Social Democracy

Origins

Inspired by the 19th-century German economist and sociologist Karl Marx (1818–1883), social democrats traditionally deemed total equality the final goal of efforts to remedy the plight of the working class. They regarded the capitalist economic system as the cause behind society's ills. With close ties to the then budding labor movement, social-democratic political parties began, toward the end of the 19th century, to form and organize themselves. A key demand was public ownership of the means of production as a way to transform society into a socialist economic system, thus ending the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie and creating true democracy. Very soon, different groups began to debate the means by which to reach the end. Could and should what was regarded as capitalism's inner contradictions be passively allowed to develop, or [Page 2424]should the final collapse be speeded up by resorting to violent revolution? Others instead suggested “revisionist,” peaceful, and gradual reforms of the system launched through liberal democracy via political parties in parliament, including cooperation between social classes. Soon, the nature of the end itself became a bone of contention. Could and should the entire capitalist economic system really be thrown overboard? Or rather, were reforms of the economic system preferable, so as to sustain its ability to create wealth? Were not welfare state measures sufficient to alleviate the system's perceived unfair wealth distribution effects? Led by the German socialist Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932), the revisionist camp evolved into the social-democratic movement. The other camp opted for more revolutionary, far-reaching solutions including “dictatorship by the proletariat,” culminating in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the first communist state. Subsequently, most social-democratic parties began reorienting themselves from being solely the political branch of the working class to becoming “catchall” parties.

The issues of how extensive the transformation of society should be and by what means it should be achieved did not end with the social democrats' break with the Communists. Applying the commonly used “left–right” ideological continuum to two analytical aspects, “public ownership” and “social policy,” many researchers would certainly place social democracy slightly left of center regarding public ownership and perhaps a little further to the left on social policy. However, consensus is less solid when “left” and “right” are to be defined. Normally, left would signify more public enterprises and more dirigiste state involvement in the economy, but the actual mix of socialist and capitalist policies differs considerably between parties and between different time periods. Actual ownership of the means of production has seldom formed a vital part of policies. As to the social policy dimension, the left would stand for a more extensive welfare state in terms of covering more people with more generous support at higher cost and with fewer if any market-emulating characteristics.

...