RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

> >The class struggle cannot now
> >force upon the capitalist class a social democratic regime that
> >neutralizes the growth in the rate of exploitation and allows for
> >the run up of public debt for the purposes of full employment. Such
> >a social democratic regime would not only not weaken crisis
> >tendencies, it would exacerbate them greatly.

Doug writes:
> Sweden and other Scandinavian SDs were quite prudent fiscally until
> the 1980s, running large surpluses in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Also, I don't think anyone claimed that social democracy abolished the
exploitation of labor or even reduced its degree. (I understand that
businesses under Swedish social democracy did rather well in terms of
profits, or at least that the big ones did. Doug would probably know about
the income distribution data.) Rather, it involved stuff like stabilizing
aggregate demand and the wage struggle, plus state investment in
infrastructure, education, basic research, and public health. The latter
"investment in public goods" allowed a class truce for awhile, since the
benefits are widespread. Of course, nothing could be good enough for the
capitalists.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the increased opportunities for
capital mobility, the "Swedish model" started fading...

JD