Why are there so few policy proposals for social change in Europe on ET

My experience is that nobody in Europe wants American conditions. If you read ultra neoliberals like Hans-Werner Sinn, and look to his concrete policy proposals, the US democrats are economic a hard right party (and yes, including Barak Obama) even compared to him.

That is contrary to my experience. In point of fact, the Danish PM's son recently returned from a visit to the Great Neighbour to the West and wrote a book that was - according to the reviews - one long cheerleading exercise for the American way of life and the American economic model.

We have hardline neolibs pushing for flat taxes - which in fact means regressive taxes since there are a number of poll taxes that they are not suggesting that we do away with.

We have hardline neolibs who want to privatize power supply, public transit, education and sometimes even drinking water!

Further, I think that various ETers have made a very compelling case that the UK is - in terms of foreign and economic policy - the 51st state of the Union. So no, I think that there is a clear and present danger.

Not that that precludes ET being populated by salon socialists, of course...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

Salon socialists?

No. Mostly social-democrats, I would say.

They like their middle class comfort and rightfully so. They and their parents built it and they earned it. They hate to see the ultra-wealthy fews manipulate and corrupt the democratic institutions to their narrow, predatory benefit.

You'll also find the (overwhelmingly correct) notion that the acquisition of enormous wealth in vast disparity from the median by an individual is a mark of dumb luck or of thievery, not a proof of genius that supposes an out-sized reward. It doesn't mean you have to subscribe to strict egalitarianism à la "socialisme parfait".

But of course, social-democracy is a shrill, hard-left proposition nowadays.


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

This has been somewhat of a touchy subject on occasion hereabouts, it's been my experience; I'd use the term bourgeois socialism myself, but salon socialism certainly can work, though I know for a fact this is not, in reality, a fitting moniker for most regulars here.

For my part, I think a gini of 25 is pretty good, but we can do better, and there are many ways of doing this, redistribution from wealth to the poor being the most efficient, via taxation, full employment policies an robust social protections.

In terms of think tanks, and policy prescription I think we've addressed, on numerous occasions, what the general thrust of views is and policy preferences as well. Part of the trick is that we are also simultaneously trying to build a Europe which has increasingly disparate parts, and so, in terms of economic narratives, we often times need to emphasize themes. For instance, the anglo-disease theme, which is an expression against anglo-american neo-liberalism at root, and for either social democracy (roughly two-thirds of participants on these thread) or proper socialism.

In terms of policy, what are my impressions of where people tend to fall here?

Education : we are, by and large, in favor of heavy investment in free, equitable and meritocratic education, from cradle to grave (eg maternelle through doctorat and/or real apprenticeship and technical education to continuing training throughout one's career).

Trade unionism: again, by and large, hugely supportive of workers rights to band together for better pay and work rights, and supportive of policies which make it easier for workers to engage in participatory workplace democracy and have a real say in how teir workplace is organized and operations. And for social stability policies which make it harder to firms to hire and fire at whim, ignoring the greater good of stable employment practises to pursue shareholder profits.

Tax policy I think everyone here is generally for a fundamentally and comprehensively progressive tax regime, and many articles over the months and years have been to address the regressivity of this that or the other tax proposal in the many countries of the union which are tending to be more than suitably enthralled with the anglo-american model.

Monetary policy Here, you have somewhat of a point, though I think most people arguing about what is accomodative or proper tend to end up in the same place: expansionary policies limited to those parts of the economy which produce sustainable jobs growth, tight policies for those parts of the market which are consumption-based or feed asset speculation. We argue about how best to get there, but I think most everyone would agree that the best policy is an expansionary one, for as you point out, there are wholly excluded portions of our respective member states, and this is wrong.

I could go on, and I will avoid some of the more "social" of policies, or the "civil liberties" ones because anyway I tend to be in the minority on those....this being said, your commentary about inclusion and exclusion, and of championing middle class versus working class, is really quite good and something we should reflect on. And, we've discussed this before. For my part, the absolute goal of proper policy is to work towards bringing the more vulnerable, the poor, among us, materially in line, in station, to the middle classes, even if this means the middle classes suffer a little. (Of course, we can make the wealthy trade a lot more...). When everyone is, roughly speaking, equal, people stop being "other," because that which differentiates one from the other becomes minimal and, that which was "other" is no longer scary and, is no longer scared too.

