The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.
The openMovements series invites leading social scientists to share their research results and perspectives on contemporary social struggles.
We are at the end of a cycle that started in the second XIXth
century.
During this cycle, including in the XXth century, the left was governed
by the
ideology of progress and economic determinism. After the collapse of the
so-called ‘communist’ countries, the question of the relevance of a new
left
for the XXIst century was raised. Different elements are necessary to
answer
it, the growing number of citizen initiatives all over the world (that
is the
subject of the launch text by Laville), the ambivalent experiences of
left governments in South America (second subject raised by Coraggio).
The analysis of these complex background issues opens up new
perspectives for collective action and emancipation (to follow, third
and fourth texts by Wainwright and Hart) and the structural crisis of
European social democracy (fifth, sixth, and seventh closing texts by Hulgard, Block and Lévesque). Very different from
those of the
traditional left; this week’s opinions and debates are also to be found
in
detail in Spanish (Reinventar la izquierda en el siglo XXI – Hasta un
dialogo Norte-Sur) and French (Les gauches du XXIe siècle – Un dialogue Nord-Sud
). Jean-Louis Laville, economist and
sociologist, supervised 'Les gauches du XXIe siècle – Un dialogue
Nord-Sud' (Bord de l’eau, 2016).
En el mural "Del porfirismo a la Revolución" (1957-1966) conservado en el Museo Nacional de Historia en la Ciudad de México, Ricardo Flores Magón marchando junto con Bakunin y Proudhon. Wikicommons/ David Alfaro Siqueiros. Some rights reserved.Social democracy was a determining
factor in the process of social change that created the welfare state in its
most advanced form in the wake of the Second World War. It is not as clear
though that social democracy will be of similar importance in the future.
Already in the late 1980s, scholars from
the communitarian and critical traditions of social science observed that even
in Scandinavia where social democracy was a leading force in the creation of a universal
welfare state it had completely failed to produce a vision for the role of civil
society and reciprocity that is of fundamental importance for a sustainable
society. We also find a trend in the new social
movements that are actively engaged in formulating policies and organizations
based upon principles of solidarity, pluralism, and cooperativism.
Scholars argued that political
parties affiliated to social democracy were stuck in the victories of the past,
and yet unable to formulate a clear vision for the future. One major problem is
that the social democratic parties that were crucial in the making of the
universal welfare states so far have been unable to relate actively, to
recognize and collaborate with new social movements. Although parts of the
European citizenry and political agenda setters have moved to the far right of
nationalism and xenophobia, we also find a trend in the new social movements
that are actively engaged in formulating policies and organizations based upon principles of solidarity, pluralism, and
cooperativism.
This is the case from Spain in the
South, where a new cooperative spirit is aiming at reinvigorating some of the
principles of a social democracy to Denmark in the North, where a new political
movement is experimenting with a more communicative and deliberative design of
public agenda setting and policy-making.
As long as social democracy
and various types of social democratic parties related to the old political
movement founded in the industrialist society do not embrace and actively
recognize the principles of these new movements of solidarity, social democracy
will not be able to once again become a leader of a major social movement for
social justice.
A point of
departure for such a policy of recognition could be to bridge an ‘ideological’ divide
that had already occurred by the middle of the nineteenth century and that has
haunted ‘the Left’ ever since, namely the divide between the
redistributive forces of mass organization and representation in parties and trade
unions on the one hand and the reciprocal forces of civil society, deliberation
and direct democracy on the other side, as key elements in the struggle for social
and economic justice.
Although the roots
of social democracy go far back in history, more recently it appeared as a
powerful socio-economic and political force in the nineteenth century, when it represented a reformist alternative to
revolutionary ideas and aspirations formulated by a diverse group of
socialists, communists, syndicalists and anarchists who were inspired by such
different thinkers as Proudhon, Marx and Bakunin. Thus, the early socialist
international movement was a battleground for activists and social movements
who were determined to reformulate the social contract and define the direction
of contemporary society, just like activist and new social movements today are
engaged in formulating practical experiences with a more collaboratively
oriented and sustainable approach to economy and society.
A new cooperative spirit
Based upon my own
area of research, I have observed how cooperativism and a network-oriented entrepreneurial spirit can
reinvigorate rural areas that have been neglected and left behind in the extremely narrow
growth orientation of contemporary politics. This is as a result of visits
during the last year alone to the Osmanabad province of Maharastra in India,
Andalucía in Spain and the northern region of Denmark.
When talking about the future of social democracy, the
concern for resources and allocation cannot be limited to a renewal or
improvement of the conventional market economy that only constitutes one of several
pillars in a plural society. Not only social democracy but also humanity as
such is in deep trouble if possible futures and alternatives are to be limited
to the classical and neoclassical liberal approach to democracy and the economy.
A target based upon recognition of complexity,
diversity and epistemological sensitivity would look for alternative economic
answers to the prevailing capitalist market economy. In a more elaborate sense
such a political orientation would be looking for and supporting alternatives to
“the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order” that according to the
German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) would otherwise determine the faith of
its citizens “until the last ton of fossilized coal is burnt”, as he had
already ‘envisioned’ in 1904.
