Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Things to Think About as the Federal Budget Approaches

above:  Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott will claim Australia 'is living beyond its means' - but behind this rhetoric there is simply an Ideology of small government - regardless of the human cost.
Tristan Ewins

As the Federal Budget approaches for 2014-2015 there has been speculation to the effect that the Government may resort to PAYE income tax bracket creep or a GST hike in order to fund its spending.   The ALP is rightly critical of any GST option that is not part of a broader progressive package. (perhaps Shorten may not even support a GST increase in any form or context) Increasing the GST base - either generally, or by ‘broadening its base’ to apply to food and health -  could be highly regressive.  But the bracket creep option is also potentially regressive – as low income earners could see themselves pushed upward into higher brackets without any real increase in their disposable income. (Again: it depends on the ‘overall package’ of the tax/welfare mix)

Further, the Government is considering raising the age of retirement, or cutting back Aged Pension eligibility.  Some are also agitating for a cut back in the Disability Support Pension rate – and possibly also eligibility.  That includes the Treasurer himself, Joe Hockey.

The ‘pension option’ is deemed by some to be ‘inescapable’ because of the ageing population, and the ‘incentive’ for people to claim the DSP as opposed to NewStart. 

We are living longer, it is true – but it is not true for all of us.  And indeed – while some are living longer – they are also living with loneliness, frailty, and sometimes indignity.   This begs the question why higher Aged Care expenditure is not on the agenda – as opposed to pension austerity.  

There is also the question of what matters most in life: the chronic capitalist commitment to endless economic growth regardless of the social cost – or the opportunity for older Australians to enjoy a retirement in comfort and dignity; enjoying opportunities for personal development not possible beforehand during their working life.

Finally – we need to maintain perspective. 

‘Deloitte Access Economics’ claimed the Government could save $2.4 billion over four years by limiting increases in the disability pension to inflation.  But when placed into perspective this is pittance to the Government when compared to the effects on the comfort, dignity and relative independence of the disabled.   And even if this amount would grow as the aged population increases,  according to ‘Wikipedia’: “the economy of Australia is one of the largest capitalist economies in the world with a GDP of US$1.57 trillion.”  Despite an ageing population – caring for those people will still be ‘well within our means’.

So while the Disability Support Pension costs “$15 billion a year” and the Aged Pension currently costs $38 billion  – probably rising to $55 billion in 2050  – that needs to be considered in the context of a (current) GDP of approximately $1.6 TRILLION. (Aus dollars; and a much larger GDP by 2050 also!) 

And while the Government claims it will not attack existing disability pensioners – the cost over the years might be high in the form of attrition against new disability pensioners.

Indeed, there is even the danger that the National Disability Insurance Scheme itself may come under threat; or that only those with the most profound physical disabilities will be considered worthy of support by a government trying to ‘wriggle out’ of previous (pre-election) disability commitments.

So while the Government could save some money through attacks on the living standards, dignity and relative independence on the disabled (linking the pension to inflation rather than wages growth), it should be honest that its real motive is not some ‘budget emergency’ – but an Ideological commitment to small government no matter the human cost.

‘Pension austerity’ needs to be considered in the context where all Australian families should benefit from the social insurance paid collectively by all of us – for the sake of our peace of mind – both for ourselves and our loved ones.  And also hopefully because we care about each other as a society.This must include a robust disability pension alongside robust disability insurance.

For those who care about distributive justice, and compassion for the poor and vulnerable, surely there must be better solutions than what is apparently being considered by Hockey and the Liberal Cabinet. 

And indeed there ARE better solutions.  Superannuation Concessions could be wound back – and income tax increased on the basis of a progressive restructuring. Tens of billions could be saved here alone.

To elaborate: It is true that tax cuts delivered overwhelmingly to upper and middle income Australians during the Howard years were recently estimated as costing the Budget around $40 billion a year alone.  And as Richard Denniss has argued on several occasions – superannuation concessions have been of benefit largely to the top 5 per cent income demographic (millionaires basically), a well as the ‘upper middle class’; and more broadly are estimated by the Treasury as costing “$45 billion a year by 2015.”

To summarise: The Government has several potential alternatives on the table they could consider – and the Shorten Opposition should be pursuing these progressive options also.

First: Wind back superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class, saving tens of billions.

Second:  Restructure personal income tax.  Perhaps allow bracket creep in the higher brackets – but INDEX the lower two brackets. And perhaps add a bracket for the highest income earners.

Third:  Increase the GST – but only as part of a ‘total package’ which includes increased welfare, tax credits or other tax cuts for lower income Australians, maintenance of exemptions on food and health, and extension of GST exemptions to funerals as well.  Calibrate the overall ‘tax mix’, here, to deliver more progressive outcomes.

Fourth:  Embrace the necessity of ‘larger government’ if ‘the Australian way of life’ is to be preserved – including a fair age of retirement and protection of the most vulnerable from grinding poverty. In this acknowledge that ‘the size of government’ in Australia is already low by international standards.

