If Obama is a failure, does that mean the end of American social democracy?

[J. J.]

American social democracy is an oxymoron.

Agreed, but you only have find the Affirmative Action thread to illustrate it.

[Scam of God]

American social democracy can't end, since it never existed.

It did indeed, at one point - I consider Keynesian economics to be little more than social democracy-lite. Their express goal, at any rate, is the same: the indirect redistribution of wealth. And history has shown that merely reappropriating wealth will more often than not get you elected out of office. It offers no lasting legacy that can be built on as the Left gains strength.

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions.  

I actually find the term "social democracy-lite" amusing. Social Democracy is essentially, some might say, socialism-lite, which in turn others call "communism in drag." A "lite" version of another "lite" is not social democracy, it's just social liberalism.

An American version of Social Democracy, being generous, has really only existed in a certain fraction of the population, it was never really a movement, nor a political party, like in many other areas of the world, such as Canada or Europe. A certain faction inside the Democratic Party perhaps resembles the Social Democrats abroad, but they are perhaps a fifth of our government, at best.

The United States is so far behind in progress of other nations precisely because social democracy never actually caught on here. It did with few, and was in vogue for a year or two here and there, but it was never actually strong enough to be in control or change things. There is no American Health Service, there is no program that pays an employee's wages when hard times hit, there is no 50% tax brackets. Liberalism is not Social Democracy.

Here is my gist: you may make the distinction between American liberalism and social democracy, if you wish. I find whatever differences that do exist between them to be so minute as to be virtually indistinguishable. And those differences have far more to do with the innate socio-political character of the American State than any genuine ideological grievances.

And here is my other point - social democracy, or liberalism, is, quite simply, incoherent. If you pay for a public works project, and you invest in cement and steel girders and copper wire for it, then it's true, as Keynes says, that those companies invested in the producing of them will receive an incremental boon -- incremental, and temporary. And little of this redistribution-by-proxy actually finds its way into the hands of the workers, though they'll certainly be the ones bearing the brunt of its cost. And afterwards, once countercyclical policies are no longer needed, you have inadvertently boosted industry out of its problems and given them the excuse they need to end whatever benefits the workers managed to scrape out of it. And that excuse is recovery.

Liberalism quite clearly cannot achieve its desired policy goals on a greater than momentary basis, for the simple fact that it is an ad hoc solution to a more deeply pressing problem. You are establishing no lasting institutions for the workers; you are giving them no benefits that they can carry with them into the recovery period; but you are taking money out of their pockets to pay for it. Industry gets the tax money and the future dividends, the workers get the shaft. Is it therefore any wonder the workers of the nation have turned in their desperation to reactionary politics?

I believe that, so long as the Left relies on the State, this cycle will only continue to deepen: Keynesian solutions will become less effective, and popular resistance to them will only increase. I therefore believe it essential that the American Left wean itself off of them and attempt to establish itself on a more firm footing, one which has nothing to do with the State - and is, indeed, frequently opposed to it - and which instead roots itself in more systematic questions of production.

I am not demanding that all production be collectivized into a Soviet. Far from it. What I am insisting on is that we give workers the tools to lift themselves up out of poverty on their own. The Internet is the lock, and newly emerging technologies are the pick we need to open it with. And this indeed must be a revolution; more than this, it must be a fundamental restructuring of our entire system of production.

If we are to pay down the national debt, we must expand the taxable base. If we are to expand the taxable base, we must make it easier for entrepreneurs to enter into business. If we are to make it easier for entrepreneurs to enter into business, we must ensure that the State is giving no co-operation to companies with monopolies or near monopolies over their respective business. That means radically revising our copyright laws; that means cutting spending - and cutting it massively. That means committing ourselves to a real and lasting change. Which is, of course, hard to ask from those who are so deeply committed to ideologies rooted in the last Great Depression.

Let us consider the case of a "Green economy". We cannot have it both ways - we cannot subsidize our automobile industry through bailouts and, by extension, their unions, and continue to attempt to press forward on this front. We must either accept the inevitable or perish of it. How much easier would it be for you to open this newly emerging market up, instead of trying to force it into place by application of State power!

[Scam of God]

American social democracy is an oxymoron.

Agreed, but you only have find the Affirmative Action thread to illustrate it.

It's not as if you pissant Reaganists offer any hope, either. Simply because Reaganism was the wave of the past doesn't mean it will be the wave of the future; in fact, almost precisely because it was the wave of the past means it will be abandoned in the future. The old Republican standby of selective corporatism (for established interests, of course) was a failure almost from before it began. You're just as done and you don't even know it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

American social democracy can't end, since it never existed.

It did indeed, at one point - I consider Keynesian economics to be little more than social democracy-lite. Their express goal, at any rate, is the same: the indirect redistribution of wealth. And history has shown that merely reappropriating wealth will more often than not get you elected out of office. It offers no lasting legacy that can be built on as the Left gains strength.

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions.  

I actually find the term "social democracy-lite" amusing. Social Democracy is essentially, some might say, socialism-lite, which in turn others call "communism in drag." A "lite" version of another "lite" is not social democracy, it's just social liberalism.

An American version of Social Democracy, being generous, has really only existed in a certain fraction of the population, it was never really a movement, nor a political party, like in many other areas of the world, such as Canada or Europe. A certain faction inside the Democratic Party perhaps resembles the Social Democrats abroad, but they are perhaps a fifth of our government, at best.

The United States is so far behind in progress of other nations precisely because social democracy never actually caught on here. It did with few, and was in vogue for a year or two here and there, but it was never actually strong enough to be in control or change things. There is no American Health Service, there is no program that pays an employee's wages when hard times hit, there is no 50% tax brackets. Liberalism is not Social Democracy.

