From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 16:12:06 EST
> >What makes a theory (which is to be distinguished from the expressed >politics of the one holding the theory) 'social democratic' rather than >Marxian? > in solidarity, > michael Moschonas gives an institutional definition of social democracy--centralized wage bargaining, fiscal policy as instrument of full employment as well as central bank accomodation thereof, mildly progressive tax structure. I call a theory social democratic if it implies that such an arrangment would work, i.e. could stabilize capitalism with output growth, low inflation, some bottom up real wage improvement over time, and contained inequality. Social democracy as a practice is state centric; as a theory it is meant to guide the state as a rational supra-class institution towards economically and normatively sound policy. Social democratic propaganda tends to identify the main enemy as rentiers who are worried about their incomes being inflated away in a full employment context. The struggle for emancipation from the alienation inherent the industrial capitalist work process cannot figure prominently in social democratic theory and practice, as you long ago pointed out. The attention is focused on the distribution of the net product after it has resulted from alienated industrial labor. I think Ajit explores the differences in the meaning of exploitation. I cannot imagine that as a practice or theory S-D would not have been the object of Marx's critique. Marx certainly would not have said policy is irrelevant and should not be struggled over, but the limits of social democracy he would have attempted to elucidate, no? This is all terribly well understood, no? I'm not saying anything controversial here, right? Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 06 2003 - 00:00:00 EST