Social-democratic America.

What if after the world war II the United States had become a social democracy ,like GB ?

This is a very interesting question, which I have often thought about.

I think one of the ways to get this is firstly of course you have to have the Democrats go more toward the notion of social democracy instead of their ameliorative social liberalism that characterised the New Deal and Great Society programs.

You also need then to have the Republicans accept the most of these programs, or at least become resigned to them. The problem here is that in the US there has never been the sort of big-government aristocratic conservatism that has characterised the UK and much of Europe.

As for what would have happened, the USA would definitely have universal healthcare, also more nationalisation of utilities in the post-war period, etc.
 
That would perhaps not be a bad thing, social-democracy is not a bad thing as long as you don´t get carried away, after all you have to agree that Sverige is pretty advanced, granted you cannot solely thank the early social-democrats like Branting, Per-Albin Hansson and Erlander for that.
Most of it was done by clever inventors and a hard working low and middle class but the politicians drew up the guidelines, unfortunality the idiots we have to contend with nowadays can in no way measure up to the pople that i mentioned earlier.
 
From little I have head of Social policy post-WWII in the USA, a large number of left-centre Democrats in 1945 were looking at Britain's Labour govt. as an example of were "New Dealism" should continue on to namely in nationalised industry and universal healthcare, remembering Keynesian economic policy at this point was at a zenith in crediblity. However the Democratic right and Republican viewed it as un-American, commie, etc.

I'd say FDR lives a few more years, finished his fourth term in 1948 before passing away in 1950 say. In this situation, if the left-centre can convince the President of Labour-style reforms I'm sure the Democratic right would have shut up, FDR in late 45/46 would have been viewed as god-like having won a war, created a superpower and 'saved' the economy. In such a situation an American NHS and Federal Steel seems quite plausible to me
 
Better unions might be part of the answer. I think the US unions worked with the organised crime syndicats (Hoffa etc.) and strong unions are part of the equation. (I'm not sure about nationalized industry. It is something that changes over time in social democratic thinking.)
 
Better unions might be part of the answer. I think the US unions worked with the organised crime syndicats (Hoffa etc.) and strong unions are part of the equation. (I'm not sure about nationalized industry. It is something that changes over time in social democratic thinking.)

Yes, I think you definitely need stronger unions. Not just stronger unions but also a more centralised form of trade unionism. Many unions in the US tended toward a sectional craft unionism sort of organisation(many small unions). With the exception of the UK, most nations with large social democratic parties have a more system-wide industrial unionism (a small number of large unions).

Yes, it is true that support for nationalisation is something that varies in different national traditions in politics. For instance in the UK and in Australia, traditionally social democrats strongly supported nationalisation. In Sweden they opposed it. It seems that in nations with highly conflictual relations between capital and labour (UK and Australia) nationalisation was supported, whereas it wasn't in consensual nations (Sweden).

The US has more the pattern of conflict seen in UK and Australia, so I can see at least for a while social democrats supporting some forms of nationalisation.
 
Alongside Mafia involvement, ideologically the Unions followed anarcho-syndicalist lines at least initially, viewing themselves not political parties as the means towards a more 'fair' society.

Perhaps Eugene Debs get his wish in the early 1900s and manages to form a moderate left-centre American Labour Party out of progressive Democrats and the Socialist Party? This would certainly be more attractive to the Unions and would in turn give the Party massive clout, perhaps displacing the rump Democrats after the depression?
 
Unions aren't just a part of a political movement. They are also a alternative to political action through the goverment at one level or another. For example, I like to point out that Sweden has no minimum wage.

Unions work like guys with hammers. They see all problems as nail problems. Unions see problems as unions as the solution. They would also prevent the tipping over to some worse form of socialism.
 
Unions aren't just a part of a political movement. They are also a alternative to political action through the goverment at one level or another. For example, I like to point out that Sweden has no minimum wage.

Unions work like guys with hammers. They see all problems as nail problems. Unions see problems as unions as the solution. They would also prevent the tipping over to some worse form of socialism.

True, especially in regards to Sweden. In the US the govt has taken on a more active role in providing a safety net to the poor due to weak unions.

In Australia there were major strikes in the 1890's which were defeated. This led to unions deciding that they needed to establish a pro-union political party. Not just a party which received union funds (OTL US Democrats), but a party which was institutionally the servant of the union movements.

For instance the Australian Labor is highly centralised in structure, until the 1970's 90% of Party Conferences delegates (who decide party policy) were union reps. Individual MPs and Senators have to sign a pledge to always obey the majority decision of the parliamentary party (penalties for disobeying this include life bans from the party).

Is this any way for the US in the early 20th century to develop a trade-union based party like this?
 
Yes, I think you definitely need stronger unions. Not just stronger unions but also a more centralised form of trade unionism. Many unions in the US tended toward a sectional craft unionism sort of organisation(many small unions). With the exception of the UK, most nations with large social democratic parties have a more system-wide industrial unionism (a small number of large unions).

Yes, it is true that support for nationalisation is something that varies in different national traditions in politics. For instance in the UK and in Australia, traditionally social democrats strongly supported nationalisation. In Sweden they opposed it. It seems that in nations with highly conflictual relations between capital and labour (UK and Australia) nationalisation was supported, whereas it wasn't in consensual nations (Sweden).

The US has more the pattern of conflict seen in UK and Australia, so I can see at least for a while social democrats supporting some forms of nationalisation.
Indeed they did, our early socialdemocrats were pragmatists so they made a deal with the unions and the industrialists called Saltsjöbadsavtalet. In this deal the unions said we will not strike if our members get decent wages and benefits, the socialdemocrats said we will not nationalize and finally the industralists said ok we will give decent wages and benefits but no strikes or other sabotage. The industrialists in that time not only looked at profit
they also asked themself "if I do this is it good for the country?" And it worked if my memory serves me right we did not have a major strike until 1969 more than 30 years later.
 
Top