Clive Hamilton - "What's Left? The Death of Social Democracy" (Quarterly Essay issue 21)

Hamilton's argument here is simple but, if made out, far-reaching in its implications. In essence, his claim is that the old social democratic ideology to which progressive political parties in the West - including the ALP - have traditionally been committed is, in societies such as Australia where affluence rather than material deprivation is the norm, no longer a meaningful or viable platform for social change or political relevance, and he makes the case for that central proposition lucidly and elegantly, tying it up with a closely related argument as to the contemporary irrelevance and obsolescence of the ALP; suggesting that "the defining problem of modern industrial society is not injustice but alienation, and that the central task of progressive politics today is to achieve not equality, but liberation", he argues that the old left paradigm needs to be replaced with a 'politics of wellbeing' focused on a cluster of values including fulfilling work, strong communities, and a turn away from the market and commodity culture, rather than on economic growth.

I found Hamilton's argument basically convincing, but there are at least a couple of dubious moves in it. Here's one:

the concerns that motivated social democracy - poverty, inequality and exploitation - are, as a result of affluence, now confined to a small proportion of the population, no more than 20 per cent. While the moral imperative to improve the circumstances of this group remains - indeed, in the face of widespread affluence, it has even greater force - the circumstances of 20 per cent of the population cannot provide the basis for a politics of social transformation in the twenty-first century.

My concern with that passage - which obviously represents a key step in his overall argument - is the assumption that the impoverished circumstances of a full 20 per cent of the population (that's one in five, kids - a small matter of some four million people across Australia) doesn't represent a viable wedge for contemporary progressive politics. Presumably he puts this up as a pragmatic 'recognition' of people's essential self-interestedness - he's careful (and quite right) to note that our collective moral responsibility is undiminished by the economic sea change - but I'm just not sure it's as clear-cut as Hamilton suggests, even on the terms that he seems to be proposing...there seem to be some pretty large assumptions at work there.

And here's another problematic one:

Yet this attribution of economic injustice and minority oppression to the structure of capitalism proved to be wrong. While the battles have been fierce and problems remain, this way of characterising capitalism in rich countries like Australia is no longer defensible. If this is true, the principal problem of capitalism is no longer injustice.

Now, assuming that Hamilton's claim about the prevailing level of affluence in countries like Australia is justified - he spends a bit of time defending the claim and it's probably reasonable to go with it - that passage looks to be, on its face, fair enough. But the problem with it is the assumption that Australia can be considered in isolation from the global (capitalist) system - which, of course, it can't be, for it seems not only logically possible but positively likely that the affluence of nations such as Australia has come about through the operation of the capitalist system to the detriment of other, less powerful and industrialised nations, thus perpetuating the old injustices and imbalances except on a larger, more general scale...meaning that Hamilton's prescription, even if made out on its own terms, can succeed only by turning a blind eye to the larger picture of systematic exploitation (thus opening itself to many of the same criticisms as those which he levels at the so-called 'Third Way' of Tony Blair and co). Maybe that's the only pragmatic thing to do, and perhaps a genuine national focus on some kind of "politics of wellbeing" would be a step forward and a step towards addressing those larger issues to do with capitalism on an international level - but even if so, this, to me, seems to call for serious thought.

I also had some problems with the focus on "liberation" rather than "equality" but I'm kind of running out of steam here, plus it was more than a week ago now that I finished reading the essay, so may leave that one for now...

More generally, it's interesting to see the ways in which Hamilton remains beholden to the traditional framework and language of the left - his comment that "[t]he Australian Labor Party has served its historical purpose and will wither and die as the progressive force of Australian politics" inevitably brings to mind Marx's insistence on the historical inevitability of the downfall of capitalism (although Hamilton does - rather unsatisfactorily, I think - sort of attempt to address this one in passing), while his focus on liberation cannot but recall Marx's diagnoses of alienation and commodity fetishism, not to mention the old rouser "[t]he proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains".

Hm. So I enjoyed reading this and, all in all, thought it was very good - it's well written and pleasingly presented, and, as I said, it's largely convincing and provides much food for thought. Nice!