[PEN-L:9389] The discussion about social democracy

[D Shniad <shniad@xxxxxx>]

Okay.  As a long time card carrying member of what is ostensibly a social
democratic party, I have got to get into the discussion about social
democracy.

Max says "The issue isn't whether I or anyone else 'likes' social democracy
or has faith in it or trusts anyone in particular.  The issue is how good stuff
happens and how shit happens.

"The erstwhile foes of social democracy and other varieties of reformism
honor grassroots movements and labor action ...acknowledge that positive
results are sometimes forthcoming from the state ... [b]ut they discount the
roles of reformist politicians, media, experts, union officials, etc. in favor of
the idea that the masses pressure the ruling class to make concessions
directly, without any constructive intercession or mediation by reformists.
This is utter nonsense."

Max, can you give some concrete examples of the kind of constructive
intercession and mediation by reformists that you are talking about?

You contend that "the 'political pressure business' is founded on
incremental gains which typically do not establish a radical new principle
but squeeze a little gelt out of the system." If that's all there is to the
political pressure business, how would you describe a phenomenon like the
New Deal?

You declare that social democratic political progress typically is associated
with or exploits grassroots agitation.  Again, can you be more explicit?  My
personal experience with social democracy is that there is a huge gulf
between the rank and file activists within social democracy and the full
time, bureaucratic careerists who tend to dominate the organization, its use
of resources and its overall priorities.  (The former being much more
progressive and the latter being much more conservative/"pragmatic" -- i.e.
prone to focus on the shortest time frame and to be guided in their actions
by changes in the political wind as gauged by the latest polling results.)

You contend that "...grassroots action per se is headless and thereby not
very threatening.  In contrast, a movement that propels real political
competition against parties supporting ruling class policies is a real threat,
not to the very foundations of the system, but to the people running it and to
the course of important policies."  But both recent and historical experience
with social democracy is that it tends overwhelmingly to focus on what is
possible in the narrowest and most conservative terms and to wage this
political competition accordingly.  I think that this serves to reenforce the
prevailing reactionary notion that There Is No Alternative to austerity,
increasing economic polarization, etc. and to undermine the credibility of
the very possibility of meaningful political and economic alternatives in a
time of deepening social crisis.

You say "Somehow the actual horse and buggy have gotten good things
done...," making it sound as if there is no relationship between s-d's greatest
successes (e.g. the social welfare states of western Germany and
Scandinavia) and the presence of powerful labour movements capable of
making real changes in the face of capitalist intransigence.  It is no accident
that as the economies of these very countries have been restructured and
opened to economic pressure in recent years -- with the active participation
of Scandinavian and German capital in this restructuring --  the power of
their labour movements has declined precipitously and these models are in
the process of being dismantled.

You continue: "...as insurgency from labor and similar sources rises, a
*useful* critique of neo-liberalism, unconstrained markets, and capitalism
itself will become of greater interest to all.  But to be useful, such criticism
needs honest solutions."  But a key factor that should address, Max, is the
fact that professional functionaries and politicians within social democratic
organizations too often try to earn their credibility and to prove their
political pragmatism by moving increasingly to the right.  They work
overtime to show capital and its press that far from demanding costly
progressive change, it is *they* who are the only ones who can effectively
handle insurgent social movements and that this is why they deserve to be
allowed to govern.  It is precisely this approach that earned Tony Blair the
support of Rupert Murdoch's papers in the coming British election.

"Under the right circumstances, even Bill Clinton or Tony Blair could be
moved to do the right thing." What would those circumstances be? Political
polls showing that their current reactionary positions are becoming
unpopular?

Before I close, I'd like to refer to a statement made by British Labourite
Tony Benn, one of my favourite politicians.  He argues that, contrary to
what too many leftists contend, the experience with social democracy has
not demonstrated the failure *of* reform, since our problems with s-d do
not stem from its tendency to press the outer edges of the envelope of what
is possible within the existing institutional framework in pursuit of social
change.  Rather, Benn argues that the failure of s-d has been the failure *to*
reform.

I am very sympathetic to this view.  Once we succeed in getting s-d
politicians to push the envelope as far as they can, we will be in a much
better position to evaluate what is to be done.

Cheers,

Sid Shniad
(posting from social democratic
heaven in British Columbia)