Is social democracy the end of history?

There are other values which can be collectively enunciated, she argues, and their formation and stimulation is as much an exercise of freedom as the sorts of freedoms that are expressed in market transactions. She is keenly aware of the contradictions that do arise between liberal rights and economic liberalism, as well as those which arise between private goods and the social good.

It’s really an expression of the fact that social democracy is a carrier of Enlightenment rationality, but of that aspect which does not seek to impose an end state, but rather to promote rational and public deliberation. That also involves an anti-foundationalist aspect which couldn’t be further from Tony Blair style communitarian authoritarianism on one hand or the theocratic dreaming of latter day anti-secular saints on the other.

Freedom in the choice of values and projects then, is best expressed through a negotiation of individual values rather than the imposition of some authoritative value set. Similarly, social goals can best be met through mechanisms which both harness the innovation and dynamism which markets can stimulate but which remember that markets are made for society not the converse.

So, I’d argue for a social democracy which exemplifies the libertarian and egalitarian aspects of Enlightenment thought, but which does so through constant negotiation and movement rather than through some sort of vision of a telos, whose imposition will always be violent in one way or another.

Those last two paragraphs are really my view on social democracy, using Berman’s argument as a jumping off point. It’s intriguing to note some commonality, though, in Rudd’s thinking:

Neo-liberals speak of the self-regarding values of security, liberty and property. To these, social democrats would add the other-regarding values of equity, solidarity and sustainability. For social democrats, these additional values are seen as mutually reinforcing because the allocation of resources in pursuit of equity (particularly through education), solidarity and sustainability assist in creating the human, social and environmental capital necessary to make a market economy function effectively.

Working within a comprehensive social-democratic framework of self-regarding and other-regarding values gives social democrats a rich policy terrain in which to define a role for the state. This concept of the state had its origins in the view that markets are designed for human beings, not vice versa, and this remains the fundamental premise that separates social democrats from neo-liberals.

Where Rudd needs to go further, in my view, is through a greater emphasis of both aspects of the democracy in social democracy that Berman identifies.

Berman (rightly) points out that democracy - as actually attained in most European nations - was something that resulted from struggles led by the left. Contra Fukuyama, it’s not necessarily or historically linked to a capitalist economy.

But Berman goes further and celebrates the traditions of self-administration and voluntarism that were the (non)statist elements of classical social democratic thought. What social democracy for the new millennium needs to avoid is the blanket presumption that any social problem requires a bureaucracy, and that solutions can’t be found through genuine consultation and co-operation.

That sort of voluntarism was as much a part of the Methodist or Christian Socialist strain of Labour movement thought which Rudd in his recent articles hearkens back to as any particular “faith-based values”. It was seen in municipal administration, and in co-operative friendly and building societies, as well as in classic trade unionism. It was anathema to the Fabian elitists whose preferred practice ended up forming the statist model for actually existing social democracy in the Anglosphere. But it deserves a revival for all those who believe, as I do, that social democracy is as much about liberty as about equality.

Where does this leave John Howard? I think - particularly in a society which has traditionally been so statist as Australia - all we’re seeing is the old politics - in this case of a sort of dirigiste conservatism.

In Australia, it seems, even liberalism is incorporated into state thinktanks and regulatory bodies - such as the Productivity Commission and the ACCC. There were precious few free markets around in Menzies’ Australia, but there’s precious few around now, when government is a sort of unstable mix of big business corporatism and social engineering via distributive spending. Not to mention the urge to ideological conformity (and mediocrity) which defines the culture wars.

Labor could usefully point this out, as well as make the case for a revivified social democracy. Rudd has made a start. Berman’s work is instructive - what we need in this country is a liberation from dirigisme of all stripes and a dynamic social democracy which remembers the meaning of both terms, and doesn’t forget that the second is tied up with liberty.