This is actually a much more interesting question than i thought it would be on the surface. I consider myself a human centered capitalist and a social democrat, but I identity a lot more with the former than the latter due to the ideological connotations often associated with social democracy (for example social democracy is generally best associated with the 20th century left way of thinking prioritizing things like labor concerns, full employment, unions, etc, rather than UBI). But, it seems like on a social democracy subreddit, the divisions between the two may be a bit deeper than I realized, so I want to discuss it here.
Human centered capitalism is best associated with Andrew Yang and his book, the War on Normal People, however, the discussion on reddit seemed to understand its true origins, calling it "humanist capitalism." I think that this is more fair, and expands the label beyond merely Andrew Yang, as I would consider my own iteration of the concept to be based squarely on my secular humanist principles. I also think this makes it easier for me to defend, as Yang's iteration of the ideology is slightly different than mine, and it also allows me to defend the concept without having to force myself to defend the weaknesses of Yang's specific political platform, which I have regularly discussed on here.
That said, before I go further, it might be best to discuss what social democracy is. It's actually fairly hard to define, which actually leads to quite a bit of infighting and gatekeeping, so much so that the subreddit had to have a moratorium of questions as to whether social democracy is actually a form of socialism or not.
You see, the original social democrats were socialists. They ultimately wanted to transform the economy to a form of socialism, and served as a third way between capitalism and socialism. This actually is slightly different than the American tradition in which our variation of liberal capitalism has always leaned on the capitalist side of things, going back to FDR and the new deal. But, as time went on, and we got past the 1970s, social democracy has trended toward the more "liberal" side of things, with "socialist" social democrats identifying closer to democratic socialism. And, as far as I'm concerned, on actual solutions, social democrats and democratic socialists are functionally the same thing, and I'd vote for either of them honestly. But, democratic socialists tend to have more of a socialist ethos while social democrats tend to lean more toward the nordic model and a highly regulated form of capitalism.
Honestly, if it were up to me, I'd just leave social democracy to the capitalists, and just let the socialists call themselves socialists. I think it's a fair approach to the traditions involved. Yes, they are functionally very similar in the political system, but the ideology and end goals vary. And I feel like that's where the gatekeeping against human centered capitalism comes in. Yang is, openly, a capitalist. Period. End of story. He's not a socialist, he has no socialist ethos or policy positions, and a lot of people have said that human centered capitalism is closer to third way politics than social democracy. I actually think that goes a bit too far. While Yang himself does trend toward centrist positions outside of UBI, being fairly weak on issues like the minimum wage, free college, or the green new deal, let's face it, new democrats/third wayers don't want $3-4 trillion expansions to safety nets either. And while people were throwing a lot of accusations at Yang in light of his newest enlightened centrist bender, I would like to emphasize that Yang threw out human centered capitalism and UBI to make the merger with his party happen, and that before it, Yang was MUCH more progressive. There's a reason I've been so critical of Yang lately.
A lot of the gatekeeping also seems to come from the fact that Yang's policy preferences differ from a lot of social democrats, especially the more socialist wing of social democracy. A lot of people focused on his lack of emphasis on the green new deal, for example. And honestly, I feel like this is stupid. Yes, Yang isn't a socialist and never will be, but honestly, does yang need to endorse a green new deal to be a social democrat? I'd argue if we drop the socialist dogma, no. I mean, yang has different political prescriptions from a lot of social democrats, and so do I, but that doesn't mean that we aren't in fact, social democrats. I feel like leftists get obnoxiously gatekeepy these days where unless you support their specific pet proposals, you're not "truly" one of them.
If we compare Andrew Yang's human centered capitalism to the capitalist side of social democracy, we definitely get a slightly different ideology here. Social democracy just never got away from traditional liberalism and socialism and its labor focus. It still thinks in terms of full employment and wages and the like. Yang's ideology is slightly more defeatist in this sense. He seems to foresee a world in which jobs will disappear at a rapid pace and millions of americans are out of work and poorly trained for the jobs of tomorrow. Will this actually happen? I'm not sure. While I do expect job less to occur and some of Yang's predictions to come true, I don't see a future with tons of Americans out of work. Rather, I see good paying jobs continually replaced with crappier and crappier service jobs. A lot of the rust belt is already experiencing the future described by the War on Normal people, and it's not pretty. I live in such a city and it's greatly impacted my own political ideology. Generally, social democrats would respond to these issues with calling for regulating jobs to ensure better wages, unionizing them, and using a job guarantee to make up the difference, whereas Yang seems to understand that the future may be less job centric and that we should start looking into ways to take care of people without relying on work. As such, while social democrats will focus on labor initatives, raising the minimum wage, more regulations, and a green new deal, yang focuses more on UBI as the solution. And while there are some similarities like both supporting medicare for all, the approach is different.
