Social democracy

From Free net encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism. Initially, social democratic parties included revolutionary socialists, such as Rosa Luxemburg and Vladimir Lenin alongside those who advocated a gradualist, evolutionary approach, such as Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky and Jean Jaures. After World War I and the Russian Revolution, social democracy became exclusively associated with the non-revolutionary approach. Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system in order to make it more equitable and humane, while the theoretical end goal of building a socialist society is either completely forgotten or redefined in a pro-capitalist way.

The term social democracy can also refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. The Socialist International (SI) - the worldwide organisation of social democratic and democratic socialist parties - defines social democracy as an ideal form of representative democracy, that may solve the problems found in a liberal democracy. The SI emphasizes the following principles: Firstly, freedom - not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power. Secondly, equality and social justice - not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities. Finally, solidarity - unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. See The SI's Declaration of Principles.

The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably in the 1990s and 2000s, against the predictions of those who suggested Sweden's 57% top tax bracket would slow its economy. Instead, Sweden has produced a robust economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and Ericsson), while maintaining the longest life expectancy in the world, low unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, all while registering sizable economic growth. Template:Fact On the other hand, Sweden experiences welfare dependency of around 20% of the working age population according to the Swedish Trade Union Confederation. Likewise, crime has been steadily rising since the 1960s, and during the past decade has grown ever more violent. Template:Fact

1 Social democratic political parties
2 "Democratic socialism" versus "Social democracy"
3 History
4 Views of Social Democrats today
5 Criticism of social democracy
6 List of famous Social democrats
7 See also
8 External links

[edit]

Social democratic political parties

Social democratic political parties are a feature of many democratic countries. Over the course of the twentieth century, parties such as the Labour Party in the United Kingdom (the party's constitution says it is democratic socialist, but its policies are social democratic), the German SPD and many other such parties throughout Europe, Canada (New Democratic Party), Australia (Labor Party), New Zealand (Labour Party) and Norway (Arbeiderpartiet) stood in elections on political platforms that included policies such as stronger labor laws, nationalization of major industries, and a strong welfare state. Most of the European social democratic parties are part of the Party of European Socialists, which is one of the main political partites at European level.

During the later part of the century, most of the aforementioned parties distanced themselves from socialist-style economics (and socialism in general). At present, social democrats generally do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their goals. This is a main reason why social democracy is not really a form of socialism. A great many social democratic parties have adopted policies of the centrist Third Way, which supports a deregulated economy and emphasises equality of opportunity as the benchmark for social equity. Modern social democrats have also broadened their social goals to encompass aspects of feminism, racial equality and multiculturalism. Whether this modern form of social democracy can properly be described as "socialist" is a matter of dispute. Many social democrats do not see themselves as socialist.

Most social democratic parties are members of the Socialist International, which is a successor to the Second International. See also List of social democratic parties.

[edit]

"Democratic socialism" versus "Social democracy"

Democratic socialism arguably forms a distinct current of thought from social democracy, in that self-described democratic socialists still see themselves as working towards the establishment of a socialist society with a socialist economic system. Many separate parties calling themselves "social democrats" have sought to distance themselves from their democratic socialist counterparts. Naturally, there is some degree of overlap, and some self-professed democratic socialists remain associated with social democratic parties in an effort to render them more avowedly socialist.

In most cases, social democrats would settle for a medium between capitalism and socialism, while democratic socialists advocate absolute socialism and want to abolish capitalism through democratic means. In other cases, particular names are used solely by historical accident.

In general, there are two viewpoints regarding the relation Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism. The first one claims that the democratic socialists are really left-wing social democrats rather than a different current. Many social democrats acknowledge their Marxist inheritance openly and social democrats debate politics in terms many more orthodox Marxists would recognise. The second viewpoint disagrees with this argumentation and claims that even though both the social democrats and the democratic socialists are in favour of humanizing capitalism, for the democratic socialists this is only a step towards building a socialist society. Hence, according to this second viewpoint, because the social democrats have abandoned the goal of building a socialist society, there is no basis for them to call themselves (democratic) socialists. With the newest centrist reorientation of the Social Democracy, the social democrats have less right than ever to call themselves democratic socialists.

