This is Richard Wolff from Democracy at Work responding to another
Ask Prof Wolff question from our Patreon community and this one comes from Jared
Rogers. Jared asks a very very important question, he’s heard, he says, from some of his Socialist
friends that Social Democracy movements of various kinds that push for higher minimum wages, that
push for taxes on corporations to carry out useful social services, the usual collection of policies
promoted by Social Democracy— that those can have the unintended and unfortunate result
that corporations confronting higher wages they might have to pay, higher taxes they might have
to pay will run away from the countries say in the global north where Social Democracy is powerful
and re-establish production in the global south where they can get away without paying comparable
minimum wages or without paying comparable taxes. And he asked does that therefore
make Social Democracy subject to the criticism of the Socialists he heard making those criticisms?
I think the answer is yes and no and I understand that may be frustrating so let me explain.
Anything that is done anywhere to try to offset the harshness of Capitalism, the endless drive
of Capitalism to pull more profits out of production, the endless tendency of Capitalism,
to create greater inequality of the sort that Thomas Piketty’s work has so clearly proven and
demonstrated over and over again, whatever Social Democracy tries to do to create a
Capitalism with a more human face a Democratically Socialist version, if you like, may in fact do
exactly what Jared Rogers question points to it may well lead, it often has, for corporations
to leave the countries, the areas where Social Democracy is strong and move instead to where
it is weak or absent. That's in the nature of profit maximization. That’s what Capitalists do,
there's no question of that and it means that much of the intention of Social Democratic reforms
is either undone or is accompanied by enhanced exploitation in the global south, but is that a
reason not to pursue those kinds of reforms? I don't think so. Let's be a little logical
here. That argument would then apply to virtually anything short of system transformation. I
happen to think that the only solution here will, in the end, be system transformation
otherwise you will continue to have precisely what Jared Rogers question points to, Capitalists
evading, weakening, undoing Social Democratic reforms one way or another.
And often at the expense of other parts of the world that they escape to at least
for a while. But the question is, how do you build a movement strong enough to make the system change
that these Socialist critics are pointing to? And here the irony is, and hence my yes and no answer,
you need to fight for reforms because fighting for those reforms and then explaining to the
people fighting for the reform how Capitalism gets around it, how Capitalism escapes and evades it
and how Capitalism's harshness simply moves to yet another group of workers.
Who, if they react in the same way, can make the movement go the opposite direction
bringing back to the first group what they tried so hard to overcome. In short, it's the struggle
for reform that can teach the lesson of the need for more than reform, for a literally
global transformation in the sense of going from one global economic system, Capitalism,
to one that doesn't work this way. But it won't do much good to talk about it if you are not busily
fighting for the improvements that will enable people to get it to, understand it, to become
advocates for it. Otherwise, you will have what we have had for a long time, the division between
those fighting for reforms but being looked to scant by those who see the need for system change
and likewise those who preach system change being alienated and disunified
in terms of all those people fighting hard, for a better wage, a better school program,
a better health system and all the other reforms that Social Democracy typifies. Let’s
not get caught in that stale old reform versus revolution mentality. Let’s understand that reform
can be doesn't have to be, but it can be the road to revolution and that depends on those who see
where that road leads being very active in and among all of those fighting for reforms don’t get
caught in the either or. It is a political dead end. This is Richard Wolff for Democracy at Work.