Just where did traditional social democracy go? August 17, 2011
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics, The Left.trackback
I’ve been reading the Kevin Rafter book on Democratic Left: The Life and Death of an Irish Political Party.
Got to be honest. It’s interesting, even quite readable, but I’m not entirely convinced, and that’s in part from having a ground level view of the party during a fair chunk of the party’s existence. But a review will have to await another day.
Nope, what struck me was the introductory section which attempts to grapple with definitions of the left. Rafter throws a range of terms into the mix, socialism, communism and social democracy and declares that these are ‘strands’, but each is fairly unrefined. It’s unclear what he means by ‘socialist’ – whether that covers Euro-communist parties and others on the further left, and his point about social democracy, that it effectively became neo-liberalism (or accepted neo-liberalism to the extent that in political terms it was indistinguishable,) while correct in terms of the policy positions adopted by many social democratic and centre left parties isn’t true of the actual ideology of social democracy itself which even when it renounced Marxism, as with the German social democrats – as late as 1959 [which is remarkable in itself], remained distinct from centre right policy approaches.
Or to put it another way, it seems to me social democracy itself didn’t change even if (and as) its nominal adherents abandoned it.
As it happens I’d argue that this is one of the great flaws in centre left politics during the past thirty years, the abandonment of the concept of the instrumentality of the state by the social democratic left. And I don’t mean that in an unrefined fashion where statism is all, but more that the utility of the state to support left projects was simply discarded by the – as it were – ‘official’ social democratic left.
This had specific consequences that only now are becoming entirely evident. The idea that states could exercise a degree of ownership in commercial ventures, as through semi-states, is now regarded even by large portions of the self-defined centre left both here and elsewhere as utopian, and yet that was the model that operated here for much of the 20th century. This goes further. The idea that such enterprises could be made more efficient, improved, that they could genuinely be public services within public ownership was also lost – and one wonders if the lack of a case made for that by the social democratic parties indicated a diminishing enthusiasm for the underlying concept.
If so it was a grievous error because as we can see now the sole remaining area that could loosely be described as a functional element of the social democratic compact – such as it was, the broad area of the state itself is under threat as never before. That this occurs during the period where private enterprise has itself failed comprehensively across a range of sectors indicates the shallowness of that compact.
But what started me thinking was the political disposition of the current Dáil and the left within it. I’m talking broad brush strokes here – obviously, but we can see that Labour represents fairly clearly the modern ‘social democratic’ approach, one which in policy terms is functionally barely differentiated from Fine Gael. There are some differences, but these seem to be largely of emphasis rather than of substance. Those of us with longer memories will perhaps question when was it otherwise, but compare and contrast their platforms in the early 1970s, or even the early 1990s with what we have seen this last few months in terms of approach and tone and the gulf is remarkable [a friend of mine was at an academic conference recently where a political scientist argued that contemporary Labour on the strength of its manifesto was very slightly right of centre to the consternation of some attending - but consider how rhetorically at least the LP has repositioned itself distant from organised Labour, from the public sector, from those on social welfare and so on, all distinct areas of differentiation with pre-existing approaches and how actual policy implementation by the LP is hardly distinct from that of FG].
The United Left Alliance is positioned within the further left approach. That said the ULA having within it the capacity to become a platform party/formation is a rather modern manifestation of the further left.
But what’s fascinating is the question as to where is traditional social democracy in our polity?
In some ways Sinn Féin represents aspects of this. It has a clear identification with state endeavour, and this is useful for it not merely in and of itself giving it political definition distinct from not merely Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and to a considerable degree in the contemporary period, Labour, but also because in a party which while left wing is clearly also fairly broad based it can shape an appeal that is recognisable even (or particularly) to apostate Fianna Fáilers, and one which potentially locks into a centrist/centre left approach to the state. After all, it was Fianna Fáil which in its most radical period was strongly interventionist and the justification for that was rooted in concepts which were far from alien to Republicanism in its Irish variant. This isn’t to suggest that SF is insincere in those instincts but simply to note that these are in some respects an addition to the mix (a process that we have seen many Republican formations go through across the 20th century) with all the attendant problematic aspects that that infers.
But I think another expression of older social democracy is found in amongst the Independent TDs. Some of these seem to me to belong, however nebulously, to an approach that would be identifiable as social democratic at almost any point in the 20th century.
There are of course deviations from that. Some come from community politics which has a somewhat different provenance – though that too can be seen in terms of activists involved and position to overlap with a concept of state sponsored endeavour.
