homelycooking
Junior Chimp
Posts: 6,302
|
 |
« on: January 11, 2013, 10:46:13 AM » |
|
This is a fine paper, one of those rarities that is as critical as it is informative. I'll offer a few critiques by way of interrogation:
1. Does the Social Democratic doctrine's ability to evolve (constituent no. 3 in your framework) make possible the dilution or elimination of its other two components (constructive critique of capitalism, democracy and social citizenship)?
2. Is faith in the perfectibility (or at least the capacity for improvement) of capitalism a prerequisite for Social Democratic ideology? Does Social Democracy hold out the hope that capitalism might be transformed into something else, something more amenable to social citizenship, through extensive modification?
3. Is the concept of Social Democracy relevant in places without Europe's centuries-old dialogue with capitalism? Since you posit the "evolutionary" capability of the movement to be so essential to its nature, can it be ideologically coherent in, say, post-colonial societies?
4. Where does the Social Democratic attitude toward democracy, suffrage and citizenship diverge from the liberal rights-based approach so directly criticized by Marx? Are they distinct? For all the "social rights" recognized by Social Democratic policy, the state seems merely to be playing the same role, just in an economic/social sphere rather than a political one. Is Social Democracy attempting to replace class with citizenship?
5. Are the responsibilities of Social Democratic leadership in sympathizing with and alleviating the plight of the poor the same as those in promoting security and opportunity among the middle classes? It seems to me that a citizenship-based approach might undercut Social Democracy's ability to identify and correct the flaws of capitalism which can often be amplified by electoral politics and rights discourse to the detriment of certain classes.
|
