The Return of Social Democracy?

I would say it reflects the beginning of a backlash against austerity etc so in that sense it could represent a maturation of consciousness but at a very early stage so far. However it also shows that the bourgeoisie have picked up on this possibility and are therefore getting in place early to co-opt and 'direct' these struggles into safe forms.

They have moved the centre ground so far right over the last few decades that I think they realise they can't only do that and not have a plan B for when people start to react against their attacks. If the struggles and opposition to the current 'status quo' are subsumed completely into movements like Corbyns, Syriza etc then it will be a regression but it all depends on how well they play the role the bourgeoisie want them to and how well the proletariat can respond on its own terms.

Jaycee #2

Agree with you, though the phrase -

‘If the struggles and opposition to the current 'status quo' are subsumed completely into movements like Corbyns, Syriza etc then it will be a regression...’

Begs the question, regression from what? Not from the economic norm of the last forty years. If it negated the possible progression to revolutionary politics by the working class then this would be regrettable. More likely Corbynomics will lead to a further demonstration of social democracies total inability to tame the brutal forces that underpin capitalism. Now this opens the door to revolutionary politics.

Maybe a return to the rhetoric of social democracy - and a reflection of people's anger since 2008 - but class struggle is the driver of social democratic reforms and without an uptick in actions, I don't see much coming out of it.

Greece - which certainly has higher levels of class conflict than the US or the UK - is, for obviously reasons, a special case and demonstrates, amongst other things, the need for cross-border class movements.

auld-bod: By regression I guess I just meant in terms of going back to how it was in the 70's/80's with a 'radical' left-wing opposition etc

jaycee

auld-bod: By regression I guess I just meant in terms of going back to how it was in the 70's/80's with a 'radical' left-wing opposition etc

Except the opposition of the 70s and 80s was class based-- Chile, Portugal, UK, Italy, even the US [at least into the 1970s].

This current "iteration" bears all the marks and scars of the sustained assault upon the working class, in everything from living standards to raw numbers.

Syriza accumulated its "authority" by proving it could take demonstrations out of the streets and channel the protest into elections, and undying support for capitalism.

Podemos-- same, same.

Syriza doesn't even register as "radical left-wing opposition" when compared to, for all its popular front features and actions, the UP government in Chile 1970-1973. Say what you want about Allende, (and I have) he at least defined the struggle as a struggle for socialism, because he was a socialist. Tsipras wouldn't make a pimple on Allende's ass. That's how pathetic the current "left opposition" really is.

This post is more some rough thoughts on Corbyn/Labour... I think some of the heterodox economic ideas floating around these formations are worth taking seriously - precisely because they're not necessarily (or at all) anti-capitalist and could therefore provide a viable alternative management of capitalism (which both rightist hysteria and leftist hope seem happy to take for 'socialism').

So e.g. Mariana Mazzucato's post-Keynesian stuff about an 'entrepreneurial' role for the state in financing innovation (she points out this is already the case, only unacknowledged and unremunerated, with lots of the key Google/Apple tech publicly financed). Or the Modern Monetary Theory stuff that David Graeber was boosting a while back, which is taken seriously by the Bank of England and even the IMF (who're apparently to the 'left' of Corbyn/McDonnell on deficit reduction!). Renationalising the railways is arguably neoclassical microeconomics 101 - private for-profit provision can be expected to be inefficient and rent-seeking in natural monopolies. Then there's the talk of worker/consumer co-management in public services (which has some precedents, but isn't straight leftist nationalisation, and may get support from 'big society' type Tories, if anyone's still banging that drum).

While the people pushing these ideas tend to have redistributive politics it isn't obvious that's a necessary feature, especially in the absence of worker pressure. Mazzucato seems plausible on state-driven tech innovation, but for every well-remunerated programmer in Silicon Valley there's a hidden army of undocumented migrant cleaners, assembly workers and people displaced by gentrification and the AirBnB takeover of places like San Francisco. Ha-Joon Chang was pushing the German model a while back, but Germany too is based on a two-tier labour market with a minority of skilled unionised work and a vast underclass of microjobs etc.

So while it's easy to see significant sections of capital coming round to e.g. a public investment bank, there's likely to be a lot more pushback on any redistributive trimmings. Then again, repressing the fuck out of landlord parasites would probably do more to bring down the cost of labour power than all the workfare schemes put together - probably while benefiting workers (short term at least - longer term lower rents could be used as a reason for wage restraint). So there might be scope for some populist policies which repress sections of capital (see also: finance) to improve the conditions for capital in general.

