We want your Ideas! Where now for Social Democracy?
The Good Society Debate and the Good Society Conference provided some valuable starting points for the debate about the future of social democracy. But social democracy is not about a group of politicians, activists and academics. It is about you!
We would therefore like to invite you in this open thread to give us your views on the current state of social democracy. Why is it in crisis and where should it go from here? Thanks a lot for your contribution.
The Good Society debate was very useful. Thanks for that! It is however still unclear what social democracy stands for, or should stand for in the future. Put people before vested interests would be at the top of my wish list!
The biggest problem for social democrats is that nobody trusts them anymore. Too many times they have done too little or nothing for the people they claimed to represent. As long as this is not reversed it doesn’t matter what they stand for. They won’t get elected. So far I haven’t seen anything that would make social democrats more trustworthy.
Dominic is right. Its the same in Sweden, where the Social Democrats were in government for 12 years until 2006, implementing the most neoliberal policies imaginable across the board from pensions to health and care of the elderly, housing, privatizing schools, hospitals, contracting out public transport and many other services to the highest private bidder – the list goes on. Makes it hard for them now to convincingly criticize the most right-wing postwar government Sweden has ever had.
How can we overcome the lack of trust? I am afraid that would include getting rid of a lot of political personnel that is associated with the old ways. We need a clear cut with a new generation and a new political message.
Some years ago, some research was conducted into the satisfaction of gas and electricity consumers of the then regional boards. The same ought to have been done with the different government departments.
The results showed that customer satisfaction was inversely related to the size of the ‘institution’. It also showed that the proportion of the staff in contact with its ‘customers’ fell off rapidly as the size – numbers employed – increased. Some 20 years ago I contacted the then department of education for some research into the structure and aims of the department and the schools programme. The presence of a member of the public penetrating the inner sancta caused panic. My telephone call was passed from one part of the empire to another like a bomb with a bad smell.
The result was ‘Thatcherism’ – that so-called private enterprise could do better: Ever tried ringing a large oil company, for example? How do you get in touch with these modern agencies? Tried ringing or writing to anyone in health and safety?
The need is for true localism: a small outpost of a ministry with local autonomy run on the basis of ‘upside-down’ management. And each office might somehow get elected, perhaps by its ‘users’. This is the direction in which Social Democracy should be heading. It will never happen. Our bosses like our bankers are too comfortable with things as they are.
John Preston
The way forward for Democratic Socialism should involve the following as central policies:
1. Shared Collective Ownership by employees of the companies in which they work. This could be achieved relatively easily by assigning to them, or by their jointly acquiring, a minimum of 10% of the shareholding in the companies in which they work, with no limit on the maximum. This could initially be introduced at no cost to existing companies or employees by a special supplementary share issue mandated by law. Increases in the percentage owned by the employees could be achieved by their collectively buying new shares, by re-directing dividends into new shares or by accepting increased shares as a substitute for wage increases as a counterinflationary measure or at times when wage restraint is necessary. By owning their shareholding jointly and collectively through an existing Works Council or a specially established Employees’ Association all employees could share the benefits of their labour in a spirit of solidarity, rather than the competitive self-interest promoted by the Stock Market or other ‘in-house’ individual shareholdings. Thus the employees of each company would be brought together in a relationship of solidarity rather than competition, and they would have a vested interest in, and mutual responsibility for, the productivity and profitability of their company. Shared Ownership is thus Direct Socialism in action, in contrast to traditional State Socialism, and is free of the latter’s centralised, bureacratic and alienating control.
2. Public utilities should always, for the Common Good, remain in public (i.e. State) ownership. As a matter of absolute principle they should not be privatised. However, where the State cannot provide sufficient capital for the improvement or effective running of them, their retail operations could be leased or outsourced. Thus ‘market’ efficiency and public ownership can be reconciled.
3. Governments everywhere should actively foster and encourage the establishment of Cooperatives, facilitated where necessary by special taxation concessions.
