What is Social Democracy?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hey all! I've noticed a few people have posted their best academic papers here, so I thought I could post one of mine as well.

It's a paper I wrote last Spring, back when I was studying in Paris (but for an English-speaking class). The class was called "what is Social Democracy", and this ended up being the title of the term paper's assignment as well. Basically, I have tried to examine the historical significance of the Social Democratic movement and eventually come up with a substantial definition of what could be the founding principles of Social Democracy. The way I conducted the paper is highly debatable (and, obviously, far from being devoid of personal bias), but I like to think my perspective does make some sense.

The reason I chose this class, and the reason I enjoyed writing this paper, is obviously that I am fascinated by Social Democracy as an ideology and a current of thought, and that I firmly believe Social Democratic principles are essential to the foundation of a just, prosperous and happy society. I think I am among the few people who proudly call themselves Social Democrats, at a time when the word has acquired a pretty bad connotation. This, in some way, is also an attempt to define my own political vision, at least the part of it that is directly inspired by Social Democratic thinkers.

I got 19/20 on this paper, the best grade of the around 50-people class and basically an A+ by Anglo standards. I apologize for boasting, but if you allow me to be proud of one thing I've written, I'd probably go for this one. It's one of the few papers which I can say I didn't write lazily, but actually tried to do my best (in the little time I had, due to procrastination) to write something that made sense, doing serious research and spending time to think about where I wanted to go. For the reasons I stated above, this topic mattered to me more than usual, and I like to think I gave it an effort I don't often do.

Of course, it remains nothing more than a sophomore's paper, so the older posters shouldn't judge it too severely. I still have a lot to learn, both in terms of writing quality and in substantive knowledge. Anyways, I appreciate any kind of comment/criticism (yes, even brutal honesty). I'm just interested in knowing what you guys think of it.

Hope you have a nice read!

PS: While reading it again, I noticed quite a few idiomatic mistakes that I made back then (and which make me facepalm today ). I hope they aren't too painful to read for a native speaker, but I chose to post the paper exactly as it was handed to the prof.

PPS: Footnotes aren't included (mainly because it's complicated for me to copy them from MS Word), but if you're interested in one in particular I can provide it.

PPPS: Forgive me for the pompous style, lengthy introduction/conclusion and everything else you'll find tedious about this paper. That's the way we're asked to write papers here in France (and even then, this one isn't as formal as most of those I've written ).

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is Social Democracy?

Introduction

   Among the main ideologies and movements that have shaped the political life of developed countries since the 19th century, Social Democracy has always been particularly difficult to define precisely. In a time when social democratic parties represent the main left-wing force in almost all European countries and in several other countries (such as Canada, Australia or Brazil), the social democratic “brand” seems to have been associated, throughout history, with extremely diverse – sometimes outright contradictory – sets of policies. What do the founding fathers of Swedish Welfare State share in common with former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder? Is former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva somehow an heir of 19th century European socialism? These questions highlight the fundamental uncertainty surrounding the notion of Social Democracy, which, in different occasions, has been used to describe all these four. Such uncertainty is not a mere challenge for scholars: it has, indeed, key implications in modern political life. The term “social democrat” bears a controversial connotation within the modern left: it is something you claim to be or, conversely, something you accuse your opponent of being.  The need for clarity in the political debate therefore requires investigating the political, historical and philosophical significance of Social Democracy.

   This paper will strive to conduct said investigation, skimming through the history of social democratic movements from their birth to modern times in order to provide the key elements for a definition of such a broad political current. Rejecting the idea of Social Democracy being a vague catchphrase encompassing loosely related political movements, as well as the idea of it being a precise set of policies, it will instead postulate that Social Democracy is a consistent political ideology with several practical interpretations. Therefore, its research question will be: Which key principles make up the core of Social Democracy as a political doctrine?

   In order to answer this question, this paper will first of all examine the root of the difficulties encountered when trying to define Social Democracy, namely its propensity to change in adaptation to a changing social reality. Then, it will propose a solution for escaping this dilemma, by focusing on borderline cases of what might or might not be called “Social Democracy”. Finally, it will synthesize the values that could be considered as the fundaments of the social democratic theory.


I The paradox of revisionism

   Why is it  so difficult to clearly identify Social-Democracy with a precise political thought? The problem lies, ironically, precisely in one of the most important distinctive features of the social democratic movement. From its foundations in late 19th century to modern times, indeed, Social Democracy has emphasized on the necessity to constantly change, to renew its doctrinal grounds and its policy planks in order to stay in touch with a different economic context. However, if constant change is enshrined in the social democratic identity, how is it possible to consider it as a single, consistent political doctrine?

   From the outsets of the political movement that could be referred to as “Social Democracy”, the idea of change has indeed played a key role in the constitution of its identity. Its origins can be retraced in late 19th century, with the development inside the German Social Democratic Party (SPD, founded 1875) of a strong revisionist current. Eduard Bernstein, its main leader, indeed theorized “Revisionism” (also known as “Evolutionary Socialism”) as the need for social democratic parties to adapt to the changing nature of capitalism, even if this implied distancing from the Marxist theory. Bernstein noted that, contrary to what Marx and Engels had foreseen, the development of capitalism had not led to the bipolarization of class structure and a concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority, and that on the contrary workers had seemingly seen their living conditions improve in the preceding decades. Furthermore, he argued, the developments of democracy in many European countries and the creation of organized movements representing the workers had made it possible for said workers to obtain significant concessions and the implementation of policies favorable to their interests. Bernstein concluded that, while Marx might be right about the final outcome of capitalism, the role of social democratic parties was not to passively wait for the preconditions of a hypothetical proletarian revolution to be met. Rather, their strategy should be to accept the “bourgeois” State and its institutions in order to take over them through democratic means, and eventually use them to the benefits of the proletariat.  The revisionist stance adopted by Bernstein, even though it generated major controversies inside the SPD, proved to be a turning point in the history of Social Democracy. As major social democratic parties, at different times and more or less explicitly, gradually adopted Bernstein’s positions, they started to distance themselves more and more markedly from Marxism and early-day socialist thought to forge their own, specific ideological identity.  It can therefore be claimed that the notions of change and adaptation are integral part of the social democratic doctrine.

   The evolution of social democratic thought, rhetoric and policies seems to confirm the previous assumption. Indeed, the abandonment of Marxist rhetoric in favor of reformist Socialism that Bernstein had pioneered stands out as one of several “waves of revisionism” which successively struck the social democratic world. The first one might, paradoxically, have even preceded Bernstein’s revisionism. During the second half of the 19th century, the most primitive forms of socialism, consisting in a variety of thinkers, movements and communities often referred to as “utopian socialism”, were gradually overshadowed by the “scientific” Marxist theory, which, in a form known as “vulgar Marxism” became the dominant political ideology of European socialist parties.  If one considers the Bernstein turning point to be the second wave of revisionism, two more can be identified. The social democrats’ adhesion to the Welfare State, coupled with a definitive abandonment of any reference to Marxism and a stress on expanding their electoral bases to the middle classes, which took effect throughout the 1950s and 1960s and is best symbolized by the SPD’s Bad Godesberg program , can be seen as the third phase. Finally, a fourth wave of revisionism would correspond to the rise of the Third Way movement in the 1990s, which will be developed later in this paper. These successive waves of ideological renovation seem to fit Bernstein’s claim according to which “the movement means everything” . However, they pose a critical dilemma as to what is left of original Social Democracy at the end of this process. If Social Democracy is all about change, then what is regrouped under the social democratic label might, in the end, have nothing in common at all. According to Adam Przeworski, for instance, the decision to abandon the revolutionary ideal in favor of reform through electoral means had led the socialist parties to eventually lose their fundamental identity, since their electoral success requires attracting middle class voters who cannot subscribe to a properly socialist agenda . On the opposite side, Gosta Esping-Andersen argued that the embracing of reformism by socialist parties allowed them to build class alliances which made them strong enough to implement policies conform to their values.

   So, does the changing nature inherent to Social Democracy imply an ineluctable loss of its identity? Or do changing strategies mask a fundamental coherence of principles? In order to provide some solution to this pressing question, it might be useful to engage in a more concrete case study.


II What Social Democracy is not

   In order to formulate a coherent definition of Social Democracy, it is first of all necessary to precisely demarcate it in the left-wing ideological spectrum. In order to do so, this paper will examine two cases which lie at the opposite ends of the ideological area where the term “Social Democracy” might be used. It will be discussed whether those two doctrines can rightfully be referred to as social democratic. In order to do so, however, it is necessary to assume that there exists a coherent political doctrine which can legitimately be called “Social Democracy”, thus taking Esping-Andersen’s stance over Przeworski’s. Only after a clear delimitation is established, it will become possible to verify said hypothesis.

