Is Social Democracy dead?

[Sol]

And if so, what is to replace it?

Inspired by the Sweden thread. Not personally qualified to offer opinions.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The postwar consensus was the aberration in capitalism.

[politicus]

European Social Democracy (and since Social Democracy developed in Europe and things gets too blurred if you involve non-European versions I am only going to focus on that) is not dead, but it is in severe crisis. The danger is that it will be replaced by right wing populist parties with a left wing economic agenda - what you might call nationalist populists – where the progressive social policies of SDs are replaced with conservative or reactionary positions, while the economic populism is maintained, at least on the rhetorical level.

Their basic problem is that the classic model where Social Democrats avoided taking over the means of production and instead created a large welfare state based on high taxation has hit the wall.

Globalization is the main challenge. In an era where capital can be moved and most jobs can be outsourced it is simply difficult to sustain the necessary tax base. It is also difficult to create enough jobs (at least jobs with a proper wage) to let ordinary people get a sizable share of the economy through wages.

Social Democrats should have implemented economic democracy when they had the chance in several countries in the post-war era, but chickened out of this.

One option is for reformist Socialists to readdress the problem of ownership since workers owning their company is the best way to secure that production isn't moved out of the country. Workers cooperatives owning a large share of the economy would also reduce the wage level thereby making the economy more competitive and state owned investment banks would allow more resources to be put into job creation rather than speculation. But we all know the problems resulting from limiting the free market. Any experiment with ownership, such as government loans for worker coops, nationalization or dropping inheritance and capital taxes for owners who sell to their employees, will be met with widespread resistance.

Social Democratic policies also require growth and in a world where limited resources will increasingly make it harder to grow the economy this will be a challenge.  Converting to a steady state economy with shorter work days, but more family and community responsibility for the welfare sector with volunteer work replacing public employees, is one way to go. But there will be major transitional problems and any break with the current consumer culture will be unpopular.

Even if sustained growth is still possible productivity increase makes it hard to get enough jobs, so a shorter work week will be necessary. Several experiments has shown that this is possible  without a drop in production because of increased efficiency, but its a hard sell to business and the population at large.

In general the problem for SDs is that they need to renew their project and make some choices that will alienate some voters in the short term in order to develop a coherent vision of society that address the problems we are facing. This takes a lot of guts and a long term focus that is generally next to impossible to integrate in ordinary electoral politics.

Another problem is their lack of media power and the break between organized labour and SDs. Since contributions from unions is generally the only thing that can make it possible for left wing parties to aquire enough capital to successfully challenge pro-business parties in elections or create a loyal (or at least not hostile) media this is a major problem, which is hard to solve since many (often most) workers have already abandoned SDs making it hard (often impossible) for unions to support SDs.
Creating a cooperative sector in the economy would also help with this, since you would get pro-SD businesses, but since you need political power to create those its very hard to do.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The central problem of Social Democracy is that it has been unable to innovate in the face of dramatic changes that have rendered its classic solutions increasingly irrelevant.

[swl]

Agreed with the posts above. Social-democrats achieved great thing in Europe 30 or 40 years ago. It's not enough anymore for people to vote for them in 2014.
They have no idea about what to do, so either they follow the centre-right (why would anyone vote for them then?), or they cling to things that were adequate in 1970.

[Velasco]

Social Democratic policies also require growth and in a world where limited resources will increasingly make it harder to grow the economy this will be a challenge.  Converting to a steady state economy with shorter work days, but more family and community responsibility for the welfare sector with volunteer work replacing public employees, is one way to go. But there will be major transitional problems and any break with the current consumer culture will be unpopular.

That is a key point. I would add that, as long as sustained growth is unworkable in the long term due to limited resources, 'social democratic', 'progressive' or 'left-wing' policies should pursue a redistributive model based on sustainable development. Necessarily, it must go in open opposition with our consumer culture or, in other words, it must press for a radical change in consumption habits. As you pointed out, it might be widely unpopular. Anyway, the increasing inequality added to an increasing competition for the diminishing resources, trends that will be aggravated as the effects of global warming become more evident, makes necessary to address the challenge of finding an economic alternative for the years to come. As for the future of the Social Democracy, I don't know.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In addition to great other posts; the true goal of social democracy, equality, has clearly not been reached. Though the various Social Democratic governments of the west have produced more egalitarian societies, if we look beyond  petty nation-states, inequality is just as toxic as ever. What good is everyone in, say, Finland having free healthcare, if it is on the backs of those in developing countries? I cannot say, as someone who desires equality amongst all peoples, that the post-war Social Democratic model is ideal, because it still enshrined poverty between nations.

The fact that humans are still organised into nation-states is a stumbling block for social democracy and the fight for equality. You want to raise your taxes to pay for healthcare? You want to increase collective bargaining? Well have fun pushing out the fickle rich and the investment they bring. We have two ways of dealing with this issue (aside from abandoning the left altogether). One is protectionism, which is nearly always stupid, reactionary crap. The other is through true internationalism. And, to cap off this meandering post, such international cooperation (universal worker's rights comes to mind) is the only way to bring about true equality.

(I understand this is absurdly idealistic, but I see no other option)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I said this 3 years ago, and I stick by it:

So, is Social Democracy an ideology whose time has gone? Only future will provide the answer, but, in regard to the main problems of modern societies, the forceful values which Social Democracy embodies might not be as out of touch as it is often claimed.

Non-sage version: Social Democracy is what the world needs right now, even though politicians and voters might well be too stupid to understand that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To elaborate: the only substantial difference between then and now (and the main reason why Social Democracy is in trouble), is that, until the 70s, nationwide Social Democracy was capable of achieving its main goals. Nowadays, only transnational (ideally worldwide, but area-wide would be a good start) Social Democracy can truly work. It could easily be done, if people get a clue.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

[politicus]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

So far this thread has been a discussion among people who are either green, democratic socialists, social democrats or - in my case -  Christian Democrat with leftist tendencies on socio-economic and environmental issues. I think that's rather pleasant, its not a topic where comments from people who are totally alien to the Social Democratic tradition and/or its history will add anything of value.

There is no need to actively try to entice right wingers to come and say you are a naive dreamer etc. That will just clutter up the thread.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

So far this thread has been a discussion among people who are either green, democratic socialists, social democrats or - in my case -  Christian Democrat with leftist tendencies on socio-economic and environmental issues. I think that's rather pleasant, its not a topic where comments from people who are totally alien to the Social Democratic tradition and/or its history will add anything of value.

There is no need to actively try to entice right wingers to come and say you are a naive dreamer etc. That will just clutter up the thread.

That's not what I meant and that wasn't my goal. I expected the comments on naivete to come up because that's what always happens when I give my opinion on either Social Democracy, European federalism, or globalization. I made these comments because these are some of my most deeply held beliefs, and I rarely have the occasion to spit them out so clearly as I did this time around. Obviously, I wish to see them discussed - but I'm certainly not eager for snarky replies. In fact, even though I have grown a thick skin over the years, I must confess I still resent them somewhat. Nobody likes to be treated like a kid, especially as I believe I've put at least some thought in building my political beliefs.

Besides, I would say "democratic socialists" (at least the True Leftist kind) are usually the most condescending, followed by center-right anti-EU Europeans. American right-wingers generally don't care about these ideological nuances, to them we're all the same.

[politicus]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

I didn't comment on your post because I think its mostly stating the obvious without going into some of the hard stuff like:

A. SD being dependent on growth vs. limited resources
B. Distributing wealth via jobs vs. job loss because of technology
C. Cultural alienation of workers incl. many workers being socon on immigration and law & order
D. Lack of media power and campaign money due to unions withdrawing support (related to C.)
E. The conflict between addressing A and B and winning elections.

So while you do address globalization there is some other hard stuff you don't take into consideration and your solution to the problems arising from globalization is of course very broad strokes and general. Many (probably most) people are after all pretty attached to their nation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

I didn't comment on your post because...

I think all of those were very good reasons to comment on my post. At least if you believe if I have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. Which I'm not sure I have, but will try to come up with when I have more time.

