Categories

Breaking News

Social Democracy – Not Dead Yet – A Response to Clive Hamilton

Clive Hamilton’s Quarterly Essay, “What’s Left? The Death of Social Democracy” provides a searing critique of the ALP, and of the politics of “aspiration” and endless economic expansion that have come to dominate the political field of thought and governance.

Hamilton argues forcefully that the “model of deprivation” which fuelled social democratic thought for much of the 20th century is now irrelevant, as a result of widespread affluence and the marginalisation of poverty to a minority of about 20 per cent of the Australian population.

And yet while absolute poverty is no longer as common as it once was, our new-found wealth, Hamilton argues, has far from made us happy. Indeed, he suggests consumer culture creates a profound crisis of alienation where “shopping has become the dominant response to meaninglessness in modern life”. Alienation, rather than injustice, is seen as the core social problem confronting affluent societies, and it is from addressing alienation by curbing the excesses of the market from which Hamilton sees the “new politics” as deriving.

Hamilton develops ten theses and a series of policy proposals he sees as forming the potential core of a new movement. He criticises the conversion of “wants” into “needs”, where “expectations always stay in advance of incomes” and condemns the process by which identity is reduced to patterns of consumption.

Further, Hamilton notes the pressure in today’s consumer society to work longer hours “at the cost of … personal relationships”, and argues instead for a “partial withdrawal” from the market. Perhaps with this in mind, he notes the practice of “downshifting”: the “voluntary reduction of incomes and consumption” adopted by those who have chosen to work part-time, in an effort to balance employment, family, and authentic personal development.

He proposes labour market re-regulation as part of the solution, along with generous maternity, paternity and carers’ leave, and the curtailment of advertising to children. Protection of the environment through appropriate taxation (presumably a carbon tax) and replacing GDP with “genuine well-being” measures of progress are also part of this agenda.

Much of Hamilton’s thesis is to be applauded. In today’s political milieu it is rare for alienation to be regarded seriously, and Hamilton is correct to link alienation with hyper-consumerism and the “spell” cast by linking consumption with identity. Hamilton’s emphasis on the sanctity of family is also refreshing, cutting the ground from underneath the neo-liberal conservatives who have taken this area as their own.

Interestingly, Hamilton does not go as far as to explicitly call for an official reduction in the working week – say, to 35 hours as in France – which one would assume to be a natural extension of his argument.

Despite the strengths of Hamilton’s argument against market-driven alienation his critique of social democracy fails to account for the relative success of social-democratic movements in Europe, where universal welfare states and mixed economies continue to thrive, despite growing affluence. While Hamilton labels social democracy as “redundant”, social democratic aspirations including social provision, subsidy of, or collective consumption of health, education and aged care services, retain a great degree of force. What is more, rather than a standing achievement that need only, as Hamilton argues, be “fine tuned”, Australia’s welfare state is constantly endangered by the politics of division fostered by the conservatives.

While roughly half of the country’s population is now covered by private health insurance, generously subsidised by the government, roughly half is not. Despite an “affluent society” many Australians simply cannot afford exorbitant private health insurance premiums. Meanwhile, some who hold private health insurance do so despite their inability to afford it, to avoid a public system that, as a consequence of waiting lists and a perceived “lack of care”, has come to embody the kind of “private affluence” and “public squalor” that so concerned Galbraith.

The same might be said of public education, which faces real marginalisation. Nearly half of all Australian families with secondary school-aged children feel the need to send their children to private schools, avoiding the neglected public system. Clearly, defending and extending the welfare state is a core object of a still-relevant social democracy.

The author’s critique of social democracy assumes the tradition is exhausted. However, the “second way”, as Hamilton labels traditional social democracy, has far from outlived its usefulness. Equality of opportunity in education can only be restored by increased funding to public schools and universities, aimed at lowering student-teacher ratios, increasing subject choice and improving infrastructure.

Health care ought be based upon universal insurance with no area of care uncovered, (including dental services, ambulance services, home nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, podiatry, chiropractic care, hearing aids, glasses, contact lenses, prostheses and surgical expenses). Quality aged care ought be established as a right due to all Australians. The labour market ought be properly regulated, rather than deregulated in the hope “the market will clear”.

Meanwhile, unemployment should be tackled through targeted industry assistance and labour market programs, expansion of public services and the harnessing of superannuation funds. Such demands form the core of a traditional social democratic program and, far from being irrelevant, could eventually garner majority support.

