Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century from the socialist movement.[1] The nature of social democracy has changed throughout the decades since its inception. Modern social democrats often advocate a democratic welfare state, which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism.[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist economic system, or in the Marxist sense, which aims to replace it with a worker-controlled economic system. Unlike Marxists, who seek to challenge the capitalist system more fundamentally, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the injustices and inefficiencies of capitalism. Some consider social democracy to be a moderate form of socialism, though others reject that designation. Defining characteristics of modern social democracy in practice is the mixed economic system or social market model and extensive welfare programs.
Historically, social democratic parties advocated socialism in the strict sense, achieved by class struggle, and the original usage of the term "social democrat" reflected this. In the early 20th century, however, a number of socialist and labor parties rejected revolutionary and other more traditional forms of socialism and went on to take more moderate positions (the split with the revolutionary socialists being particularly acrimonious). In many countries, social democrats continue to exist alongside democratic socialists, who stand to the political left of them on the political spectrum. The two movements sometimes operate within the same political party, such as the Brazilian Workers' Party[3] and the Irish Labour Party. Another example of the blurring of this boundary is the fact that the British Labour Party's constitution identifies it as a "democratic socialist party",[4] even though the current and former leaders, Gordon Brown[5] and Tony Blair,[6] identify themselves as social democrats.
The Socialist International (SI) is the main international organization of social democratic and socialist parties. It affirms the following principles: first, 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; second, 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; and, third, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. These ideals are described in further detail in the SI's Declaration of Principles.[7]
In recent years, several social democratic parties (in particular, the British Labour Party) have embraced more centrist, Third Way policy positions. This development has generated a significant degree of controversy.
History
Pre-war—social democracy and Marxism
Many parties in the second half of the 19th century described themselves as social democratic, such as the German Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein and the Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (which merged to form the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands), the British Social Democratic Federation and the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. In most cases these parties were avowedly revolutionary socialists that were not only seeking to introduce socialism, but also to introduce democracy in undemocratic countries. Most of these parties were to some degree influenced by the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were still actively working to influence European politics from London.
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.[1] Many related movements, including pacifism, anarchism, and syndicalism, arose at the same time; these ideologies were often promulgated by individuals who split from the preexisting socialist movement, and held a variety of quite different objections to Marxism. The social democrats, who had created the largest socialist organizations of that era, did not reject Marxism (and in fact claimed to uphold it), but a number of key individuals wanted to reform Marx's arguments in order to promulgate a less hostile criticism of capitalism. They argued that socialism should be achieved through evolution of society rather than revolution. Such views were strongly opposed by the revolutionary socialists, who argued that any attempt to reform capitalism was doomed to fail, for the reformers would be gradually corrupted and eventually turn into capitalists themselves.
Despite their differences, the reformist and revolutionary branches of socialism remained united through the Second Internationale until the outbreak of World War I. A differing view on the legitimacy of the war proved to be the final straw for this tenuous union. 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; in other words, the revolutionary socialists believed that this stance betrayed the principle that the workers of all nations should unite in overthrowing capitalism, and decried the fact that usually the lowest classes are the ones sent into the war to fight and die. Bitter arguments ensued within socialist parties, as for example between Eduard Bernstein, the leading reformist socialist, and Rosa Luxemburg, one of the leading revolutionary socialists 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 many revolutionary socialists began calling themselves communists, and they soon formed the modern Communist movement. These communist parties soon formed an exclusive Third Internationale known globally as the Comintern.
By the 1920s, the doctrinal differences between social democrats and communists of all factions (be they Orthodox Marxists, Bolsheviks, or Mensheviks) had solidified. These differences only became more dramatic as the years passed.
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 needed dramatic reform, such as the nationalization of large businesses, the implementation of social programs (public education, universal healthcare, and the like) and the partial redistribution of wealth through the permanent establishment of a welfare state based on 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 commitment to abolish capitalism. For instance, in 1959, the Social Democratic Party of Germany adopted the Godesberg Program, which rejected class struggle and Marxism. While "social democrat" and "democratic socialist" continued to be used interchangeably, by the 1990s in the English-speaking world at least, the two terms had generally come to signify respectively the latter and former positions.
In Italy, the Italian Democratic Socialist Party was founded in 1947, and from 1948 on supported the idea of a centrist alliance. Since the late 1980s, many 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 is in many ways capitalistic, but explicitly defend 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 an increasing challenge from Greens, who view ecology as fundamental to peace, require reform of money supply, and promote 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.
The Third Way
In recent years, a number of social democratic parties and governments have moved away from some traditional elements of social democracy by supporting both the privatization of certain state-controlled industries and services and the reduction of certain forms of regulation of the market. These changes have been perceived in the policies of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and Kevin Rudd in Australia; Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the United Kingdom;[6][8] Gerhard Schröder in Germany; Jens Stoltenberg in Norway; Mona Sahlin in Sweden; David Lange and Roger Douglas in New Zealand; Poul Nyrup Rasmussen in Denmark; Wim Kok in the Netherlands; and Ricardo Lagos in Chile. In general, these apparent reversals in policy have encountered significant opposition among party members and core voters: many of the latter, indeed, have claimed that their leaders have betrayed their traditional principles.[8]
Modernizing social democrats counter that their Third Way ideals merely represent a necessary or pragmatic adaptation of social democracy to the realities of the modern world: traditional social democracy thrived during the prevailing international climate of the post-war Bretton Woods consensus, which collapsed in the 1970s. It has, moreover, become difficult for political parties in the developed world to win elections on a distinctively left-wing platform now that electorates are increasingly middle-class, aspirational and consumeristic. In Britain, where such an electorate rejected the Labour Party four times consecutively between 1979 and 1992, Tony Blair and his colleagues (the New Labour movement) took the strategic decision to overtly disassociate themselves from the previous, strongly democratic socialist incarnations of their party. This challenge alienated many backbenchers, including some who advocated the less militant ideology of social democracy.
