Which, to me, argues all the more for the idea that the pressures, movements, etc, were indigenous (albeit, in the case of some, under an international framework of socialism/communism). To put my thoughts in order:
Two [types of] analyses have been suggested: (a) the presence of the Soviet Union acted provided an example of an alternate world order and thus held capitalist exploitation of workers in check. With the Soviet Union gone, no alternative threatens the status quo, and the welfare state is being rolled back. (b) times of crises are bad for the Left as the public turns more defensive, reactionary, insecure. The idea that crises could be opportunities for the Left to organise/channel public sentiment/reaction is naive at best.
My feeling is that both of these theses are unhelpful (in that they are oversimplifying). That’s just a feeling, I admit… I am neither an economist nor a historian, but rather, at best, an amateur anthropo-paleontologist. :-) I study the available historic record and fossils of public sentiment today and make guesses on what occurred in active minds and societies 20, 50, 80 years ago.
With regard to (a), perhaps from the 40s on, I see the Soviet Union offering not an alternative but evidence that augmented capitalist libertarian propaganda in the USA (of Europe I am not sure, but with the [perceived] threat from the SU separated merely by a border, I would guess there were similar reactions). This is no different, tactically, than Israel’s early promotion of Hamas. While some of you might see a worker state with full rights, my sense is that most Americans agreed with terms such as “the Red Menace”, “the Evil Empire”, etc.
Re: (b), I agree with the chap who argued against simplistic, agent-free (his term was “mechanistic” I think) generalisations on the basis of one or three data points. I fail to see single or a very small set of large underlying conditions that predict historical socio-economic events (other than perhaps the launching of wars to distract and/or re-indoctrinate the population).
The turn of the 20th century, perhaps the peak of the ravages of industrialisation [?], witnessed local and international struggle, in response, against worker exploitation, imperialist exploitation, etc. In different cases this led to independence from foreign occupation, takeover of government by the working class, the basics of a welfare state, so on - all arising from common roots of social unrest and demand for rights, equalities; rather than one paving the way for the others.
Two decades later, the reaction - to the crisis of the Great Depression - of the general populace, the meritocracy system [?], and a populist and combative president led to some significant gains in the establishment of a welfare state.
So on.
The evidence, it seems to me, points to not one or two determining factors: people rose up with demands both at bad times (crises) and good (the years at the end of the Golden Age). These desires were suppressed and gains rolled back both in boom years (the 1920s) and in bust ones (early 1980s, 2000s). The presence or absence of the Soviet Union does not seem to have influenced these events. Rather, IMHO, the causes seem to have been more mundane ones of ground circumstances, prevalent public ideologies and attitudes, so on.
All idle speculation, I confess.
—ravi