> > Here's an idea - social democracy is more compatible with "monopolized" > ownership structures than most social democrats would like to > admit, and is > undermined by U.S.-style financial and corporate governance arrangements. > It's probably very difficult for U.S. social dems to admit to this, given > this country's love of small business and populist, anti-centralizing > political traditions. Financial and corporate governance arrangements can be quite different in this context. In the latter case, monopoly mitigates the imperative of profit maximization per se. In this realm, I think you are right that social democracy has an interest in seeking collaborationist arrangements with corporations, which I would say can be either good or bad for workers. Liberalizing financial arrangements are a whole different matter and would seem to be the real challenge to social democracy. We see that under neo-liberalism, social democracy either caves in and transforms to Clintonism (e.g., U.S., perhaps Australia/New Zealand, UK), or is forced into a more antagonistic posture. The indifference to localism, populism, and anti- centralism is generic not only to social-democracy, but to much of the left as well. My impression is that these traditions have much less currency in Europe so there is nothing to neglect. mbs