For the time being, let me just say that I don't believe I have any recipe for making workers (or anyone else) believe in Social Democracy again. I've never been good at convincing people and while I know for a fact that an ideological elite can significantly reshape the political culture of their societies (because it has been done many times in history), I have little idea how exactly it is done. What pisses me off is that modern left-wing politicians don't even bother trying. They have been wiping their asses with Social Democracy for two decades now - so of course the working class is not going to adhere to Social Democracy, since the case for it has never been presented to them.

[parochial boy]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

I didn't comment on your post because...

I think all of those were very good reasons to comment on my post. At least if you believe if I have anything worthwhile to say on the subject. Which I'm not sure I have, but will try to come up with when I have more time.

For the time being, let me just say that I don't believe I have any recipe for making workers (or anyone else) believe in Social Democracy again. I've never been good at convincing people and while I know for a fact that an ideological elite can significantly reshape the political culture of their societies (because it has been done many times in history), I have little idea how exactly it is done. What pisses me off is that modern left-wing politicians don't even bother trying. They have been wiping their asses with Social Democracy for two decades now - so of course the working class is not going to adhere to Social Democracy, since the case for it has never been presented to them.

Well, there is a reason why they dont try, and it relates to the increased mediatisation of politics and the general idea that "free markets are the only way". Basically, to a greater and greater extent our opinios are informed by a group of people who have a very obvious incentive to oppose any traditional social democratic policies like nationalisation or higher taxes.

In the same way, nationalism as a concept is a massive barrier to any international social democratic concept, as we all "have" to compete against each other, Its a massive shame that the EU never really followed up on the Jacques Delors era, and still allowed tax havens like Luxembourg or Ireland to undermine the possibility of a succesful multistate social democratic compact.

[Redalgo]

Social democracy, much like democratic socialism, is not dead so much as struggling to modernize in a way that does not contradict its core objectives. They both need effective methods of coping with globalization - in terms of accommodating immigrants, maintaining high levels of solidarity, weathering demographic and fiscal challenges to social rights commitments, and responding to valid criticisms from liberals and - on occasion - traditionalists to their right.

Popular approaches to multiculturalism are eroding social cohesion. The spectre of austerity lurks in waiting for countries that dawdle in fundamentally reevaluating their approaches to providing for the basic needs of all. Economic downturns drive wedges between social groups, diminishing their will to support each other in good faith and thus in turn undercutting socialist appeals for greater socioeconomic equality. Economic globalization is, in lieu of adequete political globalization, weakening the primacy of state over private interests. Advice from other camps is received most awkwardly - with some "socialists" becoming social liberals in all but name, some clinging to post-war doctrines in much the way orthodox Marxists did when presented with revisionism, and others using sacred symbols of labour but lacking detailed plans.

Their experiments in the old days were not failures, of course. Valuable lessons were learned. But now those results must be addressed in a serious way that leads champions of labour to innovative ideas - lest liberal trends continue to prevail with only lacklustre resistance from the left. The problem is not with voters being too ignorant to realize the potential of a moderate compromise betwixt the extremes of capitalism and communism. The problem is with social democrats resting on their laurels and failing to scheme up a bold vision for how their movement can better adapt to the modern world.

[muon2]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

So far this thread has been a discussion among people who are either green, democratic socialists, social democrats or - in my case -  Christian Democrat with leftist tendencies on socio-economic and environmental issues. I think that's rather pleasant, its not a topic where comments from people who are totally alien to the Social Democratic tradition and/or its history will add anything of value.

There is no need to actively try to entice right wingers to come and say you are a naive dreamer etc. That will just clutter up the thread.   

Well for better or worse your long post wasn't tl;dr for me. And it raises some questions on which I'd be curious to get the European view.

Social Democrats should have implemented economic democracy when they had the chance in several countries in the post-war era, but chickened out of this.

