EU Ref: What was it good for?

 This piece was originally published by the online magazine New Compass

As most of the world knows, the UK had a referendum on EU membership in June. What the rest of the world probably doesn’t know is how divisive the referendum and its aftermath were. It exposed deep divisions around class and race, revealed that half the country knows nothing about the life experiences of the other half, and holds them in contempt anyway and that a sizeable section of the population would like to repeat the exercise until they get the outcome they want. And towards the end of the campaign, an MP was assassinated by a Fascist.

But despite fomenting such profound fissures in British society, the referendum result (Leave won by 52% to 48%) has resolved nothing. Prominent Leave campaigners seem disappointed they won, the Conservative government is nowhere near triggering Article 50 (which begins the two-year process of Brexit) and calls for a second referendum regularly emanate from businessmen and politicians while others hold that Parliament should simply refuse to implement the result. The referendum has, at best, instituted a shaky truce which won’t last long.

The EU referendum was, in short, a terrible way to arrive at an important decision. It failed miserably to apply three vital principles of effective decision-making. The people making the decision did not have adequate information, were denied the chance for deliberation and critical reflection and lacked the power to implement the decision they arrived at.

The referendum was presented as the epitome of democracy. What could be more democratic than asking the people what they think, after all? But other forms of democracy exist that grant sovereignty to ordinary people while avoiding the ephemeral thrill of choosing which section of the elite you like the best. Experiments, such as citizen juries, participatory budgeting, random selection and assembly democracy devolve genuine power and result in more trusted and better judgements:

Deliberation and critical reflection

The EU referendum was a thoroughly mediated experience which relegated the public to the role of passive onlooker. The jousting of the protagonists was presented daily on TV screens and through the print and online media. For most of the campaign, the mainstream media presented the referendum as largely an internal Conservative party contest and revelled in farcical spectacles such as a confrontation of ‘In’ and ‘Out’ flotillas on the River Thames.

Other forms of democracy, however, rest on enabling conversation and deliberation to happen. Participatory Budgeting, for example, involves the election of recallable delegates by assemblies to determine how all or most of a municipality’s budget is spent. According to one academic, “the key ingredient is deliberation, the quality of the exchange of ideas.” Citizen juries spend days deliberating issues such as obesity, transport, electoral systems or work and as a result their findings are trusted by the public.

Thinkers such as Erich Fromm have pointed to the way the jury system, a democratic way of arriving at life-altering decisions, arrives at generally objective and reliable decisions precisely because it involves prolonged deliberation. The participants know their decision will have an immediate and lasting effect and treat it seriously as a result. The EU referendum, by contrast, resembled a two month long edition of ‘Judge Judy’.

Representation

One Leave campaigner, the writer Dreda Say Mitchell, described the political world which she temporarily gained entry to, as “largely one big boys’ club. And it’s for a very specific type of boy, at that.”

Referenda, like its kin Parliamentary government, merely amplifies the representation of people who have already carved out a media profile. The most vocal protagonists of the EU referendum – David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Michael Gove – all male and privately educated, illustrate the unrepresentativeness of representative government. The referendum made it plain to see how the upper middle classes dominate the terms of the debate in British politics.

By contrast, there is a growing use around the world of an ancient principle of democratic government – that of random selection. Aristotle thought democracy was characterised by selection by lot, so that citizens could ‘rule and be ruled in turn’, while elections were a sure sign of oligarchy. The modern form of selection by lot involves the creation of a mini-publics by randomly selecting willing participants with the aim of achieving demographic balance and the representation of all social groups. The new Icelandic Constitution of 2010 and the electoral system in British Colombia were both partly determined by randomly selected groups of citizens.

Aside from its inclusiveness, random selection or sortition has two other important effects. It detaches political influence from personal ambition as participants are not elected and only wield influence for a finite period. And it brings together people with divergent views and backgrounds, compelling them to take into account perspectives other than their own and those of people like them. In these senses, random selection represents the antithesis of the UK’s referendum experience.

Adequate information

The EU referendum excelled in generating a thick fog of misinformation. The Leave side peddled the fiction that Brexit would result in £350 billion in extra funds for the NHS every week and made immigration the centrepiece of their campaign, masking the fact they weren’t in fact promising to reduce immigration. And, aside from aping Nazi propaganda, the Leave side’s posters deliberately conflated the migrant crisis with EU membership.