[edit]

History

Image:Red carnation.jpg Many parties in the second half of the 19th century described themselves as social democratic, such as the British Social Democratic Federation, and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In most cases these were revolutionary socialist or Marxist groups, who were not only seeking to introduce socialism, but also democracy in un-democratic countries.

The modern social democratic current came into being through a break within the socialist movement in the early 20th century, between two groups holding different views on the ideas of Karl Marx. Many related movements, including Pacifism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism, arose at the same time (Often by splitting from the main socialist movement, but also by emerging of new theories.) and had various quite different objections to Marxism. The social democrats, who were the majority of socialists at this time, did not reject Marxism (and in fact claimed to uphold it), but wanted to reform it in certain ways and tone down their criticism of capitalism. They argued that socialism should be achieved through evolution rather than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed by the revolutionary socialists, who argued that any attempt to reform capitalism was doomed to fail, because the reformers would be gradually corrupted and eventually turn into capitalists themselves.

Two key figures within the socialist movement at this time were César de Paepe of the Belgian International Working Men's Association, and Jean Jaures (Who led the French Socialist Party until his assassination on July 31, 1914, one day before the general mobilization of forces that began World War I).

Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of socialism remained united until the outbreak of World War I. The war proved to be the final straw that pushed the tensions between them to breaking point. The reformist socialists supported their respective national governments in the war, a fact that was seen by the revolutionary socialists as outright treason against the working class (Since it betrayed the principle that the workers of all nations should unite in overthrowing capitalism, and the fact that usually the lowest classes are the ones sent into the war to fight, and die, putting the cause at the side). Bitter arguments ensued within socialist parties, as for example between Eduard Bernstein (Reformist socialist) and Rosa Luxemburg (Revolutionary socialist) within the SPD in Germany. Eventually, after the Russian Revolution of 1917, most of the world's socialist parties fractured. The reformist socialists kept the name "Social democrats", while the revolutionary socialists began calling themselves "Communists", and soon formed the modern communist movement. (See also Comintern)

Since the 1920s, doctrinal differences have been constantly growing between social democrats and communists (who themselves are not unified on the way to achieve socialism).

Following the split between Social democrats and Communists, another split developed within social democracy, between those who still believed it was necessary to abolish capitalism (without revolution) and replace it with a socialist system through democratic parliamentary means, and those who believed that the capitalist system could be retained but simply needed adjustments and improvements such as the nationalization of large businesses, the implementation of social programs (Public education, universal healthcare, etc.) and the (Partial) redistribution of wealth through a welfare state and progressive taxation. Eventually, most social democratic parties have come to be dominated by the latter position and, in the post World War II era, have abandoned any real commitment to abolish capitalism. For instance, in 1959, the Social Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Godesberg Program which rejected class struggle and Marxism.

Since the late 1980s, most social democratic parties have adopted the "Third Way" - either formally or in practice. Modern social democrats are generally in favor of a mixed economy, which should be mainly capitalistic but with governmental provision of certain social services. Many social democratic parties have shifted emphasis from their traditional goals of social justice to human rights and environmental issues. In this, they are facing increasing challenge from Greens, who view ecology as fundamental to peace, and require reform of money supply and safe trade measures to ensure ecological integrity. In Germany in particular, Greens, Social Democrats, and other left-wing parties have cooperated in so-called Red-Green Alliances. This is also not uncommon in Norway, although the "green" party there is usually the Centrist party (former 'farmers' party') or under their wings.

A number of the policies advocated by social democrats have become permanent in the countries where they have been implemented, in the sense that they are now supported by all mainstream political parties. Such policies include the progressive income tax and publicly funded medicine. Other measures, however, (such as tuition-free university education) have sometimes been overturned, occasionally by social democratic governments themselves. Social democrats have, for the most part, also abandoned the concept of nationalisation and have instead fully or partly privatised state owned industry and services. These changes have been seen in the governments of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in Australia, that of Tony Blair in the United Kingdom, Gerhard Schröder in Germany, Göran Persson in Sweden, and the Rogernomics of David Lange and Finance Minister Roger Douglas in New Zealand.

In general, these reversals in policy are supported more by the party leadership and far less by the average members of social democratic parties and their voter base. Many have claimed that the present leadership of the social democratic movement is corrupt and has abandoned social democracy in practice; to which 'modernising' social democrats counter that their 'new' social democracy is an adaptation of those historic principles to the reality of the modern world.

