[MaverickWhig]

Can anyone here explain the differences and similarities between Third Way and Social democracy and why they are related?

Third Way seems to me as the social democrat's form of centrism. But I'm not really sure. I also read that Clinton and Blair were adherents to "Third Way".

[smkneale]

The 'third way' is supposed to be a compromise between Market Liberalism/Capitalism and Democratic Socialism which have marked the traditional ideologies of the two major parties in Britain. I'll explain it in relation to Britain as it is what I am most au fait with.

Traditionally, the Labour Party in Britain have been seen as a Socialist Party, most fervently so under Michael Foot. Tony Blair, on his succession to the Labour leadership in 1992 following the death of John Smith, rebranded the party as New Labour to mark a distinction from the old socialist ideology. It focuses heavily on private initiatives running public services that can be subsidised by government funds to produce what it believes is a synthesis of Socialist and laissez-faire aproaches to government and economics.

Frankly, it's proved to be somewhat poor in reality in Britain and has led to over regulation of the public sector, high levels of beaurocracy and continual target setting initiatives. Everything is now target driven and manager-led which has proved quite problematic.

[MaverickWhig]

I read somewhere that Third Way is to Democrats (or the Labour Party), as what Neocon is to Republicans.

Is this statement true?

[Ademir]

Third Way politicians like to style it as a synthesis between social justice and economic growth. They view it as a totally new type of ideology, rather than just a compromise between social democracy or neoliberalism. Unlike what the social democrats claim to be concerned with, social justice is not the overriding concern, but is to be considered alongside economic growth.

However, in practice, at least in Australia under Kevin Rudd, all Third Way really is is a milder form of social democracy. Not quite as liberal as neoliberalism, not quite as intervening as pure social democracy, and a willingness to lean towards either side depending on what seems best at the moment. It's pretty much Labour's attempt at neoliberal policies without losing its working-class appeal.

[smkneale]

However, in practice, at least in Australia under Kevin Rudd, all Third Way really is is a milder form of social democracy. Not quite as liberal as neoliberalism, not quite as intervening as pure social democracy, and a willingness to lean towards either side depending on what seems best at the moment. It's pretty much Labour's attempt at neoliberal policies without losing its working-class appeal.

Apart from the fact that the hoardes of disaffected working class voters who now see New Labour as the party of the middle class rather than the working class.

Third Way policies are still relatively interventionist they just aim this intervention at a brand new area. I would argue that it has caused the Labour Party to move from an openly left-leaning party to a centre right one. Kevin Rudd is another example of this who has moved his party to a centre right position. Parties that adopt Third Way politics can no longer be called social democratic as they move from a position of social democracy and inevitably end up as centre-right.

[Ademir]

Apart from the fact that the hoardes of disaffected working class voters who now see New Labour as the party of the middle class rather than the working class.

Third Way policies are still relatively interventionist they just aim this intervention at a brand new area. I would argue that it has caused the Labour Party to move from an openly left-leaning party to a centre right one. Kevin Rudd is another example of this who has moved his party to a centre right position. Parties that adopt Third Way politics can no longer be called social democratic as they move from a position of social democracy and inevitably end up as centre-right.

People have definitely ceased viewing Labor as a working-class party, I agree with you. I don't think this is a new thing, and the rise of the Howard battlers demonstrates it; the parties became so alike economically that it was only natural that workers would vote for the conservative, nationalist nutjobs (this always seems to be the case unfortunately). It's only the disastrous war in Iraq and the entirely unsubtle attack on worker rights recently that has caused Howard to lose favour. Nevertheless, between the two parties, Labor remains objectively more working-class, since it is still willing to intervene for social and economic reasons in certain cases. For this reason, it continues to preach allegiance to the workers, while at the same time supporting business. In this sense, they argue that they are now a unique synthesis between the two positions.

What I meant was that in reality, there is no unique mix or anything like that. It's just a case of them moving more to the Right and neoliberalism without admitting it. Ironically, social democracy was much more an equal mix between social and business interests than Third Way, which is firmly pro-business, although not as much as the Liberals.