Another area of concern is Hamilton’s dismissal of the concept of “class” and his disdain for the goal of social ownership as an “indefensible anachronism”. He argues forcefully that “As affluence increases, class ceases to be a useful category”. This line of argument is flawed for a number of reasons. To begin with, Australia remains a heavily stratified society. According to a report from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), in 2002, the top 20 per cent of Australian households owned more than half the total household wealth. Meanwhile, “the poorest 20 per cent of households possessed almost nothing, while the bottom 40 per cent owned just 8 per cent of total household wealth”.

By and large, many of today’s real battlers are consigned to the outer suburbs where housing is cheap, rates are low and services, including transport, are poor. Despite Hamilton’s claim that only 20 per cent of Australians experience true poverty, there are still massive gaps in wealth and prosperity.

Furthermore, as Hamilton recognises, class refers to deep-seated structural concerns of power, not merely concerns of identity. “Structure” in this sense does not imply any lack of human agency. In Australia, the wealthiest 20 per cent of individuals “[own] almost 90 per cent of all shares”: as clear an indication as any that class remains as relevant a category now as ever.

Ownership of the means of production is still a “great divide” between the wealthy and most ordinary Australians. This division has significant consequences for any process of economic democratisation. Despite Hamilton’s claim that work no longer forms the core of most peoples’ identity – this role, instead, having been taken by consumption – work is still at the core of most people’s everyday lives, and its democratisation ought to remain a compelling goal for all social democrats and democratic socialists.

Furthermore, as workers, most of us still face not only alienation but also relations of exploitation. It may not be fashionable these days to speak of “expropriation of surplus value” for fear of being labelled an “unreconstructed Marxist”, but it can still be argued that most workers do not receive the full proceeds of their labour.

While there is no realistic “final” way out of this bind, progress could be made through a “co-operative incentive and support scheme” designed to encourage co-operative ownership through finance, advice and taxation incentives. Re-expanding the public sector would mark a reassertion of democratic control over the economy, and the capture of any surplus for social ends. Public ownership remains defensible for these reasons, and others, including the need to provide competition in oligopoly markets, to provide essential services on the basis of need, not profitability, and the need to provide first class infrastructure in areas of “natural public monopoly”.

Furthermore, while Soviet-style, bureaucratic socialism is dead – relative flexibility of capital flows is preferable to a stifling “command economy” – the same need not be said for the project of a “democratic mixed economy” where the flow of capital is itself democratised through Meidner-style wage earner funds, and where co-operative enterprises proliferate throughout the economic system.

While there remains a need for the resurrection of a radical, traditional social democratic agenda, we might nonetheless ask: is there any point expecting such a process to occur via Labor? As Hamilton justifiably argues “The fading of a substantive difference between the conservative and social democratic parties means that both are more likely to attract careerists and opportunists”.

Reform of the ALP will not be easy, but a good start would be compulsory disclosure of factional membership in elections for conference, direct election of National Conference candidates, the provision of policy speeches by all conference candidates, and all conference decisions to be taken as being binding.

In this way, ordinary party members would gain leverage over decision-making processes, opening the way for a movement for social democratic renewal from below. The ALP needs to become a party governed from the “bottom up” not from the “top down”, shifting power from the careerists to the rank and file. By empowering the ALP rank and file, what is more, there also lies the hope of mobilising them into the broader struggle led by alliances such as the “Now We the People” movement. Building a bloc of forces strong enough to secure real change remains the most urgent task confronting the broad left today.

Traditional social democracy is neither dead nor irrelevant, but in the wake of the “Third Way” and its impact on Labor thinking, has certainly found itself relegated to an unfashionable margin.

In the process of its revival, however, the social democratic movement could do worse than to heed the advice of Hamilton, moving to support a new politics that looks beyond consumption to provide the scope for developing real meaning in people’s lives. While economic growth need not be abandoned completely as a core goal, and continued productivity gains will maintain competitiveness, this should always be weighed against the social costs.

A good place to start would be by adopting a 35-hour week and extending compulsory annual leave. Rather than internalising the notion that there is no alternative to neo-liberalism and insipid Third Way politics, social democrats and democratic socialists need, now, to return to their radical roots. Only thus can they avoid the effective “liquidation” Hamilton suggests in “What’s Left? The Death of Social Democracy”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *