Well yes, but not exactly. Example: the Lander banks in Germany. These are publicly owned at the state level and make loans to local small businesses. They play an important role in the social market model--and the EU (or some elements therein) wants to abolish them. By the way, this is a very important topic. Peter Dorman Max Sawicky wrote: > > > > > 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
