… and it’s not just about Iraq.
Here’s a nice summary of social democracy from the emigre Polish philosopher and historian of Marxism, Lesjek Kolakowski:
The trouble with the social democratic idea is that it does not stock and does not sell any of the exciting ideological commodities which various totalitarian movements – Communist, Fascist or Leftist – offer dream-hungry youth. It is no ultimate solution for all human miseries and misfortunes. It has no prescription for the total salvation of mankind, it cannot promise the fireworks of the last revolution to settle definitely all conflicts and struggles. It has invented no miraculous devices to bring about the perfect unity of man and universal brotherhood. It believes in no easy victory over evil.
It requires, in addition to commitment to a number of basic values, hard knowledge and rational calculation, since we need to be aware of and investigate as exactly as possible the historical and economic conditions in which these values are to be implemented. It is an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy.
This quote was cited with approval by the second leader of the British SDP (which split from leftward turning Labour in 1981), David Owen.
There’s a lot to admire in this (non) creed. However, Owen’s own experience points out some of its contradictions. First, his attachment to Keynesianism – and that of most social democratic parties – assumed that problems of wealth creation had been solved and the key to advancing equality was the politics of distribution. But when it became evident that economic conditions had changed such that there was no longer almost automatic economic growth, the contradictions of a politics of redistribution exploded. In Owen’s own trajectory, he moved fairly quickly from “market socialism” (the buzzword of the 70s in Europe) to neo-liberalism with a human face. The irony of the SDP’s short political life (most of the party, including current Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy, amalgamated with the Liberals in the late 80s) is that its ethos and spirit have now suffused the Labour Party under Tony Blair.
The British journalist Peter Jenkins saw Tony Benn and Margaret Thatcher as similar in spirit. While it’s often pointed out that Blair accepted the paradigm shift to the right initiated by Thatcher, it’s also worth noting that he has a distinctly old Labour view of the importance of party policy akin to Bennism – just that this time the policy is effectively determined by the Leader not by the party as a whole. That points to the second big problem with Blair style social democracy – its latent (and sometimes blatant) authoritarianism. Blair has little time for intraparty democracy, and little time for the formal institutions of democracy – Parliament and the collegiality of Cabinet. His attitude to Lords reform and to the electoral system (criticised by John Quiggin, Tim Dunlop and Andrew Bartlett) is exemplary in this regard. He’s a driven man, a man with a “project”. Over time, as well, the participative elements of the Third Way – the rhetoric of community, democratic administration, and empowerment, have increasingly been displaced by tough love talk and technocratic fiddling with internal markets in the provision of public services. Part of Blair’s problem is precisely what Kolakowski pointed to – without a vision to unify and inform his domestic politics, it’s difficult to sell public sector reform as the main plank of your political strategy.
The missing link in late modern social democracy is the second part of the equation – democracy. I remain convinced that it’s possible to bring about equality of opportunity and attack structural inequality through genuinely involving people in decisions that affect their lives, and through understanding that liberty isn’t just about consumer choices. The best parts of the Third Way project were the democratic aspects and the drive towards participation and subsidiarity.
The age of social democracy, as Kolakowski’s quote indicates, was also the age of social science – the belief that there was an ideal technocratic solution to public policy issues. The problem with this is twofold – it obscures the ideological element in social science, and privileges some values over others, and secondly it inculcates a view that disdains citizen participation and consultation.
What late modern Western politics really needs is a much larger dose of democracy. This is a prescription for the ills of disconnect, apathy and remote government.
That’s why I like the Liberal Democrats’ fundamental philosophy:
The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.
We need more of this sort of ethos in Australian politics.
Having looked through their manifestoes, these people seem little different to Australian Democrats/Labor.
They have special policies to address the needs of young people, old people, NESB people, gay people, lesbian people, female pople — yay!
Only one group is missing.
Just like the other soft-left parties, they ignore the needs of men and in effect discriminate against us.
I’m not disappointed, as I have come to expect no better.
Having looked through their manifestoes, these people seem little different to Australian Democrats/Labor.
They have special policies to address the needs of young people, old people, NESB people, gay people, lesbian people, female pople — yay!
Only one group is missing.
Just like the other soft-left parties, they ignore the needs of men and in effect discriminate against us.
I’m not disappointed, as I have come to expect no better.
That’s a nice fundamental philosophy, which ignores (or doesn’t mention) the basic fact that the root cause of the ills of society is capitalism and overwhelming corporate greed.
