In one sense, all European politicians today are social democrats, and indeed far to the left of any social democrat of the Great Era (1945-1970), simply because politicians and bureaucrats now control far more of the economy than they did in the days when most people were employed in private-sector mass production of goods.

In another, social democratic arguments about solidarity and tempering capitalism are quaint because they were shaped in that era of economies dominated by private-sector industrial production. In economies dominated by public-sector services (of often dubious quality and value for money, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish) those arguments have no traction on the real world.

The social democratic vision in a vulgarized form has triumphed totally. An example: the allegedly liberal Danish governing coalition has now officially determined that it is against shrinking the public sector and is proud of increasing public employment, this at a time of shrinking labor supply.

Like Berman, I am nostalgic for the old days when it meant something to hold social democratic ideas and when politics did matter in a substantial sense. But those days are gone. The social democrats did it, they doubled-tripled the public sector and subordinated virtually all private economic decisions of citizens to political considerations.

interesting point. I think there are two possible answers in keeping with Berman’s framework.

The first is that social democracy is indeed more of a hybrid ideology than, say, classical liberalism or orthodox Marxism, and so builds into its very nature an appreciation of the need to pay attention to democracy, liberalism, communitarianism, and economic growth simultaneously. That does make it an inherently larger tent than the “purer” ideological approaches that came before it—but its very capaciousness, one could say, is what has enabled it to be successful, given the need to pay due heed to both parts of Polanyi’s “double movement.”

Second, in the book Berman points out that things like nationalization were never ends of social democracy, but rather means, of attaining political control over economic outcomes. She finds it perfectly possible to give up nationalization and substitute, say, planning and regulation, alternative means to the same end, and stay within the SD framework. The point is focus on the core principles at issue, rather than the policies that might be derived at any moment to implement them…

lc

One problem with this ultra orthodox concept of various political philosophies of liberalsim, marxism etc. Wherein any heterodoxy is de facto rejection. Wherein Marxists, when they rejected Historical Materialism and the concept of class struggle, ceased to be marxists, as did the liberals, when they endorsed regulation of the markets and the role of the state in providing stable, productive society, ceased to be liberals. Does this not apply to Social Democracy as well? Did the first Social Democrat who saw the need to privatize a formerly state run company(as most Social Democrats have), or fully liberalize a certain market, cease to be a Social Democrat? why does he/she get off the hook?

If, as the author states, a concept of liberalism that encompasses the Social Democratic-lite values many liberals have is to make the term meaningless, what does that say of Social Democracy, which in certain aspects, holds to very orthodox socialist views, while in others, holds views that have become virtually indistinguishable from the Neoliberals? Does it’s vaunted “Third Way” status, permit this sort of Squishyness?

If consistently, you mean one year. You are right.

Post-traumatic stress disorder?

If you open your eyes you see it.

To be clear: on the UN index 9 countries come out ahead of the US, 8 of which are European and the other is Canada. Of the highly ranked countries, many approximate what could be called a “social democratic” model. What this indicates is that when broader criteria than GDP per capita are used, U.S. economic “success” is much less clear.

This is a curious statement. According to the index, only a few European countries come out ahead of the United States and together they have a population of about 35 million. Of course, the US has a population of 300 million. Thus it seems misleading to claim that “Europe” comes out ahead on the index—it’s the equivalent of comparing the most successful US states against the European Union as a whole. However, perhaps I’m misinterpreting you: you may be claiming that Europe comes out ahead in terms of life expectancy and literacy. However, you haven’t provided any evidence for that claim that I can see. (Side question: what counts as “Europe” here? The EU?)