Arif KOŞAR

We are seeing an all out increase in poverty, unemployment, wealth inequality, and people driven to suicide becaause of the economic difficulties they are facing, not only in Turkey but across the world. In this context, a reminder of the “pro-labour” values of social democracy and the work taking place to realise these values are positive things we are hearing of. 

On the one hand there is an increase across the globe in authoritarian, right wing, popularist movements; on the other, in at least some some countries, there appear to be left wing movements of various colours who are giving voice to the demands of the working people. Those in the popular media that have attracted particular attention are the oppositional cluster and movements surrounding Bernie Sanders within the Democrat Party in the USA and Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour Party in the UK. Five years ago we would have needed to include the Syriza movement in Greece and the Podemos movement in Spain to these.

In recent days the Ivme movement, which defines itself has social democrat or “democratic socialists” and which we can say is in the CHP (Turkey’s main opposition party) circles, spoke to Gazete Duvar (an Online Newspaper) and expressed dissatisfaction with the CHP and criticised marxists. According to the interview, they draw their inspiration from Sanders and Corbyn. They are not “statist or nationalist”.

According to the members of the İvme movement the CHP is not a social democrat party in the traditional sense.  What they fail to say is that it is infact a neo-liberal party. In general it is a party of capital, and more specifically it is a mouthpiece for the clique that is Turkey’s monopolistic capital. In the interview they say, ‘CHP is a really old party and because of this it this has a well established order. Hence, it is extremely difficult for CHP to become an anti-system  party’. However, according to the movement, regardless of CHP becoming an anti-establishment force or not, ‘Turkey will be free when social democratic views are realised’ and “it will return to a parliamentary system’.

What social democracy was and what it has become is a seperate discussion. The real issue is whether social democracy or “democratic socialism” has the capacity to resolve the problems it claims to be able to?

SOCIAL STATE NOSTALGIA

Those pushing some form of social democracy tell a weak story about how we came from the “good old days” to todays neo-liberalism. But this story is important. Because it is this weakness is one of the foundations of social democratic hope.

In short, the social democracy tale can be summarised as: Following the Second World War, education, health and social security became public services, particularly in Western Europe. The real wages saw an increase. Social rights were expanded. The unions organisation became stronger. ‘Social states’ which responded to the needs of the working class were formed. A consensus was reached between the working class and the capitalists and this was deemed as a ‘golden era’. All these gains were the result of Social Democracy.

This tale is the reason why the İvme movement sees itself social democracy as defined by the “Bruno Kreisky, Willy Brandt, Olof Palm movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s and as “in support of the working people and out of centre”. However, no matter how you read this tale, there are serious flaws with it. A few to note are:

Firstly, following the 1929 economic crisis international capitalism’s general paradigm was to adopt the Keynesian policies and foresaw government intervention. It wasn’t just the “left” but also right wing governments that were also Keynesian. However, faced with the workers movements and the threat of strong communist parties, Western Europe was forced to adopt  social state polices alongside Keynesian policies. Many rights were the result of this pressure. For example, looking at the increase in real wages we can see that it was not brought about because the bosses thought ‘this is how the period is so we should increase wages’ but rather were won through powerful resistance and large strikes by the working class. The regulatory environment wasn’t the cause it was merely an enabling factor.

Secondly, the Soviet Union and socialism won a clear victory against fascism in the Second World War and gained influence around much of the world. The “social state” was a concession that the capitalist “free” world had make in order to “entice” workers and prevent them turning to socialism.

Thirdly, the exploitation and pressures on the working class, the mechanisms for dominance, the tougher oppressive regimes in the face of increasing resistance, institutional racism and discrimination remained in place. We can see that it was not an idealised ‘golden age’ by looking at the demands put forward by the 68 youth and mass movements, from the workers’ movement itself and in the very least from the experiences of migrant workers. In summary,  a large proportion of the gains made under the label of the “social state” weren’t attributable to social democracy, they were realised through the pressure created by socialism and the workers movement.

HOW DID WE END UP HERE?

The state of the world as a result of privatisation, expropriation of rights, de-unionisation, financialisation, the removal of all obstacles for capital, and the placing of all burdens on the working class is clear. But how did we end up here? 

Despite mass worker and public opposition, it was through the neo-liberal reforms made by the Social Democratic parties in the 1990’s and 2000’s. One of the best known examples is the Harts laws introduced by the SPD in Germany, which made life a living hell for workers – a reform which no right wing government had previously dared even consider for fear of being crushed. The Ivme movement is critical of this. According to them social democracy “has lost its position outside of the centre and its alignment with the working class”

But they are wrong. After the second world war capitalists around the world adopted a Keynesian platform. Hence social democratic parties far from being outside of the centre, are centre stage.  During the economic crisis of 1973-74 which was fuelled by the rising cost of petrol, the notion of a social state was targetted. This period saw an increase in real wages and a fall in the profits of capitalists. Capitalism relies on the accumulation of capital. Drastic falls in the profits of capitalists or the failure to turn existing capital into new investments cause the capitalist economy to cease operating. The use of the 1970’s crisis as an opportunity resolve the problems of the profits of capitalists, wasn’t just a route out of the crisis, it was an existential issue. And it was for this reason that neoliberal policies were pushed greedily, vindictively and using arms. 

It was the problems and dynamics of capitalism and capitalist accumulation which unified the right wing and “left” wing mainstream parties, including the social democrats under one perspective: neoliberalism. Social democrat parties which accepted capitalist restrictions, had to rescue the very thing it had to reform – and that is what they did.