The Remain side, meanwhile, predicted economic Armageddon and warned a ‘punishment budget’ comprising spending cuts and tax rises would inexorably follow Brexit. Allegedly neutral economic experts from the Bank of England, OECD and IMF were cited to underline the recklessness of voting Leave and its calamitous effect on GDP. But these experts were anything but neutral. The OECD had advised Britain to ‘press on with austerity’ on the eve of the 2015 General Election, while the Bank of England ensured making rich people richer and inflating share prices were the crucial elements of the way the state responded to economic collapse in 2008.

Both sides in the campaign also indulged in the daily fantasy that the UK was still a manufacturing nation and that the result would either ruin or invigorate the country’s trade. Politicians made endless visits, garbed in high vis vests and hard hats, to whatever manufacturing firms they could locate. In truth, the UK has undergone rampant deindustrialisation over the last 30 years and the country’s biggest export is financial services.

Other forms of democratic decision-making, however, are predicated upon understanding, not concealing, the issues at hand. A Citizen’s Jury established in Mali in January 2006 heard evidence for and against the introduction of the GM technology before concluding that GM crops should not be grown in the country. In the US state of Oregon a randomly selected panel of citizens convenes to scrutinise ‘ballot initiatives’, referendum proposals which are then put to the state’s voters at election time. They take evidence from advocates and policy experts before compiling a ‘Citizens’ Statement’ about the proposals, essentially a piece of distilled information which can be used by voters to make their choice.

Both these democratic techniques embody the proper attitude towards experts. Experts are never neutral and should not be treated as such. There is disagreement within every field of expertise and practitioners, whatever their claim to superior knowledge, need to be interrogated by citizens and their viewpoints translated into understandable language. Every branch of specialised authority, especially finance and economics, relies on establishing an air of mystery about its workings and judgements. The task of a genuine democracy is to dispel this.

Taking back control

A natural and justified objection to the examples of alternative democracy presented here is that they are mere adjuncts to the existing system and have no real power. They can advise but little else. So I think we need to establish ways that ‘alt democracy’ can transform society, not just make it appear more consensual. Appropriating the language of the Leave campaign in Britain, here are two ways we can ‘take back control’.

The first is through the public control of information. Beyond the racism and xenophobia, the UK’s referendum result indicated there was something very wrong with status quo despite the official narrative of growing GDP and record levels of employment. But this was an intuitive sense of anxiety and directed at the wrong target.

We need to shine an unflinching light on our economic system and dominant institutions. The writer, Dan Hind, advocates a system of ‘public commissioning’ with the expressed intention of taking the power of forming opinion and social depiction out of the hands of the mainstream media and giving it to the public. Through an annual budget of £80m, thousands of journalists and researchers would be employed to undertake long-term research. The public would vote for the subjects it wanted to see investigated and each round of voting would be preceded by open meetings. “National institutions, the EU and institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Bank of International Settlements would all become available to sustained scrutiny,” says Hind. This approach was piloted in Croatia in 2013.

The second way is through the public establishing an influence over private investment and government stimulus. Illustrating how little has changed over the last eight years, the Bank of England responded to the Brexit vote by spending £170 billion on shoring up the wealth of rich people. It revived its Quantitative Easing (QE) programme, bought the debt of companies it liked, and re-embarked on a £100m programme to encourage banks to lend out their money. QE, which buys debt securities from pension funds, insurance companies and ‘high net worth’ individuals, has succeeded in pushing up the prices of assets such as shares and property. But for those without assets it is meaningless.

A real way to ‘to take back control’ or in fact to establish it in the first place, would be for the public to decide how economic stimulus is spent. Through country-wide assemblies the public could determine how many new council homes are built, develop transport projects, found co-operatives or establish medical research laboratories.

If this democratic method of assigning state stimulus money was established, we could become more ambitious. The American mathematician and author of After Capitalism, David Schweickart, has proposed ‘social control of investment’:  a tax on the capital assets of all enterprises to be dispersed throughout the country on a per person basis, enabling assemblies to decide how a proportion of investment is spent. Apart from establishing a breach in the divine right of central and private banks and corporations to decide where and how investment takes place, such a new democratic initiative would impede the inexorable growth of mega-cities, such as London. Mega-cities are ecological nightmares, sucking in people and capital, while starving other regions of investment. If GDP is calculated per capita, London and the South East are the only regions of the UK to have recovered at all from the crash of 2008. This is one form of inequality, highlighted by the referendum, which needs urgent rectification.

