Solidarity and Democracy
The second half of the 20th century was defined, most and foremost, by a long cold war between the world’s two remaining superpowers, the capitalist and democratic United States and the communist and autocratic Soviet Union. The duel was solved in favor of the United States in the last decade of the century, almost suddenly, in the space of two or three years. The contest was not decided on the battlefield, however. In the proxy wars of the cold war era there was often no clear winner, even though one can make the argument that the communist victory in Vietnam put the soviets in the lead as far as military conflicts were concerned. Then again, the Soviet calamitous defeat in Afghanistan a decade or so later arguably hurt the Soviets more than the Vietnam debacle hurt the United States. In any case, in the end it wasn’t a military victory that settled the dispute but rather the social and economic implosion of the Soviet Union driven by its economic shortcomings and its social and independentist tensions. When all was said and done, the American political and economic model worked quite well, whereas in the Soviet Union economic collapse quickly led to the disintegration of the union of Soviet republics created some seven decades earlier. Capitalism triumphed over communism. Democracy triumphed over autocracy and the American model seemed, at least for a short while, the only model. And yet two decades into the 21st century, the right vs left debate seems livelier than ever, and is prevalent in the political battlefields of Europe, the United States and Latin America.
The fight between right and left continues, even if it has changed remarkably. Capitalism won the battle against communism decisively, we should make no mistake about that. With the exception of some of communism’s last bastions, such as Cuba and North Korea, all of the truly important communist countries have either completely abandoned communism or, like Chin, have come up with its own version of a market-driven, semi-communist modern economy. The communism of Lenin, Stalin and Mao, however, is long dead and buried.
And yet the struggle between right and left remains. The matter is that the right and the left have essentially changed. The right today represents a market economy that knows few boundaries. It promotes the rights of corporations, individualism over collectivism and it places a great emphasis on the needs of the economy, often even bove the needs of society at large and certainly above the needs of the environment and the animal kingdom.
The truly relevant left today has parted from its communist roots and settled on the ideal of social democracy. It doesn’t go as far as wanting to abolish private property like the communists of old, yet it does propose an economic system that favors individual needs above the needs of the big corporations. Political leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the United States or Lula da Silva and Dilma Roussef in Brazil have made a name for themselves defending the needs of the poor and the middle-class over the prerogatives of big corporations and the rich. The left today seeks to add a social and collective component to the freedom of the markets and enact laws and promote initiatives that limit the power of corporations.
Meanwhile in Europe, many of the goals of the left in the United States have already been made into a reality, such as universal healthcare and higher education. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden or Switzerland have developed very robust social welfare systems, which coexist with competitive, highly developed market economies.
It is uncertain which side will ultimately win the battle, but right and left are likely to remain at each other’s throats for decades to come. My intention here is certainly not to make an exhaustive argument for either side, yet I would like to make some remarks on the issue of democracy, the economy, and collective solidarity as a guiding principle for modern society.
It makes perhaps the most sense to start with the issue of democracy, since in almost every Western country at least, there is agreement between left and right that democracy is a better system than autocracy. As I pointed out in the last section, even though democracy is not without its flaws, it is better than the alternatives. I also pointed out that even though democracy seems secure today, we should not take it for granted since both in Ancient Rome and Greece and in the early 20th century we saw the fall of proud democracies, often at the hands of powerful demagogues. It is because of this that democratic institutions must always remain strong, and populist leaders with too much power and autocratic tendencies must be vigorously opposed.
It is also very possible that a free-market economy is a necessary condition for a democracy, even though it is obviously not a sufficient condition. As such, if for no other reason, both the modern right and the modern left should be in agreement that the free market is necessary for freedom as well as prosperity to be had, even if the freedom of the market does not need to be, and perhaps should not be, absolute.
The question then is really how much freedom we should actually give the market, and conversely how much should governments intervene in the economy. The right argues that the government should intervene very little and that the market should be given almost absolute freedom. The left argues in favor of more government intervention in order to correct the negative effects produced by a free market economy. Which one is right?
It is beyond the scope of this essay and the capacity of this writer to provide an absolute answer to such a question, yet I will attempt to shine a little bit of light on the issue by making two or three considerations on the subject. The first and most important consideration is that individuals are not islands, everyone is connected to everyone both socially and economically. Hence the libertarian notions of independent economic agents have little to do with how society actually works. As such, the housewife who takes care of her two children receives no pay in dollars or pounds, even though her contribution to society in the form of rearing two of its youngest members is considerable. This example should shine some light on the fact that value to society and economic remuneration are not always, perhaps not even often, aligned. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the successful day-trader who makes thousands of dollars in a given month or week adds no value whatsoever to society, simply profiting from the fluctuations of the stock-market. Effort and contribution are not always repaid proportionally according to the lows of the free market.
In order to function well, a society must prepare its members to perform necessary tasks and should then compensate them in an appropriate manner. In order for this to happen, not everything can be left in the market’s hands. It is the government, not the free market, that must pay the school teacher, the policeman, the mailman, the firmean, the soldier and the magistrate.
