Oligarchy, Social Democracy and the Future of Politics.

Democratic Capitalism has failed. Over the past few decades it has slowly morphed into an oligarchy – one with elements of democracy, but it is certainly not rule ‘by the people for the people’. It is impossible to have a political democracy if the economy is dominated by a few powerful people. Arguably, the most important part of politics is the economy, so politicians endlessly try and please the people who control it. Neo-liberal politicians seem unable or unwilling to prevent this transformation. In most western countries – including the UK – a system has been partially or totally secured in which the ‘few’ - that is, the extremely rich and those who see it as in their interest to support them – compete for the popular support of the ‘many’. The ‘many’ are unable to have much effect on politics other than selecting which tribe of the ‘few’ should rule them.

In the UK, in 2015, the Labour Party embarked on an experiment to represent the ‘many’, and erect a system that would be in their interests. Unfortunately this experiment has failed due to the conspiracies and skulduggery of the right of the party. Whilst the new leadership will probably want to assist the poor in some ways, it has no interest in dismantling the oligarchy, returning democracy or the creation of a society based on equality. In the UK centrist politicians can only win power by eradicating socialism in British politics and leaving all socialists effectively disenfranchised – this is what Tony Blair’s ‘third way’ accomplished and is the goal of the new Labour leadership.

The Conservative Party has now tacitly admitted that it’s big idea – the free market – is a failure, even from the viewpoint of the well off. After stubbornly adhering to the precepts of small government and non-intervention in the economy all the way through the disastrous ‘credit crunch’, they have concluded that it would be impossible for it to continue through the emergency of the Coronavirus. It seems they are willing to embrace Keynesianism and pump enormous amounts of money into the economy to keep it afloat. Nobody can be sure if they see this as an emergency measure – something that will be abandoned when things get back to ‘normal’ - or a permanent change in their thinking on economics. Surely it will be for the new Labour leadership. But either way this does not mean that they have given up on their super-rich backers and the implicit notion of an oligarchy. The Economy needs to be propped up because the one percent who own the productive economy cannot make a profit otherwise – if these emergency methods were not implemented the oligarchy would collapse.

Social Democracy is not just about using government money to support the economy. This does nothing in terms of creating a democratic economy or a political democracy, it merely extends the life of a financial system that is self destructive and will again collapse at a later point. Social Democracy must be about giving people in general ownership and control over the productive economy as well as their government. The Tories have not become ‘Socialist’ just by throwing money about – in fact, they are redoubling their efforts to protect the oligarchy and the status quo of the inequality they’ve hardwired into society.

The ‘oligarchic’ portion of parliament – the majority of MPs – take the view that those who are successful in business, or certain professions or have inherited wealth, have the right to rule and reap the benefits of British productive capacities. Those who are not in this group do not, they just act as a kind of referee in the battles between the various tribes of oligarchs. It is strange that when given the choice between oligarchy and social democracy – which seems the only alternative – that the British electorate chose the oligarchy in both the general elections of 2017 and 2019. But the issues of democracy, equality and social justice were severely diluted, muddied and ignored due to the spectacle of Brexit. Without Brexit the social democrats of the Labour Party would have most likely been successful and the prognosis would have been rather different. But it is not surprising that during a sociological crisis that our attention should turn to our relationship with foreigners – after all, this has happened before.

The western world of the 1930s was in a situation much like our own. Due to the Great War and the Great Depression democratic capitalism had failed. Oligarchs were prevalent in politics – up until that point they always had been. But in those days other ideological beasties were roaming the land. The people of the 1930s felt they had the option of replacing the oligarchy with communism or fascism. We do not have this luxury today, due to hindsight: Whilst fascism led to another world war and attempted genocide, communism has become associated with totalitarian regimes that do not accomplish what Marxists set out to do. Despite accusations from the left the Tories are not fascists – they show no appetite for dictatorship and no more enthusiasm for war than anybody else. But they have embraced the fear of foreigners – unfortunately a natural part of the human psyche – and put it to use in popularising the oligarchy.

As the UK is dependent on world trade, severing our connections to our most important trading partners makes no logical sense in terms of our material well being. However democratic or undemocratic the European Union is, Britain will not become any more democratic by leaving – for its institutions are not democratic anyway. In fact, the EU prevented the Tories from making extremist neo-liberal/pro-oligarchy legislation and put a brake on the further impoverishment of the ‘many’. Brexit has turned out to be a method of maintaining and extending the political power of the oligarchs.

The Liberal Democrat and the Labour oligarchs vehemently supported Remain to the point of attempting to annul the results of the referendum. Whilst remaining would have been the logical thing to do, their success would have been worse for democracy than their failure. It would have been impossible to pretend that the UK was a democratic country and keep the parts of the system that involve democracy, whilst ignoring the results of a democratic vote. In order to successfully Remain these politicians would have had to somehow suspend most democratic institutions. Meanwhile, the prime minister Boris Johnson attempted to suspend the proper working of the constitution to achieve a no deal Brexit by his prorogation of parliament – essentially suspending democracy in the name of the people, in much the same way as Hitler and Mussolini did.

