192. A
way out for socialism?
Socialism
seems spent and stale. A new direction is needed. Central notions of
individualism, equality and solidarity are up for revision.
Individualism
used to be oriented towards autonomy, freedom, and self-interest of the
individual, but with a shared responsibility for society
Equality
was seen as shared identity, participation in a universal humanity, as a basis
for universal rights. There may be quantitative but not qualitative difference.
You may have more but you are not better than another.
Solidarity came
to mean that everyone had to share in prosperity, in distributive justice.
These were
the points of orientation for what Sennett, in his book on cooperation[i],
called the ‘Political Left’. This stands in contrast with what he called the ‘Social
Left’. The political Left is oriented towards unity in the form of universal,
codified equality of position, in top-down solidarity, bureaucratically
imposed, with cooperation as a tool. The social Left is oriented towards diversity
combined with inclusion, access to resources, in a variety of capabilities, in
bottom-up solidarity, with cooperation as an end.
The Political
Left is organized, structured, with a stable script of rule-based order to
secure harmony. The Social Left is self-organized, with an orientation to
process, allowing for diversity. The first seeks to eliminate risk. The second
accepts risk, in the tension of combining collaboration and rivalry, yielding
emergence of shifting forms of order. Identity is not seen as given but as in
progress. Life without risk is lifeless.
The
political Left came to dominate socialism, and fought for the old ideals of
equality and solidarity. That led to an excess of social arrangements, and a
mentality of dependence, passiveness, pityfulness, and shirking of
responsibility. That caused resentment, which corroded solidarity. The market
seemed to be the alternative, with Adam Smith’s invisible hand of self-interest
yielding prosperity. That required socialism to shed its ideological feathers.
But
then the market also turned out to be imperfect. It derailed in excesses of
cupidity, conceit and remuneration of managers, financial crises, power of
money in politics, tax evasion by corporations, destruction of the environment,
a widening gap between rich and poor, and social distress in low wage
countries. And then socialism stood empty-handed.
Rosanvallon
proposed a shift of the concepts of individualism, freedom, and solidarity, as
discussed in items 150-162 of this blog.[ii]
Equality
made way to diversity. Individualism became oriented to self-realization of the
unique individual.
Self-realization
turned into narcissism, wanting to see oneself mirrored in others, rather than
recognizing their difference as interesting and a source of insight.
Responsibility
for society crumbled. Rosanvallon called this ‘singularity’. Sennett talks of
‘withdrawal’ from society and cooperation. That further contributed to the
decay of solidarity.
Fundamental
for a new notion of solidarity is the view that for their development people
need different others to learn from opposition to one’s own prejudice. That
requires openness, reciprocity, and not only toleration but also appreciation
of difference, as Sennett argued in his book and as I have argued in this blog.
Equality
not of identity but of relation. Not a redistribution of outcomes (income,
capital), but equal access to resources of knowledge, work, influence, and
networks.
Does all this
perhaps yield a basis for a re-orientation of socialism? It could be
politically viable. Solidarity as reciprocity yields a connection with
Christian-democrats, and a challenge to neo-liberalism. Individualism as
diversity and equality not in outcomes but in access to resources connects with
liberalism. Identity as change is a challenge to conservatives. Also to
socialism, to extricate itself from entrenched rights and positions. Acceptance
of change and risk, not to play safe too much. That connects with old instincts
of progressiveness. And it yields scope for entrepreneurs, an electorate neglected
by socialism.
It will be difficult to get risks and inequality in outcomes accepted. One must determine the limits and conditions for them. With a basic income, for example, as I proposed in item 154 of this blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment