Socialism's comeback

At the beginning of the century, the chances of socialism making a return looked close to zero. Yet now, all around Europe, the red flag is flying again.

 

"If socialism signifies a political and economic system in which the government controls a large part of the economy and redistributes wealth to produce social equality, then I think it is safe to say the likelihood of its making a comeback any time in the next generation is close to zero," wrote Francis Fukuyama, author of The End of History, in Time magazine in 2000.

He should take a trip around Europe today.

Make no mistake, socialism - pure, unadulterated socialism, an ideology that was taken for dead by liberal capitalists - is making a strong comeback. Across the continent, there is a definite trend in which long-established parties of the centre left that bought in to globalisation and neoliberalism are seeing their electoral dominance challenged by unequivocally socialist parties which have not.

The parties in question offer policies which mark a clean break from the Thatcherist agenda that many of Europe's centre-left parties have embraced over the past 20 years. They advocate renationalisation of privatised state enterprises and a halt to further liberalisation of the public sector. They call for new wealth taxes to be imposed and for a radical redistribution of wealth. They defend the welfare state and the rights of all citizens to a decent pension and free health care. They strongly oppose war - and any further expansion of Nato.

Most fundamentally of all, they challenge an economic system in which the interests of ordinary working people are subordinated to those of capital.

Nowhere is this new leftward trend more apparent than in Germany, home to the meteoric rise of Die Linke ("The Left"), a political grouping formed only 18 months ago - and co-led by the veteran socialist "Red" Oskar Lafontaine, a long-standing scourge of big business. The party, already the main opposition to the Christian Democrats in eastern Germany, has made significant inroads into the vote for the Social Democratic Party (SPD) in elections to western parliaments this year, gaining representation in Lower Saxony, Hamburg and Hesse. Die Linke's unapologetically socialist policies, which include the renation alisation of electricity and gas, the banning of hedge funds and the introduction of a maximum wage, chime with a population concerned at the dismantling of Germany's mixed economic model and the adoption of Anglo-Saxon capitalism - a shift that occurred while the SPD was in government.

An opinion poll last year showed that 45 per cent of west Germans (and 57 per cent of east Germans) consider socialism "a good idea"; in October, another poll showed that Germans overwhelmingly favour nationalisation of large segments of the economy. Two-thirds of all Germans say they agree with all or some of Die Linke's programme.

It's a similar story of left-wing revival in neighbouring Holland. There the Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP), which almost trebled its parliamentary representation in the most recent general election (2006), and which made huge gains in last year's provincial elections, continues to make headway.

Led by a charismatic 41-year-old epidemiologist, Agnes Kant, the SP is on course to surpass the Dutch Labour Party, a member of the ruling conservative-led coalition, as the Netherlands' main left-of centre grouping.

The SP has gained popularity by being the only left-wing Dutch parliamentary party to campaign for a "No" vote during the 2005 referendum on the EU constitutional treaty and for its opposition to large-scale immigration, which it regards as being part of a neoliberal package that encourages flexible labour markets.

The party calls for a society where the values of "human dignity, equality and solidarity" are most prominent, and has been scathing in its attacks on what it describes as "the culture of greed", brought about by "a capitalism based on inflated bonuses and easy money". Like Die Linke, the SP campaigns on a staunchly anti-war platform - demanding an end to Holland's role as "the US's lapdog".

In Greece, the party on the up is the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA), the surprise package in last year's general election. As public opposition to the neoliberal econo mic policies of the ruling New Democracy government builds, SYRIZA's opinion-poll ratings have risen to almost 20 per cent - putting it within touching distance of PASOK, the historical left-of-centre opposition, which has lurched sharply to the right in recent years. SYRIZA is particularly popular with young voters: its support among those aged 35 and under stands at roughly 30 per cent in the polls, ahead of PASOK.

In Norway, socialists are already in power; the ruling "red-green" coalition consists of the Socialist Left Party, the Labour Party and the Centre Party. Since coming to power three years ago, the coalition - which has been labelled the most left-wing government in Europe, has halted the privatisation of state-owned companies and made further development of the welfare state, public health care and improving care for the elderly its priorities.

The success of such forces shows that there can be an electoral dividend for left-wing parties if voters see them responding to the crisis of modern capitalism by offering boldly socialist solutions. Their success also demonstrates the benefits to electoral support for socialist groupings as they put aside their differences to unite behind a commonly agreed programme.

For example, Die Linke consists of a number of internal caucuses - or forums - including the "Anti-Capitalist Left", "Communist Platform" and "Democratic Socialist Forum". SYRIZA is a coalition of more than ten Greek political groups. And the Dutch Socialist Party - which was originally called the Communist Party of the Netherlands, has successfully brought socialists and communists together to support its collectivist programme.

It is worth noting that those European parties of the centre left which have not fully embraced the neoliberal agenda are retaining their dominant position. In Spain, the governing Socialist Workers' Party has managed to maintain its broad left base and was re-elected for another four-year term in March, with Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero promising a "socialist economic policy" that would focus on the needs of workers and the poor.

There are exceptions to the European continent's shift towards socialism. Despite the recent election of leftist Martine Aubry as leader of the French Socialist Party, the French left has been torn apart by divisions, at the very moment when it could be exploiting the growing unpopularity of the Sarkozy administration.

And, in Britain, despite opinion being argu ably more to the left on economic issues than at any time since 1945, few are calling for a return to socialism.

The British left, despite promising initiatives such as September's Convention of the Left in Manchester, which gathered representatives from several socialist groups, still remains fragmented and divided. The left's espousal of unrestricted or loosely controlled immigration is also, arguably, a major vote loser among working-class voters who should provide its core support. No socialist group in Britain has as yet articulated a critique of mass immigration from an anti-capitalist and anti-racist viewpoint in the way the Socialist Party of the Netherlands has.

And even if a Die Linke-style coalition of progressive forces could be built and put on a formal footing in time for the next general election, Britain's first-past-the-post system provides a formidable obstacle to change.

Nevertheless, the prognosis for socialism in Britain and the rest of Europe is good. As the recession bites, and neoliberalism is discredited, the phenomenon of unequivocally socialist parties with clear, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist messages gaining ground, and even replacing "Third Way" parties in Europe, is likely to continue.

Even in Britain, where the electoral system grants huge advantage to the established parties, pressure on Labour to jettison its commitment to neoliberal policies and to adopt a more socialist agenda is sure to intensify.

307 comments

writeon's picture

I don't object to the exitance of inequalities pre se. I object to the existance of grossly unequal societies that re-inforce and entrench inequalities based on vast disparities of wealth and power. Democracy, socialist or capitalist, cannot function properly or optimally, if inequalities based on wealth and power are too pronounced and uncontrolled.

I've lived in several countries, mostly the Nordic ones, where the people generally contend that their societies are the most fair, equal, just, harmoneous and happy in the entire world. These countries are also some of the richest and most successful. Nearly everyone agrees on the need to preserve and strengthen the welfare state and one could argue that almost all the political parties are more or less Social Democratic. In these countries capitalism is under control, and here, one could argue that everyone is equally rich, within certain limits, not poor.

Vast and entrenched differences in wealth and power are a threat to democracy which requires and presuposes a high degree, not absolute, of social, economic and political equality. Surely democracy means political equality for all. Can one really have political equality without a high degree of economic and social equality? Aren't these things connected, can one really have one without the others? How one achieves this is, and to what degree is debatable and debated.

Nilsey105's picture

ffs these get rich quick market players are creating new instruments to get more funding for their greed
Currency Exchange Traded Funds (CETFs).
Just attempts to replicate Soros when he made his billions from the pound crashing.

a.m.r.'s picture

Pencils,

Your figure of 750,000 dead as a maximal figure for Stalin's reign leaves out the much larger death-tolls from the gulags. The document "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm" ( http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm ) lists 14 studies for Stalin's period, 7 from the 'Big Numbers' school of estimates (avg. 50 million dead), and 7 sources from the 'Little Numbers school (avg. 8.5 million dead). Even the very lowest estimates are more than five times your figure.

The Ukrainian famine was almost certainly intentional. Mark Tauger and more notoriously J. Arch Getty are known genocide-deniers, and have little credibility amongst historians, left or right.

China's famine was also definitely man-made. The Chinese government admitted it official after Mao's death. There is also recently released contemporary footage.

Stop denying the intentional genocide.

a.m.r.'s picture

"The collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union in 1932/33 (estimated excess mortality: perhaps 4 million in the Ukraine, and an additional 2 million elsewhere in the USSR) was but one of numerous deliberate Communist economic campaigns to result in massive loss of life for Communist citizens. Virtually every Communist state in Asia suffered famine when its rulers collectivized agriculture: in the case of China, the death toll in the wake of the 1958/59 “Great Leap Forward” is thought to be in the range of 30 million. (North Korea’s famine, which struck in the mid-1990s, was due to catastrophic economic mismanagement rather than collectivization: tentative estimates of its toll currently range between 600,000 and one million or more.) Ethiopia’s 1984/85 food disaster, which may have killed 700,000 people, should also be included in the tally of Communist famines. Terrible as this may sound, the fact of the matter is that if someone died of famine in the course of the Twentieth Century, he or she probably lived under a Communist government."

Nicholas Eberstad

Sofiarun's picture

Write on:
You are right

Communism has never been achieved, it is merely a

theory from the great hypocrite Karl Marx (he who
drank and whored away his meagre subsidy leaving
his family in the dirt ). He saw capitalism giving away
to socialism due to
conflict between B and P. Socialism, the public
ownership of the means of production, would in turn
lead to communism. He got it wrong not only in his
description of history but in the direction that society
would take.

For instance he saw the socialist
revolution occurring in his own lifetime, and was
pissed off when it didn't.

His writings were motivated primarily by revenge
from being hounded from his job in Germany. He
was selective in the information that he presented to
support his case much the same way
people select their information today. And of course
he was financially supported by his mate Engles.