The other thing here is I think a lot of the 'off-the-shelf' anarcho/ultra-left critiques need modification to apply here. E.g. there's a quotable line from Dauvé:

Dauvé

anyone would rather be exploited like a Swede than like a Brazilian. But do we have a CHOICE? [this was early 70s, so peak social democracy vs military developmentalist dicatorship]

Ok, in Greece it's pretty clear there's no choice, at least short of insurrection (and even then, in one country hard to see how that could end well). But a lot of people (well, maybe a few hundred thousand willing to pay £3 and click) seem to sense there is a choice between the neoliberal model and a vague something else (e.g. the gratuitously punitive benefits regime could be relaxed as a day 1 fantasy Corbynite reform, which would save lives at little cost to capital in general). It's fine to be sceptical of that, but I think that scepticism can only be justified on an analysis of the balance of forces within and between classes, the various limits on Labour in opposition and in government, the prospects of a Mitterand-style u-turn in the face of international capital disciplining social democratic policies in the absence of capital controls etc, not on received wisdom alone.

These minor State Capitalist movements are pretty incomparable with the State Capitalist golden age of 1945-1980s, when leftist movements were gaining power on the backs of peasant movements in the third world and strong unions in the first. Now that the latifundia have largely disappeared (and the victorious peasants themselves displaced) and unions have become irrelevant and obsolete, there is little material basis for State Capitalist movements anymore. Thank God

All there is at the moment are vague populist anti imperialist parties in Latin America, a few weak populist anti austerity parties in Europe and marginal 'self defence' organisations like Naxalites and PKK

I don't know, maybe, although that does mean living standards and working class power has also dropped dramatically. And, when if we build it back up, we can expect those same state capitalist movements/recuperation to crop right back up, no?

Yeah probably. It depends on the forms of working class power though, for instance current class struggle in the BRICS seem very fluid and spontaneous and the existing left parties really don't seem to know how to manipulate them

vincent #9

‘…unions have become irrelevant and obsolete…’

I guess that is why in the UK the tory government is just ignoring the unions. After all why should they bother with them as the unions have become irrelevant and obsolete?
On the other hand maybe I’m just living in a parallel universe?

Relatively, though, they are pretty powerless. And, the Tories, they're just kicking them while they're down, not because they're any real threat - a point stressed by the unions themselves:

Hey Auld bod, I think I'm about to dig myself a hole again , so I'll just repost your old comment

Vicent #30

It’s a real problem with the net. If it was a discussion face to face, a generalization can get quickly qualified or clarified. Also after a beer or two most people get more optimistic (at least I do).
;)

vincent #15

Point taken.

Social democracy will only make a real comeback if capitalism’s crisis provokes more mass opposition. Unfortunately, any such comeback may also be accompanied with a comeback by social democracy’s equally miserable twin, Stalinism.

For more on Corbyn’s close relationship with Stalinism - in the form of his Socialist Action advisers and his strong support for Castro’s Cuba - see the most recent comments at: Arguments against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

Joseph Kay

This post is more some rough thoughts on Corbyn/Labour... I think some of the heterodox economic ideas floating around these formations are worth taking seriously - precisely because they're not necessarily (or at all) anti-capitalist and could therefore provide a viable alternative management of capitalism (which both rightist hysteria and leftist hope seem happy to take for 'socialism').

So e.g. Mariana Mazzucato's post-Keynesian stuff about an 'entrepreneurial' role for the state in financing innovation...

John McDonnell namedropping Mazzucato and Piketty here, though to argue that rather than focusing on income distribution like post-war social democracy, he'll focus on asset ownership through promoting co-operatives and community-owned energy infrastructure (this seems straight out of Paul Mason's book).

Is post-keynsian and other forms of hetrodox economics useful to anarchism or socialism more broadly? I'm a bit skeptical towards marx, although I recognise his enormous contribution. I was thinking of whether there is any compatibility of these different approaches and anarchism and whether I could take a moral stance against capitalism from a standpoint such as theirs. I don't have an enormous amount of knowledge about the subject.

I would definitely read Marx. I think anarchism and Marx's critique of capitalism are largely compatible.

Oh, I agree with you there, and I have so far read wage labour and capital, value price and profit, the communist manifesto and the first couple of chapters of capital. I should have worded my question a bit better though. Does anyone here think a hetrodox economics critique of capitalism is necessary, desirable, or even possible?

I really don't know too much about this so I welcome any responses.

Does anyone here think a hetrodox economics critique of capitalism is necessary, desirable, or even possible?

Yes. For example, Amartya Sen's writings on famine demonstrates how it is a result of markets functioning perfectly. He thus counter the view that famine is caused by a decline in food availability or due to some market imperfection. Indeed, as he shows, during times of famine food may leave famine struck areas rather than going into them. Neoclassical economic theory would tell you that food show flood famine areas because demand should be higher there. But neoclassical theory confuses need and demand; the latter is need backed up with cash. People who suffer from famine has typically sold off everything they own to buy food; when those means are exhausted in an area, food will move elsewhere because food is not primarily about feeding people, but a means to make money.

I've found this example to be really effective in explaining how irrational capitalism really is. And therefore, I think that heterodox critiques of capitalism is both necessary, desirable and possible.

