This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Despite most countries claiming democratic credentials, few agree on what they mean. In fact, "The idea that the 'people' might actually 'rule' " horrified "respectable people as a political nightmare...." Authority had to be "left in the hands of people who had interests in preserving" the status quo, or how they want it.
In other words, those with wealth and power wish to keep it, undeterred by popular interests harming them. Perhaps another way to think of democracy is as an unrealized hope anywhere. Some nations are more democratic than others, but "are any," in fact, "demonstrably more democratic than others?" Perhaps not enough to matter when even the best show disturbing erosion.
On October 1, he headlined, "Does Social-Democracy Have a Future,?" saying:
In September, Sweden's social-democratic party lost badly, its worst showing since 1914. A center-right party won, and a far right, anti-immigrant one won seats for the first time. It matters because Sweden's "virtuous middle way (straddled) the two extremes" of capitalist America and Soviet Union communism. It was, but is no longer, "a country that effectively combined egalitarian redistribution with internal democratic politics."
Until now, it's been "the world poster child of Social-Democracy, its true success story." No longer. Meanwhile in Britain, Blair/Brown extremists rebranded the left "the new Labour." They argued for a middle way, mimicking America's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the Democrat party's far-to-the-right-of center organization Ralph Nader calls "corporatist (and soulless." Ideologically they're like Republicans and just as belligerent, favoring anti-populism, anti-labor, anti-welfare, pro-business, pro-war for world dominance, and let-em-eat-cake social policies.
In other words, Britain's "middle way" favored "unbridled dominance of the market" allied with America's global hegemony project. So what do Sweden and the UK "tell us about the future of social-democracy?"
Post-1970, neoliberal globalization prevailed, eroding social democratic notions, sinking all boats together, some faster than others, market primacy overriding popular interests. "This was what (Blair/Brown's) 'new Labour' was all about." Sweden resisted longer, "but it, too, finally succumbed."
As a result, social democracy as a movement eroded. "It became an electoral machine that lacked the passion of yesteryear." Even so, it's "a cultural preference." Voters still want "the fading benefits of a welfare state," and protest vigorously when they're taken, a common happening today most everywhere. So, "Does social-democracy have a future?" For now, only as a cultural preference, not a movement, barring a reversal nowhere in sight.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
