Why Social Democracy is Failing Europe
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There is a certain tension in the phrase, “social democracy,” and the description of someone as a social democrat. Social in this context is socialism by the state. A democrat supports the freedom for individual electors to express and defend personal interests in regular plebiscites. The two positions are incompatible.
At this point we should note that in economic terms there is little philosophical difference between European socialism and communism. Both seek to relieve capitalists of the means of production in favor of the state, either by ownership or control. Marx himself saw socialism as a temporary phase on the way to full communism. However, we all know from experience that communism fails by impoverishing everyone except a coterie of leaders. The same problem of the state’s inability to calculate prices, other than with reference to labor costs, and to foresee what consumers require on the morrow bedevils both socialism and communism. The principal difference between the two is the speed at which economic disintegration takes place, tied to the rate at which the socializing state removes personal freedoms and destroys wealth.
Social democrats assume that moderate socialism does not lead to those outcomes, which is a mistake . They are deceived.
With social democracy we observe committed socialists and communists using democracy as the pathway towards increasing socialism and eventual communism. But there’s a problem, which in time becomes increasingly obvious to the electorate. Electors become poorer over time, and the more progressive among them seek to escape in order to participate in more capitalistic economies. Lenin and Mao Zedong dealt with this tendency by suppressing all freedom of expression and they redefined democracy to permit only the election of communist officials. Intellectuals, always the first to express discontent, were liquidated or sent to the Soviet gulags and China’s penal labor camps.
In Western Europe a different, more patient approach was needed for the communist revolution. And this is where the concept of the social democrat springs from.
The tactic was (and still is) to stand firm on socialism and force compromises always to be made by the democrats. For decades it was the basis of Soviet foreign policy, which employed “useful idiots” to spread communism in both universities and political circles. Their influence was what defeated Enoch Powell and still drives Ken Clarke and his fellow appeasers towards greater socialism. It is clear that social democratic politicians need not be communists, only appeasers.
Social democratic political parties express a belief in social justice. But social justice is a meaningless term used by the far left to attract support for more extreme forms of socialism. In Europe, social democrats advocating social justice have held sway since the Second World War. But they are becoming victims of their success at taking down capitalism, because they are losing electoral support.
The era of social democracy appears to be coming to an end. Germany’s SPD recently suffered its worst electoral result since the Second World War, and France’s Socialist Party came fifth in the presidential election won by Emmanuel Macron, a political outsider. Other social democratic parties to have lost ground include the Netherlands’ Labour Party, Italy’s Democratic Party and Austria’s Social Democrats. In the United States there was a rejection of the Democrats in favor of President Trump, who like Macron in France started as a political outsider.
Brexit was the rejection by the British voter of the socializing controls imposed by a remote super-state. The British parliament initially paid lip-service to the electorate’s wishes, before rallying round its socialist credentials and is now conspiring to stop Brexit. So strong is Parliament’s collective socialist instinct that May’s appeasing government is prepared to destroy its electoral base rather than stand against the socialist tide. It comes at a time when the Labour Party has been captured by a Marxist clique which appears increasingly likely to form the next government.
Commentators attribute the decline in social democracy to events such as the great financial crisis. This and other reasons are why traditional working-class and blue-collar workers have drifted away. The philosophical conflict between socialism and democracy is at the heart of the rebellion, if only the voters themselves knew it. Instead of rejecting socialism, they are embracing extremes, and the extremes are always socialist extremes. Notably, almost none of the disillusioned social democrats support free markets.
The point missed by most analysts is that social democracy is failing because of the contradiction between personal freedom and state control.
As a form of mild socialism, it fails for the same reason as did communism. It all plays into the hands of the communists, for whom the failure of social democracy is an opportunity. They encourage the rank and file to blame capitalism. The collapse of capitalism is inevitable, as Marx wrote. And its collapse hastens full-blooded communism. Communism is a broken philosophy, as has been clearly demonstrated. But ruthless leaders still see it as the means of obtaining power over their fellow humans.
Tags
Who is online
110 visitors
Brexit was the rejection by the British voter of the socializing controls imposed by a remote super-state
In truth it was a group of many uninformed voters that had no idea what they were voting for, hence the wish by many for a do over.
Funny while in Europe I had the opportunity to discuss the differing aspects of Social Democracy with some young folks from Germany and Denmark. While admittedly their taxes are higher, they are free from the worry of health, education and retirement issues and claim to be quite happy with their lot. As with our system their are pluses and minuses, but it does not seem to be on the wane anytime soon.
Nothing is free. A lot of our young folks here want the same thing.
It's funny watching my daughter who took on these socialist ideas complain about losing 1/3 of her paycheck to taxes.
Did not say it was free, higher tax structure pays for it.
When someone throws out the term "social justice" hang on to your purse ladies.
I've already given up my personal freedom for corporate control!
All of my work is for corporations. We both benefit. I still maintain control of what work I choose to do and what I will reject.
I woke up this morning wanting to sue Charter Spectrum for shitty service, but found they buried an arbitration agreement into the contract. I had to look it up on Google, and found the tracking pop-up ads for women's pajamas (I wanted to buy something nice for my gf's birthday last month) to be super annoying. Alexa came on out of nowhere to tell me she didn't understand a question I never asked. I needed to get some gas on my way into the office this morning too and found my regular convenience station had closed because QuikTrip put in 12 new stations last year and under priced everyone driving them out of business. I could go on and on and on on how incrementally we have ceded control of our lives and many of our rights to corporations. This isn't in any way a support of Socialism it's just an observation that our current system has it's flaws too.
Is some of it by choice? When government gets involved choice no longer exist...take the IRS for example. Who isn't terrified of the IRS? The government has made sure of that.
Of course. We will give up tons of freedoms for the sake of convenience. It's a human failing.
Wrong. Government is nothing more than a body of people who we send to write rules. Without government there is no society. When government favors then choice becomes limited until it no longer exists. Since the '80s (both parties) have largely sided with big business at expense of small business, small communities and individuals.
Somehow, I don't know how, we need a better system to hold individuals in Congress to a higher standard of ethics. The Congressional ethic office is a joke, the press is largely ineffective and most people care more about fake reality tv than voting.
Yes! Business has too big an influence in our governments.
Calvin Coolidge - History Central
That are imposed at the behest of the corporate elite to benefit themselves over consumers.
Which is what happens to all the -isms.
Nonsense. Crony capitalism occurs where government controls markets, not in small government
Right from the start it mischaracterizes "socialism", "democracy", "social democracy" and "social democrat". The two main concepts are not incompatible if they actually understood either of them.
"At this point we should note that in economic terms there is little philosophical difference between European socialism and communism."
Total bullshit. As a recent article about George Orwell recently pointed out, European socialism was inherently opposed to communism.
"However, we all know from experience that communism fails by impoverishing everyone except a coterie of leaders."
Ah, the age old attempt to falsely claim one group you hate is like some other proven enemy. Why don't we play the same games with other groups.
"At this point we should note that in economic terms there is little philosophical difference between American conservatism and fascism."
"However, we all know from experience that fascism fails by putting all the power in the hands of a dictator who inevitably becomes corrupt."
See? We falsely tie all conservatism to fascism and then rightly point out how bad fascism is. A brilliant smear campaign ensues not based on any substance but there's lot's of angry voices arguing over each others definitions.
"The point missed by most analysts is that social democracy is failing because of the contradiction between personal freedom and state control."
No, it's under attack from white Christian conservatives who see a society for all as a society without them in charge which is unacceptable to them.
Socialism: noun - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Democracy: noun - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Social Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives, that advocate for the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So we collectively vote on who should represent us, and if any representative moves towards either fascism or communism we elect someone else to represent us. And those elected and frequently replaced Representatives regulate capitalism which creates a balance between pure capitalism and socialism for either, if left unchecked, would destroy the nation. Out of control socialism is kept in check by our Democracy, and unfettered capitalism is kept in check by Democratic socialists.
No offense Dismayed, but fat chance. We currently have that ability. We can't seem to get rid of asshats as it is.
I have now seen several people on the right that basically push Austrian School of thought.
A bassackwards school of economics also known to NV alums as Kelonomics.
There are damn good reasons why John Maynard Keynes is The Father of Modern Economics and why that olde dumbass Milton Friedman is not.