[ungodly amount of off topic nonsense]

See, that had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and is why your posts sometimes get on my nerves. We're not talking about what you think about Social Democracy or Liberalism nor how you think they should evolve, again, we're talking about what Social Democracy is in contrast to American-style liberalism. This wasn't supposed to be just another avenue for you to philosophically masturbate all over the Atlas forum. There's a topic here.

[Scam of God]

American social democracy can't end, since it never existed.

It did indeed, at one point - I consider Keynesian economics to be little more than social democracy-lite. Their express goal, at any rate, is the same: the indirect redistribution of wealth. And history has shown that merely reappropriating wealth will more often than not get you elected out of office. It offers no lasting legacy that can be built on as the Left gains strength.

You have got to question your pre-conceived notions.  

I actually find the term "social democracy-lite" amusing. Social Democracy is essentially, some might say, socialism-lite, which in turn others call "communism in drag." A "lite" version of another "lite" is not social democracy, it's just social liberalism.

An American version of Social Democracy, being generous, has really only existed in a certain fraction of the population, it was never really a movement, nor a political party, like in many other areas of the world, such as Canada or Europe. A certain faction inside the Democratic Party perhaps resembles the Social Democrats abroad, but they are perhaps a fifth of our government, at best.

The United States is so far behind in progress of other nations precisely because social democracy never actually caught on here. It did with few, and was in vogue for a year or two here and there, but it was never actually strong enough to be in control or change things. There is no American Health Service, there is no program that pays an employee's wages when hard times hit, there is no 50% tax brackets. Liberalism is not Social Democracy.

[ungodly amount of off topic nonsense]

See, that had nothing to do with what we were talking about, and is why your posts sometimes get on my nerves. We're not talking about what you think about Social Democracy or Liberalism nor how you think they should evolve, again, we're talking about what Social Democracy is in contrast to American-style liberalism. This wasn't supposed to be just another avenue for you to philosophically masturbate all over the Atlas forum. There's a topic here.

Until you can stay on topic, get out of it. You're the one who hijacked it in an effort to whine about how misunderstood American liberals are, and I was trying to right it. Come back when you can actually offer something more than look-at-how-clever-I-am-senior-members fellatio.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Your question was the topic title "If Obama is a failure, does that mean the end of American social democracy?" I responded, as well as others, by saying there never has been such a thing in an organized political force outside of being a faction of the Dems. It wasn't about how you think social democracy should evolve, or how effective social democracy is, or any other of your topics you like to endlessly philosophize on, it is the question of what social democracy "is" in relation to American liberalism and if it ever existed in the first place.

My point was, in relation to something you said, that it's silly to call Keynesian economics "social democracy-lite" when social democracy is a moderate form of another thing to begin with. There can't be a diet-diet-soda. Keynesian economics is Keynesian economics, Social Democracy is Social Democracy, and American Liberalism is American Liberalism. If you want to play these incredible games of stretching definitions to loosely connect the dots between random ideologies, fine, but it basically makes the whole process of even applying terms to something meaningless, and thus this discussion becomes, meaningless.

[Scam of God]

Your question was the topic title "If Obama is a failure, does that mean the end of American social democracy?" I responded, as well as others, by saying there never has been such a thing in an organized political force outside of being a faction of the Dems. It wasn't about how you think social democracy should evolve, or how effective social democracy is, or any other of your topics you like to endlessly philosophize on, it is the question of what social democracy "is" in relation to American liberalism and if it ever existed in the first place.

My point was, in relation to something you said, that it's silly to call Keynesian economics "social democracy-lite" when social democracy is a moderate form of another thing to begin with. There can't be a diet-diet-soda. Keynesian economics is Keynesian economics, Social Democracy is Social Democracy, American Liberalism is American Liberalism. If you want to play these incredible game of stretching definitions to loosely connect the dots between random ideologies, fine, but it basically makes the whole process of even applying terms to something meaningless, and thus this discussion becomes, meaningless.

Your ability to obfuscate semantics to avoid actually posting anything of substance will never cease to amaze me, Marokai. But as long as it keeps you from thinking too deeply from the real questions of the day, why, for the sake of humaneness I shan't keep you from continuing to do so.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm the one twisting terms around? Keynesian economics is an economic theory which Social Democracy borrows some of it's positions on, and American Liberalism steals some elements of Social Democracy, but they are not, as you seem to say, interchangeable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

American liberalism basically IS social democracy though. It just got misnamed with a different ideology name when that word means something totally different everywhere else.

[Хahar 🤔]

American liberalism basically IS social democracy though. It just got misnamed with a different ideology name when that word means something totally different everywhere else.

No, it really isn't. The Democrats are at their core a social liberal party, like D66 or equivalents.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The DLC may be, but liberals are the ones complaining about them all the time.

[k-onmmunist]

Marokai why do you feel the need to be so condescending towards posters of different views?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm the one twisting terms around?

Yes, as usual.

[12th Doctor]

If I get one more complain from this thread I am shutting it down, so either stop acting like you are all five, or straighten out your own problems.

[Хahar 🤔]

The DLC may be, but liberals are the ones complaining about them all the time.

No, the DLC is normal liberal. The Democratic left is largely social liberal.

[Bo]

It won't end it, but it will signficiantly slow it down. Kind of like Reagan halted American social democracy for about 30 years.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

American social democracy is a rather electorally anemic force.  Obama is the first President since LBJ who has even remotely come close to fitting that role, and he hasn't really governed that way, in terms of results.  He can only help the movement.

[Democratic Hawk]

The "cult of neoliberalism", on the ideological right, is as discredited as revolutionary socialism, on the ideological left - and all that tells me is that the answer lies in the pragmatic center.

Modern liberalism, after all, was the original 'Third Way' between the ideological Gods that were socialism and classical liberalism