EP: are you saying that men can’t be young, old, queer, poor, asylum seekers or whatever? The reality is that men benefit equally (or some would say disproportionately) from all the policies not directly related to women (who are discretely socially and culturally disadvantaged).
That’s a nice fundamental philosophy, which ignores (or doesn’t mention) the basic fact that the root cause of the ills of society is capitalism and overwhelming corporate greed.
EP: are you saying that men can’t be young, old, queer, poor, asylum seekers or whatever? The reality is that men benefit equally (or some would say disproportionately) from all the policies not directly related to women (who are discretely socially and culturally disadvantaged).
Great Post.
But like EP, I wonder if the Lib Dems are much more than our Democrats whose recent behaviour shows us just how much they really believe all their lovey dovey stuff.
The old Lesjek does seem to have a good turn of phrase. “It is an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy.”
I’m not too sure that opposition to those last two things are in social democracy, but hey, if saying it helps make it so, I’m all for it.
Certainly appealling to the intellect rather than the emotions is tough going in politics.
Great Post.
But like EP, I wonder if the Lib Dems are much more than our Democrats whose recent behaviour shows us just how much they really believe all their lovey dovey stuff.
The old Lesjek does seem to have a good turn of phrase. “It is an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy.”
I’m not too sure that opposition to those last two things are in social democracy, but hey, if saying it helps make it so, I’m all for it.
Certainly appealling to the intellect rather than the emotions is tough going in politics.
I think, with all due respect to the Demos, the Lib Dems are somewhat more disciplined and coherent in their policy approach – a big change from the 80s, according to my reading of their history – as with their increasing electoral support and the decline of the Tories, they’ve come closer to power (participation in negotiations with Labour over constitutional change, in coalition in government in Scotland and Wales, and having a real chance of holding the Commons balance of power in 92, and probably in 09).
I think, with all due respect to the Demos, the Lib Dems are somewhat more disciplined and coherent in their policy approach – a big change from the 80s, according to my reading of their history – as with their increasing electoral support and the decline of the Tories, they’ve come closer to power (participation in negotiations with Labour over constitutional change, in coalition in government in Scotland and Wales, and having a real chance of holding the Commons balance of power in 92, and probably in 09).
2008 I thought…
2008 I thought…
5 year term – they tend to go a year early so the most likely next election is 09.
5 year term – they tend to go a year early so the most likely next election is 09.
EP – two things.
(a) to the degree that the party has policies which assist the disadvantaged, then these presumably work in a gender blind way (though no doubt it’s not simple);
(b) as I’ve pointed out before, middle class white men are the most advantaged group structurally in societies like ours. Therefore claims for “tailored policy” are the ultimate example of special pleading.
EP – two things.
(a) to the degree that the party has policies which assist the disadvantaged, then these presumably work in a gender blind way (though no doubt it’s not simple);
(b) as I’ve pointed out before, middle class white men are the most advantaged group structurally in societies like ours. Therefore claims for “tailored policy” are the ultimate example of special pleading.
There is a utopianism in Mark’s predilections. (THough I also would have voted for the LDs if I had been British and not living in the Celtic fringe.)
The Third Way was and is so much bullshit. Stupendously dishonest. (exeunt Anthony Giddens and Mark Latham, stage right.)
LK is right about social democracy but at least social democracy was tangibly related to its age – attempting to leverage the (inexorable?) expansion of the scale of the key instituions that run the show.
The for-profit corporation as an individual at law has to be confronted.
‘We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity.’
just so much blah de blah blah. Tell it to the troglodytes at the BCA and the ACCI, and the megalomanical Corbett at Woolworths.
And meanwhile, all the previous diversity and disperson of power – mutuals, cooperatives, not-for-profit community organisations, etc. is all being vanquished.
There is a utopianism in Mark’s predilections. (THough I also would have voted for the LDs if I had been British and not living in the Celtic fringe.)
The Third Way was and is so much bullshit. Stupendously dishonest. (exeunt Anthony Giddens and Mark Latham, stage right.)
LK is right about social democracy but at least social democracy was tangibly related to its age – attempting to leverage the (inexorable?) expansion of the scale of the key instituions that run the show.
The for-profit corporation as an individual at law has to be confronted.
‘We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity.’
just so much blah de blah blah. Tell it to the troglodytes at the BCA and the ACCI, and the megalomanical Corbett at Woolworths.
And meanwhile, all the previous diversity and disperson of power – mutuals, cooperatives, not-for-profit community organisations, etc. is all being vanquished.
“It is an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy.”