4. Employee participation in decision-making should be established by law, so that every company with twenty or more employees must give employees proportional representation on its Board.
Through such policies as these Democratic Socialism can continue its commitment to social justice, to the elimination of the anti-social features of Capitalism and to improving the lot of the full spectrum of employees in a modern economy, not just the traditional working class. Hence it would have wide electoral appeal. This form of Socialism could not only coexist harmoniously with a modern market economy but has the potential to transform it into a very different system from that which Capitalism promotes. This form of Socialism would truly be a “Social Market Economy” worthy of the name.
Stephan, interesting list of proposals. I disagree with your first point however. I don’t think that the ownership of companies by their employees is a crucial point. It is more your 4th point about economic democracy that is important. Economic democracy and stakeholder models should become the social democratic norm. Socialist ownership is not needed.
As locally active social democrat l have also joined the PES activists because It is essential for social democracy to go beond the national borders. We can not make halt in front of our many differences
but step by step we must walk the road towards an internationally united social democracy giving common aswers and potent policies for our common world. This would strenghten us not only in Europe and internationally but also on the national and regional levels.
It must be our own answers, rooted in our values and on the side of the people in the strong belief that an better worls is possible. Let us find that confidens, that pride and that hope.
To start act togheter were we can to day and to go further on from there.
It´s a long way to go but also so inspiring to be a part of this from this beginning also for me as a grassroot
This is the happy and hopefull message we all should spread and build our social democratic future on.
As there happens to be an aggressive domination of the empiricism , social agents for changes are becoming stagnant in our society.
In fact, society is a construct …constructed through the norms and values , but these are undervalued as the political dynamism comes to suppress all these in favor of handful of aristocrats.
There should be no more authoritarianism in the name of democracy…no more politics in terms of democracy…
only the social practices favor democracy …that’s why we are in need of social democracy !!!
Democracy is purely a practice … only when the human society can experience it , we can call we are democratic…
In this regard, we don’t need any political agendas and propogondas in the name of democracy…
Democracy is not a tool for any regime , its only the significance of human freedom…
every one can be signifier out of it …where there is no difference between the significance and signifier …
‘We are democracy, our society is democracy , Our humanity is democracy…’
Well as I see it democracy goes before party politics. But there are some contradictions and dangers in your text. The values of our societies are constructed and changing over time but from there you draw the coclusion that we dont need political policies., I´s say the opposite.
We all need ideas, values and goals, let it be that tey must be in contact and walk togehter with practice.
For that we need education and discourse. Otherwise we open up for dangerous populism.
It is for example easy to find majoroties for things like the death penalty. Should we not have an political agenda but to see that as the will of the democratic society…. And then again we have the relation between the various societys, many times overlapping. If we say…”We are democracy” Who are the others? and what are their rights.
As politics today gets engulfed with mundane power ( One state over other, one nation over other, one party over other, ……….like that)
‘Power over others is destructive — always destructive. In a better world anybody who is ambitious, who wants to be more important than others, ahead of others, should be treated psychologically’. -Osho
‘We’ refers to the all…….
‘we’ is the significance …at the same time we are the signifier ….
If we become it (Democracy) there comes essence of it (Democracy) from us…
Rethink democracy!!!!!
Politics today is engulfed with the greed of mundane power ( One state over other, one nation over other…..)
It is needed to reorient it …
otherwise ….. ‘Power over others is destructive — always destructive. In a better world anybody who is ambitious, who wants to be more important than others, ahead of others, should be treated psychologically.’ Osho
‘We’ refers to all. ‘We’ doesnt know others , no separate significance as it is the only essence of significance ..
‘we’ is the total essence of it (democracy) if we are out of it (democracy) …so ” We are the democracy”
it is our significance …
Rethink Democracy….., The early childhood education for 21st century!!!!