Is this a good thing? Well, I suspect it doesn’t much matter one way or another. There’s no body of thought, no commonality of approach that underpins them and I can’t help but feel that this will be electorally problematic [though in truth hardly the only factor that will be electorally problematic for many of them].
Perhaps the best that can be said is that in some inchoate way, and this is true to a degree of both the ULA and SF votes too, their election represents a yearning amongst a not inconsiderable portion of the electorate for a left of centre – to varying degrees, compact. Whether that can be sustained across the long term is an interesting question.
Rafter makes great play on the lack of space for Democratic Left as a party left of Labour but right of… well, whoever… and how a merger with Labour was all but inevitable (it’s not put in quite those terms but it’s there). But if the history of Irish politics post-1999 indicates anything it surely is that there’s been plenty of room for both further left and traditional social democracy and indeed the Labour Party. Indeed if one casts the net wider one could argue that since 1980 there’s been a similar, if admittedly constrained, space in this state for such politics given the fact the Workers’ Party was able to carve out a clear niche as well.
What the current situation does seem to represent is that, as a distinct force unto itself in formations that have a clear lineage back to its roots, social democracy in its original incarnation is now scattered to the winds, even if the impulses remain strong enough to see proxies with aspects of it elected across a range of formations.
The idea that such enterprises could be made more efficient, improved, that they could genuinely be public services within public ownership was also lost – and one wonders if the lack of a case made for that by the social democratic parties indicated a diminishing enthusiasm for the underlying concept.
I’d put it down to the increasing materialism (in all sectors) and the erosion of a public service ethos.
The extent to which politicians and the elite in the public service have become pigs feeding at the trough, enriching themselves, is staggering even when compared to thirty years ago. Personally, I blame the rise of “PR culture” for unhooking discovery of impropriety from consequence (disgrace).
A short while after the 1997 election I heard argue that a problem for Left parties was reconciling the role of the state as the owner of a major company that provided a public service with the role of also being regulator of that pubic service. If somebody wanted to do the PhD research, I would not be surprised to learn that this view lay at the root of Labour’s withdrawal from a social democratic stance.
However, it is not true that the state cannot be both regualtor of an industry and the owner of a key company in that indiustry. It would be a problem if a minister or her/his key officials were to have both roles, but it is possible to set up a regulator that it independent and guaranteed independence from the minister and department.
Looking back, I now wonder why the possible models weren’t probed further. For example, as I look at the preparations for the introduction of water charges, I wonder how long it will be before the provision of piped water is privatised, as has happened with bin collections. If the provision of water is to be turned into a commercial activity, there would be space for social democratic politicians to campaign for the establishment of consumer co-operatives to provide the service rather than the selling off to — ironically titled — plcs or private companies.
I think that you are partly right when you say that there is “no body of thought”. There is, I think, criticism of the current model, but crucially little on an (reasonably) weel developed alternative. Michael Taft’s work is very useful because it is so focused on a specific here-and-now problem and solution: public investment to generate recovery. However, I haven’t seen anything else that says what the alternative is, and an alternative needs to be articulated if we are to dispense with the TINA mantra.
The Labour Party can not be seen any longer as a
‘social democratic ‘ party. It has abandoned social democracy. This is not to say that a proportion of members and supporters of the Labour Party are not social democratic by inclination and ideology. But it is clear that that the Labour Party no longer has the democratic structures that could allow the rank and file (such as it is) to influence policy or to call the leadership and its apparatus to account.
Justin Keating was a convinced social democrat. Dick Spring, arguably, in his 1980′s-1990′s incarnation was more of a social democrat than any of the current labour ministers. Gilmore, Pat Rabbite and the rest have clearly long ditched such ideas or policy positions which might differ with those of Fine Gael .
I heard the McCarthy fellow from West Cork on radio last week giving out about teachers being paid to correct Leaving Cert papers!! None of the injustices and inequalities in society exercised him clearly.
Yes the Labour Party, by all European standards, is a right of centre party – the same road that the Bliar-Browne axis led the British Labour Party.
What’s interesting about the collapse of social democracy is how complete it has been. It’s not a case of a leadership veering right, while strong left factions remain, or while the rank and file retains more radical views. Nor is it something unique to Ireland: It has happened to most of the traditional social democratic parties in most European countries. They are liberal capitalist parties from top to bottom now.
You are correct to distinguish between the fate of social democracy as an ideology and the fate of the former social democracy however. A party like Die Linke in Germany is in most ways a social democratic party, albeit a considerably smaller one than the old SPD once was. In Ireland however there is nothing at least in organisational terms in between the main capitalist parties and the revolutionary left.
