What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?

[Scam of God]

The problem is that social-democracy is inefficient even in achieving its historical goals: merely redistributing wealth through taxation is hardly enough to secure a lasting economic security for the lower classes. The Marxists were right in this one thing: the material means of wealth generation have to be in the hands of a man if he is to make something lasting for himself. And social-democracy, and 20th century liberalism more generally, can't do that.

[Scam of God]

Social Democracy has no historical goal (not since the belief in progress was crushed by events in Germany and Austria in the '30's). Taking a long view, I guess that's always been one of its main problems. Still, it's done more for ordinary people than any other ideology, so maybe that doesn't matter much.

It once did. And that's a big part of the problem - it can no longer provide "a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal". I'd sooner see it return to the historical mission of the Left than continue on its present course.

[Scam of God]

As I've said before, the minimum demand of virtually all Leftist and working-class Parties (before they actually assumed power beginning in the first and second decades of the last century) was in giving control of the means of production to the workers. How they went about it was a major point of contention, but it was almost universally agreed upon that the workers themselves had to physically control the tools of wealth-creation.

And, indeed, this is something I've gone on before about, because I actually agree with this. Perhaps that makes me a far-leftist - I certainly don't think so, because I base it on what I consider to be libertarian principles of self-sufficiency and self-ownership. But that ideal can now be realized with technologies emerging today, and I want the social-democrats to reconsider their time-worn tactic of merely indirectly redistributing wealth. Give a needy man a dollar and he'll spend it on temporary goods; give a needy man a machine and he can begin generating his own wealth.

[Scam of God]

If not the minimum demand, then certainly one which formed a core component of the movement. And I don't think it's really all that radical an idea today, since it could be done - with investment in the right areas - without a drop of blood being shed, without the need for revolution.

Moreover, it would accomplish goals agreeable to virtually all ends of the political spectrum: by massively broadening the tax base, it would make it far easier to pay down the national debt, which is a very conservative concern.