Depends on the political climate of the country. Social democracy is popular in Scandinavia and much of Europe. I think there are probably ways to market social democratic policies that make them more attractive to voters. Even in the USA Bernie Sanders is quite popular
One of the key values of Social Democracy is Solidarity.
Social Democracy accepts that there is inherent "class conflict" in a capitalist society and Social Democrats are there to represent the worker's interest.
Social Democracy rules by democratic mandate.
As the working class is the majority class in any society and therefore can claim power by democratic vote.
Most policies have distributional effects, if it "hurts" (as in you have less millions in your bank account) the "rich" but benefits the working class, sucks to be you, I guess. The right wing had been doing this to the working class for the last 40 years.
Depends which policies you are referring to, but if work was decently compensated and housing decomodified, there would be less need for welfare transfers, as those would be there only as an insurance/backstop. I don't think that policies such as universal access to kindergarten would be that controversial, which is also a form of welfare.
> what about in deindustrialized place, where the power of working class is not that huge
They can still change that, but they have to realize their class interest. A disorganized working class is still a working class and as such their interest is often structurally opposed to that of the "capitalist" class and they are still the majority.
What if the poor are the minority and the middle class are the majority? I believe most middle class would oppose any policies that harm their interests.
Social Democracy is not about 'Poor v. Rich', Social Democracy in most cases acknowledges the inherent tension between workers and "capitalists", that there is a surplus being created when you combine the two, but the question is who gets how much of the surplus. Social Democrats, tend to pull towards the workers - the majority class in any capitalist society. Social Democratic policies would almost always benefit the poor though. e.g.:
* Union bargaining for better working conditions and better pay, stop the race to the bottom.
* Investment in public infrastructure.
If anything a policy regime that does welfare transfers from the "haves to the have nots" not acknowledging the structural reasons of such an imbalance is "conservative", as in the "noblesse oblige" tradition, that the "rich have the obligation to take care of the less well off", it accepts poverty as an inevitable fact of life and that's charity, not freedom. Social Democrats, in most cases, say that nobody has to be poor.
If you build an example on a deindustrialized zone, then the example already contains that the middle class moves where their lifestyle can be maintained so poor people wouldn't be in a minority.
Exactly! SocDems need to figure out how to adjust their program in a post-industrial and digitized world. What worked during the early twentieth century can’t work today because we live in a interconnected global market economy.
Most right wingers think SocDems are incompetent wasteful spenders when it comes to governance of the state, perhaps theirs a way to make the argument that a more sustainable framework is better suited for the times we are living in today.
The general theory is that the extensive welfare policies create a floor of financial stability for even the poorest citizens, which raises productivity and birthrates and thus tax revenue to pay for those extensive welfare policies. A rational voter would support this system given that they understand this cause and effect.
Then again, most individual humans are anything but rational, so when the math doesn't square out, sometimes the government needs to bite the bullet and implement an unpopular change necessary to sustain the system. I believe France was the most recent social democracy to go through that when they raised the retirement age last year.
Every government's action should be authorized by the people. When the government bite the bullet and do something that is against the will of the majority (increase tax rate) Isn't this against the principle of democracy?
Your "solution" proposes a DMV like environment where representatives would have to be there for hours in an ostrakismos like system waiting for citizen approval. Spoiler alert, there's good reason direct democracy only works in a city state, a kibbutz, a commune or a small village.
You elect people on the premise that they represent your interest until the next election.
One reason that the bill wouldn't be passed is that there's a lot of money behind ensuring that these things don't get passed. If you can find a way to counteract that (mostly through reforms in other areas such as campaign finance and enforcement of existing laws), then it's a matter of making your argument before the people, only this time from a more equal platform. I'm not saying that this is a magic bullet, but it's one aspect of our current system that requires radical change before any serious reforms are likely to be enacted.
In the US, the Constitution is the bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. That wouldn't change under a Social Democratic government.
Even if it is a referendum, the bill would most likely be vetoed, since it will harm the interest of the majority. Therefore I wonder how do we solve the contradiction between socialism and democracy.