You can not ensure of course absolute equality, but certainly it is inexcusable that one person makes 100 times more than another, or that many (including much of the middle class) live in luxury while some have neither roofs over their heads nor enough money to proerly feed and clothe their children, even in many countries in the EU.

Problem is, at least for some here, that you cannot move comprehensively and forecfully towards a more just and equal society, thus improving the lot of the more vulnerable among us, without some measure of authority, order, and coercion and this rankles some hereabouts. I think Goethe said, and I'm sure I'm paraphrasing badly, "better injustice than disorder," which sounds, at first glance, really not very progressive or left, unless you stop to consider how much injustice is done when there is no order.  

I for one though am optimistic, and have this feeling that the great wave of materialism, and, well, anglo-american hedonism, is passing.

 Salon socialism, is that limo'n'latte liberalism?

not too much of that here, methinks...

are being 'middle class' and 'progressive' exclusive?

i used to be down on 'bourgeois' values, till i realised that the middle classes were a great improvement over the feudal system.

we need to fold the rich and starving both into the middle class, then throw away the concept for good...

The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.

European Tribune - Salon socialism on ET. A provocation

Why then is there such a bitter fight to attack influenceless anglo-saxon nonsense writers? Is it because attacking them gives the feeling of being on the left=good side without the necessity of real commitment?

Because they're far from influence-less, unfortunately.

What kind of commitment were you thinking of?

My ideal on economic issues could be defined as center-left c. 1960's and 1970's Germany or mainstream liberal American in the same era. That means there's a lot less distance to go in the EU than in the US. I'd also disagree that Obama is on the far right by European standards. It's difficult to achieve change, whether you're right or left. That means that the actual programs put out by right wing politicians in the EU are going to appear pretty left wing by US standards, but if you look at what the grass roots activists say before they start climbing the political ladder it's pretty clear that the long term aim among the bulk of the European right is very neo-liberal, while among the American left it's pretty social-democratic.

They then shift to the right - you've got a somewhat more right wing electorate, you have the fricking neo-lib bias in the media, and people are just afraid of radical change. Remember the reaction to the Clinton health care plan. He was elected with universal health care with a strong majority approving of that idea. However, the vast majority of voters already have insurance, and the same fear of losing it or seeing it get worse that was part of the support for UHC could also be exploited by the scaremongers.  And then there are the inevitable disruptions caused by change which grow with its degree. (E.g. I'd like to see the minimum wage at least double what it is now, but I don't think raising it to that level overnight would be a good idea.)  

What we need in this country is a sustained period of Democratic hegemony along with shifting the  party somewhat to the left; a difficult task which will  entail patience and plenty of frustration along the way. But I refuse to believe it's impossible, if I did I'd just try to tune out news and politics altogether. That or radicalism - but given that political freedom trumps economic justice that's going from bad to worse.  

Poll answer: because we're too busy slowing down the social change in the American direction.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

I also disagree fundamentally with your analysis on another count: You separate the class interests of the Middle and Lower class. While you are certainly right that in principle there is no reason to expect that their interests will always be aligned, empirically speaking it seems to be overwhelmingly the case.

I haven't got any hard numbers, but looking over the societies I know and the policy proposals that I have in the forefront of my mind, there is a strong connection between societies and proposals that favour and promote a large middle class and those that favour and promote improved conditions for the poor.

It makes sense too; after all, the middle class was created out of the lower class at the expense of the upper class. And proposals favouring the middle class would tend to be financed by the upper class more than the lower class. If for no other reason then because, as Willie Sutton said, "that's where the money is."

As you point out this is not always the case, of course, and the exceptions where the middle class robs the poor are just as unjust as the examples of the rich robbing the poor and the middle class. But they do seem to be less common.

(As an aside, there is also the pragmatic need to build coalitions - championing the lower 90-99 % of society is a lot more effective than championing the lower 30 %...)

Finally, I disagree with your analysis of the reasons that the greens ally with the conservatives. I have seen no credible indication that environmental concerns are less on the forefront of poor people's minds than on rich people's. I would suggest, rather, that the friendliness between the greens and the conservatives is due to the fact that there exist conservatives who are not complete idiots (and thus realise the lack of foresight involved in depositing one's excrement in one's own nest) combined with the existence of greens who show insufficient interest in economic issues (and thus can be bamboozled by fast-talking right-wing "economists" and politicians into thinking that neoliberal policies aren't that bad after all).

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam