Democratic Socialism would be an improvement over Capitalism/Social Democracy

For this last round I’ll begin by tackling Con’s points in round 4 before making my final plea! Con attacks direct democracy on the basis of its inefficiency – the example of Switzerlandshould be enough to refute this, but even if direct democracy did hurt efficiency, it would still solve the problem of courruption in an extremely effective manner. To argue that this would not be desireable is to imply that efficiency requires a certain degree of corruption, an observation that should make us question our allegiance to efficiency. Con suggests an alternative method of tackling corruption, namely, publically funded campaigns. Firstly, I am not sure that I have argued explicitly that the problem with liberal democracy is ‘corruption’, that is, elected officials not doing what they say they will or enriching themselves at public expense. David Cameron’s Conservative government in the UK has done more or less what it said it would – conduct wide-spread austerity. The problem, under capitalism and social democracy (regulated capitalism) is that the range of promises it is possible for a politician to make is already almost entirely dictated by market conditions and the power of big business. It was not the ‘corrupt’ mentality of Tony Blair that set New Labour down its right-wing path and corruption is not fuelling Cameron’s war against the working class; both were conditioned by the economic laws of capitalism itself. A serious issue with publically funded campaigns is the question of who gets funded. Is every single political party, even those with only 1 member, going to get the same amount? This would quickly bankrupt the treasury. The only option would be to give out funds on the basis of electoral support, which would be an enormous handicap to smaller parties. More equal campaign funding would also have no effect on the policies of governments once elected – they would be under no firmer mandate to enact the will of the electorate than before. Only direct democracy ensures that the people have a voice in parliament. A more constructive measure in the short term, however, would be proportional representation in the UK, making parliament less of a binary war and more of an accurate representation of national opinion. Con denies that inequality and exploitation increase under social democracy relative to capitalism – this is, of course, formally true. But there are no free market capitalist societies – all forms of capitalism eventually become social democracies; it is probably the case that social democracy is the only thing which keeps capitalism alive in the long run. Inequality and exploitation are thus at the maximum possible levels under social democracy, given historical conditions and a set degree of working-class resistance. While Con is correct to point out that wages kept pace with productivity in the mid-20th century, this proved unsustainable given the demands of capital accumulation and the increasing globalisation of the economy. Today, equality has taken a complete back-seat to growth, as it always has (the fifties and sixties were the unique combination of a giant economic boom, post-war reconstruction in europe, U. S. hegemony and control of the gold supply and the ascendency of the left following the great depression and war). Exploitation is by definition larger than ever – less of the value that workers produce is given back to them that at any other time since the industrial revolution. Con is right to say that part of why we feel politically apathetic is because we don’t think our vote will count – but why do we feel this way? We know that our vote will count, in the formal sense. We feel apathetic because the range of choice we have between parties is no pitifully small – all capitalist and social democratic parties tailor their policies towards growth and productivity, making only the smallest concessions to democracy and equality. A balance absolutely needs to be struck between growth and leisure or consumption, but I see absolutely no reason why democracy should be in any way hamstrung by the needs of capital accumulation. If growth asserts itself as an objective necessity, a democratically empowered electorate should be the agent of political power that responds to that necessity. If democracy really is antithetical to growth, then we should recognise that growth alienates us from control over our lives and choose democracy instead. On minorities: equality is, by definition, in most people’s interests. Inequality can only possibly be in the interests of a small minority, the minority on the winning side of inequality. If everybody votes in their own interests and has their votes genuinely taken into account by a directly democratic system, there is very little chance, at least in the sphere of economics, that any minority would be harmed. For instance, if people are to vote on a national minimum wage increase, this increase will go to the minority as well as to the majority. If, due to growth constraints, people vote for an increase in the working week, again, the minority is affected in equal measure as the majority. I appreciate that both Con and myself see the necessity of balancing growth and wages/consumption. Con sees this balance as being best achieved by social democracy, which retains the efficiency of markets whilst making some concessions to the working class and its demands. My issue with this is that, first and foremost, the responsibility for negotiating this balance does not lie with the people, as I have repeatedly emphasized. Instead, it lies with governments who’s policies will forever be geared towards tipping this balance in favour of growth. This is not because they are evil, but because the capitalist class, to which the political class acts as a kind of diplomatic arm, continues to dictate the direction in which societies must move. A democratic socialist economy is absolutely capable of being efficient – a society is, afterall, the sum of its parts. Both capitalist and socialist economies are made up of people working. Short of increasing exploitation, there is no particular reason to assume that a capitalist society will be more efficient that a democratic socialist one. The only advantage capitalist economies have over socialist economies in terms of efficiency is that they are willing to force workers to work harder for less money. The role of incentives and entrepreneurialism is seriously exaggerated by liberal and bourgoise discourse. Conscious planning by an empowered electorate rests on the same limited material basis as the anarchy of production under capitalism – technological and organizational horizons of knowledge combined with the demand for a particular level of wages and consumption on the part of workers. People will only work so hard, and can only produce so much with given technology and organisational structures. Social scientists have long been telling us that the way to break down these barriers (to get people to work harder, to improve technology, and to streamline organisational structures) is absolutely not economic incentivisation. The main reason people work is to live and to get better at things. Once workers are guaranteed a job and a living wage, as they would be under socialism, they will have the time and the inclination to excel. All an economy needs is hard-working people who are good at things; capitalism and social democracy aim to achieve this by forcing people to work with the threat of unemployment and poverty, and by setting carrots of money on sticks out of reach of the majority of the population. This is not the way to produce happy, empowered and productive workers who enjoy their labour and desire to do more of it. Put people in control of their labour and their society, as a democratic socialist society would do, and you will get the most out of people that it is materially possible to get. Thanks to Con for a fantastic debate; I’ve thoroughly enjoyed myself!