The far right is on the rise. But a real alternative is possible. The democratic-socialist tradition has still much to offer. Certainly when lessons are learned from experiences with the so-called 'really existing socialism' Soviet style, a realistic socio-economic alternative, in which political and economic empowerment is central, can be offered.
If one looks at the European and US political landscape, one can only conclude that a significant part of the population has lost faith in the political centre (centre-right; centre-left) and is seeking for the moment refuge on the right flanks of the political spectrum. This is partly understandable when one realizes that the socio-economic policies of the center-right and center-left have not prevented Western societies from entering a period of prolonged crisis that could cause major catastrophes, such as financial collapse, disruptive climate change, further pandemics, or even the collapse of capitalism.
Paradoxical as it may sound, the circumstance that part of the population is pinning its hopes on the (radical) right wing of the political spectrum also offers opportunities for the radical left part of the political spectrum; there appears to be a need for a radically different sound. For a radically different sound, the democratic-socialist tradition has still much to offer. Certainly when lessons are also learned from experiences with the so-called ‘really existing socialism’, as it took shape in the Soviet Union and others, a realistic socio-economic alternative, in which political and economic empowerment is central, can be offered. This alternative is not a blueprint in which a ‘feasible’ socialism is worked out in detail, nor is it just a vision, but rather a ‘basic socio-economic model’ of a society that is as egalitarian as possible.
In this ‘basic socio-economic model’ there is room for both planning and market. Planning does not mainly concern micro-planning, but rather macro-planning: the planning of major investments – for example investments in the electrification of industries and transport – or monitoring decentralised investments to avoid financing of plainly flawed projects conceived locally, or setting the ground-rules for the autonomous and free sectors. As far as the choice of the types of enterprises is concerned, the following principles are used as far as possible: people do not exploit each other, i.e. one person does not use another person for material gain, as is now the case in capitalism on a large scale; everyone’s intellectual and creative potential is used as much as possible in and through socially necessary labour. The type of company that seems to best fit these principles is the ‘workers’ cooperative.’ Workers here are the owners of the means of production, and they democratically decide what products and services, and how, are produced. Where large-scale production seems necessary (e.g. electricity networks; railways), nationalised and socialised enterprises may be the best type of corporation. Workers’ representatives have a significant role to play in the management of socialized enterprises.
With regard to this ‘basic socio-economic model’, there is still much to think about and to discuss. This conference offers the opportunity to do so with four workshops. Questions that will be addressed include the scope of micro- and macro-planning, the regulation of ‘the’ market, the role and significance of different types of enterprises such as workers’ cooperatives and socialized enterprises, and how large or small the banking sector should be.
Want to read more? See the paper on Feasible Socialism by Hans de Beer.
The Conference will be invitation based. If you are interested in participating you can contact the organizers at bestuur@soc21.nl.
