Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Is social democracy the end of history?

By Mark Bahnisch - posted Wednesday, 10 January 2007


Both Andrew Norton and John Quiggin, though from rather different perspectives, have made the case that far from being a (neo)liberal government, Howard’s governing practice, if not his rhetoric, is social democracy with a conservative tinge.

In Andrew Norton’s case, he’s somewhat critical of Howard’s redistributive spending as an actual liberal, but also (I think it’s fair to say) tends to bolster the case made on the basis of research like that of Ann Harding of NATSEM that Howard hasn’t governed just for the rich. This is a defence Howard himself has made.

John Quiggin, by contrast, is critical of Howard’s misdirection of the spending, and of the Government’s fiscal and (lack of) macroeconomic policy generally.

Advertisement

It’s an interesting point, particularly since I spent part of the weekend reading Columbia political scientist Sheri Berman’s The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century.

Berman, at one level, is arguing there’s been some severe telescoping involved in the narrative of the end of history which sees the 20th century as a battle between Marxism and fascism on one hand and liberalism on the other. What’s ignored, she suggests, is that liberalism and Marxism were both exhausted ideologically at the start of the century, and that social democracy and fascism arose, almost dialectically, to supplant them.

At the level of the battle of ideas, the post-war decades were dominated by social democratic thinking, even if ostensibly conservative or Christian Democrat parties were actually governing. On the other hand, she contends (influenced here by Karl Polanyi) that the resurgence of liberalism will itself lead to a reaction, and she believes that a more libertarian and less statist social democracy will arise (the sort of thing I’ve long been arguing for, incidentally).

It’s an interesting argument, and she makes both the historical case and the case for seeing social democracy as a force in its own right (rather than some sort of inbetween position) well.

Let’s throw Kevin Rudd into the mix.

There’s been a fair bit of attention paid recently to whether Rudd got Hayek right in his recent articles for The Monthly. It may well be that it was unfortunate, as Jason Soon argued, that he based his reading on David McKnight’s book Beyond Left and Right, which has previously attracted some criticism here at Larvatus Prodeo.

Advertisement

In some ways, this is an interesting debate, but in others, it’s not central to Rudd’s actual position. Politicians aren’t really “public intellectuals”. If Rudd was indeed pouring through Hayek’s tomes and databases of Hayekian scholarship, he wouldn’t be doing the job he’s paid to do. What’s more interesting politically is the position Rudd stakes out.

In her argument about the distinctiveness of social democracy, Berman contends that social democracy is a distinctly modernist ideology. That is to say - unlike both fascism and Marxism - it doesn’t involve a violent movement towards an end point where both civil society and politics per se are elided by a utopian social stasis.

Such utopias, as those who know their history of the Long Twentieth Century will surely agree, are in fact violent and exclusivist dystopias. Rather, social democracy seeks to revive and construct community and sociability continually while embedding markets as modes of production and distribution as epiphenomenal to social goals rather than as the goal of a Liberal utopia.

There are other values which can be collectively enunciated, she argues, and their formation and stimulation is as much an exercise of freedom as the sorts of freedoms that are expressed in market transactions. She is keenly aware of the contradictions that do arise between liberal rights and economic liberalism, as well as those which arise between private goods and the social good.

It’s really an expression of the fact that social democracy is a carrier of Enlightenment rationality, but of that aspect which does not seek to impose an end state, but rather to promote rational and public deliberation. That also involves an anti-foundationalist aspect which couldn’t be further from Tony Blair style communitarian authoritarianism on one hand or the theocratic dreaming of latter day anti-secular saints on the other.

Freedom in the choice of values and projects then, is best expressed through a negotiation of individual values rather than the imposition of some authoritative value set. Similarly, social goals can best be met through mechanisms which both harness the innovation and dynamism which markets can stimulate but which remember that markets are made for society not the converse.

So, I’d argue for a social democracy which exemplifies the libertarian and egalitarian aspects of Enlightenment thought, but which does so through constant negotiation and movement rather than through some sort of vision of a telos, whose imposition will always be violent in one way or another.

Those last two paragraphs are really my view on social democracy, using Berman’s argument as a jumping off point. It’s intriguing to note some commonality, though, in Rudd’s thinking:

Neo-liberals speak of the self-regarding values of security, liberty and property. To these, social democrats would add the other-regarding values of equity, solidarity and sustainability. For social democrats, these additional values are seen as mutually reinforcing because the allocation of resources in pursuit of equity (particularly through education), solidarity and sustainability assist in creating the human, social and environmental capital necessary to make a market economy function effectively.

Working within a comprehensive social-democratic framework of self-regarding and other-regarding values gives social democrats a rich policy terrain in which to define a role for the state. This concept of the state had its origins in the view that markets are designed for human beings, not vice versa, and this remains the fundamental premise that separates social democrats from neo-liberals.

Where Rudd needs to go further, in my view, is through a greater emphasis of both aspects of the democracy in social democracy that Berman identifies.

Berman (rightly) points out that democracy - as actually attained in most European nations - was something that resulted from struggles led by the left. Contra Fukuyama, it’s not necessarily or historically linked to a capitalist economy.

But Berman goes further and celebrates the traditions of self-administration and voluntarism that were the (non)statist elements of classical social democratic thought. What social democracy for the new millennium needs to avoid is the blanket presumption that any social problem requires a bureaucracy, and that solutions can’t be found through genuine consultation and co-operation.

That sort of voluntarism was as much a part of the Methodist or Christian Socialist strain of Labour movement thought which Rudd in his recent articles hearkens back to as any particular “faith-based values”. It was seen in municipal administration, and in co-operative friendly and building societies, as well as in classic trade unionism. It was anathema to the Fabian elitists whose preferred practice ended up forming the statist model for actually existing social democracy in the Anglosphere. But it deserves a revival for all those who believe, as I do, that social democracy is as much about liberty as about equality.

Where does this leave John Howard? I think - particularly in a society which has traditionally been so statist as Australia - all we’re seeing is the old politics - in this case of a sort of dirigiste conservatism.

In Australia, it seems, even liberalism is incorporated into state thinktanks and regulatory bodies - such as the Productivity Commission and the ACCC. There were precious few free markets around in Menzies’ Australia, but there’s precious few around now, when government is a sort of unstable mix of big business corporatism and social engineering via distributive spending. Not to mention the urge to ideological conformity (and mediocrity) which defines the culture wars.

Labor could usefully point this out, as well as make the case for a revivified social democracy. Rudd has made a start. Berman’s work is instructive - what we need in this country is a liberation from dirigisme of all stripes and a dynamic social democracy which remembers the meaning of both terms, and doesn’t forget that the second is tied up with liberty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

First published on Larvatus Prodeo on the November 6, 2006. It is republished as part of "Best Blogs of 2006" a feature in collaboration with Club Troppo, and edited by Ken Parish, Nicholas Gruen et al.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Mark Bahnisch is a sociologist and a Fellow of the Centre for Policy Development. He founded the leading public affairs blog, Larvatus Prodeo.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Mark Bahnisch
Related Links
Larvatus Prodeo
Original blog post

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy