What Is Living and What Is Dead in Swedish Social Democracy?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What is living and what is dead in Swedish social democracy? Magnus Ryner Seeming to confirm that politics proceeds through Third Way par excellence, Anthony Giddens, seeks contradiction, the essentials of a neoliberal project to contribute to resolving the difficulties of the Third – the subordination of the social to market discipline Way articulation by fusing neoliberal economics with – has been consolidated in Europe by social-democratic more communitarian sentiments that draw on recent governments. As yet another political project which developments in ʻreflexive sociologyʼ. is referred to as ʻthe Third Wayʼ, this articulation of In this article I criticize the trajectory of Giddensʼs social democracy with economic liberalism sets high The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy2 demands on ideology, understood in the Gramscian exactly at the level where Giddens seeks to pitch it: sense as a multi-levelled phenomenon that contains and as a social-scientific/philosophical justification of a fuses a wide range of more or less coherent discursive neoliberalization of social democracy. In this endeav- forms from ʻcommon senseʼ to ʻphilosophyʼ. our, I am joining a growing chorus of Left critics.3 Ideology in this sense is a material practice, with The distinct contribution of my critique is its refer- the function to ʻcementʼ (or, better, interpellate) multi- ence to research on Swedish social democracy and its farious, stratified and antagonistic segments of society crisis in the wake of neoliberal globalization. Such a into a broad political direction. Politicians and mass focus on the ʻSwedish modelʼ can be justified for two parties play a strategic role in this context as ʻorganic reasons. First, the Swedish model was for a long time intellectualsʼ, as it is they who take on the task of a paradigmatic case for the European reformist Left, ensuring this coherence. In this practice they deploy a because of its perceived capacity to integrate economic number of discursive techniques at different levels of and distributive rationality. Whilst there was a lot of civil and political society. These range from ʻspin-doc- simple-minded hubris associated with this, I argue toringʼ to internal party work and policy formulation, that this has now resulted in an equally simple-minded and assume different forms depending on what specific disillusionment. My exposition seeks to demonstrate context of civil/political society they are directed at. In that there are many positive lessons for the Left to terms of content, provided that it is possible to achieve learn from the legacy of the Swedish model, which operational coherence at the policy level, heterogeneity can help meet the urgent need of formulating concrete in ʻthe messageʼ and even factionalism are not neces- alternatives. The second reason for focusing on Sweden sarily a weakness, but rather a strength, since this is because a closer reading of The Third Way makes increases the range of interests and identities that can it clear that crucial passages in Giddensʼs dismissal of be integrated into the political project. In other words, what he calls ʻtraditional social democracyʼ rest on a the successful mass party elaborates and mediates dif- faulty interpretation of the crisis of the Swedish model ferent and heterogeneous interpretations of ʻcommon in the 1990s. senseʼ, with a coherent and operational political strat- The thesis I seek to defend is that Giddensʼs attempt egy within the state in a way that is also consistent to reconcile radical democratic principles (ʻno author- with socio-economic developments. In this process, ity without democracyʼ) with neoliberal socio-eco- social scientists and philosophers may under certain nomic discipline (ʻno rights without responsibilitiesʼ) conditions play a crucial role, providing ideological is flawed and cannot escape the essential limitations discourse with a special logical coherence, direction on democratic citizenship exerted by commodification. and authority. The cosmopolitan intellectual1 of the This is masked in the Third Way through a sleight- Radical Philosophy 117 (January/February 2003) 23 of-hand through which very different types of risk This reading allows him to treat the imperative for – ecological, social and financial risk – are treated as democratic civic involvement in ecological risk- if they were one and the same. This conflation of types management as equivalent and synonymous with the of risk ignores not only that the incidence of risk is risk that the individual faces in the management of systematically unevenly distributed in capitalism, but his or her pension, unemployment and health. In this also that the radical democratic citizenship which the context ecological, social and financial risk are treated challenge of ecological risk requires is undermined as if they had the same ontological quality: taking by the exposure to social and financial risk that the responsibility for the environment and oneʼs mutual institutions of the Third Way imply. In short, radical fund become one and the same. democracy presupposes exactly the decommodification From the point of view of political and ideological strategies and social citizenship which Giddens would practice this conflation is cunning, because it recon- have the Left abandon. ciles within the neoliberal social-democratic project It is for that reason that it is interesting to reconsider conflicting economic demands with demands for legiti- the structural reforms of the welfare state that the macy, social representation and civic participation. As Swedish Left mobilized around, and partly imple- a result it justifies on a philosophical-theoretical level mented, in the 1970s and the 1980s. I argue that these a broad alliance of interests that otherwise would not reforms provide important clues for how one might, be reconcilable. This parallels the practical politics of within the context of post-Fordist forces of production ʻNew Labourʼ in Britain, and its aim to be all-inclusive and late-modern patterns of societalization, plausibly and construct a ʻpolitics without enemiesʼ, but ignores construct a politics of ʻno authority without democracyʼ. real and concrete political cleavages and antagonisms Contrary to what Giddens implies, this Swedish model in an unequal society. did not falter due to economic dysfunctions. Rather, [New Labour] speaks as if there are no longer any the crisis was politically determined: the requisite conflicting interests which cannot be reconciled. It power mobilization on the Left did not materialize therefore envisages a ʻpolitics without adversariesʼ. because of the limitations and contradictions implied This suggests that by some miracle of transcendence in the integration of the organizations of the reform- the interests represented by, say, the ban on tobacco ist Left into the management of the capitalist state. advertising and ʻFormula Oneʼ, … ethical foreign This confirms the continued relevance of Poulantzasʼs policy and the sale of arms to Indonesia, media diversity and the concentrated drive-to-global-power analysis in State, Power, Socialism. of Rupert Murdochʼs media empire have been ef- fortlessly ʻharmonisedʼ on a Higher Plane, above The conflation of risk politics.5 I will not argue against Giddensʼs principle of ʻno authority without democracyʼ. The problem is rather Of course, one cannot deny that ʻpositive-sum gamesʼ that it is irreconcilable with ʻno rights without respon- and social compromises are possible. Indeed, it is sibilitiesʼ. Giddens does, to be sure, imply the contrary difficult to envisage any social-democratic politics, and links neoliberal economics with radical partici- past, present or future, without it, and indeed the 6 patory politics. The link is made, via Beck, with ʻFordist compromiseʼ was essentially about this. But reference to a generic conception of ʻriskʼ. such positive-sum games are based on particular con- ditions. Giddensʼs conflation of risk obscures rather Providing citizens with security has long been a than clarifies an analysis of these conditions, and concern of social democrats. The welfare state has pretends that there is scope for positive-sum solutions been seen as the vehicle of social security. One where there is none. It is far-fetched indeed to suggest of the main lessons to be drawn from ecological questions is that just as much attention needs to be that Beckʼs conception of ecological risk is of the given to risk. The new prominence of risk con- same ontological quality as the kind of risk that is nects individual autonomy on the one hand with the associated with the management of financial assets, sweeping influence over scientific and technologi- which so severely constrain welfare states through cal change on the other. Risk draws attention to the globalized financial markets. The same goes for the dangers we face – the most important of which we kind of risk that wage-labour faces on the labour have created for ourselves – but also to the oppor- tunities that go along with them. Risk is not just a market. Furthermore, the ʻhuman energiesʼ required negative phenomenon – something to be avoided in the pursuit of a job and in the choice of a mutual or minimized. It is at the same time the energizing fund, on the one hand, and in civic involvement and principle of a society that has broken away from in the reasonable consideration of our actions in light tradition and nature.4 24 Radical Philosophy 117 (January/February 2003) of ecological risk, on the other hand, are hardly one Giddens