Re: AUT: Socila democracy [was: The Truth about Sunday]

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thiago Oppermann" <difference_3ngine@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: Socila democracy [was: The Truth about Sunday]


> On 2/11/2004 3:23 AM, "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > The first stage of social democracy included the goal to
> > abolish capitalism, even, quite often, the 'withering away'
> > of the state. In some places, as was the case with majority
> > wing of the Labour Party in Norway ...
>
<<That must be the famous Scandinavian dry wit, because that guy who talked
all the time about withering the state away  set about to do everything
possible so it wouldn't.>>

You are thinking about Marx & Engels?
Yes, I agree. ;-)

<< Anyway, the above is only true if you define  social democracy
as what  happened in Scandinavia  and say that the post-war German
'corporativist' welfare model is not social democracy, >>

Christian Democratic social democracy? I do believe there is some
difference, in particular with the presence of 'allied' troops. A lot
of governments carried out social reforms in the period following
World War II. What is specific with social democracy, and thus
having specific interest due to this,  is that started out with having
the abolisihment of capitalism as a clearly stated end. An end they once
thought to be realistic, even inevitable, at that. At least many did.
        No, social democracy cannot be reduced to Scandinavia.
But it had one of it clearest and most dominant expressions over a
very long period here. And I think it is also generally anachronstic to
reduce social democracy as a specific historical phenomenom to
just a set of government policies.  I think that only leads to
not learning the lessons of their failure.


" ... and that the Australian nationalist egalitarianist model is
something else again,  ... "

I know far to little about that, to have much of an opinion.

" ... that Fabians are not social democrats, ..."

Hardly an expert on this one either. I do not know what
happened to my Hoboglobin issues I bought partially to
learn more about the Fabians. But there seem to have
been considerable differences. Social democracy is in
my opinion far more marxist in its roots.

<< That's one point. The other is that, no matter what these people said,
what they did counted. And what did they do? Support restrictive migration
policies (including, let it not go unnoticed, in Norway, which
is a deeply racist place), support various wars, the draft,
corporativist unions, marginalist economics, reproductive conformity
and generally behaved like they deserved to inherit the state,
not the earth. >>

How far have you jumped now? To 1970? Maybe an idea to
keep different historical periods apart a bit. We do not disagree
on where it ended. That was *precisly* my point. That does
not in anyway deny the historical roots. That  the majority
faction of Norwegian Labour Party for long stood far to the
left of the social democratic parties in Sweden and
Denmark, but basically ended up the same place ... just
brings it out all the clearer.  And there is absolutly no
doubt -- and I have as yet heard any historian claiming
otherwise -- that they had they not only had the abolishment
of capitalism as clearly stated a goal, but believed it
to be realistic, even inevitable.  I certainly do not believe
that,, had Eugene V. Debs been elected president of the
United States, this  would have brought about an end to
capitalism. But I do believe that this was his sincere goal. And he
had far more parliamentary illusions than what was the
case of those who became the majority faction of the
Norwegian Labour Party during its most radical period.
That I could easily also have written a long critique of the
Labour Party back then, as I often enough have, from
an anarchist perspective, and concluded that it ended
up where one easiliy could have predicted. But this alters
nothing. And I do not think Debs, however much I may
disagree with the political postions he held, has much to do
with "the American New Right, in its early Robert Nozick-addled
phase ...". Nor did this New Right, I suspect, speak much
about workers-, soldiers- and peasant councils.

Harald







     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---