Idk about Germany but in Sweden the employers federation elected a capitalist in 76 and the wage earners fund was effectively killed in 83, and they liberalized the financial market in 85

Sweden started from a higher point so them liberalizing the finance markets in 1985 after the crash just meant they were stooping down to the standards that already existed in the rest of Europe, however they liberalized it even further in the late 80s up until the year 2000 ofc

Also as I said, the decline happened in the 1980s already, the USSR wasn't able to project force like it used to and didn't have its proxies in place like it used to. Especially once glasnost and perestroika hit in 1986. I do not think it is a coincidence that a strong welfare state and a strong worldwide communist movement existed at the same time, whereas the welfare states weakened once the communist movements weakened

If the communist movements and threats increased, they would try to do more welfarism again, however this time, the imperial gains would be lesser so I don't think it would be as effective as last time in placating the workers

But I'm not saying the unions are weak I'm saying they were not revolutionary so the calculus made on the part of Capital was different. There's a difference when the unions are radical and led by a revolutionary party versus when they're reformist and led by liberals who've bought into the system. In that situation they're dealt with less like an insurgency but more like an interest group

We didnt say unions were revolutionary fam

But a non-revolutionary labor movement that's organized and can hurt the capitalist class bottom line through strikes is still something that enters their calculation, the reforms under FDR was also motivated out of fear for what organized labor could do if they didn't give em some concessions.

Even if they're not revolutionary, strongly organized and militant labor unions is a lot more than just another interest group because the interests of that coalition of those labor organizations go against the interests of entirety of the capitalist class.

If unions in general weren't such a threat then capitalists wouldn't spend so much time and money busting them

The biggest weapon capitalists have in class struggle besides the state is a capital strike. Same for workers, except it's a labor strike.

It's cuz you're thinking about it too narrowly imo, the communist movement was also strongest when Capitalism and the labor movements were at their height during the long boom and they entered long crisis at the same time too (roughly). Swedish financial markets were not that much stricter than other countries which had liberalized a few years earlier. Again I don't think the USSR's ability to project power played a part.

Peak of communist movement was 1950s and 1960s

pbs.twimg.com/media/Dov5XOzXsAEbz1u.png

It's not really about direct power of the USSR, it's more about soft ideological power by being an example for a different model, even for those who don't want to go that far.

You said in your first post social democracy is only granted when the Bourgeois fears the working class AND communist Revolutions

Yes, how can you tell me with a straight face Western Europe bourgeois didnt fear the Eastern system? Wtf

Your post implied the unions were revolutionary no?

The threat is alternative systems existing and intellectuals + workers pointing to it

Even the fact the USSR existed was a huge thorn against the bourgeoisies side

China doesnt have that same effect since everybody knows deep down that they are capitalist

The reason the US goes sicko mode on every socialist country is not just because of whatever particular investments American capitalists made in that country. It's because of the threat of a good example as Chomsky would say.

Despite its flaws, that threat was a very real one with the USSR.

We shouldnt project current political attitudes onto the past, the political status quo and attitufes even 40 50 years ago were really really different in Europe than they are now, it's day and night

I acknowledged that, when the USSR dissipated there was less resistance to Austerity because the left was discredited and political imagination got smaller but it was one part of an ongoing process that was set off by the crisis of the 70s

But the neoliberal solution to offsetting falling profit rates was only possible in social democracies because the political will could be enforced

And this will could be enforced because the opposition lost power and the Eastern Bloc lost status

China turned Dengist around this time and USSR was going into a market direction too, they both supported communists less and the union movement became more and more co-opted

1989 - 1991 was just the nail in the coffin

Well yeah the crisis of the 70s definitely had a big role in that as well, but that was still more so focused on monetary policy, which does have a relation to austerity. But mass privatizations, which is a core aspect of neoliberalism, didn't really happen at the mass scale it eventually would until the 80s and 90s for most of the west.

F*** privatizations fr

We pay more money for less service and the profits just go to the board of directors now

We gotta tell these fools ayo if we re-nationalize more stuff ur taxes will fall Bc the earnings of the nationalized firms can be used for public funds

A big problem is also that public entities use private-law-forms so that they become profit-oriented, IMO all utilities should be organized as state services that aren't allowed to seek profit, only to break-even

Then extend this to public housing rents...and increase taxes on landlords...and now you got some interesting developments...

In western/northern the workers specifically didn't point to the Soviet Union, they saw themselves as part of the same political tradion maybe but a different political project. The threat of the USSR is much more real abroad than domestic for capital.

It's not about what the workers say but what the paranoid bourgeoisie afraid of losing wealth and power think