"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
|
|
|
Rethinking social democracy
« Previous |
|Next »
|
|
|
May 12, 2007
An interesting article by Craig Emerson, a federal Labor MP. It is entitled Expanding opportunity or the welfare state?,’ and it was given as a speech to the Centre of Independent Studies in October 2006. In it Emerson says that the founders of what is now called the neo-conservative philosophy, including Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, understood not only the wealth-creating power of unfettered markets, they recognised the damage that practising the free-market philosophy can do to human sensibilities and personal relationships. Thus:
Smith spoke of the stupefying effects of the division of labour and was a strong advocate of better education for workers. He saw a role for the state in providing a general and probably compulsory education for the masses. Smith regarded equal opportunity for education as a more sustainable means of achieving social justice than transfer payments from rich to poor.
And:
Hayek warned that if we were always to apply the rules of the market ‘to our more intimate groupings we would crush them’. He saw a place for altruism and solidarity in the family and in community groupings.
But it is absurd to believe that people are capable of living their everyday lives according to two different sets of rules: the cold, ruthless, dispassionate market and the warm, nurturing, compassionate family. As Hayek feared, these two worlds are not coexisting in harmony, they are colliding. The market is crushing family and community.
Emerson then argues that the modern Labor Party should affirm the family as the focal institution of social wellbeing and reconcile the market with family and community through a love of learning. So what does 'a love of learning' mean?
Emerson links it immediately to social justice. He says:
A society that loves learning is a society that cherishes fairness, tolerance and compassion. A society that loves learning is an open society, a creative society. A society that loves learning is a society in which everyone has a decent opportunity in life. A society that loves learning sets itself apart from a society dictated by doctrine, by anti-intellectualism, a closed society driven by fear of foreigners and security among kin.
I presume that open here means open to the global market. Is the ALP such a party? Emerson says:
The modern Labor Party can be the party of learning, of creativity, a party dedicated to lifting the human spirit in open, strong, vibrant communities, not crushing it with fear of outsiders. It can be the nation-building party, attaining security in openness through a triumph of hope over fear, of compassion over intolerance, of creativity over dogma. Labor can be the party that recognises that a flourishing, self-assured society is much stronger and makes for a much more secure nation than a society cowed by doctrinaire government, a government at best indifferent to learning and at worst hostile to intellectual thought.
This is painting a picture of what a 21st century ALP could become as it is not the ALP today. Emerson says such a party would be guided by the following values:
The modern Labor Party can have a vision of a prosperous, fair, tolerant and compassionate society. Labor’s vision can be brought to life by promoting reward for effort, opportunity for all, tolerance, ecological sustainability, strong communities, a community of nations and a world at peace.
Not a hint of democracy in there. Citizenship is not even mentioned. Emerson goes through each of these values in terms of policies but reforming parliamentary democracy is not on the agenda. Nor is a democratic deficit acknowledged.
Very disappointing.
|
|
|
| | Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:53 PM | Permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