It should then be clear at this point that in many ways the market alone is not sufficient as the sole architect of the economy of a country. Any society will need the government to be a participant of the economy, alongside individuals and organizations.
From the moment we admit the vital role of the government in any economy, as we just have, it is silly to suppose that the free-market alone can guide the economy of any society. A healthy and free economy is not a libertarian paradise of unrestricted economic freedom, but a balanced compromise between the several components that make up any society, such as a central government, for-profit enterprises, non-profit associations, private individuals and their families.
It is similarly misguided to suppose that the only two alternatives for any economic system are either pure socialism or unrefrained free-market capitalism. Such a line of thinking is perhaps a legacy of the cold war era and the economic dogmas it produced, yet it has no place in the reality of the third decade of the 21st century and beyond.
In fact, looking at virtually every country in the northern portion of the European continent, and even to the rest of the continent to some extent, we are encouraged to think that a middle way, or as it has also been called “a third way”, is not only possible but highly desirable. A quick glance at Canada, Australia or New Zealand would produce the same result. These nations have added, quite successfully, a social dimension to their competitive free-market economies, expanding the role of the government in areas such as education, healthcare and childcare and also developing a robust network of welfare and social programs. Not only has this proven sustainable, it has also led to societies that can boast of having the highest quality of life indexes in the world.
Economics is a highly complicated and uncertain science so in no way I intend to decipher its mysteries here, lacking both the time and the capacity to do so. Yet, it is not complicated to look at real-world cases and to make sincere assessments on what works and does not work for regular citizens in present day nation-states. As I just mentioned, a sincere assessment of the economies of Northern Europe will lead to the conclusion that a market-driven economy can successfully add and sustain social components without becoming unsuccessful. As such, we should naturally regard it as a possibility to have a thriving market economy on one hand, and having social programs such as public healthcare, wellfare, childcare and higher education on the other. Such an arrangement is currently working in countries all over the world such as Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Germany and many others.
Having established, with the help of irrefutable real-world evidence, that free-market economies can remain competitive whilst incorporating elements of social good such as wide access to healthcare and education, I would like to make my second assertion, which is that “third way” or “middle way”economies work better for the general population than “pure” capitalist or socialist economies.
This second assertion is perhaps not as self-evident as the first and yet a brief comparison between “middle way” or “third way” countries and either pure socialist or capitalist countries gives a definite edge to the more balanced economies. To reach such a conclusion one does not have to resort to overly complex economic, philosophical or political theories of any kind. It suffices to ask ourselves in which country we would prefer to live given the choice or, even better, under which system we would like to live under if we could choose any of the three options for our own country?
Pure socialist or communist countries do not fare well if we apply this rule. It is not a coincidence that most communist countries were either dissolved or changed their economic systems over the course of a century of communism. The most influential of communist countries, the Soviet Union, ended up imploding economically, socially and politically, and was disintegrated into 15 separate republics, all of which dropped communism in its pure form. The second biggest communist power, China, has reinvented itself as its own blend of authoritarianism and aggressive capitalist tendencies with just a hint of its former socialism. One of the newest members of the communist family, Venezuela, quickly fell into a well of despair filled with economic collapse, social unrest and violent politics bordering on a civil war. The most faithful of communist regimes that remain, Cuba and North Korea, have grown accustomed to varying degrees of poverty, international ostracism, underdevelopment and totalitarianism. It is no surprise that as a result of this the communist doctrine has been largely delegitimized, at least in its “purer” version.
Perhaps a more relevant debate today concerns the comparison between “purer” forms of capitalism such as the American system and more hybrid models like the ones adopted by northern European democracies, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This debate has largely dominated American politics for the better part of this century and especially in recent years, but it is also prevalent in European and Latin American politics. The right vs left divide is as pronounced now as it ever was. We should then ask ourselves if given the chance we would either 1) prefer to live under under a purer capitalist model with the State providing few social services, with high economic inequality and with corporations yielding immense economic and political power or; 2) we would rather live under a northern European styled model, with an extensive web of social services, low income inequality and a society where corporations have much less economic and political power.
Both camps have vocal partidaries and ultimately, in spite of the great success achieved in the political, social and economic realm by “third way” economies, one could hardly designate an aggressively capitalist economy such as the United States as a failure. Ultimately, one has to decide between paying fewer taxes or living in a country that provides ample healthcare, childcare, education and other important social services to all its citizens, regardless of economic status. It will also depend on one’s views on income inequality and the growing power of corporations. I feel that I’m unable to deliver any definitive arguments in favor of either option, even though I cannot help but think that balanced economic systems tend to offer the best of both worlds (social justice and economic prosperity), whereas an unrestrained free-market economy delivers a great deal of social injustice along with economic gains which overall seems like the worse deal of the two.
