I’m a bit puzzled as to why Robert Manne’s piece on Social Democracy and the Green future was published by the ABC’s Religion website, particularly since one consequence is that it probably won’t be widely read. It does deserve some examination, principally because Manne typifies the way that ‘Social Democracy’ and ‘Green’ are seen as two potentially incommensurable political paradigms, which could only be somehow stapled together with extreme difficulty. This, in my view, is something of a furphy, and it’s a furphy which derives from the confusion of a number of things which are related but should be analytically distinct, and could benefit from a bit of clarity:
(a) Debates about the ALP’s relationship with The Greens (and vice versa, though a lot less tends to be written about how The Greens should relate to the ALP);
(b) Related sociological observations about social and cultural shifts which are said to have shrunk or dissipated a traditional Labo(u)r constituency while calling into being a Green or progressive social liberal one;
(c) Political practice and ideology.
As a footnote to all that, it’s not entirely clear to me that the current fashion for characterising the Australian Labor Party as “Social Democratic” is all that well grounded, particularly in history.
There’s another furphy here – which is that the mere use of Keynesian (or more properly post-Keynesian) forms of economic pump-priming by governments in the wake of the GFC represented either ‘an end to neo-liberalism’ or the converse; ‘a return to social democracy’. It should be much more clear now, however many essays that Kevin Rudd wrote and that Robert Manne used as a hinge for a book by some usual suspects, that the relevant question of economic governance is not one of technique but – “who benefits?” – Economic stimulus is now winding down and the Irish example is only the most stark of a broader trend – the transfer of liabilities incurred by greedy private interests to the public balance sheet, and the consequent attacks on the public realm in the name of ‘market confidence’ and ‘paying off debt’.
More broadly, by identifying Social Democracy narrowly with a particular pattern of post-war governance and economic and welfare policy, Manne ignores what was characteristic of it as an ideology, if not always as a practice – its fundamentally transformational nature. Manne’s horizons are still shaped, it might be argued, by his identification of himself with a particular right-Labourist Cold War politics. He doesn’t appear to take into account the fact that in both its Northern European heartlands and in the United Kingdom, Social Democracy was about – until the 60s and 70s at any rate – a fundamental and secular transformation of the social sphere through removing more and more aspects of economic transactions and social care from the purview of markets. Decommodification, in a word. That’s something that the ‘Social Democrats’ of contemporary Australia – exemplified also by Tim Soutphommasane and Nick Dyrenfurth’s All That’s Left – really don’t want to know about, repeating the ahistorical claim beloved of Soutphommasane that Social Democracy is something like an amalgam of left liberalism and bland Labourism (which is not quite how he puts it in his argument that Social Democracy is a mixed bag rather than a coherent ideological position, but that’s pretty much what it comes down to).
It’s in thinking about first principles, and in the nature of transformative political movements, that the actual question of the Greening of Social Democracy ought to be resolvable (and Green means a lot more than “the threat of catastropic Climate Change” as Manne puts it).
Oops, forgot the actual link to the Manne piece:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/12/07/3086985.htm?topic1=home&topic2
Fantastic analysis, Kim.
Just one question, to stoke my own personal curiosity as to more of your thoughts in this nature, which you can answer at any length you want:
Do you consider Whitlam to be a ‘transformative’ leader, consistent with the ‘fundamental and secular transformation of the social sphere’ which you identify with Scandanavian social democracy (which I understand that Gough was, and I hope still is, very fond of)? Or do you identify more with the ‘technocrat’ tradition, where Whitlamism is seen merely as a milestone along the road to Hawke/Keating ‘managerialism’ (removing politics of its ideological/class substance and merely turning it into a question of efficient management)?
I probably could have expressed the question better, but any thoughts you have in this respect would be really, really interesting (to me) — if you have time.
Thanks, Black Mage.
I think my interpretation of Whitlam is that he was in the technocratic vein – perhaps there having something in common with the modernist impulses of the Wilson government in its early years (and of Tony Benn before he moved to the left). So there’s a bit of a direct line in technocracy/managerialism from Whitlam through to Rudd/Gillard. I don’t think that Australian Labor – including Whitlam – has ever really grasped the transformative dimension of Social Democracy, though there were some missed opportunities (“Australia Reconstructed”). Hence my criticism of the rather threadbare proxies for Social Democracy being used in the current pretty limited debate.