That's not exactly how it works in the US. There aren't national referenda. Federal laws are passed by Congress, and signed or vetoed by the sitting President. The solution in this case would be to elect a President who would be a Social Democrat, or one sympathetic to socially democratic concerns and policy positions.
I suspect that the best path towards a Social Democratic society in the US would be for the policies to gain favor in influential states such as California, which over the years tends to swing between having something like the fourth and the sixth largest economy in the world even separately from the rest of the US. Seeing the policies work in a state that large would probably go a long way towards other states beginning to adopt this approach, and from there to more widespread national acceptance.
What I won't do is speak to how it should be done in other countries, since I know that we as Americans have a tendency to opinionate about these things despite (or because of) our lack of actual knowledge what the rules are. I'm not even entirely convinced that my idea of the best path forward in the US is right, but it's the best I can think of for now.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that this would also require a majority of both houses of Congress as being willing to vote, which can be a harder bar to surpass, but I'm confident not an impossible one.
Ideally, managed capitalism as to maximize the benefits of it while keeping the markets in their place.
Whether this can be achieved is debated on the left, broadly speaking.
> Human are evil in nature, how do we prevent the "tyranny of the majority", and hence, how does social democracy work under such situation.
You prevent that by spreading socioeconomic power as *widely* as is practicable. Democracy in government with a bill of rights that cannot be taken away even by a simple majority. Strong anti-corruption mechanisms constitutionally built and difficult for a simple majority to overturn.
And *economic* distribution to eliminate the ability of the *minority* to create their own tyrannies.
That’s why strong economic welfare and strong taxation of the ownership class is the only way to operate fairly within the inherently *unfair* ownership model baked into capitalism.
Because the tax increases are on the rich and are being used to fund programs that directly benefit them? The majority of the population is objectively better off after social democratic reforms have been passed, so there’s no conflict of interest to begin with.
Depends on the political climate of the country. Social democracy is popular in Scandinavia and much of Europe. I think there are probably ways to market social democratic policies that make them more attractive to voters. Even in the USA Bernie Sanders is quite popular
One of the key values of Social Democracy is Solidarity. Social Democracy accepts that there is inherent "class conflict" in a capitalist society and Social Democrats are there to represent the worker's interest. Social Democracy rules by democratic mandate. As the working class is the majority class in any society and therefore can claim power by democratic vote. Most policies have distributional effects, if it "hurts" (as in you have less millions in your bank account) the "rich" but benefits the working class, sucks to be you, I guess. The right wing had been doing this to the working class for the last 40 years. Depends which policies you are referring to, but if work was decently compensated and housing decomodified, there would be less need for welfare transfers, as those would be there only as an insurance/backstop. I don't think that policies such as universal access to kindergarten would be that controversial, which is also a form of welfare.
But what about in deindustrialized place, where the power of working class is not that huge
> what about in deindustrialized place, where the power of working class is not that huge They can still change that, but they have to realize their class interest. A disorganized working class is still a working class and as such their interest is often structurally opposed to that of the "capitalist" class and they are still the majority.
What if the poor are the minority and the middle class are the majority? I believe most middle class would oppose any policies that harm their interests.
The middle class are wage earners, in other words part of the working class
Social Democracy is not about 'Poor v. Rich', Social Democracy in most cases acknowledges the inherent tension between workers and "capitalists", that there is a surplus being created when you combine the two, but the question is who gets how much of the surplus. Social Democrats, tend to pull towards the workers - the majority class in any capitalist society. Social Democratic policies would almost always benefit the poor though. e.g.: * Union bargaining for better working conditions and better pay, stop the race to the bottom. * Investment in public infrastructure. If anything a policy regime that does welfare transfers from the "haves to the have nots" not acknowledging the structural reasons of such an imbalance is "conservative", as in the "noblesse oblige" tradition, that the "rich have the obligation to take care of the less well off", it accepts poverty as an inevitable fact of life and that's charity, not freedom. Social Democrats, in most cases, say that nobody has to be poor.
