What is Social Democracy?

I was thinking the other week about the crisis of conviction within Labor. Much has been spoken about a destructive internal party culture and a dysfunctional, soul-less organisation. A number of books have covered off the current crisis - for those interested, I recommend Rodney Cavalier's book as a very good take.

But the more I thought of it, the more I realised that these problems were mere by-products of something far greater. An organisation can be dysfunctional, and the Labor party has certainly been that way over many parts of its history. But there's only one reason that dysfunction would become the sole focus - and that's if there's nothing else to talk about. In the absence of a clear set of beliefs, these other things become amplified.

Labor's crisis is one of conviction - of not knowing what it stands for, as distinct from the Liberal Party on its right, and increasingly, as distinct from the Greens on its left.

This is not unique to Labor parties around the world - most social democrats in Europe now find themselves completely out of power as well. Since many went down the road of co-opting many of the doctrines of neoliberalism, what makes them different than conservative governments?

On social policy, the divisions have been clear. You could summarise them as "the culture wars". With such a wide ranging economic consensus between conservatives and social democrats, these culture wars have become amplified as the sole focus of politics. And yet, it's that very economic consensus, not spoken about, that actually makes a difference in people's day-today standard of living.

Perhaps we need to go back to a very fundamental question - what is Social Democracy? Why does it exist as an ideology? Why were political parties formed, with names like "The Labour Party", or the "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SDP)", or "Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti"? Why was there a special place on the political spectrum called "social democracy, somewhere in between socialism and liberalism? And more importantly, knowing this, where does it sit in a modern context?

What does Social Democracy stand for, as distinct from:

1. Neoliberalism/conservatism on the right
2. Pure Socialism on the left
3. Green Politics

The difference between S.D. and Liberalism/Conservatism/Neoliberalism

Liberalism is about the individual rights and responsibilities of a person under the law. Neoliberalism is about the economics of an "individual" in the market. Both of these philosophies stress smal government and the promotion of the individual as an economic actor and his/her rational decisions. It rejets collectivism and government intervention as an "impurity", and that the economic good is best served when markets are allowed to function without state intrusion.

Social democracy stresses the rights and responsibilities of people, and the economics of common people and workers. Social democracy recognises that markets are fallible and don't produce the best social outcomes if left to themselves. Social democracy realises that there are powerful forces in society that screw over workers, and they thus must be reigned in by a state that pursues the common economic good.

The difference between Socialism and S.D

Socialism promotes ownership of the means of production by the state, and the abolition of private markets. It views the market as the problem - creating an unjust society that does not act in the economic interests of workers, and that the answer is to abolish the market.

Social Democracy accepts public ownership as necessary in public goods, utilities, and some industries. It believes in universal public services as a way of narrowig the gap between rich and poor.

Social democracy believes in markets as "creators" of wealth under the right circumstances but it does not believe that markets distribute wealth fairly and equitably due to unequal power relations. Therefore social democracy believes that government may have to act to soften to market through eithr government regulation or direct state competition to keep it running properly (eg Medibank Private, Australia post).

The difference between Green Politics and S.D.

This is a contentious area because the Australian greens have stolen a lot of political ground that used to belong to Labor. Putting this aside, Green politics comes from a slightly different political tradition.

Green politics grew out of the environmentalist movement - and particularly takes inspiration from the idea of conservation.

To "conserve" is actually a conservative instinct, applied to the environment. It states that the environment is worth saving, because the environment is beautiful, animals and plants and native flora and fauna are worth conserving in themselves.

Social democracy and green politics will often converge on matters of policy. But the thing that seperates the conservation movement from social democracy is the philosophical approach to the environment.

Green politics prioritises the environment above all other things, often regardless of the impact on other things. There are some environmentalists out there who would gladly see logging in old growth forests stopped tomorrow, without considering the impact on a worker's job or living standards. Many green activists and voters are (or were) people who would chain themselves to trees to try and stop it happening.

Social democracy views environmental issues not just from a conservation perspective, but also from a humanist perspective. It does not believe in saving the environment just for its own sake, but rather because environmental damage can also be bad for humans. For example, certain types of pollution disproportionally affect working people, like poor air and water quality. The destruction of the environment can be bad for humans as well, for example, declining fish stocks and coral reef damage will affect the living standards of communities. A lack of sustainability in something like the logging industry can also eventually destroy jobs. And of course, the big one, climate change - if not for the fact that climate change would negatively affect human beings, social democracy would view it as something to be managed or accomodated, rather than actively attacked head on.

So what is social democracy?

1. The common good for workers and the middle class - including taking on big, powerful interests. Collectivism, not individualism.

2. The reduction of inequality, by the state providing public services as a way of reducing the rich/poor gap

3. The Market as our servant and not our master. State ownership of public goods, state participating in some markets, state regulations in others to ensure good social and economic ends

4. A humanist approach to the environment

5. A foreign policy that acknowledges power relations, but is outward looking and multilateral

6. Social policies that aim to eliminate discrimination under the law and in society, particularly against working australians and minority groups

What isn't social democracy?

1. Liberalism and neoliberalism

2. Individualism over collectivism

3. "Choice" or "nudge" economics that assumes a fair and competitive playing field can be created simply by providing people with more information so they can make a "good choice"

4. Environmentalism without a human focus or perspective

5. Pure socialism or a command economy as the solution in all circumstances

My thoughts on Julian Assange and Wikileaks

There can be no doubt this man has made many enemies over his lifetime. Many powerful ones.

It is premature to suggest that his sexual assault allegations are "trumped up". Those sorts of allegations are serious and have to be investigated. The fact that he has turned himself in suggests that he's happy to face them down and protest his innocence.

Beyond those allegations, is Julian Assange guilty of any crime?

The answer, of course, should be no.

Anyone in the Australian public service who leaked such information be guilty of treason. At best, they would be protected under whistleblower legislation if the documents they leaked exposed gross corruption or negligence.

Julian Assange is neither a whistleblower, nor someone guilty of treason. He is not employed by any government. His organisation basically runs a "drop box" for people to provide leaks to, anonymously if necessary. He then publishes them on his website.

His organisation is basically a media organisation that reports the facts by publishing the documents. In the past, leaked documents would be handed to newspapers, who would then report on the story. Today, the documents themselves are freely accessable by anyone. What's the difference? the public still gets the information. In fact now, it's easier than ever. Which is probably the point, as far as many governments are concerned. It's too easy now. And governments don't trust Julian Assange to self-censor stuff that could be potentially explosive.

Assange is no more guilty of reporting sensitive information than the news organisations that have repeated his scoops worldwide. And many of his scoops have been substantial, from leaks of diplomatic cables on afghanistan, evidence of war crimes in iraq, evidence of corporate crime, and other juicy diplomatic cables like Saudi Arabia wanting to attack Iran, and Sweden being a secret member of NATO.

Julian Assange is guilty of nothing more than exposing the world's dirty laundry. For this we should thank him. If he is indeed guilty of sexual assault, he deserves to be punished.