Introduction

Social democracy is, in essence, a series of political and economic compromises. Early social democrats were forced to compromise between their Marxist program and their commitment to abide by the rules of electoral competition that rendered the implementation of the Marxist program politically infeasible. Later, social democrats were forced to compromise between promoting the interests of their core constituency of manual workers in manufacturing, transportation, construction, and mining and the need to obtain support from much broader groups if they were to obtain a majority. Finally, social democracy represents a compromise between egalitarian goals and the need to promote economic growth and employment in a market economy driven by private investment.

Compromises are frequently unpopular. At the crest of left-wing mobilization in Europe and North America during the late 1960s and early 1970s, social democratic parties were denounced for having joined forces with their supposed class enemies in opposition to growing rank-and-file militancy. Defenders of social democracy on the Left responded by arguing that the apparent loss of social democracy's revolutionary aspirations was temporary. In the long run, a number of scholars argued, social democracy will be credited with creating the conditions that make the final transition from capitalism to socialism possible.

Today, the pendulum has swung the other way, and predictions of a radicalization of social democracy appear to be little more than wishful thinking. In the current climate, social democracy is charged with being already too radical for the good of the economy.