The conflict between B and P didn't intensify as
anticipated by Karl. Some of the P became B, and
some B became P as the opportunity to climb up the
ladder grew. And even if you didn't try or weren’t
lucky you and your flock prospered because the
wealth of all grew. This meant that the conflict never
intensified but dissipated. Karl got it wrong.

After Karl died other people read his
stuff and believed he was right. This was especially
true of people who were disgruntled with their
position in life for one reason or another. This is
hardly surprising as Karl was.

Lenin, the son of a minor noble, was
disgruntled for being minor not major, read a bit of
Marx and presumed he found his solution. Off he
went on his sleigh criss-crossing Europe until 1917
when he forced his reign in. The state takeover
wasn't a complete disaster but it wasn't that
successful either.

Nowadays, there is 'bottom up' socialist morality and
prediction bull, mainly from conformists in their own
sphere fitting in (e.g. arts academics, NS journos) ; a
psychological survival technique

a.m.r.'s picture

"State-made famine was not the only form of mortality crisis visited upon the populations of Communist states. State-sponsored violence was also a specialty of Communist regimes, and was often meted out to the disfavored and suspect strata of the new society with particular enthusiasm. Under Joseph Stalin’s absolute rule (1929-1953), millions of Soviet citizens were executed during successive terror campaigns, or perished as prisoners under the murderous conditions of the “Main Administration for Corrective Labor Camps” (better known as the Gulag). In Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime may have killed as many as a million of its ostensible subjects between 1944 and 1987--as many as half a million of them after World War II was over. In China, at least several million landlords and other “bad elements” were programmatically slaughtered during the land reform of the early 1950s, and many sources guess that a million or more victims were later claimed by Red Guard terror during Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” that commenced in 1966--though some respectable guesses place the death toll from the Cultural Revolution as high as 7 million. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge’s 1975-79 reign may have consigned a fifth or even more of the country’s 7 million people to death by starvation or terror. In theory human beings may indeed be the most valuable capital in the world, as Stalin averred--but in practice under Communist governments many human lives were evidently assigned an official value of zero."
Nicholas Eberstad

a.m.r.'s picture

"A final noteworthy characteristic of Communist mortality patterns were the long-term increases in death rates that beset the Soviet Bloc in the decades immediately preceding the collapse of the Soviet Union. After rapid and pronounced general mortality declines in the 1950s and early 1960s, age-specific mortality rates for various Soviet cohorts began to rise: first middle-aged men, then almost all adult male groupings, then many adult female groupings. In the early 1970s, the official Soviet infant mortality rate recorded significant increases--after which point Moscow forbade release of this bell-weather statistic, and increasingly restricted publication of other mortality data."
Nicholas Eberstad

Nilsey105's picture

writeon
17 December 2008 at 16:12
You are not alone, believe me there are many who are in a state of flux as to where their interpretations of many concepts are taking them. This is all part and parcel of the learning process.
You, along with myself and many others will learn and develope our thoughts on these subject matters. From this will come a greater understanding of what we are seeking from our adventures and those situations in which we find ourselves. Situations i may add that are none of our chooseing nor making.
All things being equal i am sure you ,like me would rather not be wound up in the present crisis. Unfortunately we do not pick nor choose the period in which we enter this world. Nor do we pick and choose those who attempt to malign and debase us.
We are above all that. If people cant debate and discuss in a manner befitting a normal human being then, the problem is not ours but theirs and their parents for bringing them up the way they have.

Sofiarun's picture

All the way from the South Pacific, ‘Merry Christmas’.
All is calm as the kids are still asleep. I can’t hardly
wait meself to see the joy on their faces and the
shrieks of delight in the air. Please don’t spoil it by
telling us that’s it’s all western media propaganda for
money or the presents are not the true meaning and
that the birth of baby Jesus is. For I shall ho ho ho in
your face and remind you that present giving at this
time of year occurred thousands of years before his
birth let alone the TV.

And no it is not false joy; it is pure and unadulterated
love of all of creation. Wait I hear some noise, and
it’s not even five o clock. Back in a tic.

My kids have woken up and ripped open their
presents. The smiles on their faces, their cries of
‘look at this’, their jumping up and down, their
playing, their creations with the magnetic shapes and
sticks. It’s pure magic. Even my 8 month old was
squealing with delight. And their happiness brought
me tears of joy. What a load of hot air that material
possessions can not bring happiness. Whoever
thought up such tripe couldn’t have had kids. But
there again we know that it can’t be Christmas every
day, otherwise it just wouldn’t be the same.

I bet you’re wondering what I’ve got you. Now that
you’re this far you’ll be expecting something really
good. I’ve taken you to the river and plunged you in
the water. I’ve even carried you half way across.

But you’re going to have to make an effort if you
really want to break on through to the other side.
Who do think I am? Your bloody psycho slave?
You’ve got to work out my first and last name (and it’s
real) and put it in the subject box of your email.

Nilsey105's picture

writeon
maybe you will find this article a little comforting.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/17/america/latam.php

Latest tweets