Following the
argument of Finnish philosopher Georg Henrik von Wright, historically social democracy
was more dedicated to the implementation of liberté and egalité than to
fraternité. It was devoted to mass organization, and had massive success by
utilizing the capacity of professional organizations, the party and the trade
union, as core mechanisms for regulating markets and financial institutions and
for building compromises in labour markets, social services, public
administration and planning. However, the door to the future for social democracy
remains locked shut if it tries to remain within these old ‘normals’. Since the
heyday of social democracy, when the idea of a universal welfare state based
upon redistribution peaked, in the early 1970s, there has been a slow but
steady “surrender of public policy” as suggested by the American scholar Neil
Gilbert.
This represents a
fundamental change in the institutional framework for social protection that
social democratic parties have not been able to address with vision, enthusiasm
and solidarity. Policies previously framed by a universal approach and designed
to protect labour against the dis-welfare of the market have been in a constant
process of change regarding a market-oriented and individualizing approach aimed
at replacing the universally oriented welfare state with the competition state.
Principles of a social democracy
Although social democracy
as a social movement related to certain political parties may not be able to
remain a force for solidarity, social democracy as principles for
the organization of contemporary societies are as needed as ever and thus the
principles could be and should be picked up by activists and new social
movements.
Furthermore, I will
argue that this should be done through a new and dynamic reconciliation between
the mechanisms of reciprocity/fraternité and redistribution/égalité as a
possible future for social democracy when defining its role as a social
movement. Social democracy must never forget its obligation in fighting for an
inclusive welfare state aimed at realizing principles of pluralism and social
justice. But I will argue that in contemporary society this is better done by
leading the transition from the old-fashioned mass-oriented public welfare
state to what we could call an institutional-reciprocal welfare state.
"Le Peuple" édité par Pierre-Joseph Proudhon – En-tête du numéro124 du 23 mars 1849. Wikicommons. Le Peuple. Some rights reserved.In this type of welfare
state, there is a much larger emphasis on the economic and political potential
of civil society. From the literature on social and solidarity economy we know
that a much more differentiated understanding of economic integration is
required than what is usually understood by the term ‘market economy’. In a solidarity
economy, a plural society is based upon a full recognition of three economic
principles that can neither be rejected nor reduced. The first principle is the
market, and economic integration through the market is usually organized
through an enterprise whether it is based upon the interests of shareholders or
stakeholders organized in a social enterprise. The second principle is
redistribution, that is the power to move resources as well as negative
consequences of growth between social groups. The welfare state as implemented
in the decades after the Second World War is a typical example of a
redistributive force in favour of potentially marginalized citizens. The third
principle is reciprocity. However, the problem is that this principle is still not
only the weakest in terms of institutional power but also the most contested of
all three principles of economic and societal integration. As argued by von
Wright there is an urgent need to understand further the potential of this third
principle, the principle of fraternité.
An institutional-reciprocal welfare state
The institutional-reciprocal model of
welfare state is a
construction in the sense that it is neither the depiction of an actual welfare
state nor a solidly defined political project of ‘the Left’. It is yet to be defined
and realized more thoroughly. However, it is not utopian since we have several indications
of its potential. The strategy is first of all to recognize and embrace a
capacity of civil society that it is already exposing. Recently I visited a
remote rural community in the northern part of Denmark. The old postman could
remember a time when there were 38 different enterprises in the village. Today
there is only one, and it is only just re-opened as a hybrid social enterprise,
where volunteers collaborate with a professional merchant to run a local
grocery store that simultaneously serves as a public space for deliberation and
local fiestas. This small initiative has been crucial in changing the local
spirit from despair and flight to a sense of purpose and community.
It
may very well be that the political parties that we usually associate with
social democracy are not able to actively engage with this new spirit of
entrepreneurship and collectivism, but then other parties and political agents
will. Instead of reserving the principles of a social democracy to a certain
actual political party, we are much more concerned that political animals in
the arena of social democracy are struggling to produce a response to the
privatization and marketization of social responsibility that started with
Thatcherism and gained momentum in the wake of the financial crisis. Social
democracy needs finally to free itself from scepticism and even hostility
towards people’s self- organization.
Social
democracy needs finally to free itself from scepticism and even hostility
towards people’s self-organization. This scepticism is part of a historic legacy
with its roots in the First International of the nineteenth century,
articulated in social democratic scepticism towards the generation of
cooperatives as a way of building a livelihood and social justice; and today it
is found in the limited view of the place of civil society.
So
far, social democracy as a political movement has prevented itself from
producing a vision of other entrepreneurial activities than those based upon
the private enterprise in the conventional market, although reciprocity, fraternité
and mutualism are economic and political principles of outmost importance. If the
“silent surrender of public policy” is to be stopped, a new partnership is
needed between ‘the state’ and the new ‘alternative economic cultures’ as
pinpointed by the Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells.
Either
way, it will be the part of the left that understand better the principles of
this new movement and the spirit of social enterprise that is emerging
throughout the world that will be the leading force of defining the way forward
for social democracy. In the end, the success of social democracy depends on
its ability to be opening up the canon of knowledge. The canon of what counts
as valid experience and valid knowledge. The ‘canon of knowledge’ that has guided
social democracy as a political party so far has been limited to understanding
only the principles of market and redistribution as ways of serving the
interests of people. Now is the time to expand this interest in understanding
better the principle of reciprocity.
How to cite:
Hulgård L.(2016) Is there a future for social democracy?, Open Democracy / ISA RC-47: Open Movements,22 May. https://opendemocracy.net/lars-hulg-rd/is-there-future-for-social-democracy