Social democracy's blind spots

Matthew Taylor points to a “gap between what people say they want – greater fairness – and what policies they are wiling to sanction.” He gives examples of unpalatable policies: higher taxes on well-off pensioners; higher CGT; abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions; and a wider property tax.
This, inadvertently, draws attention to two of the big flaws with social democracy.
First, there’s an omission of any reference to power. Matthew seems to think - like many social democrats since Keynes - that income can be redistributed without touching the basic power relations of capitalism, without challenging the power of capital.
This is questionable. It’s no accident that  the most successful era of social democracy - the 50s and 60s - just happened to be a time when capitalists’ power was curtailed not (just) by the power of the state but by socio-technical factors; Fordism happened to create a big demand for labour, whilst a lack of globalization meant that capitalists had no credible threat to leave. And as Lane Kenworthy points out in a post the whole left should read, any progressive politics requires a strong labour movement.
This poses the question: now that capital has the whip hand over labour, how far is tax-based redistribution feasible? Yes, Matthew’s call for higher property taxes are part of the solution - in a globalized economy land is the obvious thing to tax - but is this sufficient?
Could it be that equality requires more than tweaks to the tax system, but also an empowerment of workers relative to capital at the point of production - that is, worker ownership and democracy? One reason why I welcome Blue Labour, despite Glasman’s appalling comments on immigration, is its recognition of the need for a change (pdf) in the “balance of power within the firm“ and a “commitment…to forms of mutual and co-operative ownership.”
The second issue Matthew raises but doesn’t confront is: what should be the relationship between the left and public opinion? Labour’s answer has for years that it should be one of abject and supine submission. To it, public opinion is not something to be challenged or changed - and not by open debate - but rather a given, a datum, around which policies should be designed. And in fairness to Labour, now that a mass party simply doesn’t exist, it might not have many tools to radicalize opinion.
But the fact is that what John Quiggin says of the US applies equally to the UK; something must be done to shift the Overton window leftwards.
Until the left gets a grasp both of the need for a radical change in power relations, and of a means of shifting or overcoming public opinion, it is destined to fail.

Comments

[Luis Enrique]

When we think about the rich, whom we would like to tax in the interest of fairness, or change power relations with, what proportion of them are owners of the means of production? Does it make any difference? [is talking about the power of capital a harmless shorthand for the power of managerse and the wealthy]. I suppose even if you earnt you money as a footballer or derivatives trader, you'll eventually end up parking much your wealth in ownership of capital. But your interests whilst generating your income aren't necessarily aligned with owners of capital.

I just don't know what to make of all this - take a firm with lots of badly paid workers and a few highly paid managers. Redistributing those high salaries, which is something I could see more worker power achieving, would help a bit, but not much (because I am assumeing many workers few managers) but what else could rebalanced power relations within firms achieve?

I suppose something explains the hugh rise in inequality, so something ought to be able to reverse it.

[CMcM]

"..something must be done to shift the Overton window leftwards."
Can I ask in what is honestly intended to be a totally non-sneer-y, non-smart aleck-y way - what precisely?

Because I've spent quite a bit of my life recognising this problem and failing to come up with an answer that works.

[Alex Marsh]

Wouldn't Keynes be better styled a social liberal than a social democrat (as, most likely, would Matthew Taylor)? That would go some way to explaining why the issue of class conflict/the power relations of capitalism do not feature so strongly in the analysis.

Absolutely agree on the public opinion point. For too long progressive politicians have been timid in their response to public opinion - even when that opinion is inconsistent or incoherent.

There is an absence of appetite to articulate genuinely alternative futures entailing greater equality. In the face of a hostile rightwing media that is perhaps not surprising. But its consequences for society have been deeply unfortunate. The Overton window is, if anything, drifting rightwards. The reorientation you seek is even more challenging as a consequence.

The notion of genuine political leadership or statesmanship seems to be so far out of fashion as to be anachronistic.

But the broader discursive context needs to shift away from market fundamentalism before it will be politically possible to effect a leftward shift in policy. That needs a much broader progressive coalition to articulate a credible alternative vision upon which politicians can draw.

[Luis Enrique]

Alex

"There is an absence of appetite to articulate genuinely alternative futures entailing greater equality"

well, there's a fair few people giving it a short (the NEF and others) with the one small drawback that they tend to spout pure cobblers.

I don't think a lack of willingness / appetite is the problem, I think it's a lack of feasible ideas.

[chris]

@ Alex - yes, Keynes was a liberal rather than social democrat; I had in mind the countless social democrats who were influenced by him, rather than Keynes himself.
@ CMcM - I don't know exactly. John Q's post suggests one possibility is for some personal sacrifices - people willing to take an extreme public stand, so that others can say "I wouldn't go that far, but" and so express leftist ideas in a way that appears "moderate". Too many leftists (maybe including me) like to appear extreme; the trick is to sound "reasonable".

[Cahal]

Small point, but Keynes was a Conservative. He was unhappy for governments to spend more than 25% of GDP.

[Charles Wheeler]

"First, there’s an omission of any reference to power."

Rather a sweeping statement. I would have thought most social democrats take that as a given.

[Jim]

Ah, the Left, giving the people what they should want, not what they actually want since 1917................

[CMcM]

Chris: I've done the 'appearing reasonable' bit. I've read my Gramsici and *tried* to frame all my leftwing arguments in the terminology appropriate to 'the common sense of the age'.I have a full set of back copies of Marxism Today (deceased) 1978-1991 somewhere in the attic.

It's not noticeably worked, has it?

I respect John Quiggan, but there's something a bit WW1/Balckadder-ish about his call for a human sacrifice 'to encourage the others' at the moment.

[Matthew Taylor]

Thanks for the comment Chris. I take your point about the power of labour although I would be interested in your thoughts about the leadership deficit in the trade unions; cause or effect of the weakness of organised labour? But I do want to defend my self on the public opinion point. My argument is precisely that the gap between the ends we want and the means we will sanction is one of the big challenges facing progressive politics. For me it is not simply a failure of leadership on the left but the consequences of misapplying the language of consumerism to democratic choice making in a post traditional society. The myth of politics as consumerism means that politicians must pander to our cognitive frailties (wanting long term outcomes but being unable to take the matching short term decisions) rather than confronting them.

But anyway it is a genuine pleasure to be the subject of even a critical post on one of my favourite sites.

[chris]

Thanks Matthew - I'm touched.
I'd emphasize the weakness of the labour movement much more than any leadership deficit. As you know, I've very little faith in the transformative power of leaders, and was there ever really a time when union leadership was widely acclaimed as outstanding?
I entirely agree that politics shouldn't be a matter of consumerism. But again, what's cause and what's effect? If our political parties are small - and lack the ability to transform public attitudes through regular face-to-face talk between "ordinary" folk - then they have no chance of influencing people except through orthodox marketing means.