{"id":356,"date":"2012-10-10T13:42:53","date_gmt":"2012-10-10T13:42:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2012\/10\/10\/can-europes-mainstream-left-reconnect-with-socialism-and-economic-democracy-nyegosh-dube-2012\/"},"modified":"2012-10-10T13:42:53","modified_gmt":"2012-10-10T13:42:53","slug":"can-europes-mainstream-left-reconnect-with-socialism-and-economic-democracy-nyegosh-dube-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2012\/10\/10\/can-europes-mainstream-left-reconnect-with-socialism-and-economic-democracy-nyegosh-dube-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Europe\u2019s Mainstream Left Reconnect with Socialism and Economic Democracy? – Nyegosh Dube (2012)"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nRecent elections in France have given the Socialist Party control of both the executive and legislative branches. Good news? For those of us on the Left, definitely. A major step towards bringing about a socialist economic order in Europe? Hardly. In France we have a Socialist Party that does not advocate socialism. But it\u2019s not just France, of course. Spain\u2019s Socialist Workers\u2019 Party has little to do with socialism or advancing workers\u2019 collective power. In Britain we have a Labour Party that does not advocate any form of labour control over the economy. In Germany and Sweden we have Social Democratic parties that seem to believe that social democracy can coexist with the economic undemocracy of corporate capitalism \u2013 as neo-liberalism has advanced, this notion has increasingly proved to be flawed. These parties long ago retreated from socialism and democratic control of capital.
\nYou would think that with capitalism undergoing its biggest crisis since the 1930s we would have seen a socialist upsurge in Europe, a drive to take power away from the corporate and financial oligarchy and place it in democratically controlled economic institutions, to replace the current system with one where citizens collectively decide on the allocation of resources and the distribution of wealth. You would think the major left-wing parties \u2013 social democratic, socialist, and labour \u2013 would actively seek to expand democracy into the economic realm and substantially reduce inequalities of power and wealth. But unfortunately, they have largely accepted the neo-liberal model instead of leading the resistance to it. During the crisis, bereft of an alternative vision, they badly floundered. While the French Socialist victory is welcome, the party does not propose any fundamental changes in control over capital. Without such changes, the 75% tax it plans on million-euro incomes threatens to trigger capital flight. Capital should flow into the hands of French working people, not across the Channel or the Atlantic.
\nThe New York Times recently published an interesting article by Steven Erlanger titled \u201cWhat\u2019s a Socialist?\u201d Looking at the French elections, he asks \u201cwhat does it mean to be a socialist these days, anyway?\u201d His answer: \u201cNot very much\u201d. That\u2019s exactly right, if we\u2019re talking about \u201cSocialists\u201d like Hollande and Zapatero. But Erlanger absurdly claims that socialism \u201chas largely done its job\u201d with even conservatives embracing supposedly socialist ideas like the welfare state and progressive taxation \u2013 and restrictions on carbon emissions. Hence, \u201csocialism seems to have less and less to say\u201d. Like so many others, Erlanger mistakenly equates socialism with the welfare state, progressive taxation, and various types of regulation of private industry. This is not that far from the US Tea Party movement calling President Obama a socialist. Of course, for the Tea Party, socialism is something sinister, and therefore advocating a slightly higher tax rate for millionaires is beyond the pale since for them this is a step towards dreaded socialism. For Erlanger, socialism is not sinister \u2013 it\u2019s simply irrelevant.