In short, as a capitalist, mainstream and reformist movement, social democracy governed and brought in various social reforms at a time when keynesian politics was popular and there was the threat of “socialism”. These were in keeping with the tendencies and needs of capitalists at the time. However, with the crisis the circumstances changed, this changed the course towards neoliberalism. The conservatives took over the steering wheel. Following public backlash the social democrats gained power again, and because capitalism needed neo-liberalism, this time it introduced neoliberal reforms. When the Ivme movement talks about getting closer to the centre, this is what they are talking about. Reasons aside, they are right about this result. They have moved closer to the centre. But they also moved closer to the centre in previously as well.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY’S CAPITALIST BOUNDARIES

It is clear that social democracy is having a revival within, alongside or in the peripheries of social democratic or traditional bourgeois political parties.  The Ivme movements excitement partly stems from this. The convergence of the social democratic parties in Turkey and around the world with the centre politically has forced them to adopt the definition of ‘democratic socialism’. With this the aim has become “real social democracy”. “Now with Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic Socialists of America etc there is a perspective which seeks to overthrow the neoliberal consensus. Democratic socialism is a term used to differentiate with the social democrat perspective. Of course we see ourselves as progressing in parallel and as part of the global movements you mention”.

It is possible to say that this ‘new’ social democracy bears similarities with the social democracy of the Keynesian period and has the same fundamental approach: that capitalism’s bad traits can largely be eliminated through the “realisation of social democratic views”.  The old social democratic parties converged with the centre ground but if they had not it would have been different. What is needed is a left wing and a capitalism that are not neoliberal.

This approach refuses to accept that neoliberal policies are an internal and compulsory leaning in capitalism. Because if they accept this, the will have to join their anti-neoliberalism with anti-capitalism.  Whilst it is possible to oppose neoliberalism without being anti-capitalist, this is inherently contradictory and impossible to wholly implement – save in special discrete instances. Ironically it is utopic. The environment which created the Keynesian period no longer exist. For this reason, the social democracy of the Keynesian period no longer presents an alternative, because from the perspective of capitalists – they have no need for them and from the perspective of workers – social democrats do not have the capacity to resolve their problems. This does not mean that social democratic discourse cannot be influential amongst the public, just that it cannot resolve their problems.

NOT IN THE 1930’S BUT IN 2020’s

Even if seperating neo-liberalism from capitalism, and professing a need to refrom capitalism, as a result of the need to defend their own position they criticise Marxism. “There is a group in Turkey, particularly within the Marxist left. They have a very orthodox understanding of Marxism. They think they are in the Soviet Union of the 1930’s... we are building a democratic socialism”.

An orthodox understanding of Marxism and the statement about the Soviet Union must be a reference to the radical criticisms of capitalism. Alongside this, what makes socialism even more relevant today is the world we are living in. 

Politics which operate on a capitalist foundation, be it social democrat or “democratic socialist”, are restricted by the needs of accumulated capital. The world of 1960s and 70s, when the world was divided into two opposites and socialism still had huge prestige, at times created the right environment for policies which conflicted with the short terms needs of capital.  However in today’s world, when the capitalist production chain and financial markets are so intertwined, space for movement is alot more restricted.

The social democratic parties of the 1990’s and also the “democratic socialist” parties such as Syriza which emerged after 2008 crisis, have the same dead end. Just three months after being elected the leaders of Syriza were not trying to betray the public. Seeing that sanctions by Germany and the Troika had the potential to further collapse an economy deeply attached to the EU, the Syriza government tried to make both the Troika happy and keep at least some of their promises. The result was tragic. Because it was not possible to do this without going against accumulated capital and their dependent relationships, and the Euro Zone which is an example of this interdependence. As a result the Syriza “betrayal” was less to do with the leaderships’ betrayal because independently of their intentions, it was more to do with the inherent nature of the social democracy itself.

A similar situation can be observed in Turkey.

With its economy, political and military Turkey is part of a global imperialist system. Every economic and political step presents itself in this context and there is a mutual interaction. As a semi developed dependent capitalist country, what defines Turkey’s place in the imperialist heirarchy is low-medium level technology and production generally dependent on cheap labour. In order to sustain its dependent economy it is also reliant on hot money and foreign currency. By using a model relying on cheap labour and exports, Turkey is trying to be the EU’s China. This horizon is about the place of Turkey’s capitalism in the global economy. If it were up to any particular political party, no doubt Turkey would have preferred to be Europe’s Germany not China.

Whether social democrat or so-called “socialist”, any movement which does not aim to change this economic framework and maintains a line within the establishment, regardless of the promises it makes, will be restricted in what it can do. It cannot resolve the fundamental problems of workers. For example radical increases in minimum wage and an increase in the cost of labour in Turkey could reduce the global competitiveness of the most important export sectors which are textiles and leather and may lead to their collapse.

For this reason in order to defend the demands of the working class and public (even partially) requires a fight against capital and capitalism. Failure to do so means that every wage increase will be removed with rise in inflation, and every social right gained being balanced against one that is lost. This is the typical limits of reformism. Of course many economic and democratic gains can be achieved. Fighting for these is very important. However these cannot be sustained/permanent under capitalism and can be at the expense of maintaining existing exploitative relationships.

Bringing to life the demands of workers and the masses consistently and for these to be lasting, requires an anti-capitalist perspective – in other words a socialist perspective.

Socialism is not stuck in the 1930’s, it is a search for a tangible way out of the world we live in today, global capitalism, which offers millions of people nothing more than poverty, inequality, slave working conditions and ecological destruction. This is why socialism is current and realist.