But instead of these democratic alternatives, the UK has indulged in the illusory freedom of plebiscite democracy, which assiduously stokes dissatisfaction while failing to deliver anything more than the chimera of empowerment. Real democracy looks very different.

"There is no central authority". Review of After Capitalism. Part 3.1

So what, then, is the alternative? So far I have examined, dispassionately I hope, the flaws in capitalism as well as its attractions. Schweickart’s fundamental claim – the point of After Capitalism – is that TINA is a self-imposed intellectual constraint. There is a feasible alternative, a different economic system that substantially reduces or eliminates capitalism’s flaws without replacing them with more virulent pathologies.

This is not a magical transformation, an instant gateway into nirvana. Problems will not miraculously disappear, says Schweickart, “but intractable problems will become tractable”.

He calls this alternative model “Economic Democracy”, which I will refer to as ED for short. Wage labour will be abolished for most enterprises (small businesses like restaurants will be excluded). Most enterprises will be run democratically through one member, one vote and general assemblies of all employees. This is in contrast to the hierarchical, capitalist manner in which employees are hired and are simply tools of production.

“When you join [a firm under ED] you receive the rights of full citizenship; you are granted an equal voice, namely, an equal vote in the community,” writes Schweickart. And you get an equal share of the profits made.

Some form of economic democracy, as an alternative to capitalism, has attracted a growing number of advocates recently, including Richard Wolff, Dan Hind, and even Lenin’s Tomb blogger and SWP member, Richard Seymour.

This is not what has traditionally been thought of as socialism. There is no central planning or state control of the commanding heights of the economy in Schweickart’s conception of economic democracy, though he still describes it as socialism. “Economic democracy is a decentralized market economy,” writes Schweickart. “There is no central authority dictating consumption, production or employment.”

If anything, ED is reminiscent of syndicalism, which had its heyday before the First World War.

In many ways, ED is rapidly crystallising into the post-Communist and post-social democracy alternative to dysfunctional capitalism. So in analysing and criticising Schweickart’s ED model, I’m also looking at this larger trend.

The best way to do this is to revisit the flaws of capitalism, outlined in parts 2.1 and 2.2 and see how, if at all, economic democracy will remedy them. And them to look at the question of markets. Can a non-capitalist market work? Is this really a cure for capitalism, or just capitalism in another form?

1 Inequality

Inequality is an intractable problem of capitalism. It is acute and worsening. Schweickart’s ED seems to attack this problem at source and very effectively. The Mondragon collective of co-operatives in Northern Spain, which Schweickart repeatedly cites and says is of “world historical” importance, has a rule that the pay ratio between the highest and lowest paid, should not exceed 6.5-1. By comparison, the pay ratio in Anglo-Saxon corporations is, on average, more than 300-1.

It is possible that scarcity of certain skills and the cultural influence of senior managers, which in grossly magnified in current society, could expand that ratio even under system of economic democracy. But, as a remedy for inequality, ED is far more persuasive than currently touted “solutions” such as a high pay commission and workers represented on remuneration committees.

Cure for Capitalism rating: 8 out of 10

2 Lack of meaningful democracy

Schweickart says that, under capitalism, we live in polyarchies. There are free elections and a choice of candidates, but not real democracy.

ED would fairly obviously enhance and render meaningful democracy, because it would be applied to the one huge area where it is commonly now banished: the work-place. When a person joins an enterprise under ED, they become a citizen not merely an employee.

The democratic advantage of ED over central planning socialism is that it is decentralised. Employment is not monopolised by one entity, the state, with lethal consequences for democracy and freedom of expression.

But Schweickart also advocates social control of investment. The destination for new investment, 10 to 15% of GDP, would not be decided by banks, stock markets or boards of directors, but by public meetings, open to everybody. This democratic control of investment plays a similar role that participating budgeting does for public spending. In this way, the public would be able to influence the pattern of consumption and the way society develops, beyond the limited and skewed capitalist of way just voting with their feet or wallets.