The mainstream media has its part to play in the ‘democratic deficit’, along with social media. Before the 2000s the mainstream media acted as the ‘gatekeeper’ to public opinion, and did its job quite well. In order to get any message across to the public politicians had to go through the mainstream media, and in return for making their point would face awkward questions. The news media was largely seen as unbiased – especially the broadcast kind. With the advent of social media politicians can circumvent the need for these awkward questions and broadcast their messages without any scrutiny. It has become increasingly difficult for news networks to get cabinet ministers to appear on their programs. Ministers will not appear if they feel they will be overly scrutinised, and so journalists have to treat the government softly in order to get their scoops.

Pre-2000 opposition parties had the advantage when it came to the media – they could criticise without having to do anything. Post 2000 the position is reversed: Whilst the government can tell the people what is actually going to happen, the opposition can only tell them what might happen in the future – and this is not half as newsworthy. As the opposition can only try and get across a message about what they would do, they are far more desperate for public platforms than the government, who can just do it. Therefore, the mainstream media can offer highly exaggerated criticisms of the opposition in order to get ratings, and still have the opposition co-operate.

But the mainstream media is not just or always biased in favour of governments. The internet and the explosion of choice in how people receive their information has meant that competition is such that news organisations have to target specific audiences. They therefore have evolved their own political agenda’s in order to please certain people – these agenda’s may not concur with either the government’s nor the opposition’s. This along with internet search tools that seek out items that their users might like, tends to keep people informed only by organisations or individuals who are biased towards them. People often never hear coherent arguments from those they disagree with, leading to an increase in narrow-mindedness and polarisation. Accusations of ‘fake news’ and bias can be heard everywhere – they have made it into politics where they can be used to convince audiences that certain problems are ‘lies’, or invent problems that don’t exist. Making an accusation of ‘fake news’ just creates more ‘fake news’ and is often ‘fake news’ itself.

In classical Greece the politics of the city states started out as tribal, which was viewed as just – but turned into oligarchies, which were viewed as unjust. In many of these cities there were revolutions where ‘tyrants’ seized power and claimed to rule for the benefit of the people. They were actually power-hungry despots willing to stoop to corruption and murder to maintain their positions. Many other civilisations have similar histories. Are the UK and other western states bound to follow the same pattern? Famously, the city of Athens found an alternative, this was the first democracy. Do we have any alternative?

Neo-liberalism and the alt-right must support the oligarchy in an attempt to maintain a free market. Social democracy has no need for a free market or the oligarchy. It is the only other political ideology we have available - if we discount religious fundamentalism and straightforward dictatorship. Smaller, wealthy states – such as the Scandinavians – have managed to embrace social democracy and get it to work. Even German politics has a right wing that looks almost leftist from a British viewpoint. But other larger wealthy countries find it very difficult to accept this alternative – they are most likely victims of their own historical success. Germany is rather embarrassed about the zenith of its historical power, and maybe this is why it is so moderate.

Successful imperialism in the past – or right now in the case of the USA – seems to give nations emotional attachments to hierarchies and class structures even when they make no logical sense. If the British did well on a playing field that was not level, the British want the playing field to remain un-level to give them the chance of being better than everybody else again – even when things are not going their way. Meanwhile nations who largely accept that they are just another country and not particularly special, are a lot more comfortable and happy. Pomposity hurts.

Time will tell how long the oligarchy continues for, and whether it will be replaced by tyranny or social democracy. Assumedly, most people would choose social democracy over the other two alternatives - even if they were not committed socialists. Most remain ignorant that these are what the choices are. The left must make much more of an effort to inform people.

In 2012 rioting spread across the major cities of the UK. The credit crunch and government austerity had left many people abandoned and without hope. In a fiery storm of destruction they attacked small businesses who as far as they could tell were still doing well financially, leaving many town centres as smouldering wrecks. For my part, a few years earlier I had gone on the rampage vandalising large luxury cars. Although both burning down shops and vandalising cars is hardly a constructive thing to do and only leads to trouble, it is entirely possible to feel sympathy and understanding about the levels of anger generated by the society we live in. Struggling in poverty and without hope while those around you engage in conspicuous consumption would damage the sanity of anybody. The anger is out there, sometimes it is palpable but often people suffer in silence. The left must harness this anger, turn it into a force for good that could change our society and construct a world worth saving.

The Labour Party hardly seems fit for this purpose. To the extent it is socialist it is better than the Tories, but when it offers a real alternative that would empower normal people and ensure economic justice in a permanent fashion, the anti-socialist elements of the party sabotage all electoral chances proffering the rule of the oligarchs to the rule of the people.

Social Democrats need to form their own party, free from interference and sabotage, which is sincerely dedicated to change. It needs to be led in a confident and convincing manner, in a transparent manner where any wrong-doing can be dealt with and dishonest attacks can be fended off merely because it is obvious what the party is doing. It should have nothing to hide. If this party could be created, and present the alternatives given above in a clear manner, victory would be assured!