalities or injustices. Any issues you have in life, are your faults alone. Progressive liberalism, on the other hand, does recognize structural and societal injustice, and does involve instituting policies designed to mitigate such injustices. Finally, socialism, while sharing with progressive liberalism the recognition of social injustice, adds to the mix an irreducible class element. It's just not just that social injustice exists: it's that it exists, and is primarily driven and perpetuated by, a certain class in society. Conversely, the non-recognition of class is what distinguishes PL from socialism.

(2) This distinction between progressive liberalism and socialism is very nicely cashed out when it comes to the question of the state. For progressive liberals, the state functions as a great equaliser. No matter how much money you have, or your position in society, each person gets one vote. This is supposed to - in theory - diffuse any accumulation of power into any one sector of society. The state is largely 'neutral' and simply adjudicates between multiple, competing interests, from all walks of life. For socialist politics however, political representation always skews in the interests of capital, because, to put it simply, that's where the money is. Capital funds the state, and political representation is always at the mercy of money. The state, in other words, is largely captured by class-interests. So the state is a nice 'case study', as it were, how the absence of presence of class analysis distinguishes progressive liberal politics from socialist ones.

This second point/video is I think especially pertinent, given how often state politics is associated with socialist politics, and especially with the 'co-option' of the name 'socialist' by the recent popularity of the American 'democratic socialists' like Bernie Sanders and the DSA. Anyway, I offer these wayy-too-brief summaries mostly as spurs to discussion. The good stuff is in the videos, which I encourage people to watch, even if just for educational purposes.