BRITISH LIBRARY OF POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE lO,PORTUGAL STREET, LONDON WC2A 2HD Tel. 01-405 7686 fabian tract 438 social democracy in Europe this pamphlet is based on a lecture given at the invitation of the Socialist International by Anthony ·Crosland to a seminar of members of the Costa Rican Government, held in San Jose, Costa Rica in October 1975. this pamphlet, like all publications of the Fabian Society, represents not the collective view of the Society but only the views of the 1individual who prepared it. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving publications it issues as worthy of consideration within the labour movement. Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, london SW1 H 9BN. December 1975 ISBN 7163 0438 4 social democracy in Europe R\ o) !SP I l Sll (I+~8 .., II European ,Socialists are fervently anti-imperialist in principle. But we are not, I fear, above indulging in some cultural imperialism in practice. We sometimes treat our social democracy as a kind of ideological export industry. Having proved (as we think) the quality of our product for home consumption, we naturally want to persuade others to buy it for their own use. In the process, we are apt to ignore the differences in political, economic and social background that make particular features of our form of socialism inappropriate elsewhere. So let me say at once that I recognise the profound differences between the problems which you face, as a social democratic government in Latin America, and the problems which I and my colleagues face, as members of a social democratic government in Europe. Perhaps the most important is the difference between your mainly agrarian economy, and the economies of Western Europe founded on substantial industrial wealth. But there are a host of other differences as well. Your different political culture, in a continent where democratic government is still markedly the exception. Your complex relationship with an immensely powerful United States. Your vital interest in a high and stable price level for your primary products. And so I could go on. These differences make me chary of drawing any direct conclusions for Latin America from the experience of Western Europe: that is a task which I shall leave to you. socialism defined I start by asking th'! basic question : how should we define socialism? We must not subscribe to the faJ.Iacy that some ideal socialist society can be said to exist, of which blueprints can be drawn, and which will be ushered in as soon as certain sr-ecific reforms have been achieved. When presented with such blueprints, we should react as the great liberator Simon Bolivar reacted when, having by then learned many hard lessons in practical politics, he wrote the first of his great manifestos in temporary exile in 1812. He then expressed himself as follows: " The codes consulted by our magistrates were not those which could teach them the practical sciences of government, but were those devised by certain benevolent visionaries who, creating fantastic republics in their imaginations, have sought to attain political perfection, assuming the perfectibility of the human race. Thus we were given philosophers for rulers, philanthropy for legislation, dialectics for tactics, and sophists for soldiers." So we shall not suddenly wake up one day, as many early socialist revolutionaries naively hoped ·and expected, and find that something called " socialism " has arived outside the window. Fort the word " socialism " is not in any way an exact descriptive term, connoting a particular social structure, past, present or even immanent in some ,ideologue's mind. Rather it describes a set of values, of aspirations, of principles which socialists wish to see embodied in the organisation of society. What are these values,? I believe that essentially they are these. First, an overriding concern for the poor, the deprived and generally the underdog, so that when considering the claims on our resources we give an exceptionally high priority to the relief of poverty, distress and social squalor. Secondly, a belief in equality. By equality we mean more than a meritocratic society of equal opportunities, in which unequal rewards would be distributed to those most fortunate in their genetic endowment or family background. We also mean more than a simple redistribution of income. We want a wider social equality embracing the distribution of property, the educational system, social class relationships, pqwer and privilege in industry-indeed, all that is enshrined in the age old socialist dream of a "classless" society. To us, the fundamental divide between Left and Right, socialists and non-socialists, has always been about the distribution of weaith, power and class status. Thirdly, strict social control over the environment-1o enable us to cope with the exploding problems of urban life, to plan the use of our land in the interests of the community, and to diminish the growing divergence between private and social cost in the whole field of environmenta:! pollution. (This is also an aspect of social equality, since the rich can often buy themselves a good environment; only social action can give the less well off the same protection). This is not necessarily an exhaustive list; but when I search my mind, these three aims seem ·to me to constitute the essence of social democracy in 'tlhe 1970s. social democracy and communism How then does social democracy differ from communism ? It differs in two fundamental respects. First it is a thesis about means as well as ends. In particular, it rejects the Marxist thesis that socialism requires, depends on, and indeed can be defined as, the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. The ownership of the means of production is not now, in our view, the key factor which imparts to a society its essential character. Collectivism, private ownership or a mixed economy are all compatible with widely varying degrees of equality, freedom, democracy, exploitation, class feeling, industrial democracy and economic growth. We can therefore pursue our goals within the framework of a mixed economy, with public ownership taking its place as only one of a number of possible means for attaining our objectives. Indeed, I would go further. A mixed economy is essential to social democracy. For while a substantial public sector is clearly needed to give us the necessary control over the economy, complete state collectivism is without question incompatible with liberty and democracy. This leads me to the second and most fundamental difference--indeed, an un bridgeable gulf-between social democracy and communism: namely, that social democracy is democratic. Underlying all our beliefs is a profound concern for liberty, democracy and the rule of law. We refuse to accept that socialism has any meaning except within a framework of liberty for the individual and representative democracy. Democracy today is under threat, as it always has been and always will be. The brutal events in Chile have evoked anxious doubts about the democratic road to socialism in Latin America. The recent developments in India have come as a 'trauma·tic shock to social democrats all over the world. In Portugal the 'balance between democracy and dictatorship is still tragically poised and preca,rious. Less than a month ago 'Mr Brezhnev publicly voiced his support for ~hose hard liners like Konstantin Zarodov, who argue that any cooperation betv. een communist parties and others is only tactical and that communist parties must never lose their hegemony over the working class in the revoluntionary process. Even in Western Europe, there is deep scepticism about the democratic credentials of the powerful French and Italian communist parties. And some pessimists fear the consequences for democracy of a combination of slow economic growth and rapid inflation in societies where rising expectations have developed from aspirations into fierce demands. I want to say a word about Italy which is, after Portugal, the West European coun·try most seriously threatened by communism. 