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.
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