That’s a wonderful quote – one of my favourites. Mark do you have a reference for where it can be found in Kolakowski’s work?
…
To Mark’s comment at (b) above, I would say “here here”. EP, men have been privileged over and above women in human society since history has been written. The situation is probably better today than it ever has been, but that’s not to say that the situation is how it should be.
“It is an obstinate will to erode by inches the conditions which produce avoidable suffering, oppression, hunger, wars, racial and national hatred, insatiable greed and vindictive envy.”
That’s a wonderful quote – one of my favourites. Mark do you have a reference for where it can be found in Kolakowski’s work?
…
To Mark’s comment at (b) above, I would say “here here”. EP, men have been privileged over and above women in human society since history has been written. The situation is probably better today than it ever has been, but that’s not to say that the situation is how it should be.
I might have gone for the Lib Dems also, Mark. Old Labour has had its day and New Labour is awash with managerialism, reconciling the worst of both worlds in just about the worst way imaginable. The old labour-capital divide is no more, IMHO. The battleground of the 21st century (at least in the west) will be between the democratic social compact and the market. The left should gear up to defend the former and forget its ancient enmities; but both here and in the UK its traditional institutions seem pretty ill-equipped to do that. There might even be some unexpected allies on the other side, if we looked hard enough.
I might have gone for the Lib Dems also, Mark. Old Labour has had its day and New Labour is awash with managerialism, reconciling the worst of both worlds in just about the worst way imaginable. The old labour-capital divide is no more, IMHO. The battleground of the 21st century (at least in the west) will be between the democratic social compact and the market. The left should gear up to defend the former and forget its ancient enmities; but both here and in the UK its traditional institutions seem pretty ill-equipped to do that. There might even be some unexpected allies on the other side, if we looked hard enough.
Guy, sadly no – the quote was from Denis Healey’s Dimbleby Lecture in 1979 which effectively inaugurated the SDP project. I’m taking it from Peter Jenkins’ book Mrs Thatcher’s Revolution where it appears on p. 142 – but it’s not referenced back to Kolakowski’s original text.
Farthington, there has to be a certain amount of utopianism in any politics. Otherwise we may as well give up and just think about our credit card debts and where the next pinot grigio is coming from.
Rob, we seem to be agreeing more and more lately.
Guy, sadly no – the quote was from Denis Healey’s Dimbleby Lecture in 1979 which effectively inaugurated the SDP project. I’m taking it from Peter Jenkins’ book Mrs Thatcher’s Revolution where it appears on p. 142 – but it’s not referenced back to Kolakowski’s original text.
Farthington, there has to be a certain amount of utopianism in any politics. Otherwise we may as well give up and just think about our credit card debts and where the next pinot grigio is coming from.
Rob, we seem to be agreeing more and more lately.
Mark,
A big thing on your side is that the Liberal party in the UK is a great party – with a great history. Great members of the party include Gladstone, Winston Churchill (on his way to the Conservative Party
and Keynes.
The latter two spend the 1930s absolutely hopping into the establishment which then turned round and embraced them to save the country.
Odd for a country we all think of as stuffy. (But I digress!)
Mark,
A big thing on your side is that the Liberal party in the UK is a great party – with a great history. Great members of the party include Gladstone, Winston Churchill (on his way to the Conservative Party
and Keynes.
The latter two spend the 1930s absolutely hopping into the establishment which then turned round and embraced them to save the country.
Odd for a country we all think of as stuffy. (But I digress!)
And John Stuart Mill, Nicholas, of course.
And John Stuart Mill, Nicholas, of course.
Your argument, Mark, neglects the fact that there are problems which specifically impact on white middle-class men. These include, but are not limited to, health, family law, and legal discrimination in general.
To ignore the specific problems of this group, while addressing those of all the others, is to discriminate against men. There is now no structural discrimination in favour of white, heterosexual males, as the structures have been changed — hence no excuse for the continued discrimination.
Your argument, Mark, neglects the fact that there are problems which specifically impact on white middle-class men. These include, but are not limited to, health, family law, and legal discrimination in general.
To ignore the specific problems of this group, while addressing those of all the others, is to discriminate against men. There is now no structural discrimination in favour of white, heterosexual males, as the structures have been changed — hence no excuse for the continued discrimination.
Just out of interest, EP, since we’re most unlikely to agree on family law etc what do you see as the health issues? I thought increasing attention had been given to men’s health.
Just out of interest, EP, since we’re most unlikely to agree on family law etc what do you see as the health issues? I thought increasing attention had been given to men’s health.