The article seems to be a stapling of Tony Judt’s article about a social democracy of sphere and John Keane’s article about the death of social democracy.
I agree re: authors of All That’s Left. It’s a broad problem with self-proclaimed social democrats being neoliberals and not understanding that neoliberalism is diametrically opposed to social democracy (especially decommodification).
I also think it’s ridiculous that commentators talk about having to choose between the “working-class” and “middle-class wings”. They were banging on about it when Labor was in opposition federally. Social democratic policies that make people feel more secure e.g. job security, better work-life balance, more affordable housing, better services, provides political capital to spend on socially progressive policies. You take away the social democratic policies that provide a decent quality of life, it’s far harder to push for progressive social policy.
Social democracy of fear I mean.
@5 – Yep, there’s been lots of boring staplings of Judt and Keane!
Agree with all of that, Oz… the other thing is that ideally a social democratic project would be one that works to dissolve the boundaries between “working class” and “middle class” – one of the classic goals of universality of provision in health and education. The lack of imagination, and indeed historical understanding, among some of the right-Labourists reinventing themselves as ‘Social Democrats’ really shows through in how much they accept as an eternal given.
I came across the article on the ABC’s Environment site and had just finished reading it when coming to this piece.
If Social Democracy can be revived it will not be through the Labour party anytime soon as they are a Neoliberal party and have been for 30years or so.
I have grave doubts that social democracy has the capacity to meet the challenges of the near future anyway and something like democratic socialism will be needed.
@7 – Democratic socialism and Social democracy are pretty much the same thing, historically. Again, I’d emphasise that reading too much into current party political arguments (intra and inter) and rather narrow and ahistorical understandings of ideological terminology and practice serve mainly to obscure.
@ 8, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy have very distinct definitions. They are not the same thing or they would not be defined differently. But it’s your blog, make your own rules.
@9 – No, it’s my point of view. I’m happy to have the argument if you’d like to justify your comment. Note also “pretty much” does not imply identical.
What’s the point of arguing about definitions? I just wanted to contribute my thoughts to your blog. If you only want highbrow analysis contributing to your posts then I have got many better things to do. Bye Bye.
If social democracy is going to be ‘green’ this will be because of the way that the broad environment movement has rejuvenated practises of democracy. That movement, informed by the peace and social movements of the last forty years, represents the future of democracy. It ought to be clear that the ALP is exhausted and can no longer be treated as anything other than exemplary of the failures of the past.
@11 – Well, you seemed to think it was important since you disagreed with me. I don’t want to get into some ridiculous stoush about “high brow analysis”, but I think if you have a point of view, you should be prepared to argue it. That’s all.
@ 13 now we get to the nub. I was not aware of disagreeing with you. I’m not sorry if what I wrote did but it was not my intention to disagree. I’m far too busy to get involved with anything deep but I will agree with AKN @ 12 wholeheartedly.
I’m not puzzled about why Their ABC would ‘hide’ Manne’s piece in an out-of-the-way, poorly-lit corner of the website. When considering that right-wing activists influence the ABC, from its very top down, there’s no puzzle about why they’d do that to an article written from the progressive political perspective.
Conversely, their heavily-publicised blog, The Drum, features acres of rants by right-wing propagandists, most notably the so-called Institute of Public Affairs, which gets more coverage, airtime, publicity, interview appearances and stage space from Their ABC than any other think tank in the country.
I listened to ABC NewsRadio for a few hours on Sunday afternoon (December 05). In bulletin after bulletin, political stories featured voice grabs from only one side of politics – the Coalition. No other party got even one grab during the hours I listened.
Again, not surprising. Bias is run-of-the-mill these days at Their ABC, and the Charter be damned!
“…it’s not entirely clear to me that the current fashion for characterising the Australian Labor Party as “Social Democratic” is all that well grounded”
S’funny. A coupla days ago I found the political compass site by accident again and just for fun thought I’d do their test. But not for me but for the ALP. Or at least my perception of how the ALP would rank.