One major problem mentioned here is the lack of trust in leadership. Another is the opposition to large administrative units as too distant from users. Internet technology makes solutions to these problems straight forward, assuming there is political will.
One of the main problems mentioned at the recent UK Conference was a failure to promote democracy. This responds to the first concern, assuming some action is taken. I have developed a model for direct democracy that could be implemented in a less secure version with very limited effort, A smooth five minute read:
Abstract in Danish:
Stodolsky, D. S. (1992). Computernetværk-baseret demokrati: Videnskabelig kommunikation som grundlag for den demokratiske beslutningsproces [Computer-network based democracy: Scientific communication as a foundation for the democratic decision process.] For medlemmernes skyld? [For the members' sake?] (pp. 139-158). Esbjerg, Denmark: Foreningen for studier i andelsbevægelse og kooperation [Danish Society for Cooperative Studies].
URL
Extended abstract in English:
Stodolsky, D. S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7, 127-137.
http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$14
Comprehensive
Stodolsky, D. S. (1995). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer review. The Information Society, 11(4). [1994 version in N. P. Gleditsch, P. H. Enckell, & J. Burchardt (Eds.), Det videnskabelige tidsskrift (The scientific journal) (pp. 151-160). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. (Tema NORD 1994: 574)]
http://dss.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$19
David Stodolsky,
Yes, Lack of trust becomes problem as human conscience diminishes time by time.
If there exists the same trend democracy can not be celebrated in our life.
Democracy is the dimensions of human freedom led by human conscience. If there is crisis of human conscience ( due to the indulgence to mundane and fake power) there is obvious crisis of trust in leaderships.
What we need is the trans-formative social revolutions – a revolution for human conscience , rejuvenating the true humane in society , Hope there comes leaderships from within as competence not in the form of competitions. Then there will be dignity in leaderships , leaderships flourishes trust …then everyone enjoy it..celebrate it …celebrate the human freedom synonymously The Democracy …..
For that, proposition of social democracy can be a very first step ….it hints towards the goal ,
I think you are right David that we have to think hard how the internet can be used much more effectively in terms of democracy and inclusion. The Finnish apparently see high speed internet as a human right already and given its potential we should see this as a human right too.
Just look at the free education possibilities that you can tap into with internet access. We should definitely argue for web equality. We need to find another language though as this sounds terribly geeky!
I believe the greatest challenge for social democracy nowadays is to get its message heard by the citizens. Confronted with the difficulties of their daily lives, the latter seem not to understand the abstract messages conveyed by the technocratic leaders predominating in leftist parties today. Instead, the right wins them by appealing to their basic needs (security, status-quo) and feelings (fear, hate, disgust). Maybe it could prove a worthwhile idea to get down from the level of “white collar” communication to interacting more closely with the “blue collar” masses. As social democracy is mainly about helping those in need, the leaders representing it should also act according to what they say, and not pretend to care about the poor during elections and then resume a luxurious lifestyle. Only by ensuring coherence between message and action the left could regain the lost ground.
Another point could be made about living standards. As social democracy aims to bring about better lives for more people, it could be a good idea to emphasize the environmental dimensions of a good life. Therefore, the adoption of a post-industrial attitude supporting a healthier life (including less polluted cities, no GMO, healthy food, recycling, alternative energy, railway transport among others) might refresh a little bit the old issues which do not seem to attract the people anymore.
Hello!
Socialdemocrazy has historically rested on the negotiated peace between capital and work. It has proven a successful model in northern countries for welfare builidng and social security. My picture is that socialdemocrats in the 80:ies somehow lost their nerve and swayed to the rightwing onslaught. As comments point´s out several drawbacks was accounted for. The growing capital need the billions in public sectors in it´s sphere of profitmaking. There isn´t any chance of regaining trust from socialdemocratic voters if this structure in capitalism isn´t broadly exposed and analyzed in whatever media there is left to do so in. Public need s is best solved without profiting and with general approaches including transparance and democratic leadership.