Fifth:  If the Government is concerned there is an ‘incentive’ for pensioners to apply for the Disability Pension because of the extraordinarily low Newstart unemployment benefit – then INCREASE NEWSTART to respectable and socially sustainable levels – and acknowledge that while the Disability and Aged Pensions are higher – disability and aged pensioners are still living in poverty!

Sixth:  Reconsider spending priorities with ‘upper middle class welfare’. Specifically, reconsider the structure of ‘Paid Parental Leave’, and impose tighter means tests of Private Health Insurance Rebate payments.

Budget pressures also need to be considered in the context of a growing infrastructure crisis.

Federal and State Liberal Governments are at odds with construction unions – not only because of  alleged criminality – but more crucially because there IS an infrastructure deficit – which when combined with robust conditions for workers in the Construction industry make it harder to maintain ‘small government’ alongside basic transport, communications and education infrastructure demands.  And construction workers should not have to pay the price for a right-wing Ideological fixation on reducing the size of government.

Regrettably, there is also an Ideological opposition to public housing at the same time as the dream of home ownership has drifted out of the reach of so many young Australian families since the Howard-era housing boom.

Some Liberals had  considered the GST option perhaps because they realise the infrastructure deficit will have consequences that ‘flow on’ to the private sector. (though in Victoria Napthine now rejects the GST option)   

We need to consider both the impact upon our competitiveness from the ‘infrastructure deficit’– but also the social cost to poorer families in emerging suburbs which lack transport infrastructure and schools.
Finally, today's Conservatives could do worse than to consider the example of the German Christian Democrats from the 1950s – who embraced a "social market" model. As Eric Aarons has explained,this approach suggested "a social vision couched in moral as well as economic terms…", and "recognition of the fundamentally social nature of organised production". Further, it implied a "moral community" "required to legitimate the social order…" , and the"[prevention] of the emergence of a 'two-tier' society" including a layer of permanently poor. (Aarons pp 33-34)
Christian, 'compassionate conservatives' in the Liberal Party do not have to follow the austere, heartless path of economic neo-liberalism. While this writer is a proud liberal democratic socialist as well as a Christian, sometimes it is necessary to promote lines of communication when so much is at stake. We cannot support this kind of 'neo-liberal class war' against the vulnerable and disadvantaged: a budget which hits the poor and the vulnerable in order to redistribute wealth towards the wealthy and the upper middle class.
Aarons, Eric; Hayek versus Marx And Today’s Challenges; Routledge. New York, 2009

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Instrument of Change, ‘Barometer’ of Class Struggle, or ‘Parliamentary Talking Shop’?

In this new 'Left Focus' article, Tristan Ewins explores the conflict between social democratic parliamentarianism and far-Left critiques of parliamentary democracy.  He argues for the strategic worth of parliamentary interventions, but that social change involves more than electoralism.
Leninist Marxism  had a traditionally hostile attitude towards parliamentarianism – with parliaments dismissed as ‘talking shops’.  Though for earlier Marxists at least parliament was seen in the vital role as a ‘barometer of the class struggle’.  

There is a certain irony here, as 19th Century Marxism had long championed universal and equal suffrage as a vital reform for ‘gaining a foothold’ in the executive wing of government, and as part of a broader process of revolutionising the state apparatus.   The structuralist Marxist, Nicos Poulantzas specifically was to refer to ‘the logic of class struggle’ imprinting upon ‘the state field’.  (which involves an importantly diverging connotation when compared to the alternate concept of the state purely in the sense of an ‘instrument’)  Problems arose, however, when socialist reformists began to apprehend the state power as a ‘neutral instrument’ which they could simply “lay ahold of” (Lenin) by virtue of a majority - in implementing their reform agendas. 

Certainly, Kautsky’s idea of an  “energetic shifting of power relations in the state” (find ref)  – while vague – tends to suggest something more than instrumentalism.  (Kautsky, The Road to Power, p 16, pp 71-72) .  And while Kautsky  comes in for criticism from modern-day would-be Bolsheviks, “Class neutrality” is the commonly accepted theory today – and is even more of a simplification…

To do them justice, ‘orthodox’ Marxists such as Kautsky and Martov were well aware that the state in bourgeois societies was far from a ‘neutral channel’, and still less a ‘neutral instrument’. They posed a political revolution as the means of democratising the state.  In Kautsky’s words, this would involve a “great decisive struggle” where the proletariat “grow[s] immensely” and acquires “a dominant position in the state” through democracy.  Though as we have noted – that in itself was a far more ambitious goal than a mere parliamentary majority.  (Kautsky; The Road to Power p16, pp 71-72)  


For orthodox Marxism, the need for political revolution was such that only the social democratic consciousness of the organised working class would enable it.  Hence the usual opposition of ‘social democratic’ consciousness and methods with those of ‘pure trade unionism’.  This distinction was carried forth into the 20th Century by radical social democrats and Bolsheviks alike, and still retains a certain usefulness.  It is an important legacy.


As Mouffe and Laclau explain, the resulting presumption of “a privileged role for intellectuals” influenced Lenin.  Yet by contrast they hold that “according to the Spinozist formula (ie: structuralism, materialism), its sole freedom consists in being the consciousness of necessity.”  (Mouffe and Laclau, pp 15-20)   And Kautsky’s philosophical materialism is undoubtedly in the philosophical materialist tradition.  Hence a crucial variance between Kautsky and Lenin.


In reality parliamentarism has involved a mixture of roles .  Over decades, for instance, Swedish social democrats were to deliver a solidaristic society – a kind of ‘good society’ in a ‘hybrid system’ based on deep and extensive social solidarity .  This involved ground-breaking reforms – especially around welfare provision, full employment; and trade unions with saturation-levels of coverage; as well as corporatist structures of consultation.  Rather than a mere ‘talking shop’ Swedish social democratic parliaments – backed necessarily by a strong and mobilised social democratic and labour movement – delivered real gains to workers, and to the vulnerable.  And yet when the Swedish Social Democrats finally embarked on a program of effective industry socialisation via wage earner funds in the 1970s, limitations of the model began to seem apparent.  The power of big Swedish capital – long co-opted within corporatist structures – was unleashed with a ‘turning of the tide’ and a slow retreat for Social Democracy – which is still going on to this day.  So while parliament need not comprise a mere ‘talking shop’,  nonetheless on its own it does not allow reformers absolute freedom. (regardless of who holds the majority)  Parliamentary systems and ‘parliamentary/party-political democratic actors’ are constrained and conditioned by capitalist economic systems – national, and increasingly global; as well as by the interventions of capitalist economic ‘actors’ . 

 Parliaments – and the state powers on which they rest – are marked by the broader social and economic contradictions within which they are embedded.  Yet again – ‘structure and agency condition each other’, and collective will formation can challenge the interpenetrating logics of these social systems and structures.  But capitalist systemic imperatives – exploitation, accumulation, expansion – are dominant – and even assuming an interplay of voluntarism/agency and system/structure – attempts at socialist collective will formation are an ‘uphill battle’.

But reforms won through struggle – and retained through struggle - eg: socialised medicine, industrial liberties and rights, welfare – are all of real-world value to the exploited, the oppressed and the vulnerable.

Parliaments – while valuable – are not ‘the be all and end all’.  There is always a need for extra-parliamentary organisation.  And there will be times when the class struggle (and other struggles) run ahead of their representation in parliaments.   Questions of whether to ‘press ahead’ with struggle regardless are necessarily strategic in nature; though the question of minority liberation versus majority rule is also a values-based dilemma. Again: the Austro-Marxist example shows how dual power can be the condition of effective parliamentary democracy.  So despite their potential value, parliaments need to be considered in the broader context – of the balance of class (and other) forces – and of meaningful inroads of democracy into ‘the state field’.

Kautksy, Karl - ‘The Road to Power’ (Edited by John Kautsky), Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1996 

Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal; “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy – Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, Second Edition’,  Verso, London, republished 2001


Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Reflections on Marxism, totalitarianism, education, Left history and more


Above:  What follows is some personal commentary provoked by a post at the Herald-Sun from Andrew Bolt - effectively arguing there is no place for Marxism in academia and education more generally...  From that exchange there also emerged arguments about social democracy and the Great War, the fall of Communism and more...

Tristan Ewins

Setting the score straight on Marxist history….


For Andrew: You're entitled to your opinion as a Conservative to oppose Marxism, or Leftism in general - but get your facts straight. In the 19th Century Social Democratic - that is Marxist - parties were at the very forefront of the struggle for free, universal and equal suffrage in Europe. What is more, when the Marxist Left split during the 1914-1919 period Social Democratic Marxists opposed the Great War bloodbath; but also opposed the new 'Communism' as espoused by the Bolsheviks in Russia. Specifically, they resolutely opposed over-centralisation, one party dictatorship, militarisation of labour, the suppression of civil liberties, and the dissolution of the Russian constituent assembly. That said, the Bolsheviks do deserve recognition that they governed under extreme circumstances of war, social break-down and starvation. But the Marxist Social Democrats understood the damage that would be done to the Social Democratic cause by desperate and authoritarian strategies that broke the traditional nexus between socialism, democracy and freedom. For the sake of truth we need to recognise that things are not so 'black and white' as Andrew Bolt would have us believe.


AND IN RESPONSE to criticisms from right-wingers at the Herald-Sun website: Make sure you know what you're talking about when you equate Marxism with 'totalitarianism' or argue that 'socialism has been tried and it failed'. Look at Marxists such as Julius Martov and Karl Kautsky, and further to the Left consider the position of Rosa Luxemburg.  Look to the Austro-Marxists and their fight for democracy both before and after WWI. Do your research and see how these Marxists responded to Bolshevism - and later on Stalinism. You can't claim any authority unless you do your research and know about the specific circumstances I'm talking about.

Why Marxism is still worth teaching…


Marxism is still worth teaching for a number reasons. Firstly there is the historical relevance - including the role of Leninist parties, and the possibility that social and economic breakdown could see a return of Leninist organisation and ideology. But there is also the importance of observing the truth about the plurality of Marxist tendencies and movements - many of which were (and in some cases still are) deeply democratic. Crucially, though, there are Marxist insights that remain pertinent. Insights into alienation and the division of labour; insights into the nature of exploitation and the tendency in capitalism towards monopoly; and consequently the importance of movements for economic democracy, full personal development and cultural participation; and movements for negotiated mutual disarmament and peace. There are still many reasons to teach Marxism today; though in the context of a pluralist curriculum which pays equal attention to liberalism and other critical traditions.


In response to a fellow Leftist:  Was Social Democracy completely and thoroughly compromised by the First World War?


 …You're right that to begin with most of the Social Democratic parties did not stand up against the war; For some it was originally a matter of ignorance - ignorance of the sources of the war, and a willingness to fight a 'defensive' conflict.... But when the Social Democrats attempted to vote for resolutions supporting only a defensive war - and with no annexations or reparations etc - in Germany at least the Imperial State came down on them like a ton of bricks.   Notably some such as Kautsky were also probably afraid of the Party disintegrating - and early on weren't willing to risk this in order to offer token resistance... (though later on KK came out for peace at Zimmerwald..... He was expelled form the SPD -with others)


By 1915 there was a movement comprised of Social Democrats and others - including Lenin - who were fighting to end the war... The Centrists for a separate peace with no annexations etc - and Lenin - to turn the Great War into a Europe-wide revolutionary civil war... Ultimately, when the Social Democratic Marxist 'Centrists' came out openly against the war in Germany they were expelled both from the parliamentary party - and from the broader SPD (Social Democrats - and now under a hard right-wing leadership) That's how the USPD (Independent Social Democratic Party) came about.....


So again pls note that the movement against the war in 1915 was small - but relatively broad based if that makes sense....


Also in the Australian instance - yes the ALP backed the war from the outset; But there was a redeeming aspect at least - The anti-conscription struggle which saw the ALP split and cast Billy Hughes out of the Party. (hence the origins of the Nationalist - and later 'United Australia Party') Also interestingly - later on NSW Labor Premier Jack Lang in NSW was to try and suspend the repayment of war loans to Britain... (one reason for the destruction of his government)


Anyway - my point is that during the war there was a Marxist social democratic left opposition to the war, as well as a Marxist social democratic Centre that came out against the war... But the Social Democratic Right (Ebert, Nokse, Scheidemann) who backed the war to the hilt and had the support of the German state - were dominant precisely because of that....


It's also crucial to note that the Marxist critique of purely trade union consciousness 'hit home'.... The German trade unions had been co-opted by German Imperialism - partly because of nationalism - and also because of the promise of 'legitimacy' and support for welfare and industrial reform.... Precisely because of this the cause was hopeless in 1914 no matter what....


Pro-war hysteria was also notably strong in France - where Jean Jaures was assassinated for opposing the war.... Jaures was on the relative 'right' in the sense of supporting broad coalitions, participation in unity governments etc... But he paid with his life for the sake of peace.... Again: the trade unions didn't back peace in France either.... And without trade union support there COULD BE NO "GENERAL STRIKE'.... The only resistance possible for most of the war was token resistance... Only later on - with social, military and economic disintegration - did revolution become a real prospect....

Point of all this being it wasn't only Lenin who fought to stop the Imperialist blood-bath.... There's a very interesting history for anyone willing to do a bit of research....

I also wrote this – in response to triumphalist claims about the fall of Communism in 1989-1991 – And what might have been a better chain of events

Importantly, Perestroika and Glasnost under Gorbachev held the prospect of 'reforming Communism' - with a larger role for markets, civil liberties, pluralism, détente and ultimately disarmament and peace... AFTER the collapse of Gorbachev's efforts things arguably got WORSE - not better... A handful of 'Oligarchs' took over the economy - the means of production which had been built up by Russian and other workers over a period of over 70 years.... Dissidents are still mysteriously murdered; others are jailed or driven into exile; the destruction of socialist ideology in Russia has seen return of Chauvinism and reactionary politics... The world would have been much better off with a 'gradual interpenetration' of East and West (ending with an extended European Union merging with the Eastern and Southern areas of the USSR - with Glasnost and Perestroika ensuring peace and liberty - but also equality.... Look to the war in Syria - with the West backing extreme Islamic militias - and Russia supporting the authoritarian and repressive Syrian Govt - and hence also Iran... A return to old style 'Great Power Politics' - 'The Global Chessboard' - God only knows where THAT will end...


