How about Social Democracy?
As far as I understand social democratic theories, at the start they were trying to avoid a revolution, due to the belief that capitalism could be reformed sufficiently. Poverty, exploitation and suppression should get narrowed down to a reasonable amount, might be kept within the borders of public consensus, if only the state was strong enough, and of course, ruled by an apt party. Meanwhile the crucial question, if a party was fit enough, apparently was transformed to the question, if the party leaders are fit enough. Such personalities are to be more charismatic than others, to collect more voters than others. Since then election campaigns usually face us with a lot of promising faces.
But, as I see it, if someone wants to reform capitalism, his or her fate will necessarily be the one of capitalism itself. If some reforms are working and showing, he or she can claim this success to his or her efforts. But when economy runs another course for economic reasons, political reforms will shrink or even vanish, if being obstacles. Still, we might suppose that capitalism can be overcome by reforms, but if so, a brave social democrat will have no concept for the time after. So I'm afraid, reform parties glued their fate to the wrong object. If there was no capitalism, there was no social democracy either. Vice versa social democracy depends on capitalism, it destroys itself when overcoming capitalism.
Looking back we find social democracy's high time in the period after the second world war. Economy was growing fast because of upcoming new industries, such as mass production of cars, other consumer goods and chemistry. This period ended, when production was left trailing by finance industry. Capitalism couldn't get reformed any more, since it was ruled by financial powers from now on, who just smile at nations or governments.
Accordingly most of the main stream media got bought, social democratic governments got infiltrated, or were overrun by neoliberal rulers in many countries. Capital market from now on was to rule economy, because politics obviously couldn't do any more. Such was the new credo, and still is the most propagated theory, even if displaying disastrous consequences on a global scale. The reason is not ignorance or cynicism, but the circumstance that it's not only a credo, but an economic fact. Finance capital is the actual ruler.
The problem is not an issue of belief or theory, instead it's rooted in a very material crack of the real system. The change from productive to financial capitalism took away state's power by nothing but debts. Most of the governments cannot truly contradict capitalism any longer, because their budgets are built on credits. There are only few exemptions, due to offshore-oil recently discovered, while finance industry took a grip on power even there.
Who wants credit, must obey. Who glued his fate to capitalism, must follow its development, even if runs out of control or any reasonable conduct. If finance industry rules economy, it not only rules capitalism, but the whole society too. Traditional politicians will not admit this situation, but are showing it by their loss of power. Even worse, where finance capital and power marry or couple in some way, kind of new imperators are emerging, turning democracy to a business.
Still I think, social democrats can do a lot. It's true, many workers are now abroad and got out of reach this way, but still many employed rely most on social democracy. Who am I to give an advice? But if I was asked, I would suggest to take fate in one's own hands, instead of sticking it to anything else.
Copyright © UsRulingUs 2013
