"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
|
|
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx
|
|
|
social democracy: anything left?
« Previous |
|Next »
|
|
|
September 23, 2004
This article is useful in the light of this: the lack of a decent social democratic response to the recent economic devastation of particular regions within the nation state. That devastation started to happen during the 1980s with the turn to the global economy, and many of us are living with the consequences of that neo-liberal turn today.
Martell starts by briefly describing social democracy. He says that for social democrats:
"Capitalism is accepted – it can deliver growth and wealth. However capitalism is not all good, it can lead to inequalities and deprivation which need to be mitigated through government intervention, a characteristic on which social democracy begins to differ, in emphasis at least, from many liberals and conservatives. Amongst social democrats there may be differences of emphasis, between those who envisage compensatory policies, which attempt to mitigate or sweep up the social costs of liberal capitalism, and countervailing social democracy, which tries to establish principles which go in a different direction to liberal capitalism. Mitigative policies or reform are initiated and implemented by government from above which is focused on the national arena, on action via the nation-state."
Martell then sketches a brief history that is well known, as it has formed part of our lived experience:
"From 1945 onwards in many countries social democracy was organised around various ideological and policy features: Keynesian economics, a universal welfare state, working class solidarity, the trade unions and corporatist arrangements. Of course, such features varied from place to place. In some countries corporatism took off and became embedded more than in others. The form the welfare state has taken has varied, to take another example. And whether such mainstays of social democracy actually always made their way into concrete practice, or were held to in all factions of social democratic parties can be questioned."
The working class has become the aspirational suburban class in Australian terms.
Martell then mentions what happened to the social democratic tradition during the 1970s:
"From the 1970s onwards these ideological and policy features have taken a battering. The size and political loyalty of the traditional manufacturing working class has declined. This does not mean that class as an economic and social division has declined in importance, even if it may have become redefined and restructured. Inequality is still a very important issue. And there have long been significant sections of the middle class who have supported social democracy as well as working class supporters of the right. But it does mean that electorally the core support for social democracy has shrunk with the shift from manufacturing to services and is no longer so loyally social democratic as it used to be."
The consquences of this battering has been a policy shift. Martell describes it as policy crises to the issue of changing social base but with other dynamics also involved. He says:
".... it is perceived that state welfare has produced dependency rather than initiative on the part of citizens and the type of government support which would underpin greater opportunities for them. In addition, it is perceived by some social democrats that the willingness of people to financially support such systems through income tax has reached its limits. Furthermore, with growing affluence, welfare, or state systems of health, pensions and such like, no longer need to be so universal. Many can afford to pay for some of these services ourselves. And such systems have become inefficient, geared to producer rather than consumer interests, undemocratic and unwieldy."
And:
"Keynesian macroeconomic policy is also seen to have been undermined, in part by globalisation. The capacity of governments to control the economy within their own borders seems no longer possible (if it ever really was) because capital can move quickly and easily across national boundaries. High public spending and reflationary strategies may therefore frighten off capital, more attracted to low spending and stable macro-economic government policies. Or the wealth it creates could just be spent by consumers on overseas rather than domestic products or lead to price and wage inflation."
This has meant that social democratic parties nowadays (eg., the ALP in Australia) are more concerned with prudence in spending and with attracting investment. Policies for wealth-creation and growth are less about spending and government ownership or direction of industries. They are more about fostering competitive markets and business-friendliness, maintaining private sector confidence and structuring a workforce and incentives which are attractive to potential investors.
Where does that leave social democracy now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