And finally a response to a post at the Herald-Sun site that suggested democracy is a ‘corrupting influence’ (my words) because of ‘special interests’…

 What alternative is there to democracy? What alternative to people being free to make their own mistakes - and hence learn from them?

 The point is also that in a real democracy the people never 'cede power to government'. A robust democracy involves a strong and participatory public sphere; a mobilised civil society. Everything from political parties and trade unions to social movements. And yet the Herald-Sun regularly editorialises in favour of a 'heavy hand' against social movements. A nation which cannot tolerate at least low intensity civil disobedience is on the way to forsaking liberal democracy.

You can also look at 'special interests' in different ways. People readily dismiss unions as 'special interests'. But look to the double standard where industrial liberties are ceded - but 'freedom' is reduced to 'free markets'... (what can be more fundamental than the right not to work if that is what one chooses ?)


 Liberal rights are critical... I support Andrew Bolt's liberal rights funnily enough. But those liberal rights are hollowed out when in practice they come to apply overwhelmingly to the rights of 'the establishment.' And where educators who want to impart a critical disposition above all - are portrayed as 'trouble-makers' - or dismissed as Marxists. And because of pre-existing prejudices the voices of the establishment feel they don't have to include those voices except at the outer periphery.


 Marxist perspectives should be included in civil society and in curricula - alongside liberal, conservative and Green perspectives. Even fascism should be wrestled with - if for no other reason that people understand what it is and how it came about in the past. Pluralism is the creed of any healthy democracy. Teaching people not only to understand their interests - but to wrestle with their beliefs and values - is also necessary for a healthy democracy. But it is this - the potentially empowering consequences of such a policy - that the big 'C' Conservatives and authoritarian Right fear.....


 nb: they also resent the ABC - because even the accommodation of moderate left perspectives potentially leads to a greater plurality of competing viewpoints - which is something the authoritarian Right fears....


Saturday, February 1, 2014

It’s Tıme for Social-Democracy to Exit the Twentieth Century

This article was originally written for discussion among activists of the Party of European Socialists (the European-level umbrella party for Europe's socialist and social-democratic parties).  The purpose of the article is to attack the "defeatist realism" that dominates modern social-democracy and to call for a discursive shift; primarily in terms of the language and subsequent mindset that dominates centre-left politics.  Particularly in these times, there is no future in wishy-washy politics that merely plead (without the institutional power to even enforce it) a slightly "nicer" form of capitalism.  Ironically, in a time of crisis and institutional failure it is actually less realistic to be "moderate" than it is to be "radical".  The Left needs a new paradigm and a new way of looking at the world if we are to have any kind of future worth living in.  

By Shayn McCallum

There are a lot of good ideas being generated among social-democratic thinkers these days and, although this article is going to be critical in many respects, of the current state of social-democracy in Europe, it is absolutely worth acknowledging the excellent work being done by progressive intellectuals on constructing a new European political economy.   The task facing social-democracy (and the European project) is, it must be acknowledged,  massive and, in attempting to move forward, it must also be admitted that there is a certain exhaustion, a sense of the weight of history, that seems to have us all dragging our feet.  Fear of repeating past mistakes, or being perceived to be doing so, is of particular concern for a movement that represents one of the oldest political traditions in Europe.   The current, rather timid, mind-set of social-democracy is therefore somewhat understandable but, to contradict a certain French philosopher; “to understand everything is not to excuse everything”.  Social-democracy is well known as a pragmatic political tendency that avoids elaborate theories and, while this approach has arguably had its strengths at certain points in history, it is now rapidly becoming the Achilles heel of the movement, as a lack of clear thinking and analysis is frustrating the kinds of bold clear messages that social-democrats need to be transmitting to the European public.

The Cold War has been over now for over twenty years yet it seems like we still live, and think, under the long shadow cast by the Twentieth Century.  Surely this far into the new millennium it is high time for a radical shift in thinking, especially for social-democrats because, of all the political movements that have survived the last two centuries, social-democracy has, arguably, been the most negatively influenced by the legacy of the Cold-War mind-set.   Social-democracy represented, throughout the Twentieth Century, a “third camp” standing against the theoretical and ideological dogmas of both Bolshevism and liberal capitalism.  Yet, social-democrats, like virtually everyone else, became entangled in the intrigues of the Cold War and wound up pulled both right and left by the gravitational force of the two ideological poles that dominated the global thinking at that time.  When the Cold War ended, liberals and conservatives moved quickly to announce not merely the death of Soviet-style communism but that of all variations of socialism.   Social-democracy was caught unprepared and demoralised.  Trapped in the push-and-pull of Cold-War assumptions about socialism and capitalism, social-democrats were too quick to let go of the socialist tradition (which, after all, is historically as much, if not more, the property of social-democracy as it ever was of the communists) and far too willing to accept unqualified and unjustified liberal assertions of the inevitability of capitalism. 