+1. The complete surrender is difficult to account for (or at least I find it so), and you are right in pointing to Die Linke as one of the few remaining social democratic parties, which is the primary reason they are not-so-subtly excluded from much of the German media.
If I had to make a guess at the primary reason for the collapse, it would be that all the intellectual vigour has been on the non-social democratic left since the 1970s. No single figure of group has been willing or able to define the borders of social democracy and defend them against the gradual encroachments of what can loosely be called ‘neo-liberalism’, to the point where it became hegemonic. Arguments for social democracy are only re-appearing now when the structures have been all but dismantled.
Interesting points there. Any other contenders for actual social democratic parties like Die Linke elsewhere?
Wasn’t Die Linke a breakaway from existing social democracy as a response to its development into social liberalism? Die Linke becoming a broad party ranging through left social democracy and former GDR “communists” to organised revolutionary tendencies?
Die Linke’s main ancestor is the PDS. The other original component, the WASG, was sort of a split from the SPD, in that most of its leading figures had been members of the SPD, but it more meaningfully came out of the union movement.
And Die Linke is a social democratic party. That’s its programme and that’s its function. It really isn’t as radical as you seem to think it is.
“In Ireland however there is nothing at least in organisational terms in between the main capitalist parties and the revolutionary left.”
???!
Presumably, by this you mean the ULA. But the ULA overwhelmingly is the revolutionary left,
Started reading Enough is Enough a couple of days ago, which put me on to reading the Democratic Programme of the First Dail. Running on that platform, or the 1945 UK Labour manifesto, would be enough to have you denounced as a swivel-eyed Bolshevik.
Social democracy has fallen back to point lower than in 1919 or 1945.
[...] party surrenders its core beliefs to become the establishment it sows the seeds of its own destruction. Fianna Fáil found that out. Can the Labour Party in Scotland be far [...]
Isn’t one of the major problems the fact that much of the material basis for traditional social democracy has disappeared? Just to take the example of Britain – the pit communities, the steelworks, the shipyards have all but disappeared, and with them the strong sense of communal and class identity that provided the bedrock for traditional social democracy. That’s not to argue that the working class has disappeared, simply that changes in the economy have undoubtedly affected class consciousness. There are obviously other factors too but this one strikes me as very important.
Yes – I was going to say above the Social Democrats never learned to use television properly. The communication style was formed in the mass meeting, and the strongly socialised ways of living. When, as you point out, the opportunities for the mass meeting disappeared, they movement never adapted.
Then again perhaps television was never (in a medium is the message kind of way) ever going to be adaptable to a democratic kind of politics. The internet has changed this dynamic, but I’m not sure any of us yet know how.
I think Garibaldy has a point there but I think the main reason for the international decline of social democracy was more linked to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the capitalist triumphalism that followed. In theory, this shouldn’t have affected social democracies but the lack of a an alternative economic system to point to (albeit a fatally flawed one) and, more importantly, the surge of neo-liberal ‘end of history’ ideas into an outright hegemony were also crucial in undermining any challenges to the free market orthodoxy.
Linked to the thread on the financial crisis I would have thought that the problem for social democracy was the end of the post war boom. The boom allowed reformist socialists to fund reforms and capitalists accepted them by and large (some grudgingly) fo social peace. even Christian Democracy was a response to this. The problems for SD came with the end of the boom. You can see that surely in the Labour govts in the UK in the 70s. Reformism increasingly without the (anyway substantial) reforms. If you accept capitalism, as social democracy does, what do you do if that capitalism starts to fail? You have to help it, and it all flows from that. Of course even within the limits of social democracy New Labour and the Irish Labour Pary are particularly feeble, perhaps because they have a low ideological base compared to some others. But the essential problem is there, teh contradiction between maintaing capitalism and the aims of social democracy.
Just to add to what you’re all saying above, what’s struck me time and again is how little effort was made to defend social democracy by social democrats. I’m one who could probably fit quite easily into a left social democratic party, certainly in Germany Die Linke would probably fit the bill for me perfectly, but I think ultimately that a lot of social democrats forgot that it wasn’t simply about reforming the status quo but eventually transforming it but through non-revolutionary means – as was one of the major initial impetus’ to social democracy.
It’s this that is most depressing and it’s left a lot of people short of the further left without a home, or rather I guess as the piece above tries to indicate, split across multiple different homes.
[...] fine social-democratic culture of politics that many other Celtic nations would do well to emulate. This is reflected in a new survey, Public Attitudes Towards the Gaelic Language, carried out by [...]
[...] Just where did traditional social democracy go? (cedarlounge.wordpress.com) Comhroinn (Share):FacebookTwitterMoreLinkedInStumbleUponDiggRedditEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]