   The first case to study is that of socialism as it existed before the rise of Bernstein’s revisionist current, i.e. a socialism dominated by the “vulgar Marxism” of German social democratic theorists such as Karl Kautsky.  This political doctrine is difficult to unambiguously distinguish from Social Democracy for two main reasons. First of all, as radical as Bernstein’s breakup with orthodox Marxism might be, this was nonetheless his main source of inspiration, and Bernstein himself claimed his fidelity towards the Communist Manifesto and only criticized some of its conclusions.  Secondly, the fact the two tendencies have coexisted in the same parties for a so long time (even after the breakup with communists in the 1920s, Marxism was still dominant inside most European social democratic parties ) without major clashes proved that they did not appear as substantially incompatible to that time’s politicians. Nonetheless, it is necessary to conclude on the fundamental difference between Social Democracy as it developed in the 20th century and Marxist Socialism. And thus, that Bernstein’s work was not merely, as he himself claimed, a re-reading and adaptation of the Marxist theory, but the groundwork for a substantially different ideology.  His critique of Marxism was not simply a critique of the methods to be used (reform or revolution), but implied a shift in theory itself – by rejecting the importance of any “final aim” of socialism to focus exclusively on improving the material conditions of the working class . Obviously, “improving the material conditions of the working class” does not make an ideology, and while Bernstein made the development of a social democratic doctrine distinct from Marxism possible, he did not bring his critique to a logical conclusion by establishing a set of consistent principles. However, if we are to assume that Social Democracy exists as a political theory, then we have to admit that historical (Marxist) Socialism is not a part of it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

   The second ambiguous case, standing on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum – and also, as of today, of history – is that of the Third Way movement. The Third Way is a political school of thought originated by several left-oriented European statesmen in the 1990s. A key role was played by Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, and Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor from 1998 to 2005, most notably by their common manifesto “The Third Way/Die Neue Mitte” . The key goal of their political project is to renew the European left and provide an alternative to both Neoliberalism and old-styled Social Democracy. Overall, he Third Way doctrine integrates certain criticisms directed to Social Democracy by Neoliberalism, for example by rejecting the concept of equality, instead emphasizing on the importance of individual autonomy, or by criticizing the importance given by social democrats to State interventionism in the economic sphere.  On the other hand, it emphasizes on new issues brought up by several non-social democratic left movements, such as the defense of minorities against discrimination . Another important aspect of the Third Way is the constant celebration of modernity, in particular in relation to globalization, technological progress and the rise of a so-called “knowledge-based economy”.  Translated into policies, this has resulted in a mix of measures aimed at social justice (the creation of a minimum wage in the UK under Blair, for instance) and policies inspired by neoliberal principles (such as the Hartz reforms of the labor market in early 2000s Germany). Is that enough to consider it as one of the avatars of Social Democracy? Its tendency to change throughout history has been highlighted in this paper, so it might be argued that Third Way is simply a revised version of Social Democracy, adapted to the reality of modern times. However, still assuming that Social Democracy is a theoretical reality and not a mere political label, it seems impossible to include Third Way under the social democratic banner. The changes it proposes, indeed, are not merely strategic or oriented on practical policies; rather, they significantly affect doctrinal aspects. On several key points, such as the perception of the State, the attitude toward capitalism or the conception of equality, Third Way thought diametrically diverges from Social Democracy. As, for the same reasons, it would not be fair to characterize the Third Way as fundamentally neoliberal, it can be concluded that Third Way constitutes a middle ground between Social Democracy and Neoliberalism.

   The study of the specific cases of Marxist socialism and Third Way politics has permitted to clarify what Social Democracy is not, to delimitate an ideological perimeter where it is possible to find a coherent political theory describable as “Social Democracy”. The hypothesis taken at the beginning of this section, however, remains to be verified through the research for guiding principles and values.


III Social Democracy as a set of values

   In order to come with a substantial definition of Social Democracy, the most effective way to proceed appears to be a theoretical approach. Such approach will consist in identifying the key principles which, regardless of political circumstances or personal choices, seem to have guided the policies implemented by social democratic (applying to this term the above-mentioned restrictions) governments when in power. Of course, no governing politician can be expected to remain absolutely faithful to their principles, but a certain vision of what society should be, a fundamental notion of what justice is, can nonetheless be found behind most political actions. Two major ideological themes seem to stand out from historical social democratic policies, which, it will be argued, make it possible to identify Social Democracy as a coherent political theory.

   The first ideological pillar of Social Democracy consists in its unique approach toward capitalism. The outright rebuttal of capitalism inherited from Marxism was still present in the rhetoric and official doctrine of many European social democratic parties long after they embraced reformism in practice.  As late as 1971, French socialist leader François Mitterrand still claimed that “he who does not accept rupture […] with the capitalist society […] cannot be a member of the Socialist Party”.  There was, thus, a fundamental discrepancy between words and deeds, which considerably complicates any effort of theoretical analysis. The Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, and particularly Sweden), however, stood as an exception. There, social democratic parties managed reach power during the 1930s, implement significant social and economic reforms and eventually establish themselves as natural governing parties . This is why the Scandinavian countries have come to be considered as the world’s role model for Social Democracy. It is significant to notice that Scandinavian social democratic parties have, since the 1930s, adopted a significantly different approach to capitalism than their continental European counterparts. Officially renouncing to the goal of socializing the means of production (thus implicitly accepting capitalism), Scandinavian social democrats focused their efforts on reforming capitalism in a sense favorable to the principles of a socialist society: creation of unemployment benefits, public works initiatives, establishment of economic planning, empowerment of trade unions in industrial negotiations, etc.  Swedish social democrat politician Ernst Wigfross played an essential role by giving to these policies a solid theoretical basis: his works set as the aims of Social Democracy six values (equality, freedom, democracy, economic efficiency, security and solidarity) and formulated a comprehensive set of policy proposals in order to promote such values.  His impact on the constitution of an independent social democratic thought might even overshadow that of Bernstein, who, having started distancing from Marxism, had not come with any real political theory to replace it. It is possible to consider the Scandinavian vision developed in the 1930s as an anticipation of the revisionist wave which struck many European center-left parties in the 1950s, leading them to abandon most references to Marxism and embrace purely Social Democratic principles.  The paradoxical conclusion of this analysis is that Social Democracy is both a forceful critique of capitalism (highlighting its major flaws) and fundamentally pro-capitalist political movement (since it seeks to correct it through State intervention, i.e. to improve it).

   Equally important in forming the core of social democratic thought is the key principle of “social citizenship”. Social Democracy, in short, could be described as a theory of democracy not limited to political activity, but encompassing economic and social life. To the fundamental political (democratic election of rulers) and individual rights (free speech, freedom of conscience, etc.) it would add social rights such as the right to employment, to health care, or to strike. The major instrument to promote social citizenship is undoubtedly the Welfare State, i.e. the intervention of State aimed at protecting individuals from major social risks such as illness, unemployment, old age and poverty. However, Welfare State may take different forms, of which only one reflects the conception of social citizenship. Gosta Esping-Andersen famously distinguished three different “welfare regimes”. The social democratic welfare regime, he argued, differs from the other two (namely the liberal and the corporatist regimes) by its universalism: whereas the other two linked benefits to preconditions (means-testing in the first case, occupational status in the second), the social democratic regime held them as inalienable rights for every citizen.  It does not come as a surprise that Scandinavian countries are the only ones which have seen the establishment of unambiguously social democratic welfare regimes. The establishment of a universal Welfare State has indeed been one of the main, if not the single most important, policy goals of these countries’ social democratic parties during their period of political dominance in the 30-40 years following World War II.  The universalistic approach has furthermore worked to strengthen the class alliance built by social democrats, as it meant Welfare State did not benefit only the working class but brought substantial advantages to the middle class as well.  But the Welfare State is not the sole instrument promoting social citizenship. Public services, providing essential goods such as education or health to any individual for free or at prices far below market levels, are also an essential part of it. Once again, social democratic parties have played a major role in their creation and expansion, as the establishment of the National Health Service in the UK by Clement Attlee’s Labour government illustrates. Finally, empowering the workers inside their enterprises, especially through legislation favoring labor unions and collective bargaining, also represents a development of social citizenship.

   Two solid principles appear to structure the ideological identity of Social Democracy and distinguish it from other political currents. The working hypothesis previously formulated – the existence of a coherent social democratic doctrine which remains constant despite changes in policies or rhetoric – appears to be verified, leading to the conclusion that Social Democracy exists as a set of principles and values and not as a mere political brand.


Conclusion

   The effort to define Social Democracy first required addressing the difficulty generated by its inherently changing nature. As such changing nature put into question the very existence of Social Democracy as a consistent political theory, it became necessary to clarify which political experiences could or could not be included under the “Social Democracy” label. After this was done, resulting in the exclusion of two opposite borderline cases (namely, Marxist socialism and Third Way politics), it became possible to analyze more profoundly the resultantly restricted notion of Social Democracy. Such analysis permitted to identify two key doctrinal characteristics of the political current: its complex attitude toward capitalism on one side, and its emphasis on the notion of social citizenship on the other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

   Answering the research question posed at the beginning of this paper, it can be concluded that the core of Social Democracy as a political doctrine is made of (1) a forceful critique of capitalism, but a critique aimed at improving it rather than replacing it, (2) an extensive conception of democracy, of which social citizenship is seen as an essential part, and (3) an outstanding ability to evolve through time in line with the evolutions of society.

   However, the path this paper has chosen to follow is certainly not, by far, the only possible path to follow when attempting to define Social Democracy. It is probable that, following a different reasoning, different conclusions could have been drawn. The arbitrary nature of several choices, as to what aspect of a given issue to emphasize on, certainly ought to be recognized. This does not, however, make the conclusions drawn above any less valid.

   This investigation over the identity of Social Democracy inevitably draws another question. It has been more than 30 years now since the idea of a “crisis” in Social Democracy has started being evoked. In the 1980s, indeed, social democratic parties in the western world were struck by the conjunction of multiple factors (decline of the working class as a result of deindustrialization, rise of new political movements on the left, a tougher economic context making their traditional policies ineffective, etc.) and suffered major electoral losses against the neoliberal right.  In the 1990s, a quest for renovation has pushed most social democratic parties to embrace Third Way politics.  While the strategy proved effective in the late 1990s, the electoral decline of center-left parties has resumed since the early 2000s, and nowadays several of those parties have hit historical lows. Witnessing this major trend, it is logical to wonder whether Social Democracy might be withering away. If, as it has been argued above, Third Way politics are not to be considered as social democratic, then it follows that Social Democracy already does not exist anymore as a political alternative in most western countries. So, is Social Democracy an ideology whose time has gone? Only future will provide the answer, but, in regard to the main problems of modern societies, the forceful values which Social Democracy embodies might not be as out of touch as it is often claimed.


Bibliography

•   Andersson, J., “Socializing Capital, Capitalizing the Social: Contemporary Social Democracy and the Knowledge Economy” in Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #145, 2007
•   Berman, S., The primacy of politics. Social democracy and the making of Europe’s twentieth century, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006
•   Bernstein, E., Evolutionary socialism, in: Bernstein, E., Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgabe der Sozialdemokratie, Dietz, Stuttgart, 1899
•   Blair, A., Schröder, G., “Third Way/Neue Mitte” (manifesto), 1999
•   Blair, A., The Third Way: New politics for the new century, Fabian Society, London, 1998
•   Castles, F. G., The Social Democratic Image of Society, Routledge & Keegan Paul, London, 1978
•   Esping-Andersen, G., Politics against markets. The social democratic road to power, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985
•   Esping-Andersen, G., The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990
•   Luxemburg, R., Reform or Revolution, Dover publications, New York, 1900
•   Moschonas, G., In the name of social democracy. The great transformation: 1945 to the present, Verso, London, 2002
•   Przeworski, A., “The dilemma of electoral socialism”, in: Przeworski, A., Sprague, J., Paper Stones: History of Electoral Socialism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1986
•   Sassoon, D., One hundred years of Socialism. The West European left in the twentieth century, I. B. Tauris, London, New York, 2010
•   Tilton, T., “A Swedish Road to Socialism: Ernst Wigforss and the Ideological Foundations of Swedish Social Democracy”, American Political Science Review, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Jun., 1979)
•   Basic Programme of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, The Social Democratic Party of Germany, Bonn, 1959
•   Website of the Institut National de l’Audiovisuel, http://www.ina.fr, viewed 14 April, 2012

[Wyoming Conservative]

Wow good read and nice post.

[homelycooking]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank you Homely for this interesting insight! Here are my thoughts on the questions you asked.

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)?

I think this question was actually one of the major themes of my essay, and I tried to address it at several points. The end of part 1, in particular, is a direct reformulation of your question:

"These successive waves of ideological renovation seem to fit Bernstein’s claim according to which “the movement means everything” . However, they pose a critical dilemma as to what is left of original Social Democracy at the end of this process. If Social Democracy is all about change, then what is regrouped under the social democratic label might, in the end, have nothing in common at all. [...] So, does the changing nature inherent to Social Democracy imply an ineluctable loss of its identity? Or do changing strategies mask a fundamental coherence of principles?"

I later tried to circumvent this dilemma by starting from the assumption that there is a core of Social Democracy which cannot be diluted or abandoned in the name of change, and seeing what kind of political thought comes out of this. I'm aware that this reasoning is a bit tautological, but it ultimately worked for me to identify a more distinct identity of Social Democracy.

Thus, in the eventual definition I formulate, Social Democracy's propensity toward change is strictly contained within the frame of constituents #1 and 2. This is at the theoretical level, of course. At the practical level, it appears that the revisionist tendency inherited from Bernstein is extremely strong in parties of Social Democratic tradition. So strong that, instead of helping to find new practical ways to build a Social Democratic society, the 3rd principle can sometimes overcome the other two and lead these parties, for example, to renounce to the idea of social citizenship in favor of conceptions more in line with modernity, such as merit. But I am convinced that, from the moment these parties move away from the two doctrinal cores I have identified, they lose their Social Democratic identity and become something else. In some way, one could say Social Democracy has an intrinsic tendency toward suicide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue so, yes. Removing this criterion, in my opinion, would completely blur the distinction with traditional Socialism. If a Social Democrat's ultimate goal were to do away with capitalism, many Social Democratic policies would make little sense in that regard (since, by making capitalism more beneficial to the working class, they strengthen the legitimacy of such a system - that's actually one of the main critiques orthodox Socialists formulated against Social Democrats in the early days). I would also argue that Social Democratic movements that were clearer about their embrace of capitalism and private property were ultimately the most successful. The British Labour's insistence on nationalizing large parts of the economy in 1945 explains in great part their troubles in the 60s and 70s and the rise of Thatcher, while Swedish Social Democrats' renouncement to nationalization in the 1930s considerably helped them cement their power.

Of course, that does not mean Social Democrats embrace capitalism the way Adam Smith (or a member of a modern party of the mainstream left) does. I would say Social Democracy sees capitalism as a fundamentally flawed system which, however, we are stuck with. They attempt to curb its natural tendencies and redirect them in a way compatible with their vision of society. The degree of optimism/pessimism toward capitalism of course can greatly vary. But generally speaking, I think a Social Democrat could say something like "capitalism is the worst economic system except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a very good question. I think it's pretty clear that ideologies do not emerge in a vacuum. Accordingly, Social Democracy as it developed, rose and prospered in Europe is a fundamentally European political current and it is hard to see it develop in regions whose history has been so dramatically different. After all, there's already such a large gap in political thought between Europe and the US... What happened before (the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Marxism, etc...), during (nationalism, the World Wars, the post-WW2 economic boom, etc...) and possibly "after" (modern globalization, environmentalism, etc...) Social Democracy fundamentally shaped its own identity. Other countries followed dramatically different paths, and even though there are recognizable phases of economic development that all countries go through, they experience them in very different ways. I doubt we will ever see in Africa or Latin America movements of the same kind. Societies are different, issues are different, and the epoch is different (making obsolete the forms of mobilization and political socialization that prevailed in 19-20th centuries Europe).

On the other hand, I would argue that the values that have been championed by Social Democracy, chiefly the idea of social citizenship, are fundamentally universal, having the same validity everywhere in the world and at any time in history. The idea that the mere belonging to a political collective entails a right to individual well-being and a duty to solidarity is independent of context, and has the same value in Africa than it has in Europe. Political movements in non-European countries are promoting (and will be promoting) these values. These movements might not be strictly defined as Social Democratic, but it could be said they all belong to the same broad family.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this regard, I would say the fundamental difference between Social Democracy and Liberalism is that between negative and positive rights. In the traditional Liberal theory, rights are seen as naturally existing, and the State's role is to prevent their infringement. Social rights, instead, require a much more active role from the State, and making them effective requires to build a broad array of institutions such as the Welfare State, a progressive tax system, public utilities, etc. I think this has been particularly stressed by a great non-European (!) Social-Democrat, Amartya Sen, in his capability theory. In a Social Democratic conception, government takes an active stance to ensuring that citizens can effectively exercise their rights. Contrary to what many would say, I don't think this vision is fundamentally incompatible with classical liberalism. Liberalism has undoubtedly been a key source of inspiration for shaping the Social Democratic theory, and I would say its emphasis on the idea of rights is one of the most valuable contribution of Liberalism. On the other hand, the Social Democratic reading of rights is, I think, much broader than the Liberal one. If you wanted, I think it would be possible to include Social-Democracy in the broad constellation of "Liberalism". Actually, I would say it fits well at the intersection of Liberalism and Socialism. It takes key concepts from both theories, but rearranges them in a way that is unorthodox to both.

As for replacing class with citizenship, I would agree indeed. In the middle of the 20th Century, Social Democratic Parties in Europe started gradually dropping the class-based rhetoric in favor of one based on the universality, a shift obviously prompted also by their attempt to extend their electoral base from the working class to the middle classes. I think this evolution is fairly logical for Social Democracy. Indeed, the rise of a broad middle class is a direct consequence of Social Democratic policies - and goes to contradict Marx's fatalist conception of capitalism as a factor of social polarization. With class barriers being increasingly blurred, Social Democracy's core constituency ceases to be easily identifiable in terms of classes. I would argue that middle classes, provided they accept some sacrifices, would ultimately benefit from a Social Democratic society. This is the practical reason why Social Democracy tends to abandon class politics - the theoretical reason has, of course, to do with its Liberal influence, and more generally to the movement's universalist vision (which is one of the things I like the most about it).

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is, for sure, a fundamental tension, in Social Democratic theory and practice, between the middle class and the working class. Middle classes sometimes tend to have an instinctive mistrust for taxation, conceive a high idea of their opportunities of success, and lack solidarity for the worse off. They thus tend to push Social Democracy away from its core goals. It seems to me indeed that Social Democratic parties often do too much to satisfy this electorate to the detriment of the poor.

But fundamentally, I do think a synthesis is possible between the interests of the working and middle classes. And if such a synthesis is possible, it's only possible under the banner of Social Democracy and through conceptual tools such as social citizenship. A pragmatic tradeoff does of course always exist (meaning, the more you want to help the poorer, the more you have to tax, which the middle classes often don't like), but I don't think theory is the problem. To the contrary, I would argue that social citizenship gives the most solid theoretical foundation to the  broad idea of "helping the poor". What Social Democrats say is that every citizen, regardless of  merit, has a fundamental right to a certain degree of material well-being and to certain fundamental goods such as health care, housing, food, education, etc. Who is to take most practical benefits from this theoretical stance, if not those who would normally lack said goods and said well-being?

Of course, the universalism of this doctrine can make it more difficult to specifically target those who most need help. Specifically, social citizenship would not regard means-testing very well. However, here's the interesting thing: it turns out that the Welfare systems that do the most efforts to target the neediest population are those that end up being the least effective in reducing income disparity. This has been strongly evidenced by Esping-Andersen in "the three worlds of Welfare Capitalism". For some reason, extreme means-testing ends up being counterproductive, whereas universal benefits, which extend to the middle class, also do the most to prop up the poorer. An explanation for this is that means-tested benefits tend to be unpopular with the population at large, and thus there is a push toward lowering them. I could expand on this argument by posting another paper I wrote last year, which studied the Swedish Welfare State and the source of its effectiveness, if you are interested.

But more broadly, universality does not necessarily mean giving the same thing to everyone. A progressive income tax, for example, identifies different incomes but is perfectly compatible with the idea of universality. A guaranteed minimum income is universal, but works only for those who need it. I would say that, overall, the case where the citizenship-based approach and the interests of the working classes diverge are fairly rare.

If any, I think that Social Democrats lost their soul precisely by turning away from social citizenship: for example, by conditioning welfare to work (see Clinton or Blair's reforms), something absolutely incompatible with the universal principles I have described.

[Wyoming Conservative]

What is the main difference between democratic socialism and social democracy?. The terms are often used to mean the same thing.

[homelycooking]

Wow! Thanks for taking the time to address my comments so comprehensively.

[Franzl]

Really enjoyed reading this. Excellent work

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ooh... now that's a nice bibliography. Will read this later.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thank you, Franzl. And Homely, you're welcome, thank you for your interest in my essay.

What is the main difference between democratic socialism and social democracy?. The terms are often used to mean the same thing.