Then I found that the site itself had done just that based on the 2007 election policies, statements etc of the ALP.
Check it out, its …shall we say … ‘revealing”?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007
Social democracy is a political movement that seeks to co-exist with private enterprise rather than replace it. As the object of socialism, democratic or otherwise, is to stamp out all vestiges of private enterprise, it is wrong to say that democratic socialism and social democracy are the same or “pretty much” the same.
I hope that helps.
Guess what?
Political compass did the ALP for the 2010 election as well.[I missed it.]
The ALP have shifted on the axes compared to 2007.
Guess in what directions?
Oh and the PC mob describe the Greens as:
” .. with a comprehensive social democratic manifesto, more in tune with an earlier Labor Party, and significantly more socially liberal than either of the others.”
Hannah’s Dad,
Poltical Compass shows that the Liberal Party has also moved in relation to where it was placed in 2007.
Only the Greens retained their previous position.
My memory must be poison on this issue of Social D. or whatever.Seems to recall a Penguin written by a South Australian explaining that Whitlam was about compromising with the U.S.A. and turning Australia into a manufacturing sheltered workshop.So whose interest it is to claim whatever Whitlam may have done,and the following ALP types,I doubt wether that party has ever measured up to the philosophical trans-criptors.Even remember Hawke jollying himself along by changing the description of the ALP a number of times,and trying to sound thoughtful.So a catch-all Party is what they really are,and either practice being the British Tradition of Oppositionist or Party in Power.And Australia gets mugged by them either way.For essentially,they will remind us directly or indirectly through the likes of Manne and the ABC they are one better than the rest of us.So help me God!
@17 – In practice, democratic socialism worked towards the same goals as social democracy – ie decommodification of public services, breaking the nexus between market transactions and the remuneration of labour and state direction and planning of the economy. In the UK and Australia, socialism has tended to be understood largely through the lens of public ownership/nationalisation, but that’s not important or far less important for Northern European traditions – where, nevertheless, a system which would not be capitalism as we know it was contemplated. The idea is to replace the profit motive with other modes of motivation/economic governance. Both traditions are often confused with Keynesianism per se, which certainly is just an attempt to govern/ameliorate capitalism.
That was very enlightening, hd.
No wonder the Greens is where I’m most comfortable, and it makes a mockery of the protestations of those Labor left people that we should stop white-anting them in vulnerable seats.
“In practice, democratic socialism worked towards the same goals as social democracy – ie decommodification of public services, breaking the nexus between market transactions and the remuneration of labour and state direction and planning of the economy.”
I disagree. Democratic socialism has never actually existed outside of mini state-within-a-state organisations, all of which have had a precarious and mostly very short life. It doesn’t make sense to talk about something “in practice” when it has never been practiced.
Given the speed and completeness with which the old communist states gave way to capitalism, I doubt any form of democratic socialism will ever exist outside of books and idle chatter.
An interesting piece – especially the point that social democracy in its various forms can be a political philosophy that is deeply transformative.
Just one quibble: why use tired, and inaccurate, labels like “right-Laborist Cold War politics”? Is Robert Manne still suspect simply for being right about the nature of Leninism? Manne came out of the Cold War smelling pretty good, if you ask me.
@24 – Thanks, Ginja.
No, I don’t meant to imply that about Manne. Just that I don’t think that his view of politics has significantly moved on from an older paradigm. I think that’s clear from the way he heads down a number of blind allies when writing about ideology.
Fair enough, Kim.
I’d sort of agree, too. While I think the years 1917-1989 contain important lessons for the Left, the one lesson we definitely don’t want to draw is that all radical changes lead to the Gulag, or that there is a very narrow band in which social democracy has to move.
I’d like to add that one of the reasons social democracy displaced liberalism was that it was ready to absorb, co-opt so many other causes – like women’s suffrage.
If you haven’t already, I’d strongly urge you to take a look at the Compass group in the UK and on YouTube for some of John Cruddas’s talks – I think you’d find them interesting Kim.
Thanks, Ginja – Cruddas *is* an interesting thinker.