[MaverickWhig]

Then why does Labour still sing that "Red Flag" song at every meeting?

[Ademir]

Then why does Labour still sing that "Red Flag" song at every meeting?

And I guess the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is really democratic, huh.

[MaverickWhig]

I was just asking.

[Ademir]

I was just asking.

Fair enough, I just thought the point was made clear in the earlier posts - they do it to maintain a facade (if they do it at all, I'm not sure the ALP does, perhaps the Brits still do).

[DDave3]

Then why does Labour still sing that "Red Flag" song at every meeting?

The Red Flag used to be the embelm of the Labour party from its inception in 1900 until 1986 when it was replaced by the red rose. Members sing ithe Red Flag song t at the ending of annual conference, though it was sidelined by Blair for a few years. To answer your question, nostalgia I guess intertwined with respect for the historic Red Flag imagery.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

About the only difference I can see between Third Wayism and Social Democracy is the amount of respect given to the forces of the marketplace. In practice both schools of thought have ended up pursuing very similar policy goals - namely, a predominantly market capitalist economy with a strong welfare state.

However even though they have embraced a largely capitalist order, their values and concerns came out of the socialist movement, which is why you still have many such parties calling themselves "socialist" and singing songs like the Red Flag.

[Adrien]

Unlike what the social democrats claim to be concerned with, social justice is not the overriding concern, but is to be considered alongside economic growth.

That's brilliant. Really, that concept of social justice being an overriding concept is a brilliant definition of where the line between true social-democracy and watered-down economic liberalism stands.

To answer your question, nostalgia I guess intertwined with respect for the historic Red Flag imagery.

It's all politics, let's be honest. The Socialist Party here in France still sings the Internationale at congresses, and leaders speaking at the tribune still say "mes chers camarades" but at this point it's so fake and interested that it is quite ridiculous. They have to maintain imagery, because that's all they have left to wave when assailed by critics about their silly economic choices, in my opinion.

[Luxemburgs_Pastry_Chef]

The Labour Party here still sing the Red Flag occassionally at congresses and are members of the European Movement for Socialism, or whatever that European Parliament grouping is called.
Third way, much like Thatcherism, is more characterised by a global movement of capitalism from one mode of capitalist accumulation to another (namely 2ndary to 3ary) and cannot be understood in purely national terms, although this element cannot be written off, for the geographical and historical (namely monoculture: see non-native coffee in Brazil) deposits of particular resources. The same may be said of third way-ism, which is a mere continuation of global Thatcherism, if you will, assuming you take this in the spirit of the preceeding sentence. It is a continuation in that it understands historical urgency in not backtracking years in bourgeois development, but attempts to gear the economy towards social equality, but only in the most limited sense, that is, in the idea that meritocracy is at the core of its values. This is clearly a misnomer. Its real core values are the same as preceeding Thatcherism, the accumulation of capital in its new primary mode, replete with the countless contradictions gained from even the most basic Marxist analysis.

Pardon my latecoming to the party, I have been off PoFo in a while.

[Adrien]

Pardon my latecoming to the party, I have been off PoFo in a while.

A great shame!

Third way, much like Thatcherism, is more characterised by a global movement of capitalism from one mode of capitalist accumulation to another (namely 2ndary to 3ary) and cannot be understood in purely national terms, although this element cannot be written off, for the geographical and historical (namely monoculture: see non-native coffee in Brazil) deposits of particular resources. The same may be said of third way-ism, which is a mere continuation of global Thatcherism, if you will, assuming you take this in the spirit of the preceeding sentence. It is a continuation in that it understands historical urgency in not backtracking years in bourgeois development, but attempts to gear the economy towards social equality, but only in the most limited sense, that is, in the idea that meritocracy is at the core of its values. This is clearly a misnomer. Its real core values are the same as preceeding Thatcherism, the accumulation of capital in its new primary mode, replete with the countless contradictions gained from even the most basic Marxist analysis.

