Does Social Democracy have a Future? A Debate

With both statist and market-based models of governance having failed at a time of enormous challenges, especially #climatechange, where do we turn? Socialism remains a grand idea, but its transformational nature ensures that the struggle to achieve it would be lengthy, divisive and highly conflictual. Even then, the outcome of a struggle for socialism would remain uncertain – would the new model avoid the excesses of the old? And so many progressives turn to #socialdemocracy. But of course social democracy is in crisis too, discredited in many countries by its semi-conversion to neoliberalism. What is the best path forward to reclaim the earlier promise of social democracy in an age of widespread cynicism and withdrawal from politics?

A recent debate between Martin O’Neill and Neal Lawson on this subject is highly illuminating. Both are committed to building a future for the democratic left. Their implicit frame of reference is Europe. However, with the old distinction between developed/less developed, First World/Third World increasingly irrelevant, the debate is of broader significance. It indeed mirrors similar differences of opinion within the democratic left of the global south as well.

The debate begins with polarized positions, but what is particularly interesting is that the differences narrow as the exchange draws toward its end. O’Neill adheres to a more traditional statist/top-down approach in which social-democratic parties regain their self-confidence in pressing their vision. Lawson adopts a “post-materialist” conception that is essentially a society-centric, bottom-up and participatory model. But as the debate continues, the positions converge in what is close to a synthesis of the two outlooks. Interestingly, the recent experience of Podemas (Spain) and Syriza (Greece) enters into the discussion, as it should in any debate about the future of social democracy. (Whether the two parties should be understood as social democratic at all is an important question; regardless, these experiences are central to the future of the democratic left.) The debate concludes in a balanced view of the role of the state and society in any social-democratic experiment that is capable of regaining the commitment and enthusiasm of citizens and constructing a more egalitarian, sustainable and secure future.

The Democratic Critique of Neoliberalism

This interesting reflection by William Davies assesses the contention that neo-liberalism, that much abused term, refers (using Karl Polanyi’s terms) to the highest stage of disembedding the economy from society. According to this view, homo economicus now reigns supreme in a national society and world in which economic calculations, especially the financial return on investments, are the only rational basis for decision-making in all spheres, including the university. With people reduced to human capital, nature to natural capital, knowledge to intellectual property and money to financial capital, society is fully subservient to the logic of the market. But, if this is the doctrine of neo-liberalism, is it also the existential reality? No, because the neoliberal vision is an utopian as the earlier liberal vision. A sustained effort to attain the vision will devastate human institutions and nature, leading to unpredictable and possibly deadly protective movements.

Why Polanyi and Not Marx?

A recent Marxist critique of Karl Polanyi’s theoretical approach concludes that there is nothing wrong with the latter that cannot be remedied by a major infusion of key Marxist concepts. Benjamin Selwyn and Satoshi Miyamura in their 2014 New Political Economy article display an impressive grasp of Polanyian as well as Marxist categories. Yet, in their critique, they never consider why Polanyi, who was both knowledgeable of, and sympathetic to, Marxism in his early and middle years, eventually broke with Marxism to forge his own analytical path. Might he not have had good reasons for doing so? Continue reading →

socialism

The NDP’s “Socialism” Debate: Guest Post

Guest Post by Frank Cunningham, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy & Political Science, University of Toronto
Premised on the philosopher, George Santayana’s often-proven adage that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, this intervention in the (Canadian) New Democratic Party’s current debate over the “S” word situates these deliberations within the history of socialist and social-democratic movements. Continue reading →

Neoliberal Globalization: Are the Times a-Changin’?

Neoliberalglobalization since the late 1970s has restricted the policy autonomy of national states through a variety of pressures that “discipline” governments implementing measures deemed hostile to free markets. Yet the world is changing fast and the rise of China in particular is shifting the global power balance. Strangely, however, remarkably little has changed in the global order beyond some reshuffling of the dominant players and somewhat greater national independence in decision making. This argument is made at length in Civilizing Globalization, which I recently co-edited with Ali Burak Guven. Continue reading →

Six Reasons for Reading Karl Polanyi (Even If You Study the Global South): Part II

In addition to reading Karl Polanyi for his appealing normative stance and transdisciplinary approach, I am drawn to four other attractive features. Continue reading →

Six Reasons for Reading Karl Polanyi (Even If You Study the Global South): Part I

Why do social scientists select one theoretical framework rather than another? Continue reading →

Catastrophic Climate Change: How Should We Respond?

How many years do we have to prevent catastrophic climate change? Much of the debate, especially that involving governments, is conducted on the premise that we have ample time to make the necessary changes. For instance, the Chinese government’s recent commitment that China’s emissions of GHGs will peak in 2030 was met with broad approval. But the scientific research suggests that we actually have much less time to drastically reduce our GHS emissions than is generally thought. Continue reading →