The confusion on the Left triggered by the exhilarating events of 1989 however, should be long past by now.  Even then, just after the wall had come down, it may be argued that it was not really capitalism that had won but, rather, democracy (however much the dominant discourse of those times attempted to conflate and confuse these two concepts).  It may even be claimed, judging by the results of elections held throughout Europe after 1989, that the true victor seemed to be, specifically, social-democracy.  Yet, the failure of social-democrats themselves to understand the difference between democracy and capitalism meant they were, in essence, defeated even in victory.   The 1990’s were a decade of social-democratic governments elected throughout Europe, however, these governments ultimately delivered the same kinds of neo-liberal policies as the Right.  The result of the flirtations of social-democracy with neo-liberal “lite” policies has been a sharp decline in the credibility of the movement and, more dangerously, in politics as a whole.  In many countries, social-democratic parties have lost votes and faced large-scale defections of members (a process observed at its nadir in Germany’s SPD) and the perceived absence of alternatives in politics, underscored by the perception that social-democracy had transitioned rightwards to become practically indistinguishable from its liberal and conservative rivals, has reinforced the growing cynicism and lack of enthusiasm among European electorates for formal politics as a whole.  This, in light of history, should be setting off alarm bells and it is pretty clear that something needs to be done to regain confidence in politics once more.   It will doubtlessly take time to re-establish the reputation of social-democracy as a force for progressive change but, realistically, it is highly doubtful that this can be achieved without first taking stock of the seriousness of the situation and embracing a fairly radical shift in direction and narrative.

The first sign of this shift should be a change in the language we use.  For a start, we desperately need to stop talking about “decent capitalism”, “responsible capitalism” or any other formula involving the word “capitalism”.  The ideological trap of accepting the TINA (There Is No Alternative) conceit cannot but imprison social-democracy in a fruitless, defensive discourse.  Words matter because they all too often operate as semeiotic indicators that by-pass our own critical, rational thought processes leading us to believe we understand something whereas, in reality, we have failed to think deeply on its meaning at all[i].  We react emotionally to words such as “capitalism”, “socialism”, “democracy”, “terrorism”, “fascism” or “human rights” long before our conscious brain has analysed the embedded historical and ideological content behind these casual labels (which, of course, makes them so useful as mere rhetorical epithets).  

Capitalism, used as a neutral or positive term, is for social-democrats, quite simply “enemy territory”.  If social-democrats attempt to position themselves (especially in the current era which is not the 1970’s by any means) as “the people who do capitalism better” they will most likely fail.  Why not instead try to reposition social-democracy as the “people who are serious about building and defending a democratic society”?  This would have the advantage of refocusing attention on the fact that we live in societies not economies and that democracy ideally means participation, or at least the right to participation, by everyone in the discussion and process of shaping the society we live in.  One of the first problems social-democratic programs run up against is the reality that both globalisation and Europeanisation have, in effect, weakened political (i.e. democratic) control over markets and privileged the economy over social and political factors.  This is not some random, inevitable, freak event of history but the result of a conscious set of choices made by political actors, (including social-democrats themselves) but, like all political processes, it may be reversed or at least reconsidered.  Part of the task of presenting an alternative to the current disaster in Europe, therefore, needs to be building support for change to the existing institutional arrangements of the EU.

The future of European social-democracy largely depends on the ability to kindle a degree of public enthusiasm for institutional change at the European level and this will demand the cultivation of a skilful, passionate narrative able to draw public attention towards issues often perceived as “dull” or “irrelevant”.   Can talk of decent capitalism create this level of public enthusiasm?  Apart from the argument that talk of “decent capitalism” is intrinsically problematic, excessively limiting and undesirable, it is fairly apparent that, without the institutional basis for implementing a regulatory framework, even the idea of “decent capitalism”, however moderate and “reasonable” it may seem, in fact, amounts to little more than a weakly optimistic pipe-dream.

Furthermore, it needs to be asked; what is this “capitalism” anyway?  The term gets used constantly and by all parties.  The centre-left talks of “decent capitalism”, while the centre-right merely uses the term in its unadorned simplicity without the need for qualifying adjectives, yet what is actually meant by this highly charged and loaded noun? There is seldom perceived much of a need to define it at all, as Left and Right alike have blithely accepted that “capitalism is all there is”.  Capitalism, in one form or another, is accepted as the only viable economic system left to us.  However, what if this assumption were ultimately nonsense?  Fred Block, professor of Sociology at Davis University, for example, questions, quite persuasively, the utility of talking about capitalism at all[ii]. 

Capitalism, rather like its 20th Century rival, communism, is a utopia (or a dystopia for many of us) that imagines a society based on a self-regulating market.  The fact that this system causes crises and collapse whenever and wherever its ideologues attempt to impose it has still not heralded a general realisation that, rather like its much-discredited rival, communism, capitalism does not work in any version of reality.  Part of the problem comes from the legacy of the Cold War mind-set where there were only two alternatives and now that communism has collapsed, we have no choice but to tolerate capitalism and hope for a more humanised version of it.

The story we have told ourselves is, however, wrong from the start.  We are trapped, essentially, between the competing, yet complementary, narratives of Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayeck and the economistic world view promoted by them both.  The truth however, has always been more complex than the shadow war waged between these two diametrically opposed, utopian ideologies would suggest.  Historically, the complex space in between these extremes, neither of which have ever been realised as living societies, has been the natural habitat of social-democracy.  Communists complained that the reformist efforts of social-democrats were merely prolonging the life of capitalism and delaying the ultimate triumph of socialism while liberals argued that social-democratic reforms were distorting market forces and would ultimately lead to totalitarianism.  Yet, for all the denunciations from the Left and Right wings of the economistic world-view, social-democracy has arguably proved to be one of the most successful political experiments in history.

The question begs to be asked: what if social-democracy were not just “capitalism with a human face” but rather a distinct political economy in its own right?  What if, rather than according to Marx and Hayeck, we decided to read the Twentieth Century through the lens of Karl Polanyi?

 According to Polanyi, capitalism could be understood as the attempt to impose a self-regulating market on society (an attempt, incidentally that was doomed to failure according to Polanyi).  The destruction wreaked by such an attempt however, would always arouse a defensive counter-movement as various groups in society sought to protect their values, traditions and lifestyles from the effects of marketization.  As a socialist, Polanyi believed that the highest form this resistance could take was socialism, which he defined as “the tendency inherent in an industrial civilisation to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society”[iii].  Thus, we now have a theoretical paradigm in which the political (specifically democratic) understanding of society is set in opposition to the econocentric ideology of capitalism.  Capitalism, if we choose to use the term at all, may therefore be seen as an anti-democratic attempt to impose the sovereignty of capital through the subtle substituton of market forces for political decision-making, whereas socialism (again, if we wish to use the term) may be understood as the attempt to subordinate the economy to the democratic will of society.

The Polanyian understanding has radical implications and, potentially enables social-democrats to fundamentally re-frame the terrain of political discourse.   Rather than being trapped in the role of “political cry-babies” and “bleeding hearts” who try to “sugar-coat” the necessary pill of austerity to ensure the viability of the market project, social-democrats should reposition themselves  as the political force serious about advancing and deepening democracy, not only in the formal, representative sense, but as a way of life that permeates society at all levels.  In this way, social-democracy can create the kinds of arguments that enable it to seize the initiative and finally begin to put its neo-liberal rivals on the defensive.

Something like this understanding of social-democracy is, in fact, emerging.  Martin Schulz, for example, who will hopefully be the next president of the EU, to a very large extent embodies the vision of social-democracy articulated here, as can be seen from his remarks and speeches in various forums and his impressive track-record as a passionate, dogged fighter for social justice.   Social-democrats must live up to their name and be prepared to be seriously committed to a true socialisation of democracy.  This means new institutions and it means being prepared to struggle, with passion and conviction, for a new kind of society.  This does not necessarily entail the pursuit of ideological utopias but rather what a number of social-democrats have begun to call “a good society”.  This is, it seems, an excellent choice of terms to sum up the goals of modern social-democracy.

Social-democrats have always been reformists.  Social-democracy is not about overthrowing existing structures in some kind of violent act of revolution.  This does not, however, mean that social-democrats are not radical.  At its core, social-democracy has always harboured a deeply transformative potential, albeit not towards some kind of pre-conceived utopia but always in the pursuit of “a good society”.  Moreover, historically, we have always known, more-or-less, the features of this “good society”; a society where individuals are free, and supported by well-developed, democratic and transparent social, political and economic structures to develop to their fullest potential, where everyone enjoys equality of rights, opportunities and standards of living with their fellows, and nobody is subject to exploitation, discrimination or intolerance on any economic, social or political grounds.

Is such an ideal really so utopian?  Given how far our movement has come and the great achievements and successes of our past there is really no reason for pessimism but the times we live in call for boldness and vision not “business-as-usual” or a slightly nicer version of the same.  We need to change our way of thinking and reflect this in our way of speaking.  Let’s stop defending “capitalism” and start talking more of democracy.   Let’s go further and even stop talking about a “market economy”.

It is true that social-democrats have pretty much universally accepted the utility of markets but, nonetheless, markets still need to be kept in their place.  There is a subtle, but important difference between a “market economy” and “an economy which uses markets”.  Moreover, within our movement there needs to be more discussion on which areas of society and the economy need to be protected from market forces for the sake of defending our values of equity, equality and participation.  Of course, having recognised the importance of the political and the necessity of advancing and deepening democracy, social-democrats will need to engage in a forceful,  strategic program of institutional reform at the European level to create the, currently non-existent,  structures to practically enable social-democratic changes to the European political-economy to take place.

