Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Social democracy: its history and its future
The political scientist Eunice Goes explains to Robin Wilson the vicissitudes of social democracy historically and addresses its contemporary challenges.
https://www.socialeurope.eu/social-democracy-its-history-and-its-future
The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common in 1848—Marx was impressed with this working-class movement for voting rights in Britain, albeit only for men
Robin Wilson: Your new book, Social Democracy, is a sobering account of social democracy since its emergence, charting a steadily diminishing political ambition—a fading of the red flag, if you like—over time. In your telling, in the latter 19th century, social democracy forsook the ill-defined ‘revolution’ of Marx and Engels for a parliamentary road to socialism. In the early 20th century, it demarcated itself from purportedly radical yet authoritarian alternatives. In the later 20th century, it accommodated to neoliberal capitalism. And in this century, it became disorientated by the ‘polycrisis’. Why do you think there was this steady trajectory, rather than more back-and-forth—more moments of social democratic achievement to record, such as the universal welfare states established in the Nordic countries in the middle of the last century?
Eunice Goes: That was the result of different things operating at the same time—and there was a bit of back and forth, which was not so steady. There was always an element of contingency and reacting to events as they emerged. But the first factor that drove this social democratic backsliding—if we can talk about it in those terms—has to do with when theory gets into contact with the messy reality of politics. And this is something we all experience in our lives: before we parent, we read about how to look after children and then, once our children are presented before us, we are faced with completely new sets of situations and have to improvise. In the late 19th century one thing was the theory of social democracy, the way the theorists imagined a socialist society.
Then they got on to start to implement that social-democratic society but reality is always different from the theory. And the first adaptation had to do with the electoral ground on which they were going to bring their vision to fruition. They very quickly saw—and Marx and Engels were the first to argue it—that parliamentary democracy and universal suffrage offered them an incredible tool to bring that vision of society about. But again, how they imagined their electorate, and in particular the working class or the supporters of the labour movement, was quite different from the voters they encountered on the ground. And so if the road to power was through elections—was through the parliamentary road—they had to adapt to these new voters. These voters might have been quite sympathetic to the cause of social democracy—they might have been very supportive. But they were not militants and they were not dogmatic followers of theory.
So if parties wanted to win elections, they needed to adjust to that reality. They also had to adjust to the fact that in many countries the industrial working class was not a majority. So if they wanted to be in power and to start to transform society, they needed to make proposals that offered something to those other voters. Finally, the trajectory of social democracy was also one of struggle. They had to deal with a fairly hostile environment. It was not just the difficulty of winning elections—it was the difficulty of dealing with a series of institutions in the societies in which they were operating that were quite hostile to a socialist project: judicial systems, the law, the media, of course, mostly privately owned. So socialists had to fight, they had to deal with and adapt to those situations. This over 160 years of history has been one of struggle and one where social-democratic parties with the exception of Scandinavia have been mostly in opposition. Very few times have social-democratic parties governed in the countries in which they are operating.
Then they got on to start to implement that social-democratic society but reality is always different from the theory. And the first adaptation had to do with the electoral ground on which they were going to bring their vision to fruition. They very quickly saw—and Marx and Engels were the first to argue it—that parliamentary democracy and universal suffrage offered them an incredible tool to bring that vision of society about. But again, how they imagined their electorate, and in particular the working class or the supporters of the labour movement, was quite different from the voters they encountered on the ground. And so if the road to power was through elections—was through the parliamentary road—they had to adapt to these new voters. These voters might have been quite sympathetic to the cause of social democracy—they might have been very supportive. But they were not militants and they were not dogmatic followers of theory.
So if parties wanted to win elections, they needed to adjust to that reality. They also had to adjust to the fact that in many countries the industrial working class was not a majority. So if they wanted to be in power and to start to transform society, they needed to make proposals that offered something to those other voters. Finally, the trajectory of social democracy was also one of struggle. They had to deal with a fairly hostile environment. It was not just the difficulty of winning elections—it was the difficulty of dealing with a series of institutions in the societies in which they were operating that were quite hostile to a socialist project: judicial systems, the law, the media, of course, mostly privately owned. So socialists had to fight, they had to deal with and adapt to those situations. This over 160 years of history has been one of struggle and one where social-democratic parties with the exception of Scandinavia have been mostly in opposition. Very few times have social-democratic parties governed in the countries in which they are operating.
snip
