Modern Social Democracy - Report Example

Modern Social Democracy Introduction Historically, social democracy has never achieved the recognition it deserves as one of the ideologies that greatly contributed to the past political discourse of the west. Due the lack of recognition, political commentary are always done in passing often when making analysis on capitalism, Marxism or other ideologies therefore forget the need to produce an in-depth analysis that such an ideology that has contributed greatly into the political life of many European countries deserves. Among the reasons for the continued disregard of social democracy as a fully-fledged ideology might stem from the confusion of terms. The confusion can be attributed to the fact that during the latter part of nineteenth century and early twentieth century, socialists who wanted to distinguish themselves from those who did not accept democracy described themselves as social democrats. However, there still existed many difference of opinion even amongst members this group whose only areas of agreement appeared to be their rejection of revolutionary or violent means to power, therefore limiting the analytical value of their group. Such differences have made it difficult to label social democrats as people with distinct ideological grounds and claim their independence from socialism, which is what social democrats are mostly associated with1. Such confusion about ideologies of social democracy as was experienced during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century persists today with individuals and their political parties exhibiting little in common apart from their vague rhetoric on the need for a leftist approach to society but with ardent desire to be distinguished from communists2. Modern scholarly work on social democracy does not help elevate the ideology to its deserved place in history due to a failure to appreciate the distinctiveness of the theory. Scholars have always adopted either one of the two perspectives available on dealing with social democracy, which is to be either a critic or supporter. For critics, social democracy has been explored based on the assumption that it is an unstable intermediate ideology that is stuck between Marxism and liberalism and therefore held in place by elements of incompatible customs. Mostly proponents whose perception of social democracy is based on the belief about their endeavor to offer distinct policies or uphold certain societal values provide the second perspective. Based on this perspective, social democrats are regarded as the campaigners of the welfare state3. These two perspectives are only partially true as they miss the overall intention of what social democracy intended to achieve from the time of its inception. A proper comprehension of what social democracy stands for should aim at viewing it as far more than a particular political program. Additionally, social democracy cannot be limited to the view that it is a halfway compromise between Marxism and liberalism or be applied to parties with vague rhetoric on leftist perspective or as an aversion to communism. To the contrary, social democracy should be put in the original context in which it was developed and stood for a distinct alternative to the antagonistic Marxism and liberalism ideologies. Development of Social Democracy An exploration of historical circumstances leading to the birth of social democracy is essential to the full understanding of its distinctiveness from either capitalistic democracy or socialism. Industrial revolution led to the emergence of liberalism as one of the first economic and political ideology to inform human relations4. Capitalism then spread across Europe in the nineteenth century and continued to be an ideological basis on which explanation and justification were made concerning the changes the new system brought to the society. Liberalist ideals were propagated as the new best way of organizing the society based on the assumption of liberalists that the market was better placed to offer maximum benefit to most of the society in addition to the ideology also calling for little state interference into private enterprises. The ease with which capitalism fit into the political and economic life of society at the time led to the nineteenth century being labelled as age of liberalism. However, by mid nineteenth century, criticism of the ideology began to take shape particularly based on the inequalities and social dislodgment that were engineered by the capitalism. The social stratification of the time led to critics designing alternative theoretical frameworks to respond to the inadequacy of capitalism. It was under these circumstances that Marxism emerged as the most vocal leftist challenger to the early capitalist ideology propagated by works from the Carl Marx and other critics of capitalism such as Friedrich Engels and Karl Kautsky5. Marxists used features such as historical materialism and class struggle to present their doctrine, which assert that it is the economic development and not changes in human consciousness that led to the shift in social relationships experienced at the time. Marxists assert that economic forces that are very influential to the extent that they determine the consciousness of society drive the society. Therefore, Marxism claims that the mode of production in material life will dictate the manner in which important social, political as well as spiritual processes of life will be restructured within a given society. The Marxist analysis on how ideas are formed claim that individuals do not have the ability to think in an autonomous capacity but majority of individuals just repeat the dominant views of their time instead of having independent thoughts. Given that individuals who run the economy also have immense political powers, Marxism claims that majority of the population are just ape the rhetoric these ruling class6. For Marxists, the existence of the state is to act as an instrument of coercion and therefore any fundamental change within political sphere of society can only be because of social as well as economic revolution. Given the Marxist assertion that political life is an illusion, they further note that all antagonism between various ideas such as aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy that are witnessed in a state are merely the deceptive notions since the real antagonism is between different classes struggling against one another7. Further, it can be argued that Marx’s disapproval of capitalism is based on the view that it alienates the bourgeoisie from proletariat, which is a condition for social tensions. Marx notes that a man can truly fulfil his real self if one directs his motive for production to humanity instead of for himself. Marxists argue that the collapse of capitalism through a revolution as the increasing misery of the proletarian as the capitalist seeks to extend the profit margins through exploitation of the workers in addition to declining profits, and periodic and deepening crises coupled with business cycles. The alienation that leading to revolution is based on the belief that as wealth continues to be concentrated along the factory system, so is the revolutionary working class who are becoming more frustrated with their situation8. Marxism asserts there is no escape from the pending social struggles that has been generated by intense rivalry and antagonism between the bourgeoisie and proletariat as well as capital and labour. Consequently, followers of the ideology prepared for the fall of capitalism through an evolution engineered by the proletariat against this system of private ownership. However, as time went by Marxism ran into trouble especially because many of the predictions by Carl Marx were not taking place. Instead of a collapse as envisioned by Marx, capitalism had only gone through depression and then bounced back due to extensive social, economic and political reforms that were made by the bourgeoisies9. The problem with Marxism did not stop with failure of the revolution to topple capitalism happening, but also lack of constructive political guide. A number of parties with Marxist agenda began achieving political relevance in Europe by the end of nineteenth century but since Marx had concentrated on economic aspects of society, the parties lacked clear strategies to use in exercising their political power. As capitalism continued to flourish, those in the left waiting for the predicted contradictions began to face a dilemma since Marxism did not provide any active reaction but for the system to crumble from the social and economic injustices. Around the twentieth century, a wave of globalization brought with it rapid and disorienting changes that further created restlessness within societies leading to critics on the left and those on the nationalist right voicing their disapproval major transformations in society such as veneration of selfishness and widespread individualism. The erosion of traditional norms in addition to the increased social disorder and fragmentation of society brought about by capitalism10. Conventional Marxism did not offer any solution to these issues and was therefore of no use to them in their attempt to respond to capitalism’s drawbacks. These events necessitated a new line of thought and action that was provided by the emergence of social democracy to proactively contribute to changes in society as opposed to waiting for the inevitable change as asserted by founders of Marxism. Although a number of socialists agreed they had to act in order to limit the drawbacks of capitalism, it was the question over which kind of action was necessary that divided them. There was a call for political as well as military intervention from some dissidents like Lenin. On the other hand, there were those who believed desirable efforts through united force of people inspired by a belief in a higher good was enough to bring changes in society. There were further divisions within this group of revisionist with one camp led by Georges Sorel calling for a revolutionary action in a radical and in some cases violent overthrow of capitalist state. Followers of Sorel believed it was only “active combat that would destroy the existing state of things11. The second camp of revisionists represented those who leaned towards democratization of socialism and was advocated by scholars such as Eduard Bernstein. Both Sorel and Bernstein recognized the need for active struggles for a better world as to bring socialism to power but the two did not agree on the means of achieving this end. Unlike Sorel, Bernstein asserted on the need for democratic and evolutionary kind of struggle as a means of ending the vices brought about by capitalism. Consequently, Sorel’s advocacy becomes a basis for the development of fascism in Europe though socialists such as Lenin12 while Bernstein’s work is the foundation for social democracy13. In an attack on historical materialism and class struggle as perceived by Marxists, Bernstein called for a new perspective into political and economic future of society that should stem from cooperation across different classes. Bernstein argued that capitalism was becoming adaptable to new societal conditions instead of wealth being increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few making the chances of self-distraction very few. Consequently, Bernstein thought active reformation of capitalism was the best option as opposed to waiting for its collapse that was supposed to lead to emergence of socialism. This beliefs held by Bernstein were about the prospects for socialism were supported by many socialists across Europe due to their emphasis that a political course to socialism as well as cooperation instead of class conflict was necessary for the triumph of socialism14. Although social democrats claimed to revise Marxism, their arguments against historical materialism and social struggles, which are the most important pillars of Marxist, thought means they were arguing for the adoption of