Programmatically, good ideas are emerging and excellent practical measures to institute a new political economy are being developed within our movement.   There is much reason for optimism but there are challenges that should not be underestimated.  When the Pope is prepared to denounce the evils of capitalism from the Vatican it is embarrassing that the socialist movement timorously hesitates to do so.  Free markets lead to unfree people and the ruination of nature.  Indeed, the proverbial elephant in the room when it comes to modern capitalism is the looming environmental crisis that threatens to make our piddling concerns over the fate of the Euro as significant as the squabbles of two fools over who gets the comfiest chair on the deck of the Titanic.  We do need to question and revise our economic goals and assumptions and recognise that the capitalist mentality of endless growth goes against all the logic of nature and its imposition of limits on all its systems.  Sustainability needs to be more than a slogan but something social-democrats are prepared to bravely explore and develop into a politicised, tangible reality.  Doing this will require more than a passing nod to greenwash-type palliatives.

Furthermore, we also need to reject and forcefully attack the nonsensical “common-sense” idea that capitalism is about “freedom” whereas socialism (or social-democracy) “inhibits freedom for the sake of equality”.  It takes very little reflection to realise that true freedom is totally dependent on a significant degree of equality, just as equality is fundamentally predicated on freedom.

To illustrate this point; freedom without equality ends up a grotesque lie, equivalent to the observation of Émile Zola that the law forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges.  Without equality, there is no means of exercising formal freedoms.  Likewise, equality without freedom can only ever amount to the equality of prison inmates who resemble each other in the misery of their condition.  Yet, in a prison (or a Soviet-type state) this “equality” must be enforced by guardians or commissars who are empowered to do so, thus, there can be, in this case, no true equality at all.  True equality can emerge only under conditions of freedom just as freedom can only be meaningfully enjoyed when it is available equally to all.

Social-democracy is perhaps the only political tradition which can claim a history of pursuing both freedom and equality as part of its most fundamental values and raison d’être.  The future success of social-democracy lies in how well it learns to speak to the human heart and imagination.   Once upon a time, socialists were renowned as dreamers and story-tellers rather than policy-wonks and say-anything-to-get-elected spin-doctors.  It’s about time we re-learned the art of inspiration through a political narrative capable of capturing the public imagination, if only because this story was based on the finest, most beautiful values of humanity.  These may still, even now, be summarised in the old French revolutionary slogan of “liberty, equality and fraternity” which, somehow, still manages to express everything most essential about a “good society”.

[i] Considerable work has been carried out on the importance of language in politics by the neuroscientist George Lakoff and, in a highly parallel manner, Drew Westen.  See the following publications:
Lakoff, George: The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century  
Politics with an 18th-Century Brain, Penguin, NY 2008
Westen, Drew: The Political Brain: the Role of Emotion in Understanding the   
Fate of the Nation Public  Affairs, NY 2007
[ii] Block, Fred.  2012.  "Varieties of What?  Should We Still be Using the Concept of Capitalism."  Political Power and Social Theory, vol. 23.
[iii] Polanyi Karl (2001 (1944) The Great Transformation, The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston,
                                                 Beacon Press  p. 242

tag cloud

aarons (9) according (12) aged (23) ago (13) america (18) argues (14) au (27) australia (20) australian (32) bank (25) based (14) billion (17) blog (17) book (11) budget (25) bush (11) business (13) capital (17) cent (13) change (16) com (25) comments (15) commonwealth (16) competition (18) congress (10) conservative (10) consider (10) country (10) course (15) cpsa (9) create (12) crisis (12) critical (10) cuba (12) deficit (11) democratic (10) different (10) economic (26) economy (24) en (9) ewins (20) federal (14) financial (11) focus (12) full (10) government (41) greens (12) groups (15) hayek (9) housing (10) html (16) http (42) income (13) increase (13) infrastructure (14) interest (10) investment (9) labels (11) labor (64) labour (13) land (32) liberal (15) market (10) matwe (10) money (9) needs (16) news (13) obama (22) office (15) opportunity (12) org (15) parents (13) party (22) pension (23) people (16) per (18) platform (9) political (18) posted (18) poverty (13) power (14) president (19) production (12) progressive (15) provide (10) public (19) raised (9) rate (14) red (14) reform (16) revolution (17) rudd (12) scare (11) services (12) single (14) social (38) socialist (10) sole (13) state (26) strong (10) struggle (11) suggested (10) support (19) tax (33) taxation (12) trade (12) tristan (23) unemployed (13) unemployment (12) values (14) venezuela (9) vulnerable (15) war (13) wealth (12) week (11) welcome (15) working (9) world (15) www (26) years (27)
created at