I've been having an argument with some people about the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.
Let's be clear, socialism, whatever its pedigree, demands ownership of the means of production by the state. That's all the means of production - meaning no free market economy. Democratic Socialism is merely the use of a democratic vote as the means, rather than violent revolution.
Social Democracy is a free market economy with social provision, through taxes, for education, housing, health, etc. - the model for most western democracies, to a greater or lesser extent. The Nordics are probably the best example of Social Democracy in action, whereas Russia (closely followed by USA with Trump in charge) is one of the worst. It purports to redistribute wealth through progressive taxation.
Jeremy Corbyn describes himself as a Democratic Socialist, which makes him a proponent of a fully planned economy and all that entails - collectivism, or Communism without the authoritarian nature; however, it's almost impossible to have a planned economy without strong authority from the top, as it requires a huge sacrifice of liberty. It's a 'means justifies the ends scenario' - an 'at any cost' philosophy. That kind of power is seductive to those at the top.
Too many people, in my view, are not aware of the distinction. Corbyn, as a political thinker and admirer of Karl Marx, cannot possibly be ignorant of the distinction. Most of the electorate, unfortunately, is.
That's not to say our current Social Democracy in the UK is in good shape - it certainly isn't, and a large section of the wealthy are not paying their fair share of tax to fund social programmes, squirrelling most of it in off-shore tax havens. Corporations too don't pay their fair share, as we are finding out. However, to go from one end of the spectrum to the other seems self-destructive. That, however, seems to be what happens in politics - the pendulum swings too far in the other direction. The swing from Neoliberalism to Democratic Socialism is a swing too far, especially when the destruction that can be wrought by a planned economy has to contend with the fallout from Brexit - if it ever happens - and it currently looks like it will be either hard Brexit, no Brexit or a General Election.
Some believe Corbyn has been persuaded that a less left-leaning programme is more suited to gaining votes, but that doesn't change his personal views and there's debate within the Labour Party as to whether Clause IV should be brought back.
Capitalism beats Socialism hands down in creating wealth, but it's not very good an ensuring that wealth is equitably distributed unless regulated. Capitalist monopolies are to be avoided, but state monopolies are allowed in the pursuit of a social agenda that cares for the less well off - they are a necessary evil. That said, monopolies don't exist for long in a free market, unless it's with state collusion, as technological advances usually take care of them (monopolies, by their very nature, asre not innovative).
Socialism, on the other hand, is awful at producing wealth precisely because everything is a state monopoly and ensures what little there is can be shared equally. It's the monopolistic nature and fact that the little wealth is shared equally that makes it so bad at producing wealth - there's little or no incentive. You can't argue on the one hand that capitalist monopolies are bad but state monopolies are good - they're both equally bad for the consumer, as nationalisation has proven in the UK; however, a few state monopolies are necessary. That's not to say that in a free economy there shouldn't be some competition to state monopolies to generate innovation, but it should be limited.
We are placing ourselves between a rock and a hard place through ignorance of the distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. Almost all social media references to Social Democracy fail to make this distinction, except in political lexicons. But experts, eh, what do they know...
To view the other side of the coin, and link today's post with yesterday's; where the Conservatives have been successful was to harness the lower instincts of the masses and direct the blame for all their failures to the poor, and now the EU. The centre and the left, being generally more selective and discerning in their value judgements, are not as strongly organised into a single voting cadre, but values may have to be tempered with expediency at the next election.
That's not to say our current Social Democracy in the UK is in good shape - it certainly isn't, and a large section of the wealthy are not paying their fair share of tax to fund social programmes, squirrelling most of it in off-shore tax havens. Corporations too don't pay their fair share, as we are finding out. However, to go from one end of the spectrum to the other seems self-destructive. That, however, seems to be what happens in politics - the pendulum swings too far in the other direction. The swing from Neoliberalism to Democratic Socialism is a swing too far, especially when the destruction that can be wrought by a planned economy has to contend with the fallout from Brexit - if it ever happens - and it currently looks like it will be either hard Brexit, no Brexit or a General Election.
Some believe Corbyn has been persuaded that a less left-leaning programme is more suited to gaining votes, but that doesn't change his personal views and there's debate within the Labour Party as to whether Clause IV should be brought back.
Capitalism beats Socialism hands down in creating wealth, but it's not very good an ensuring that wealth is equitably distributed unless regulated. Capitalist monopolies are to be avoided, but state monopolies are allowed in the pursuit of a social agenda that cares for the less well off - they are a necessary evil. That said, monopolies don't exist for long in a free market, unless it's with state collusion, as technological advances usually take care of them (monopolies, by their very nature, asre not innovative).
Socialism, on the other hand, is awful at producing wealth precisely because everything is a state monopoly and ensures what little there is can be shared equally. It's the monopolistic nature and fact that the little wealth is shared equally that makes it so bad at producing wealth - there's little or no incentive. You can't argue on the one hand that capitalist monopolies are bad but state monopolies are good - they're both equally bad for the consumer, as nationalisation has proven in the UK; however, a few state monopolies are necessary. That's not to say that in a free economy there shouldn't be some competition to state monopolies to generate innovation, but it should be limited.
We are placing ourselves between a rock and a hard place through ignorance of the distinction between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy. Almost all social media references to Social Democracy fail to make this distinction, except in political lexicons. But experts, eh, what do they know...
To view the other side of the coin, and link today's post with yesterday's; where the Conservatives have been successful was to harness the lower instincts of the masses and direct the blame for all their failures to the poor, and now the EU. The centre and the left, being generally more selective and discerning in their value judgements, are not as strongly organised into a single voting cadre, but values may have to be tempered with expediency at the next election.
No comments:
Post a Comment