Now, again, Yang doesn't really monopolize the idea of humanist capitalism. Secular humanism is a broad ideology. My own variation of it aligns with Yang, but I'm A LOT more hardcore on the anti work aspect. While yang seems to portray a future without work as a sad fact of life, and that the future of work and jobs is unclear, I actively want to go in this direction. Like, given my experiences with the economy, I'm out, I'm done. We need a whole paradigm shift, and no traditional ideology based on "jobism" will solve today's problems, nor should it. I actively seek a world with work less central to our lives. I support UBI and medicare for all, the same as Yang, but I also support some socdem initiatives. I support free college, I support unionization, I don't support a jobs program, but that's because my emphases are different. Honestly, I think that's what separates human centered capitalism from social democracy. The emphases are different. Social democracy supports 20th century approaches and emphasizes full employment and better treatment of workers, while human centered capitalists tend to be more interested in pursing a "post work world" of some kind. I tend to have a lot of overlaps with social democrats and am sympathetic with them on a lot of things. Hell, on socialism, I can even support workplace democracy. I just don't emphasize it. At the end of the day, that's the big difference, and as I pointed out recently, those different emphases can lead to different policy prescriptions. A "socialist" like say, Howie Hawkins will emphasize a green new deal while compromising on UBI if they support it at all (most socdems don't). Whereas, I would support UBI and compromise on other policy around it. Otherwise my own ideology isn't much different than the socdems. If anything, I consider myself a libertarian socdem.
Before moving on, I want to say one more thing on this topic. I notice in a lot of UBI discussions, social democrats are often opposed to the concept. They inherently believe in everyone working a job and believe in the idea of "reciprocity", ie, that the state will take care of you, but you must work for the state. They do not believe in getting a free ride. And in a discussion with a socdem on the topic of work, I often got a lot of ideologically laden drivel with a more socialist socdem quoting marx at me, referencing the labor theory of value and how someone has to do the work and it's unfair for some to be idle, and "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs", and stuff about how people like to work and how it fulfills them as a human being and provides purpose, and yeah, a lot of socdems aren't really willing to address the work question. They are very dogmatic, and unwilling to look at the problems of modern society through a new lens. Whereas human centered capitalists often question whether work works for whatever reason, socdems still have a quasi religious faith in the concept, much like most old ideologies from capitalism to socialism.
But that's actually why I like humanism. It's very nondogmatic. And while leftists dont like it because it doesn't agree with their dogma, I wanna remind people that Understanding the Times in discussing humanism, actually portrayed it as socialist. Heck, if you actually go back and read the chapter on secular humanist economics, a lot of what it is for comes off as very social democratic. A lot of focus on interventionism, and economic democracy, and safety nets, etc. But, humanism doesn't need to be any of these things. All humanism is, is trying to make the world a better place, understanding that social structures are human made, not divine, and that we can change them to suit our needs.
I would actually go so far to say humanists don't inherently have to go any which way on economics. There are a lot of atheists who are right libertarians and like ideologies like Ayn Rand's objectivism. And while most humanists are some brand of "liberal" in the American political system, it's mostly because it seems to produce the best results. Hard socialism and communism are unknown elements at best, and potentially dangerous at worst, but at the same time it's clear that laissez faire capitalism often doesn't lead to positive results either. So most humanists are going to support some brand of mixed economy. This can be third way liberalism, this can be social democracy, even democratic socialism, and of course, human centered capitalism is my/Yang's own brand with its own emphases. I don't think human centered capitalism is the ONLY way a humanist can look at the problems with the economy by far. But, it's the kind of ideology that makes sense to me. One thing I will say common among humanists is ideally, most of them try to avoid falling into traps of dogma. They try to be open minded about questions of politics and life, and may transcend traditional political ideologies at times.
And this is where I feel like my own human centered capitalist inclinations came from. As a young aspiring political scientist who had an existential crisis causing me to abandon everything I once knew, and who basically looked at all of these questions through a new humanist lens, I kind of realized that what we're doing isn't working. In America, we have two major brands of politics. On economics, we have one brand that pursues far right laissez faire capitalism almost as a doctrine of religious faith. And the left tends to support a very mild brand of liberalism, beaten into submission by the historical forces of the past 40-50 years. And it's come quite clear to me that a more left wing way is needed. But, as I looked at the issues myself, UBI caught my attention early on, and it became a significant part of my ideology, and I did ultimately question the doctrine of work. I feel like that's, once again, the big difference here. Social democrats generally never questioned the doctrine of work. They just assume, oh, not enough jobs, we need more employment. Income inequality, we need higher wages and more unionization. And me, while I'm not against these things, to me, UBI became a central focus, and I started realizing that maybe a world without work is possible. I don't think most social democrats are really willing to cross that bridge.
From a social democratic perspective, they seem to think human centered capitalists are further right. Based on Yang himself, I can see the argument for that. The dude IS more moderate. And I don't always agree with every aspect of his exact platform and ideology either. I would say my own iteration of the concept is more socdem friendly, and there is more of a melding there, where most of my retreats from bog standard social democracy come from a tactical choice of priorities, rather than a radically different approach on economics. If you think not being for a green new deal makes me further right than you, well, that's a very gatekeepy thing to say. As I understand it, UBI and JG are opposing policies on the left. They approach the issue of work and jobs differently, and that difference is the big thing that separates the two. Most socdems and socialists are in favor of JG. I think the JG is stupid and dystopian and I favor the UBI. I don't think, in my own mind, this makes me more RIGHT WING though. Rather, I consider myself just as left wing as them, I just am more LIBERTARIAN. Jobist ideologies inherently have a form of paternalism built into them on the protestant work ethic. And sadly this infects even left wing ideologies like marxism and social democracy, just as it does the right. Basically, they think that people shouldn't be left to their own devices, they need some authority telling them what to do for the majority of their time. And even if they support say, economic democracy, they still support people being coerced into that system. Rather, I consider myself more libertarian because I feel more free of that system. My humanist mindset makes me more willing to reject the religion of jobs and work, and I start actually seeing working less as a good thing. Which is why I say that I'm a libertarian social democrat. I'm ROUGHLY equivalent to a socdem on the left-right scale, I'm just more libertarian.
And there actually is a term for someone like me...social libertarian. We discussed that once. it's basically non socialist left libertarianism. And it occupies the same general part of the left right scale as liberalism. With more right wing social libertarians being closer to neoliberals in practice. But then more left wing social libertarians are closer to social democrats.
I'm clearly in the more left wing camp on this one, closer to the socdems. While Yang's iteration is a little more right wing, closer to a form of liberalism and more moderate in solutions at times. Still, it's not really in the right wing camp of social libertarianism in my personal opinion as actual right social libertarians seem significantly more moderate than Yang in my experience, often meeting that weird "right wing trojan horse" definition on safety nets and the like. Yang himself seemed fairly progressive, but more bog standard liberal than social democrat outside of his UBI emphasis.
That said, to conclude, what CAN we conclude? Well, we can conclude that human centered capitalism, or humanist capitalism more broadly, is actually more complex than Yang's specific ideology. And I would argue there is no inherent difference between "humanist capitalism" at large, and social democracy, and many humanists are social democrats.
As far as "human centered capitalism" more specifically, eh, I think that broadly, it fits within the realm of social libertarianism, which can take various forms. Yang's specific formulation is arguably a bit more right wing than my own, while my own variation is functionally libertarian, UBI centric social democracy.
Generally speaking, I think the big defining difference between social democracy and human centered capitalism to not be whether one is a socialist, because let's be honest, socialists dont get to gatekeep social democracy IMO, but rather, what to do about the question of work. Most bog standard socdems are basically jobists. They believe in a full employment economy, they believe in the concept of reciprocity, and they believe in mostly making work pay better, and making working conditions better without challenging the concept itself. Human centered capitalists seem more willing to challenge the concept of work itself. Yang believes that in the future automation will wipe out jobs in the economy, and there won't be adequate replacements for current workers. He believes that the solution to this is a UBI, because the opportunities won't be there for people. My own iteration of this idea is a bit more left wing. I believe that the concept of jobs is already failing us, and that we would try to move away from work as a concept. I also believe UBI advances social democratic goals by giving workers the freedom as the power to say no, not just to any job, but to all jobs. I believe this is a superior solution to the idea of labor rights, than just trying to make work pay better while still forcing people to do it.
That said, is human centered capitalism a form of social democracy? Eh...it's complicated. But I believe that there is some overlap. Not all human centered capitalists may be full on social democrats. yang, for example is a bit more moderate than most socdems. But I honestly feel more at home with social democracy and largely support similar goals, my big dividing line with traditional social democrats is over the question of jobs and work and the future of capitalism.
And, of course, there are differences within social democracy as well, and much like human centered capitalism or social libertarianism, there are more left wing and right wing versions of the concept. Left wing social democrats are functionally socialists and the very idea of labeling themselves a capitalist makes their skin crawl and given their gate keepy nature, they're gonna say you're not a socdem unless you're a true socialist. But then the more capitalist wing of social democracy...yeah. I'd say it overlaps with the more left wing of human centered capitalism. And that's why I feel comfortable calling myself both. Because I'm both a left wing social libertarian or human centered capitalist, and a right wing social democrat. Functionally, the two are the same, with the HCCs simply being more libertarian.
And of course in a broader sense of humanism, social democracy is very much compatible with humanist principles. As a matter of fact, I feel like social democracy is one of the highest expressions of humanism ever tried on this planet and that my own iteration is just taking things a step forward. You know, breaking out of the dogma of "old ideologies" as I like to call them.
But yeah, if we wanted to put things on a political compass, social democracy is basically moderate left center, and social libertarianism (which contains HCC) is more moderate lib center. But there are likely parts where the two ideologies start overlapping in libleft.
So yeah, in general, while the two ideologies are distinct, I'd argue there is a lot more overlap than a lot of social democrats (especially of the gatekeepy socialist variety) are willing to admit.
No comments:
Post a Comment