Dominic AFSCHARIAN

Political scientist, research officer at the think tank Zentrum für neue Sozialpolitik

Once again, Social Democracy must change. With a long-standing tradition of social protection, progressives are well-positioned to accompany the needs of pluralist societies – if they dare to rethink their views on work and deservingness. The political left at large must urgently reclaim freedom and individual liberty through a social lens.

Stuck in a spiral of decline, Social Democracy has no time to lose. It must transform, and fast. Recently, however, Social Democrats chose toxic idols. Pushed to the right economically and culturally, workfare and welfare chauvinism crept into their playbook. Now, some look even further to the right while others seek to turn back time. Neither path will lead to success. To find a truly progressive way forward, Social Democrats must instead reconsider how they approach their core identity around work and welfare.

This implies adjusting rhetoric and policy on at least three issues: work, individualism and freedom. These can be considered pillars of a modern, progressive welfare state. But getting there will not be easy. Only if Social Democrats are willing to decisively shed identitarian and exclusionary reflexes, will they be able to pull off the ‘grand transformation’ many are hoping for. 

From workers to humans

The first issue to tackle is work. Social Democracy has always seen itself as a workers’ movement. A key moral consideration underpinning workers’ rights is a rejection of poverty, immiseration and inequality. No one shall suffer, all shall prosper – including the working class. Social Democracy, however, has evolved from a herald of universal opportunity to a gatekeeper of resources. ‘Deservingness‘ is the name of the game, and those in work are deemed the most deserving. Social rights by virtue of being human gave way to moral supremacy by virtue of work.

It is undoubtedly crucial to value the contribution of work to society. However, an excessive rhetorical emphasis on the working class can also divide the electorate and crowd out potential voters. Social Democratic victories without the middle class are hardly feasible, and its recent rediscovery through terms like ‘working people‘ or ‘arbeitende Mitte‘ (working middle class) hardly compensates for years of illiberal rhetoric. 

Perhaps more pressingly, making work itself the virtue to chase marginalises the (long-term) unemployed. This undermines Social Democrats’ ability to credibly fight extreme precarity and tackle inequalities. Moreover, focusing first and foremost on the virtue of work allows opponents to cynically frame redistribution as taking from working people and giving to the ‘lazy’. Such discourses endanger social cohesion and distract from precarity and inequality. Ironically, an overemphasis on work as a moral virtue may thus be to the detriment of low-income workers.

Hence, Social Democrats must broaden their field of view when it comes to ‘deservingness’. By no means does this imply letting go of workers’ concerns. It rather means that Social Democrats must mobilise society-wide solidarity based on fundamental social rights for all. It is high time to counter agendas that play out the poorest against the poor – and certainly to stop actively pushing them. 

From individual fault to empowerment

Fundamental social rights by virtue of being human require a healthy portion of individualism. Whether progressives like it or not, class-based identities have eroded. Chasing the remains that the radical right exploits will not reverse this trend, and ignores how internally heterogeneous groups like the working class are. Social Democrats must urgently develop a constructive approach towards individualism, – not to replace class mobilisation, but to fill in the gaps. Fittingly, there is a massive political void across Europe. As Liberals increasingly commit to a ‘small state’, individual independence is commonly framed through a lens of ‘fault’: if you find yourself in precarious conditions, you yourself are to blame and it is hence your own responsibility to ‘pull yourself up by the bootstraps’.

The political left could credibly counterbalance this tendency. Too often, however, Social Democrats have individualised the causes of precarity themselves, especially through workfare and the ‘third way’. Those speaking out against this tendency usually outright reject the individualisation of societies altogether. What is largely missing is a strong progressive voice for individualism through empowerment: to enable individuals to live their desired lives, the welfare state should provide resources that compensate for disadvantages. Providing capabilities for all, such thinking is rooted in Sweden’s Social Democratic state individualism and social liberalism. In short: do not tell people what they should want; help them achieve what they want. 

From negative to positive freedom

Finally, this ties into the issue of freedom, a fundamental building block of progressivism long occupied by the right. If Social Democrats want to remain relevant, they must reclaim it. When the right speaks of freedom, it is usually ‘negative freedom‘ from state interference. The obvious progressive counterpart is the ‘positive freedom‘ to actually achieve one’s goals. This directly follows from the considerations above: in a progressive sense, true freedom is only achieved if an individual has the capabilities to overcome limitations. 

Social policy is crucial for this goal. It provides resources necessary for positive freedom, compensates for disadvantages, and makes solidarity beyond sub-groups of an individualised society possible. Demolishing the welfare state in the name of negative liberty will diminish, not enhance freedom. For too long, the right was able to pursue such agendas in the absence of progressive counterweights. Reclaiming the discursive high ground on the issue of freedom is thus an urgent task for progressives.

Liberty and justice for all

To some, this may all sound awfully liberal. However, liberalism must not be a monopoly of Margaret Thatcher’s heirs. Not so dissimilar from 20th century socialism, the ideals of liberalism inspire the masses, yet the reality of neoliberal policy is unable to deliver on them. Consider the US: its pledge of allegiance promises ‘liberty and justice for all’ – yet conditions in the ‘land of the free’ drift from this ideal. 

The vacuum left by the global decline of liberal democracy could be filled with an ambitious vision of a just society, delivered through strong welfare systems for all. Yet, Social Democracy seems to have accepted the status quo, believing they cannot build a world where everyone is free and everyone lives a decent life. Instead, narratives of competition over limited resources between the poor crept into Social Democratic discourse, leading to division between in- and outgroups, deserving and non-deserving people, ‘us’ and ‘them’. This renders the centre-left incapable of filling the current political void. 

If progressives develop more inclusive discourses and policies that empower all to live self-determined lives, they may just turn the political tides. The welfare state is key for this, but it must be reconceptualised. This means imagining work beyond the working class, welfare beyond work, and belonging beyond borders. This way, progressives may finally achieve a world where no one shall suffer, and all shall prosper.

Photo credits: Shutterstock.com/Lightspring