@ TheRedBaron
What do you think?
Hard to say. I do support Giddens' conviction that the socialist ideology, or to be more precise, ideologie
s, are unsound. Let me explain why. The socialist movement has always tried to reform the unbridled markets and all its abuses. I find it convenient to classify the development of socialism according to three phases.
The first phase covers the period between 1850 and the end of WWI. During this period socialism believes that the markets must be bridled by means of the socialization of enterprises. The ultimate goal is the dictature of the proletariat. In other words, it is assumed that the people have a single universal will.
The second phase is a period of ideological adaptation, and lasts from WWI until about 1960. The universal suffrage is realized, and the elections prove that only a minority supports the socialist ideals. The socialists acknowledge that politics takes place within a pluralist system. So they develop the new ideology of the central planning at the micro-level, while tolerating the private property.
The third phase is characterized by the emancipation of the people, thanks to improved education and welfare. She covers the period between 1960 and 1985. The central planning of phase 2 was never a success. In its most orthodox form, the system of Stalin and beyond, it was even a dismal failure. Now socialism tries to further participation and consultation. The economic policy is the planning at the macro-level, founded in the Keynesian paradigm. The state must stabilize the total volume of investments.
Unfortunately, in practice a policy based on Keynesianism can not prevent economic crises, and may even make them worse. So socialization, central planning and Keynesianism are all inadequate solutions. Evidently it is impossible to control the economy. In the ideological sense the social-democracy is dead.
I admit that my three phases model is not perfect. For instance in Germany, where I come from, the socialists have skipped the phases two and three. During phase 2 their movement is destroyed by the fascists. And during phase 3 the socialists have become essentially social liberals (see their Godesberger program). On the other hand, in France the socialists implement socializations and central planning at the micro-level even late in the third phase (in 1982). Nevertheless, in many cases the idea of three phases is a fair approximation. So she has some value.
You ask: is there a future for the social-democracy? It is certainly possible that the movement (parties and politicians) will succeed in reinventing herself. But although for instance the Third way ideology of Giddens and Etzioni could support a fourth phase, it breaks with the earlier ideals, notably the restrictions of private property. And the aged party members, a majority, still adhere to the ideal of the third phase, and are reluctant to support a new transition. So the chances are unfavourable. This is clear in England, where the members have elected the extremist Corbyn as their leader.