What caused the SDs to back away from this direction? Was it satisfaction with the status quo? Did the reliance on nationalized industries prevent movement towards worker ownership?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are some particularly intriguing thoughts here. I would think that creating incentives for business to have cooperative ownership might create some new and unusual coalitions. Wouldn't reductions in regulation or targeted tax incentives move some small and mid-sized businesses to support that type of platform? Would it pull in a mix of workers and native business much like one sees in traditional policy debates on tariffs on foreign goods?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The push towards more family and community responsibility for welfare has generally been a conservative position in the US. If the SDs moved in that direction would that gain them votes in Europe?

[Person Man]

Wow, I'm really surprised my comments didn't spark myriad of condescending / outraged / annoyed replies...

So far this thread has been a discussion among people who are either green, democratic socialists, social democrats or - in my case -  Christian Democrat with leftist tendencies on socio-economic and environmental issues. I think that's rather pleasant, its not a topic where comments from people who are totally alien to the Social Democratic tradition and/or its history will add anything of value.

There is no need to actively try to entice right wingers to come and say you are a naive dreamer etc. That will just clutter up the thread.  

Well for better or worse your long post wasn't tl;dr for me. And it raises some questions on which I'd be curious to get the European view.

Social Democrats should have implemented economic democracy when they had the chance in several countries in the post-war era, but chickened out of this.

What caused the SDs to back away from this direction? Was it satisfaction with the status quo? Did the reliance on nationalized industries prevent movement towards worker ownership?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are some particularly intriguing thoughts here. I would think that creating incentives for business to have cooperative ownership might create some new and unusual coalitions. Wouldn't reductions in regulation or targeted tax incentives move some small and mid-sized businesses to support that type of platform? Would it pull in a mix of workers and native business much like one sees in traditional policy debates on tariffs on foreign goods?
If it is as simple as the Government giving people free money away to coops, why are these things still issues?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The push towards more family and community responsibility for welfare has generally been a conservative position in the US. If the SDs moved in that direction would that gain them votes in Europe?
So many of these proposals for SDs/center-leftists to win in Europe are similar to what they tell Democrats here when they are in the minority- "Stop being Democrats"?  [/img]

[politicus]

Hi Muon

I will try to answer your questions a little by little, since some of them require long answers.

Social Democrats should have implemented economic democracy when they had the chance in several countries in the post-war era, but chickened out of this.

What caused the SDs to back away from this direction? Was it satisfaction with the status quo? Did the reliance on nationalized industries prevent movement towards worker ownership?

It came the furthest in Sweden and Denmark in the 70s and early 80s with the idea of union controlled employee funds (such funds where approved in Sweden, but never implemented) and stranded on a combination of factors. The right wing in both the party and the trade unions wanted to preserve the status quo and was afraid it would be bad for business + many of them saw it as too "socialist" - SDs had a strong anti-communist tradition. The other factor was fear of capital flight. In Denmark their reliance on support from a centrist social liberal party also played a role. Ironically parties to left of SD considered it a reactionary move to preserve capitalism and make the workers into little capitalists!
Reliance on cooperation with centrist parties was an important deterrent in many other countries and was also used internally by the right wing in SD parties to keep the left wing from demanding economic democracy.

There were no nationalized industry in the Nordic countries, but in countries like Austria, France and UK where (parts of) some industries where nationalized there was a reluctance to let workers run them or sell them to employees - it was never really on the table to do so.
The Israeli union movement ran a large number of businesses in this era, but this brought them into conflict with their core values - since they underpaid Arabic Jews and Arabs and other outsiders. Its likely this insider/outsider problematic would also have been a problem in Europe.

[politicus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. There are some particularly intriguing thoughts here. I would think that creating incentives for business to have cooperative ownership might create some new and unusual coalitions. Wouldn't reductions in regulation or targeted tax incentives move some small and mid-sized businesses to support that type of platform? Would it pull in a mix of workers and native business much like one sees in traditional policy debates on tariffs on foreign goods?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. The push towards more family and community responsibility for welfare has generally been a conservative position in the US. If the SDs moved in that direction would that gain them votes in Europe?