'It is quite wrong to believe that tht. Italian communists are basically different from communists in other countries. What is different is their strategy, their style and perhaps also their record as extremely efficient administrators in local government. But itt would be a disastrous mistake for democrats in Italy, either on the left or on the right, .to believe that the "historic compromise " proposed by the communists can actually be achieved. It is impossible to envisage a communist party in power in Italy which would in th~ long run safeguard democratic principles. ,Jt is impossible to imagine communist rule in Italy without a gradual watering down of basic civil liberties such as freedom of the press. And I certainly cannot see .the Italian communist party, after having come to power by democratic means, allowing their electoral strength to be tested in any subsequent election. For such action would not only contradict ~heir Marxist philosophy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it would also be utter stupidity on their part. And whatever one can and should say about the communists, one can hardly call them fools. These threats and anxieties must make us more resolute, not less, in the defence of liberty. If we want for the future (whatever has happened in the past) to disprove Sim6n Bolivar's poignant prophecy that " many tyrants will arise upon my grave," we must be constantly active, vigilant and resolute. Need we define more closely what we mean by liberty ? 'I doubt it. For we all know what in practice it means to speak our minds quite freely, to write and debate without fear of censorship, to support this democratic party or that, and above all to live without the fear of secret police, arrest, interrogation and torture. The difference between our system and theirs, between Costa Rica and Britain on the one hand and Chile or Soviet Russia on the other , is surdy summed up in a poignant passage in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago: "It seems a virtual fairy tale that somewhere, at the ends of the earth, an accused person can avail himself of a lawyer's help. This means having beside you, in the most difficult moment of your life, 11 clear minded ally who knows the law ." Simple words ; but never was a more eloquent tribute paid to freedom and the rule of law. If I argue for social democracy as against communism, 1 must answer the common but facile question : is not dictatorship more efficient than democracy ? Do w~ not pay a heavy price, in terms for example of economic growth, if we choose the road of freedom and democracy ? My answer, which ·I assert dogmatically, is : No. I call for support on innumerable historica·l examples. When I was growing up in the 1930s, Britain seemed indolent and incompetent, while Nazi Germany appeared a terrifying symbol of ruthless totalitarian competence. Yet in World War II, when the final crunch came, democratic Britain mobilised its resources far more fully and efficiently than Nazi Germany ; and of all the great nations engaged in that war, Mussolini's Italy was incomparably the least efficient. In the immediate post-war years, many of my European colleagues were deeply alarmed by the rapid rate of economic growth in the communist countries, which they attributed to the advantage of dictatorship. But, in fact, if we compare different countries in terms of economic growth, we find no evidence that dictatorships perform better than democracies. The Soviet Union, with her agriculture still a disaster area, is forced to buy 10 million tons of wheat from capitalist America. The rates of growth of Germany and Japan far outstrip those of the of the communist bloc. Some of the least efficient~and most corrupt-countries of the world are to be found amongst the dictatorships. In recent times, authoritarian regimes seized power in Greece and Chile in the name of clean government and economic competence ; both regimes proved a catastrophe. equality with liberty So : our creed is "equality with liberty." How far, in practice, can we achieve it? "The gradual development of the equality of conditions," wrote de Tocqueville, " is therefore a providential fact, and it possesses all the characteristics of a Divine decree : it is universal, it is durable, it constantly eludes all human interference, and all events as well as man contribute to its progress." That was in 1830. Today we would be less certain, for the creed of equality arouses violent opposition. (I refer here solely to equality within nations, though greater equality between nations is, perhaps even more ·important to socia-l democrats). I dea·l first with the opponents on our right. Throughout the 1960s, the antiegaliq. rians in Europe seemed to sense that history was moving against them. In Britain, at least, they lay ·low. But over the past year it is the privileged who have been the worst hit in the current cold economic climate; and they have felt in need of some thicker ideological clothing. So, preached by prominent Conservative politicians, a new brand of Rightism has emerged which openly proclaims (rather than silently hankers after) the virtue and necessity of more inequality. Lesser proponents of this Conservative reaction have not progressed much beyond phrase-mongering. For example, the standard platform speech of British Conservative politicians attacks Labour's belief in equaHty as " the politics of envy." This is the authentic voice of beleaguered privilege. For what Conservatives describe as .the " politics of envy " is no more and no less than a socialist rejection of the claims of the wealthy to a wholly unacceptable degree of privilege. The more sophisticated new Conservatives advance two arguments. First, they argue that greater equality requires higher taxation and public expenditure, and so an ever expanding state bureaucracy; and Conservatives have always (at -least in theory) feared bureaucracy, save perhaps for the police. I dea•l with public expenditure later. But we must take seriously the fears about the growth of state power, especially given the penchant of some socialists for the continual spawning of giant new institutions under centralised control. We should newer forget that a change from private control to state control is socialist only if that control is democratic; a transfer fTom a private bureaucracy to a public bureaucracy in no way furthers the aims of socia.J.ism. We should not be in the business of creating endless giant Leviathans manned by armies of bureaucra