\nWhat is Socialism?<\/strong>
\nWell, let me put forth a daring proposition: the job of a European party that calls itself socialist \u2013 or at least belongs to the Socialist International and\/or the Party of European Socialists \u2013 should be to work towards the transformation of the European capitalist order into something that is clearly socialist. European socialist parties have certainly not done their job, if this is what they are meant to do. Imagine a socialist political grouping advocating socialism! Quelle horreur! This raises a key question: What do I mean by socialism? First of all, let me say what I think it is not: It\u2019s not the welfare state and progressive taxation, nor is it state regulation of private industries, nor even outright state ownership, though certainly socialists have supported such things. And for sure it\u2019s not the authoritarian state collectivist system that existed in the Soviet bloc and still exists in places like Cuba, even if those regimes described themselves as socialist. (If we call them socialist, we might as well say that East Germany was a democracy, given its official name!) As the 1951 Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International (SI) stated: \u201cCommunism falsely claims a share in the Socialist tradition. In fact it has distorted that tradition beyond recognition.\u201d
\nI would argue that socialism is a system where citizens, who constitute what we call \u201csociety\u201d, control economic institutions and processes for their collective benefit and ensure that the public interest takes precedence over narrow private and oligarchic interests. Much of this control has to be exercised by citizens in their capacity as working people who produce society\u2019s wealth. This means control over production and investment, and over distribution of the fruits of these activities, with an equitable distribution of income and wealth being a fundamental goal. The only way citizens can exercise control over the economy is through democratic mechanisms, both existing political institutions and new democratic economic institutions, including democratised business enterprises.
\nIn other words, at the heart of socialism lies economic democracy, i.e. democracy expanded into the economic sphere, at the micro, meso and macro levels. It involves institutions such as worker-owned and worker-managed companies (including cooperatives), labour-sponsored collective investment funds and multi-company worker ownership, socially owned and controlled financial institutions, democratically controlled national and transnational investment funds that have substantial ownership of major corporations, as well as state and municipal ownership and investment if they include a high level of citizen and worker participation. While \u201cpolitical democracy is an indispensable element of a socialist society\u201d, as the SI\u2019s 1989 Declaration of Principles proclaims, economic democracy is in turn a prerequisite for genuine political democracy undistorted by oligarchic corporate power.
\nA Manifesto for Economic Democracy<\/strong>
\nIt will probably come as a surprise that all the parties belonging to the Socialist International have essentially signed up to the type of vision I have just outlined! According to the SI\u2019s Declaration: \u201cThe socialist answer is unequivocal. It is the people of the world who should exercise control by means of a more advanced democracy in all aspects of life: political, social, and economic.\u201d It continues: \u201cthe Socialist International\u2026 is committed, as ever, to the democratisation on a global scale of economic, social and political power structures.\u201d And: \u201cThe democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy\u2026. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means\u2026\u201d
\nThese economic means include: \u201cdemocratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; \u2026worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy; self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers; public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making\u2026; democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system\u2026; international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations\u2026\u201d
\nThere\u2019s more in this vein and it\u2019s worth quoting at length: \u201cThere is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation\u2026 But the underlying principle is clear \u2013 not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally\u2026 The concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled \u2013 as citizen, consumer or wage-earner \u2013 to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life.\u201d
\nTherefore, the Socialist International\u2019s 1989 Declaration of Principles, currently in force, contains an unequivocal manifesto calling for economic democracy! In fact, the term \u201ceconomic democracy\u201d appears three times in the document. No less than 28 political parties in the European Union, most of them major governing or opposition parties, have acceded to this Declaration by joining the SI. But they have done little beyond that. It\u2019s high time that Europe\u2019s socialist, social democratic and labour parties promoted \u2013 and implemented \u2013 the principles they already adhere to! As for the question that serves as the title of this article, my answer would be: They not only can they must, if they are to offer the citizens of Europe a genuine vision of change and a compelling alternative to the present dysfunctional, anti-social economic model.
\nThis article first appeared in Social Europe<\/em><\/a> , July 13, 2012 . Dube also writes for Talking Union<\/em><\/a>, the blog of the labour network of the Democratic Socialists of America.
\nNyegosh Dube is a consultant in the areas of social economy and communications, based in Warsaw, Poland. He is currently developing a project that looks at existing examples of economic democracy as potential building blocks for a democratic economy. For over a decade, he worked for the European foundation sector – coordinating a project on legal reform, editing a journal and writing for a sectoral publication. Last year he translated a book on Polish foreign policy. He has degrees in economics and political science from Yale and Columbia universities.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}