Another democratic enhancement of ED is that, because huge profits do not accrue to small minorities of wealthy people and large corporations, the political system would not be perverted by the influence of money. Against this, it should be remembered that even worker-directed firms have interests which may conflict with those of the wider community. The “red priest”, José María Arizmendiarrieta, who founded the Mondragon co-op movement, warned of the danger of co-operatives becoming “collective egoists” (which Schweickart quotes in After Capitalism). So the problem of lobbying and the pursuit of institutional selfishness are not banished by ED.

Also, ED does not affect wider political decisions and how these are made. ED enshrines direct democracy in the realm of the enterprise where people spend their working lives. But, by definition, it is silent about the wider political realm.

Cure for Capitalism rating: 6.5/10

3 Environmental degradation

The environmental flaw in capitalism is that it grows, exhausting natural resources and causing poisonous side-effects of production, such as carbon emissions. At first glance, it is difficult to see how ED would be any different. Enterprises would, as Schweickart freely concedes, compete for market share and to satisfy their consumers. The difference, he argues, is that worker directed enterprises do not have the same growth dynamic as their capitalist counterparts. A capitalist company exists to maximise profit, but an economic democracy enterprise exists to secure profit per worker. As result ED enterprises are less likely to seek growth because profit will have to be shared among a growing work-force. A bog standard capitalist company does not have the same internal limit to growth because workers are merely a tool of production, and do not receive profits.

As a consequence, ED firms are compatible with low or zero growth, says Schweickart.

The other way in that ED is less harmful to the environment is that new investment is more geographically spread out. Money for new investment is generated by a tax on all enterprises, which is distributed to regions on a per head basis, a method Schweickart calls “social control of investment”. At present, capital and thus jobs, concentrate in certain areas (such as London in the UK) creating mega-cities and putting an intolerable strain on the surrounding environment. The same damaging concentration of people and resources would not occur under ED.

I can see Schweickart’s arguments but I’m not completely convinced that ED enterprises would so readily eschew growth. I have to conclude, with regard to environmental degradation, case unproven. For example, it has been argued by another economic democracy advocate, Richard Wolff, that worker self-directed enterprises would not pollute because the workers would suffer from the results and they won’t want to harm themselves or their families. But what about pollution, such as carbon emissions, whose effects may be felt on the other side of the world? It’s also apparent that enterprises in a market seek growth, not just to maximise profit, but also to head off competition and protect market share. This condition applies to worker directed enterprises, as much as their capitalist equivalents.

Cure for Capitalism rating: 5.5/10

4 Unemployment

This is a distinctly mixed picture. Under ED there is no desire or need for unemployment to discipline the workforce, no requirement for a reserve army of the unemployed. If anything, the opposite is true. A prime aim, says Schweickart, of ED is the creation of employment, whereas under capitalism, it is merely a by-product. Job creation is an explicit goal of the Mondragon collective of cooperatives in the Basque country, which Schweickart believes, demonstrates how a non-capitalist economy can work.

In fact, says Schweickart, there is an intrinsic bias against employment in capitalism. Capitalist enterprises are more inclined to replace workers with machines (partly because payroll taxes fall on each individual worker, whereas under ED they would be replaced with an enterprise tax) in order to maximise profit. ED enterprises, more dedicated to securing durable employment, would be less prone to mechanisation. But this in itself creates a looming problem. Because ED enterprises aim to create employment, they would be more likely to not develop or even suppress technologies that render labour redundant. In this way society would artificially hold back the development of technology for the sake of preserving paid jobs.

Not only is this, like King Canute trying to hold back the tide, impossible, it tries to defer facing how society is going to deal with the fact that in the future there will simply be less demand for labour because of the advance of technology. We can’t all, nor should we, all have 5 day a week jobs. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes believed that in a century’ time, people would work 15 hour weeks. Schweickart simply does not deal with this issue and I believe it is a major lacuna in his alternative model. The absence of a central authority, or a corrective to the free workings of markets, just incubates a vast problem.

In short, ED does deal with the problem of capitalist unemployment but in a way that generates problems of its own.

Cure for Capitalism rating: 5/10

I realise this is already quite long. So, for those that are following this saga, I will write the final part soon and examine whether ED can eradicate capitalist instability and overwork. And then consider the broader question of markets.

I was going to include a clip of Schweickart speaking but I’ve run out, so this will have to do.