|
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. Modern social democracy emphasises a program of gradual legislative reform of the capitalist system with equality of outcome as a goal. However, social democratic parties intially included democratic socialists.
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 liberal democracy, that may solve the problems found in unregulated capitalism. 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.
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.
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 have been social democratic), the German SPD and many other such parties throughout Europe, Canada (New Democratic Party), Australia (Labor Party), and New Zealand (Labour Party) 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 parties at the European level; and most social democratic parties are members of the Socialist International, which is a successor to the Second International.
During the latter part of the century, most of the aforementioned parties distanced themselves from socialist-style economics (and socialism in general). Many modern social democrats have broadened their social goals to encompass aspects of feminism, racial equality and multiculturalism. At present, some former social democrats do not see a conflict between a capitalist market economy and their goals, and, are thusly more "right-wing" in their views. Quite a few (though most certainly not all) formerly social democratic parties have adopted policies which support a deregulated and free market economy and emphasises equality of opportunity as the benchmark for social equity. This trend, called Third Way, is very controversial, as Third Way parties such as New Labour in the United Kingdom have in some ways ceased to be social democratic or even leftist, pursuing the same kind of goals as the Conservative Party politics influenced by neoliberalism.
See also List of social democratic parties.
"Democratic socialism" versus "social democracy"
Democratic socialism 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 between 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 recent centrist or Third Way reorientation of many social democratic parties around the world, social democrats seem to have distanced themselves more than ever from democratic socialism.
History
A red rose held in a closed fist is the international symbol of social democracy.
Pre-war – social democracy and Marxism
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.
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).
Post war – social democracy and democratic 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.
In Italy there was a particular Social Democratic Party, in fact it represented a current of right in the international social democratic ideology. The Italian Social Democratic Party in fact, was founded in 1947 and from 1948 the position of the party was in the "centrist alliance". Since the late 1980s, the other 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.
Recent times – social democracy and Third Way
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, social market economy and publicly-funded health care. Other measures, however, (such as tuition-free university education) have sometimes been overturned, occasionally by social democratic governments themselves [citation needed]. More right-wing so-called social democrats have also abandoned the concept of nationalisation and have instead fully or partly privatised state owned industry and services, a trend called Third Way. These changes have arguably 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. One problem with these examples, however, is that there is no clearly boundary defining where social democracy ends and social liberalism or even conservatism begins. Tony Blair, for example, is often seen as having gone beyond social democracy and Blair has in some ways merely embraced purely right-wing agendas, such as his militaristic policy on Iraq, draconian policies on law and order and further privatisation of health and education.
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.
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 socialists 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, healthcare, 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 or union-established 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 strongly 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.
- Dissimilar to many liberals, social democrats advocate social rights, rather than just human rights.
Examples of social democracy
The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably in the 1990s and 2000s [1]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Ikea, and Ericsson), while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, all while registering sizable economic growth. [2] On the other hand, in comparison with other developed countries Sweden did fall behind in that period [3]. Also, 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 from 195,000 reported crimes in 1950 to 1,237,000 reported crimes in 2005. However, by far the greatest rise in the crime rate occurred during the 1990s, when social democratic policies began to be diminished and rolled back. The number of murders have doubled since 1990, and sex crimes such as rape have increased from 5,246 in 1990 to 12,768 in 2005. [4]
Others also point to Norway as an example of a social democratic nation. [5]
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. Many economic liberals counter that Social democracy would involve too many restrictions on the market, thus lowering its efficiency, causing a reduction in economic growth. This, they say, would lead to a lower living standard of the population as a whole.
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 George W. Bush administrations in the USA and the Thatcher government post-1987 in the UK. The retort to this rejection however, is that it commits the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem tu quoque.
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.
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), Gerhard Schröder (Germany), and to a lesser extent Göran Persson (Sweden), 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.
List of famous social democrats
See also
External links
|