Chilli Sauce

Relatively, though, they are pretty powerless. And, the Tories, they're just kicking them while they're down, not because they're any real threat - a point stressed by the unions themselves:

What do you mean "the unions"? That would be the union bureaucracy -- and they are just pointing out how effective the current anti-union laws have been so more are not needed...

The point being, the Tories know that organised labour is a threat -- even now. They know that even in this controlled form, organised workers can hinder capitalism. Hence the desire for more controls.

I think Kropotkin's words are relevant here:

Here, in England, there are many amongst the exploiting classes – who see dimly the danger ahead, and the capitalist press (and more especially that portion which circulates exclusively amongst the capitalist class, such as the trade journals) contains many articles just now urging the most drastic measures against their slaves who dare to rebel against their will and feebly ask for a higher wage or a shorter working week. The interference of the State is loudly demanded to put down these troublesome strikes and labour unions. The strong arm of the law is to be invoked not for but against the worker. “We have too much liberty,” one trade journal of the highest class shrieks in terrified tones; and indeed we shall not be surprised if the workers speedily have to guard against attempts upon such feeble rights of combination and free action as they possess.

There is perhaps no safer rule of thumb for the worker than to do that which his enemy most denounces and to avoid that which his enemy least objects to...(The Use of The Strike)

So I would say that the new anti-union laws are significant -- the enemy is still worried even though strikes are at a low level...

And let us be honest here -- the level of class consciousness if pretty low (thanks to years of anti-union laws, etc.). In my experience, the only time I've seen my fellow workers take action is when there has been a union campaign -- whether on a national level or locally and when I was a union rep, we even managed to do some "unofficial" actions. I doubt that without a union we would have managed that.

So we need a realistic view of unions -- their useful aspects as well as their dangers. It is not the 1960s or 1970s and we need to recognise where we are now. My own experience suggests that being a union member, being a union rep, can build struggles -- the alternative is no struggle at all in many cases.

Pennoid

I would definitely read Marx. I think anarchism and Marx's critique of capitalism are largely compatible.

That would be because he built upon the critique of capitalism Proudhon created -- indeed, many of the key aspects of Marx's critique are to be found in What is Property? and System of Economic Contradictions -- and as an added bonus, Marx mocked them in The Poverty of Philosophy before, over a decade later, recognising their worth:

“Marx made some disparaging remarks about this passage [...] even though Proudhon here anticipated an idea that Marx was to develop as one of the key elements in the concept of labour power, viz. that as a commodity, labour produces nothing and it exists independently of and prior to the exercise of its potential to produce value as active labour.” (Alan Oakley, Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: intellectual sources and evolution, 1844 to 1860 [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984] 1:118)

My article “Proudhon’s constituted value and the myth of labour notes” is due to be published in Anarchist Studies next year, but relevant extracts can be found in a blog of mine's -- but also look at the introduction to Property is Theft! (although I would attack The Poverty of Philosophy much more now!).

Marx should be read -- but always remember that his comments on Proudhon are (to be polite) unreliable while The Poverty of Philosophy is just a series of distortions, lies, quotes out of context and, in a few cases, simply made up quotes. It is a shockingly bad work.

patient Insurgency

Does anyone here think a hetrodox economics critique of capitalism is necessary, desirable, or even possible?

I really don't know too much about this so I welcome any responses.

I would recommend post-Keynesian economics as a useful starting point -- Steve Keen of Debunking Economics fame is one. Also, you may find section C of An Anarchist FAQ of interest.

Anarcho

Chilli Sauce

Relatively, though, they are pretty powerless. And, the Tories, they're just kicking them while they're down, not because they're any real threat - a point stressed by the unions themselves:

What do you mean "the unions"? That would be the union bureaucracy -- and they are just pointing out how effective the current anti-union laws have been so more are not needed...

I mean, the unions as institutions and organizations, more than just the bureaucracy. At high points of class struggles, workers push unions to take action, but employers also see a certain usefulness in the the unions. And, I agree, at low points, union can provide some basic protections and be a vehicle for minor struggles where they might not otherwise exist. But that video linked above clearly shows just how far the trade unions have come from limited militancy or even posturing.

I also think that maybe you're overestimating the importance of anti-union laws. Those laws certainly constrict the ability of workers to take action, but the problems of trade unionism predate Thatcher (and extend far beyond just the UK). I think it speaks more the role of unions as mediators of struggle than any particular laws they operate under.

Here's something I wrote a while back. Interestingly, it critiques a piece written at a time when unions faced far fewer legal restrictions and when overall levels of class in the UK were significantly higher:

https://libcom.org/library/better-we-know-ourselves-ruling-class-view-trade-unions

Anarcho

Marx should be read -- but always remember that his comments on Proudhon are (to be polite) unreliable while The Poverty of Philosophy is just a series of distortions, lies, quotes out of context and, in a few cases, simply made up quotes. It is a shockingly bad work.

Really? So Marx basically just shat on all the anarchists that were stealing his thunder?

Anarcho, in what ways do you think that Marx built on Proudhon?