Modern economic progressivism in the US is largely rooted in the policies and principles of social democracy. It has generally been characterized by an embrace of the redistributive and regulatory policies enacted throughout Europe. However, the term can be used to describe a wide gamut of ideologies. Many use it to describe reformist socialism and left wing populism, in reference to figures like Bernie Sanders and Huey Long. This brand of social democrat also tends to have nationalistic policies and minimal focus on intersectional rhetoric. However, social democrats often fall into the more globalist and pragmatic side of things. Their policies still push towards an egalitarian and redistributive economy, yet they are often referred to as social liberals or even centrists. To understand the true nature of the term and why this divide exists, let’s take a look at the history of social democracy.
Social democracy originated as part of the Marxist tide that swept through late 19th century Germany. However, its development was defined by a rejection of the more zealous and impractical aspects of Marxist thought. The work of Eduard Bernstein would set the precedent for the pragmatic tenets of social democracy: in the place of bloody revolution, he called for incremental reform and compromise. In place of the populist dogma of Marxian writings, he used data and analysis to argue for his views, rebutting Marx’s theories about capital concentration with a marshalling of facts impressive enough that even his Orthodox Marxist opponent Karl Kautsky acknowledged its value. Bernstein was frequently attacked for his pragmatism, underlining the core incompatibilities between moderate and far left ideology.
Flash forward to post WWI Europe - the unprecedented rise of fascism and Marxism-Leninism caused much political turmoil, pushing social democracy even further from Orthodox Marxism. Social democracy stood in firm and independent opposition to the authoritarianism that took over Europe during this time, as both the far left and far right threw democracy to the wayside in an effort to achieve their respective goals. Social democratic paramilitary groups violently crushed the post WWI communist revolution in Germany. Then, when the fascist Nazi Party became the new threat, the SPD was the lone party to vote against the Enabling Act of 1933, and its paramilitary groups clashed with those of the Nazis. The war against radicalism included the murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders of the German communist movement; it seemed that the differences between reformists and revolutionaries was now too pronounced for allyship to continue. It was at this point that social democracy became recognized as its own distinct school of leftist ideology, opposed by communists and conservatives alike. Despite this, though, social democrats were still devout socialists, whose end goals did involve the dismantling of capitalist structure. The social democrat label was actually similar to what ‘democratic socialist’ means today. This would soon change, though; as I previously mentioned, the development of social democracy has always been rooted in the refinement and practical application of egalitarian ideas. Socialism, reformist or otherwise, is at its core a very theoretical and far flung ideology. Thus, the next logical step of refining leftist theory was to abandon the end goal of dissolving capitalism.
Post WWII, social democrats embraced a compromise between capitalism and socialism, seeing it as the most practical way to push for egalitarianism. Much of its economic theory is tied to the Keynesian macroeconomic model that was adopted by developed nations post WWII. It occupied the leftmost wing of liberalism, serving as a counterweight to the flourishing neoliberal movement that has dominated much of the past few decades. This is largely what social democracy is at the present moment; redistributive and regulatory economic policy, within the framework of liberal democracy. At present, nearly every liberal democracy has adopted some form of socialization within their system. This includes the Nordic countries, which are the only nations to be recognized as full fledged social democracies. The success of the Nordic model and decommodification in Europe drives much of progressive advocacy in the US, which is the only OECD country to be as privatized as it is.
The abandonment of socialist thought is what caused the divide that we see today. Old guard social democrats are essentially reformist socialists, who tend to embrace the nationalist and populist sentiment of old school worker advocacy. There is a reactionary element to their ideals. They seek to return to something resembling FDR’s America: a nationalist, pro worker state where citizens are free to pursue the traditional notion of the American Dream. With this comes a rejection of most neoliberal policy, as they push back against urbanization and rapid housing development. Then there is the new guard, which wholly embraces capitalism and liberal democracy as the best framework for working class empowerment. This version of social democrat tends to agree with neoliberals on the importance of globalization and social progressivism in the prosperity of a nation.
Comments