To use an expression of the Monde Diplomatique that I have already quoted, the third-way is a knife without a blade. In terms of political discourse, it's about trying, but failing. Actually it's about half-baked tries, with predictable failures given the big shots of such movements actually share interests with the ones they are supposed to attack and question. But it is also probably very sound to emphasize the role of tertiary activities in Third-Wayism, in terms of political imagery I think it is clearly a demagogical shot at the conservative bourgeois focus on agricultural and raw materials (the first way), a shot at the hackneyed traditionnal socialist/communist focus on industry (the second way) and an attempt to dismiss key discussions on economic ideas to provide some "Diet Politics" to the average citizen.

It's no surprise the same big shots of parties like that, be they from the "Left" or the "Right" are the first ones to claim that class struggle has long died, that the Left/Right divide is irrelevant, etc. Like you said in this new speech meritocracy (that ends up being meritocracy of those who can afford it of course) plays an important part, it tries to connect it to the usual capitalist discourse on how everybody gets a chance, everybody can make it, how it's about providing opportunities in an open society against the supposed rigidity of a controlled economy.

[Eauz]

Like you said in this new speech meritocracy (that ends up being meritocracy of those who can afford it of course) plays an important part, it tries to connect it to the usual capitalist discourse on how everybody gets a chance, everybody can make it, how it's about providing opportunities in an open society against the supposed rigidity of a controlled economy.

The one thing I've hated about the Third Way and such is that whenever policies to actually improve society are put into place, decades later, due to economic failure, the capitalists lobby to reduce these policies or attempt to restructure (rather than paying a full pension, the employees have to enter the market with money taken out of their own pay cheques), etc. It only amazes me that politicians today who had all the great social benefits are now destroying these same benefits that they had. What is the purpose of fighting for improved social conditions in the short-term, if in the long-term, they are destroyed or restructured to no longer benefit society as a whole?

Equally enough, a lot of supporters of the Third Way (Unions, labour groups, etc.), are actually making is harder on developing social programs that benefit society as a whole, as their own interests are rooted within the sustainablity of capitalism within society. So, while many socialists may view unions are great, they are actually causing more problems for regular non-unionised people. They are a cog in the development of socialism within society and are only a minor pillar in helping capitalism sustain itself.

This is not directed at Adrien, but Damn those Third Way people only cause more problems than they do solve them!

[Cartertonian]

As the sole member of the embryonic political party, "The Fence-sitters Alliance"...

What intrigues me is that, by and large 'Third Way' concepts represent the common-sense, collaborative and co-operative decision-making that should characterise a modern democracy.

After all, what are the alternatives?

Anarchy.

One-party dictatorship.

Or 2-party flip-flopping between 'left' and 'right'.

[Okonkwo]

What intrigues me is that, by and large 'Third Way' concepts represent the common-sense, collaborative and co-operative decision-making that should characterise a modern democracy.

While I agree, I recall you talking rather disappointed, perhaps even hostile about Mr Blair, who was, after all together with Clinton and perhaps Schröder the most prominent proponent of the Third Way.

[Orcprocess]

The third way does not represent a revolutionary idea, simply a merging of current ones. Remember the whole structure of Marxian history; Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Repeat.

Thesis - Capitalism, Antithesis - Socialism, Synthesis - Third Way.

If Marx was right third way will become the dominant thesis, only to be challenged be a new antithesis before they too merge.
(Bets on whether antithesis A will be left or right wing?)

[redcarpet]

What intrigues me is that, by and large 'Third Way' concepts represent the common

You have to be a dupe to accept it though. The idea of private sector 'involvement' in the public sector but without taking advantage of the taxpayer, I mean OMFG! The idea that after the Thatcher years the UK public would never approve of tax increases or increased spending on public services, or the public is easily wooed by promises to spend billions on military programs you aren't supposed to use(nuclear weapons). Or that even natural monopolies like utilities and railways shouldn't be renationalised because they'd be dysfunctional and the public would riot. Jeez, ENOUGH!