When discussing the recent reversal of social democratic policy it is important to bear in mind that what many people refer to as 'traditional' social democracy is now generally regarded to have been possible only because of the prevailing international climate - the post-war Bretton Woods consensus. What is of interest to contemporary social democrats, therefore, is why this consensus itself collapsed, whether it would be possible to rebuild it, and how.

Some social democratic parties have at some point in their history been supporters of free trade, on the grounds that limiting international trade harms the poor by raising prices and reducing incomes: for example the Labour Party first came to government in the UK in 1924 after their opponents had lost the 1923 election by proposing protectionism.

See also History of Socialism.

[edit]

Views of Social Democrats today

In general, contemporary Social Democrats support:

Regulatory systems over private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and small enterprise.
A Social Market Economy over a Free market, if not, in some cases and to some extent, planned economy.
Advocacy of Fair trade over Free trade.
An extensive system of social security (Though usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialist's or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness or unemployment. (See welfare state)
Government-owned or subsidised programs of education, health care, child care, etc. for all citizens.
Moderate to high levels of taxation to fund government expenditure and a progressive taxation system.
A system of industrial regulation (statutory minimum wages, working conditions, protection against arbitrary dismissal).
Environmental protection laws (although not to the extent advocated by Greens).
Immigration and multiculturalism.
A secular and progressive social policy, although this varies markedly in degree. Most social democrats support gay marriage, abortion and a liberal drug policy, while others are either non-committed or openly opposed to these policies, although feigned opposition may be employed for political expediency.
A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and, where possible, effective multilateralism.

[edit]

Criticism of social democracy

Most criticism of social democracy comes from liberals. Liberals typically argue that social democratic systems are too restrictive on individual rights, particularly economic freedom, and that individual choice is not as great in systems that provide state-run schools, health care, child care and other services. More particularly, social democracy exceeds at mediocrity while capitalist republics encourage competition for the benefit of the successful. Social democrats usually retort by arguing that their policies are in fact enhancing individual rights, by raising the standard of living of the vast majority of the population and eliminating the threat of extreme poverty. Another argument from the left is that by restricting some economical rights, it makes the market more fair - and free - to smaller enterprises and thus, increase the freedom from the larger capitals, and private people, but not the one's who get too much hold. Moreover, white collar crimes might benefit from too many economic rights, is a counter-critique raised by some social democrats.

Economic conservatives and classical liberals argue that social democracy interferes with market mechanisms and hurts the economy by encouraging large budget deficits and restricting the ability of entrepreneurs to invest as they see fit. Social democrats might respond to this argument by observing that conservative right-wing governments have also built up large budget deficits in recent years, notably the Reagan and Bush, Jr. administrations in the USA and the Thatcher government post-1987 in the UK. Classical liberals, following the work of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises and others, reject the characterization of these regimes as classically liberal in nature at all. Classical liberals also assert that what much of the left criticizes as capitalism is actually a state-mediated corporatist system, closer to fascism than free-market capitalism.

The modern (American) liberal critique of social democracy is centred on its willingness to restrict the political and legal rights of the individual in favour of a perceived social good. For example, the debate over Detention of terrorist suspects without trial in the UK in 2004-05 pitted the Liberal Democrat party, who supported the right to a fair trial, against the Labour government, who argued that curtailing human rights was justified if it served a social end. However, this critique assumes that the British Labour Party has remained true to its social democratic ideals (see the following paragraph) and ignores similar terrorism laws introduced by the Liberal Party of Australia in late 2005.

There is also extensive criticism against social democracy coming from many segments of the Left. Democratic socialists and revolutionary socialists criticise social democrats for being so dependent on the capitalist system that they become indistinguishable from modern liberals. Many social democrats explicitly renounce the label "Socialist" and the goal of achieving a socialist state. This willingness to work within the capitalist system rather than trying to overturn it leads many on the left to accuse modern social democratic parties of betraying their principles out of corruption and a desire to placate business lobbies and other interest groups. Left critics allege that some professed social democrats, such as Tony Blair (UK), Göran Persson (Sweden) and Gerhard Schröder (Germany), end up doing the work of the capitalists by implementing tax cuts, cuts in social programs, privatisations, industrial deregulation, and a rolling back of the welfare state rather than extending it.

[edit]