Most importantly, however, at least in my opinion, is the notion of solidarity as a political, social and economic guide for the future of humankind. We’ve spent a great deal not only of the past decade or century but of our all history competing with each other, taking from each other, competing for resources. Most of human history has been marked by the subjugation of one set of people in favor of a different set of people. This is particularly evident in younger societies such as those in the western hemisphere, and yet it is a commonality of the entire human species. For the first time in the history of our species we have the chance of changing that dynamic. Under the auspice of liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights and international cooperation we can start building a world where every single man, woman and child can live with dignity and without fear of starvation, misery and constant violence. This is not yet the world we live in, but we have the chance of building that world. One of the keys to do so is starting to emphasize our commonalities more than our differences, and being more solidary and less selfish.
That applies not only to the world at large, but also for each individual society. In my opinion we already have too much economic disparity between the rich and the poor, we don’t need the gap to grow wider and the middle class to continue to shrink. Modern prosperous economies like the United States owe much of their strength to thriving middle class, with great political as well as economic power. If the middle class loses its economic and political power in favour of the 1 percent and the big corporations, not only will the economy weaken, democracy will also become more fragile. The notion of democracy, the rule by the people, rests on the idea of a powerful populus, capable of asserting its dominance over the aristocracy or the oligarchy. If the people become powerless, democracy will become nothing but an illusion.
In many developed countries in the world today, things like universal healthcare and childcare, free or affordable higher education, or a strong welfare system are seen as rights conferred to citizens and permanent residents of those countries. In other countries, like the United States, not only do those benefits prove elusive for most of the population, many people argue that they are not rights and should not be a responsibility of the state at all. The result is that many people cannot afford to obtain university degrees, access affordable childcare or even go to the hospital and obtain treatment when sick.
If we abide by the principle of solidarity, we should recognize that a fair community should provide treatment for the sick even if they are poor. In a society that strives for fairness and equality, even the poor should be given the chance to better themselves through education. In a society moved by solidarity, we should recognize that childcare is a social responsibility and that if a person loses his or her job, he or she should not lose the ability to go to a hospital when sick or lose his or her home because he or she cannot make the rent or the mortgage payment that month. Ultimately, we should all have the right and the responsibility to help and be helped, since we are all part of the same community.
The Way Ahead
The Coronavirus pandemic has forced most of us to retreat to our homes and spend a lot of time in isolation along with our families and the other people we share our homes with. Many of us, myself included, will take this time to reflect on what kind of world we would like to return to and this is really what this essay is all about.
For tens of thousands of years humans have played the game of politics by yielding a sword, pointing a spear or aiming a gun at their fellow humans. In the 20th century we added tanks, planes and, perhaps most significantly, atomic bombs to that equation. However, the sheer destructive capacity of modern warfare technology, demonstrated emphatically in two world wars, has forced us to reconsider politics in general and international relations in particular. It is very well possible that, recalling the words of Mao Zedong, political power still grows out of the barrel of a gun, evn in our days. However, it is also true that events like the two world wars, the holocaust, and the invention, use and proliferation of atomic bombs have forced us to reconsider things. We have established mechanisms of international cooperation such as the United Nations and the European Union because we know that war is now too costly, and that we have much more to gain from international collaboration than from a new world war. We must not forget the lessons we learned in the past century, and how much they cost us, or else we may be fated to repeat the same mistakes. Populism and nationalism have made a resurgence in recent years in many countries, so it is particularly important now, maybe more than ever, that we remind ourselves of the dangers posed by nationalism and populism. The way forward is the way of diplomacy and cooperation between nations.
At a time of great economic disruption such as this, we should also consider the ways in which we can create a society that is more prosperous, fairer and more solidary. The right vs left debate rages on in the 21st century, now with different players. Regardless of the outcome or one’s political inclinations, this might be the ideal time to remind ourselves that we all depend on each other. We are not islands of economic activity. The unpaid housewife raising her children contributes to society as much or more than the wall street broker, regardless of salary or the zeros in their bank accounts. In a fair community we should not deny medical treatment to the poor or the unemployed, and we should not deny the poor the possibility of bettering themselves and improving the lives of their families by going to University. Even more importantly, we should not forget that we are all part of the same community and as such we should look out for each other. Public health, public education and public decency affect all, because when we live in a community, our fates are entwined.
Finally, we should look ahead with hope and confidence. More than any other time in our history we have the tools to build a world that is fair, safe and prosperous for all men, women and children, not just one tribe, or one nation, or one ethnicity or one social class. Yet we must not disregard the challenges ahead, some dramatic and global in nature. We cannot keep destroying our own planet with impunity. We must create an economy that is more sustainable and fairer. We cannot give in to fear of the other once more. We cannot give in to the temptation of isolationism or seek quick comfort in nationalism. The world is now global, our challenges are global in nature and we must band together to face them. It is time for more understanding and stricter cooperation between peoples. This should be the age of internationalism and human rights. This should be the time when we finally make politics more human and decide to share all the world has to offer us, if we let it.
No comments:
Post a Comment