something new (Hun 174). Social democrats did not want to be identified as being separate from socialists at first, which led to further confusions and tension within international socialist movement. The biggest blow against socialism came following the First World War due to the changes experienced around the time. The socialist pillar concerning class struggles was dealt a blow when at the onset of the war, socialists joined hand with the bourgeoisie state that they had previously hoped to destroy. Further weakening of socialist arguments came in the post-war era as democracy spread across Europe therefore, presenting a chance for socialists to work within state institutions. The chance to participate in democratic governance in addition to the realization the working class alone could not garner the required majority in elections. Historical materialism also faced a threat due to this increased level of political participation assumed by socialist parties. Given the positions held by socialist parties in the newly democratized states, the subject about how political power could contribute to socialist transformations followed by the Great Depression after the war meant compliance to economic demands equal to political suicide. As a reaction to the economic and political transformation of the time, social democrats adopted the revisionist approach, which saw them cooperate with the bourgeoisies to call for reforms within their states. Therefore, it becomes important for social democrats to use political power to control economic forces during the time of Great Depression instead of sticking to the passivity advocated by both orthodox Marxists and liberalists. To counter economic downturn of the time, the social democrats called for the introduction of programs that would take advantage of national power to discipline the capitalist system15. The continued reforms on social democracy continued even after the Second World War as parties holding social democratic ideology declaring the period of unchecked growth by private capitalism was over. An essential feature of European states in the period after 1945 has been the construction of a new order that could stimulate economic growth but through a well-established framework, that protects the societies from exploitation by capitalistic tendencies. The state now become a ground to exercise legitimate power through a more direct social control over market forces making the state an important ally and guardian of society rather than of the economy. Social democracy improved the participation of states in the economy by offering more control over the extent to markets could grow and flourish at the expense of welfare state16. Since the Second World War, social democrats have been the champions of policies that benefit society such as Keynesianism and the welfare state although in some cases the practical readjustment have not translated to a corresponding ideological shift. This provided room for many mainstream socialists to adopt the revisionist’s perspective on the failures of Marxism but were still aversive to the inter class corporation that was adopted by social democrats. However, all social democrats have realized over time that clinging to orthodox Marxism was a catastrophic political strategy leading to a complete break away from Marxist traditions. Conclusion From the foregoing discussion, modern social democracy should not be perceived as being a socialist movement but a separate ideology and movement. A part from socialism, the term social democracy has been wrongly associated with a number of groups, which has spelt unfortunate consequences to efforts attempting to understand the real history and rationale of the theory. Further, the milestone achieved by social democracy as an ideology that successfully helped reconcile two ideologies thought before as incompatible warrants the recognition of the ideology as the most successful one in the twentieth century. The key to understanding social democracy as distinct lies in the historical exploration of the original rationale for the formulation of the theory in addition to the appreciation of the role that it played in twentieth century political development. Issues such as globalization that concentrates global wealth in the hands of a few individuals and multinational corporations create a new ground for social democracy to exercise their ideology in demanding for wealth creation that is coupled with welfare state to ensure the society benefits from this trend. The argument today over globalization presents similar circumstances that led to the rise of democracy as a new ideology that would reconcile capitalism, democracy and social benefit. Therefore, modern social democracy is a distinct ideological perspective from socialism and still has an important role to play in the contemporary world protection of public good. Bibliography Berman, Sheri. The Social Democratic Moment: ideas and politics in the making of interwar Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. Hinnfors, Jonas. Reinterpreting Social Democracy: A History of Stability in the British Labour Party and Swedish Social Democratic Party. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006. Print. Hunt, Emery Kay. Property and prophets: The evolution of economic institutions and ideologies. Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe, 2003. Klitgaard, Michael Baggesen. "Why are they doing it? Social democracy and market-oriented welfare state reforms." West European Politics 30.1 (2007): 172-194. Print. Navarro, Armando. Global Capitalist Crisis and the Second Great Depression: Egalitarian Systemic Models for Change. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2012. Pejovich, Svetozar. "From Social Democracy to Liberal Socialism: A Property Rights Analysis of the Transition in Europe." New Perspectives on Political Economy (2009) 5. 1. Sargent, Lyman. Contemporary political ideologies: A comparative analysis. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Read More