The development of new social democratic policies in this environment is the subject of wide-ranging debate within the centre-left. A number of political think-tanks, such as Policy Network and Wiardi Beckman Stichting, have been active in facilitating and promoting this debate.
See also History of Socialism.
Views of social democrats today
In general, contemporary social democrats support:
- A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens.
- Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
- Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
- An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
- Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.
Social democrats also tend to support:
Social democratic political parties
See also List of social democratic parties.
Social democratic political parties, which sometimes also include a democratic socialist element, operate in many developed and developing countries, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel and Brazil. Most European social democratic parties are members of the Party of European Socialists,[9] which is one of the main political parties at the European level,[10] and most social democratic parties worldwide are members of the Socialist International.[11] In many cases, social democratic parties are the dominant (India, United Kingdom, Portugal) or second-placed (Italy, Sweden, Germany) players within their respective political systems, though in some cases they are minor parties (Canada, Ireland, Russia). The United States is the only industrial nation that does not currently possess a major social democratic party, though social democratic ideology is one strand of thinking within the more broadly based Democratic Party.
Since the 1960s, many social democrats have broadened their objectives beyond the field of economic policy to include aspects of environmentalism, feminism, racial equality and multiculturalism. Another notable development is the tendency since the 1980s for social democratic parties to distance themselves from distinctively left-wing economic policies such as public ownership and a planned economy, adopting instead policies that support a relatively lightly regulated economy and emphasize equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome as the benchmark for social justice. This trend, known as the Third Way, is controversial among some of the left, many of whom argue that Third Way parties (such as the UK's Labour Party)[8] have moved too far to the centre, or even the centre-right. Others, such as the leadership of the UK Labour Party, reject this critique.[12]
Criticism of social democracy
The majority of contemporary criticism of social democracy comes from fiscal or social conservatives and classical liberals. Critics advance the following arguments:
- The regulations placed on the market by social democracy tend to limit economic efficiency and growth, and impede the creation of wealth that is needed to alleviate global poverty.
- Social democracy places unacceptable constraints on individual rights in order to reach its societal goals.
- Social democratic programs sometimes entail large government outlays, which can result in sizeable budget deficits.
- State provision of education, health care, childcare and other services limits individual choice (and requires users to pay twice if they opt to use privately-run services).
Social democrats reply along the following lines:
- Social democratic policies actually enhance individual rights by raising the standard of living of the great majority of the population, increasing social mobility, raising the power of workers and consumers in society.
- The unregulated market that fiscal conservatives advocate is incapable of addressing global poverty and inequality in an equitable way.
- Social democracy stabilises economic conditions by providing economic security to individuals and eliminating the threat of extreme poverty.
- By restricting some economic rights, social democracy makes the market more fair (for small businesses and consumers, for example).
- The argument that social democratic governments spend too much and run up deficits is undermined by the record of conservative administrations (e.g. in the United States and the United Kingdom) which have run up unprecedented deficits.
There is also criticism of social democracy from socialists and communists, who regard it as an obstacle to truly radical reform of society. Left-wing critics claim that social democrats are forced to operate within the constraints of the existing capitalist system, and that they buy into that system to such an extent that they eventually become indistinguishable from pro-capitalist right-wingers. To take specific examples, it is argued that Tony Blair (UK), Gerhard Schröder (Germany) and to a lesser extent Göran Persson (Sweden) violated the principles of social justice and equity while in office by implementing tax cuts, cuts in social spending, privatisation and deregulation.
The record of social democracy
Many of the policies espoused by social democrats in the first half of the 20th century have since been put into practice by social democratic governments throughout the industrialized world. Industries have been nationalised, public spending has seen a large long-term rise, and the role of the state in providing free-to-user or subsidized health care and education has increased greatly.
Since the 1980s, there has been a perception that social democracy has been on the retreat in the Western world, particularly in English-speaking countries, where social democratic values are arguably not as firmly rooted in local law and culture as elsewhere. The adoption of Third Way ideology by many social democrats has proved divisive within the broader social democratic community. In Britain, for example, most of the nationalized industries were sold off in the 1980s and 1990s by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government, and the Labour government that came to power in 1997 courted criticism by continuing this process.[13] Inequalities of wealth have also risen in some countries under social democratic governments, including the United Kingdom.[14] On the other hand, Third Way politicians, such as Bill Clinton in the United States and Jean Chrétien in Canada, have achieved significant electoral success, and in the UK the political right wing was marginalised for nearly a decade after Tony Blair's victory in 1997. It has been argued that contemporary economic uncertainty, and the insecurities associated with globalization, will encourage voters to seek the protections offered by social democratic policies.
Many of the reforms made by social democrats in Europe, such as the establishment of national health care services, have been embraced by liberals and conservatives, and there is no support outside of a radical fringe for a return to 19th-century levels of public spending and economic regulation. Even in the United States, where no major social democratic party exists, there are regulatory programmes (such as public health and environmental protection) and welfare programmes (such as Medicare[15] and Medicaid[16]) which enjoy bipartisan support.
Some famous social democrats
- This is an abbreviated list of well-known social democrats. For a comprehensive list, see List of social democrats
See also
Political theory
Social democracy as viewed by critics
Social democracy in practice
References
External links
International organizations
Social democratic literature online
Criticism of social democracy
|
Social democracy |
|
| Predecessors |
|
|
| Development |
|
|
| Policies |
|
|
| Organizations |
|
|
| People |
|
|
| Politics portal |
|
|
