I wrote: >>And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the >>development of capitalism. Brad writes: >We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or >"social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that >produced the fastest generation of economic growth that the world has ever >seen." Brad, who is this "we"? You and Truman? Harry S. Truman (to whom "his" referred in my sentence) was no social democrat! He was a right-wing member of the New Deal coalition (which makes him sort of left wing by today's standards). I'm surprised that you want to put yourself in the same league with the mad bomber of Hiroshima. >The alternatives--whether laissez-faire during the Great Depression, >Cuba in the era of the ten million ton sugar harvest, Yugoslavia under >Tito, or the Soviet Union under Brezhnev--do look rather dismal, don't they? Sure, but then again, all social systems look rather dismal compared to heaven. Countries cannot simply choose to install heaven -- or social democracy. Such systems do not drop from the sky. They arise from specific historical circumstances, about which more below. Just one point on just one of your cases: Castro started out very much like a social democrat. But the US opposed that policy, first overthrowing the social democratically-minded Arbenz in Guatemala, pushing Castro to more radical, anti-US policies. When he came to power, the US then pushed him into the arms of the USSR, with the criminal blockade that still continues and, later, with efforts to sabotage the Cuban economy and kill Castro himself. The "10 million tons" was an effort to escape those Soviet arms while not falling under the US heel. Despite the paternalistic authoritarianism of the Castro government, the vast majority of the Cuban population supported him before this effort. (After all, would _you_ rather be poor in Mexico or poor in Cuba? Besides, he was and is a Cuban nationalist.) The 10 million ton effort netted much less than that (7 million? I forget) and severely disrupted the rest of the economy. It encouraged a radical and obvious fall in support for the regime. Castro publically admitted responsibility and apologized. More importantly, he moved to organize the Organizations of Popular Power, which were a small step toward increased democracy. Unfortunately, this step didn't go far, given resistance from the USSR and the political establishment (neither of which liked such reforms), at the same time that the continued US blockade made increased democracy very difficult. (It sure looks as if the US government _prefers_ authoritarianism in Cuba, given the way the power elite's policies promote authoritarianism at every term. Revealed preference and all that.) Even without the geopolitical situation, the Castroite movement would have had a lot of problems dealing with an underdeveloped economy that was excessively dependent on sugar exports (not to mention gambling and prostitution), which would have made the creation of social democracy _very_ hard. It was not Costa Rica. Even if Castro had wanted to be a social democrat in 1959, he couldn't have instituted tht kind of policy regime. >Social democracy isn't utopia, but it is a lot closer to it than the >available alternatives have been... I notice that you don't define "social democracy," so I'll add it to my list of fuzzwords -- and use my own definition. I define social democracy as capitalism plus a developed welfare state, using the oft-used definitions of those terms that are common on pen-l. (We don't need to define our terms all the time, just when they are in contention. I'll define my terms if you wish.) Note that I am not talking about social democratic rhetoric, tactics, programs, etc. I am talking about social democracy _in practice_. Every type of social organization needs a social basis, since (as mentioned) it can't simply be wished for. I see social democracy as a type of _class compromise_, in which the capitalist ruling class finds itself needing to compromise with a well-organized and class-conscious working-class movement, organized in a political party linked explicitly to labor unions. This happened in Western Europe (especially Sweden), but not the US, where the welfare state has always been extremely weak, a mere appendage of the warfare state. I should mention that social democracy typically organizes a capitalist national economy better than unfettered capitalism does, so I guess we agree on something. (My belief parallels Marx's and Keynes' view that laissez-faire capitalism can be very bad for the capitalists.) We should also note that social democracy can be internationally destructive, since it is nationalist (since as yet it is based in the nation-state). (Social democrats should note the similarity of the social base of social democracy and that of the trade wars of the 1920s or the imperialist expansion of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.) Such a compromise is not always possible. To get it, we need (a) a well-organized working-class movement, (b) a coherent (non-dependent) economy operating in a generally prosperous international environment, and (c) limited scope for capital flight, both of hot money and of productive capital. The W. European working classes were _lucky_ that US hegemony and the Cold War promoted world aggregate demand (element b) at the same time that capital controls persisted from the aftermath of the 1930s and the ability of productive capital to move had not developed as much as now (element c). They were also lucky that fear of the USSR encouraged the capitalists to compromise, to build their political bases for the Cold War. With a much more stagnant international situation, increased mobility of capital, and the end of the USSR, the social democratic politicians (like Tony Blair) have stampeded to Clintonism. But even when the international conditions are right, social democracy is not handed to the working class on a silver platter. It has to be fought for (since capitalist resist in a big way: think of Henry Ford). Social democracy doesn't come because people are pushing for social democracy. Rather, they were pushing for something more -- socialism -- and the capitalists were willing to compromise and give them social democracy. That said, I'd much rather have social democratic capitalism than Clintonian, Bushian, or Reaganite capitalism. But I know that you can't get social democracy simply by wishing for it. (If wishes were horsefeathers, the Marx Brothers would ride.) You have to fight for it against resistance, the Clintons, the Bushes, and the Reagans. And you have to fight for something better -- socialism -- because no-one really wants a gray bureaucratic system of rule by experts that makes up the welfare state. (I'll leave some major criticisms of social democracy -- e.g., its tendency to undermine its own base -- to another missive.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