When reading my answer to those two keep in mind that I view this as an outsider who has moved left on socioeconomic issues from an originally conservative postion and identifies as a Christian Democrat. A Social Democrat would view this differently.

1. I am unsure how small/midsize business owners would view a push towards more cooperative ownerships, some would clearly view it as unacceptable government interference, but in principle most liberals (in the European sense) would have no trouble accepting more diverse types of ownership. If it  included special treatment for such companies in any way, there would however be a strong backlash in this group.
In countries like Denmark with a strong coop tradition, much of it founded by farmers connected with the Liberal party, coops are not seen as inherently leftist. But I cant speak for non-Scandinavian countries about this, I simply don't know enough.

2. Its an idea promoted by steady state economists, who originate in a leftist tradition, but its alien to the big government thinking that has traditionally dominated SDs. Some parties further left have had a more positive approach to ideas of self organization. The left-SD Socialist People Party in Denmark once had a slogan called "More society, less state" and the idea of greater civil society responsibility would have greater resonance among new left types, at least in principle. In reality the left tends to be SD +10% (or 20%) in their policies, while at the same time wanting less resource consumption!

The tax financed welfare state with a huge public sector staffed with professionals is popular, but I think more and more voters realize that it is unsustainable in its present form since the high wages/high taxes/high prices model is simply too costly in a global market place, and that the left will have to come up with an alternative to centre-right austerity policies. I will however be risky to promote a less work/more self organization-model with less government involvement and higher civil society responsibility. It would definitely cost voters in the beginning. In Denmark municipalities requiring more family involvement in the care of the elderly has been highly unpopular, since its viewed as a public responsibility. But if such policies where combined with shorter work hours they would likely be more acceptable.

My point is that changes to the way welfare is organized is going to happen anyway, and that the left should bring on their own plan to do it with a solidaric distribution of the responsibilities (ie everybody should put in a certain amount of hours in this) and some democratic self organization of it in local areas as an alternative to a right wing approach where less government involvement simply means higher individual responsibility with the size of your vallet determining how well you handle  this situation.

[muon2]

Hi Muon

I will try to answer your questions a little by little, since some of them require long answers.

Social Democrats should have implemented economic democracy when they had the chance in several countries in the post-war era, but chickened out of this.

What caused the SDs to back away from this direction? Was it satisfaction with the status quo? Did the reliance on nationalized industries prevent movement towards worker ownership?

It came the furthest in Sweden and Denmark in the 70s and early 80s with the idea of union controlled employee funds (such funds where approved in Sweden, but never implemented) and stranded on a combination of factors. The right wing in both the party and the trade unions wanted to preserve the status quo and was afraid it would be bad for business + many of them saw it as too "socialist" - SDs had a strong anti-communist tradition. The other factor was fear of capital flight. In Denmark their reliance on support from a centrist social liberal party also played a role. Ironically parties to left of SD considered it a reactionary move to preserve capitalism and make the workers into little capitalists!
Reliance on cooperation with centrist parties was an important deterrent in many other countries and was also used internally by the right wing in SD parties to keep the left wing from demanding economic democracy.

There were no nationalized industry in the Nordic countries, but in countries like Austria, France and UK where (parts of) some industries where nationalized there was a reluctance to let workers run them or sell them to employees - it was never really on the table to do so.
The Israeli union movement ran a large number of businesses in this era, but this brought them into conflict with their core values - since they underpaid Arabic Jews and Arabs and other outsiders. Its likely this insider/outsider problematic would also have been a problem in Europe.

Thanks for the answer. Part of my interest in this is that there are many corporations in the US that operate as either wholly or majority employee owned. Many of them give voting shares to employees as part of their compensation which the employees can sell back to the employees trust at fair market value when they leave the company. US law makes this an attractive option for some companies by treating the employee shares as tax exempt retirement income, and by allowing the employee trust to borrow money and provide tax breaks for repayment.

Of course, these aren't completely equal cooperatives since different employees will have different amounts of voting shares. Both years of service and salary level can affect the shares controlled by an employee depending on the mechanism the company uses. However, workers I know in such arrangements seem to like them better than other jobs they've had.