To me, Democratic Socialism has never meant much, honestly, since I think Socialism conceives itself as an inherently democratic ideology. I guess that adding the adjective "democratic" nowadays serves to distinguish it from "Socialism" as it was conceived by self-proclaimed communist regimes throughout centuries (USSR, China, etc.). However, since those regimes actually had little to nothing in common with what Marx or other Socialist thinkers envisioned, calling them "socialist" is in itself a pretty dubious assertion. Plus, I've never read anything that could suggest the existence of a consistent "Democratic Socialist" thought clearly separated from other forms of Socialism.

Regarding the differences between Socialism and Social-Democracy, as I told Homely (see my answer to question #2), the key element is the relationship between capitalism. Social-Democracy is critical of capitalism, but accepts its premises so as to curb it and orient it in a direction favorable. Socialism, instead, puts forth a full-fledged alternative to capitalism.

Ooh... now that's a nice bibliography. Will read this later.

To be fair though, I haven't read any of these books entirely. I just read a few sections in each that I found the most relevant to the argument. I promised myself I would read the Berman, Esping-Andersen and Tilton books entirely some day, as they look passionating.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That is... er... often the way with bibliographies... the point is that those are good choices.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, 'democratic socialism' and 'social democracy' tend to mean exactly the same thing (quite literally, when you think about it), although both can be euphemisms for other things, such as the PDS as was or the British SDP in the 1980s.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That is... er... often the way with bibliographies... the point is that those are good choices.

Yeah, that what I assumed, but I wasn't sure and I wanted to avoid misunderstandings. You know, I have almost zero experience of academic research, and this paper was actually my first serious attempt at it.

[Sec. of State Superique]

A good and concise work. Congratulations folk!

[Person Man]

It seems that what you are getting at is that Social Democracy is couched between liberalism and socialism, where its the goal of the state is to establish a basic comprehensive social contract between each citizen and the state? 

[minionofmidas]

That is... er... often the way with bibliographies... the point is that those are good choices.

Yeah, college kids cite the works cited in the works they quote from.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A good and concise work. Congratulations folk!

Thanks!

It seems that what you are getting at is that Social Democracy is couched between liberalism and socialism, where its the goal of the state is to establish a basic comprehensive social contract between each citizen and the state? 

This might be a very good way to put it, indeed.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This is an excellent essay that concisely articulates a very complex/multifaceted ideology

I do disagree with your assertion about Social Democracy's relationship with capitalism. It offers more than a forceful critique and re-arrangement. My view is along the lines of what Anthony Crosland articulated in the Future of Socialism but with a revision: if we can use capitalism for social means through the democratic state, what is truly being advocated for is total state control of economic means for utilitarian ends. We, as social democrats, only tolerate capitalism so long as it proves to be an effective mean to generate mass wealth.

[politicus]

This is an excellent essay that concisely articulates a very complex/multifaceted ideology

I do disagree with your assertion about Social Democracy's relationship with capitalism. It offers more than a forceful critique and re-arrangement. My view is along the lines of what Anthony Crosland articulated in the Future of Socialism but with a revision: if we can use capitalism for social means through the democratic state, what is truly being advocated for is total state control of economic means for utilitarian ends. We, as social democrats, only tolerate capitalism so long as it proves to be an effective mean to generate mass wealth.

That was the original view, but this isn't really the case any more.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is an excellent essay that concisely articulates a very complex/multifaceted ideology

I do disagree with your assertion about Social Democracy's relationship with capitalism. It offers more than a forceful critique and re-arrangement. My view is along the lines of what Anthony Crosland articulated in the Future of Socialism but with a revision: if we can use capitalism for social means through the democratic state, what is truly being advocated for is total state control of economic means for utilitarian ends. We, as social democrats, only tolerate capitalism so long as it proves to be an effective mean to generate mass wealth.

I absolutely agree that Social Democracy's relationship with capitalism is strictly utilitarian, as opposed to the more principled support of capitalism that emanates from left-liberal political doctrines. Social Democracy supports capitalism because it has found it to be the most effective / least flawed system for the sake of fostering social welfare, and should not have any qualm replacing it with a different system if it was proven to be objectively better in that regard. I hope my article did not seem to convey the opposite message...

[Untergang des Abendlandes]

Social Democracy is so last century.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Social Democracy is so last century.

o hai Politicus


Anyway, If anyone is interested, I have a follow-up essay on the Social-Democratic welfare model and the role played by Scandinavian Social Democratic parties in building it. It uses a lot of the same references but takes a different perspective.