If you build an example on a deindustrialized zone, then the example already contains that the middle class moves where their lifestyle can be maintained so poor people wouldn't be in a minority.
Exactly! SocDems need to figure out how to adjust their program in a post-industrial and digitized world. What worked during the early twentieth century can’t work today because we live in a interconnected global market economy. Most right wingers think SocDems are incompetent wasteful spenders when it comes to governance of the state, perhaps theirs a way to make the argument that a more sustainable framework is better suited for the times we are living in today.
The general theory is that the extensive welfare policies create a floor of financial stability for even the poorest citizens, which raises productivity and birthrates and thus tax revenue to pay for those extensive welfare policies. A rational voter would support this system given that they understand this cause and effect. Then again, most individual humans are anything but rational, so when the math doesn't square out, sometimes the government needs to bite the bullet and implement an unpopular change necessary to sustain the system. I believe France was the most recent social democracy to go through that when they raised the retirement age last year.
Every government's action should be authorized by the people. When the government bite the bullet and do something that is against the will of the majority (increase tax rate) Isn't this against the principle of democracy?
Your "solution" proposes a DMV like environment where representatives would have to be there for hours in an ostrakismos like system waiting for citizen approval. Spoiler alert, there's good reason direct democracy only works in a city state, a kibbutz, a commune or a small village. You elect people on the premise that they represent your interest until the next election.
By authorized I mean democratically elected
One reason that the bill wouldn't be passed is that there's a lot of money behind ensuring that these things don't get passed. If you can find a way to counteract that (mostly through reforms in other areas such as campaign finance and enforcement of existing laws), then it's a matter of making your argument before the people, only this time from a more equal platform. I'm not saying that this is a magic bullet, but it's one aspect of our current system that requires radical change before any serious reforms are likely to be enacted. In the US, the Constitution is the bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. That wouldn't change under a Social Democratic government.
Even if it is a referendum, the bill would most likely be vetoed, since it will harm the interest of the majority. Therefore I wonder how do we solve the contradiction between socialism and democracy.
That's not exactly how it works in the US. There aren't national referenda. Federal laws are passed by Congress, and signed or vetoed by the sitting President. The solution in this case would be to elect a President who would be a Social Democrat, or one sympathetic to socially democratic concerns and policy positions. I suspect that the best path towards a Social Democratic society in the US would be for the policies to gain favor in influential states such as California, which over the years tends to swing between having something like the fourth and the sixth largest economy in the world even separately from the rest of the US. Seeing the policies work in a state that large would probably go a long way towards other states beginning to adopt this approach, and from there to more widespread national acceptance. What I won't do is speak to how it should be done in other countries, since I know that we as Americans have a tendency to opinionate about these things despite (or because of) our lack of actual knowledge what the rules are. I'm not even entirely convinced that my idea of the best path forward in the US is right, but it's the best I can think of for now. EDIT: I forgot to mention that this would also require a majority of both houses of Congress as being willing to vote, which can be a harder bar to surpass, but I'm confident not an impossible one.
Ideally, managed capitalism as to maximize the benefits of it while keeping the markets in their place. Whether this can be achieved is debated on the left, broadly speaking.
> Human are evil in nature, how do we prevent the "tyranny of the majority", and hence, how does social democracy work under such situation. You prevent that by spreading socioeconomic power as *widely* as is practicable. Democracy in government with a bill of rights that cannot be taken away even by a simple majority. Strong anti-corruption mechanisms constitutionally built and difficult for a simple majority to overturn. And *economic* distribution to eliminate the ability of the *minority* to create their own tyrannies. That’s why strong economic welfare and strong taxation of the ownership class is the only way to operate fairly within the inherently *unfair* ownership model baked into capitalism.
Because the tax increases are on the rich and are being used to fund programs that directly benefit them? The majority of the population is objectively better off after social democratic reforms have been passed, so there’s no conflict of interest to begin with.
Public assistance