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.
By Neil Clark Published 04 December 2008
"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.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


307 comments
Send it to engtran@bigpond.com.au
It’s short for English Transworld and yes it is on the
other side of the world… I need the space. If my
name isn’t in the subject (re:) box it automatically
gets deleted like the rest of the Nigerian banking
requests. And you can’t send more than more one
guess from the same email box… therefore no mass
name junk possibilities as none of it will stick. Don’t
even bother trying to hack through the sides or
underneath, as you’ll just end up with misleading
clues. It’s all set up like that.
So you’ve got a choice. You can either stay in the
middle of this river crossing like writeon bubbling
away, return to your side (either antileft or proudly
left) or call out my name and I will help you get to the
other side whether you’ve come from the right or the
left or even from Mars.
Don’t worry as I’m sitting in a suitable location and
I’m the king of this domain so I’ll hear you. It’s up to
YOU and only YOU.
I’ve given you plenty of clues. You have to reread
the words carefully and ask yourself what do they
mean.
I’ve even given you clues of how to turbo charge your
body and mind so you can get the answer to the first
shepherd’s puzzle of life. Here’s another : try eating
lots of bananas and plums cos they will help you get
up Buddha’s Christmas fig (what type of fig?) tree of
enlightenment. What’s so special about them?
Good these questions. Now what about the
answers?
Neil: all you need to do is send me the middle two
words of the ‘world class’ team poem that you
deleted. You know the one I mean la. Send it to the
manager, my assistant.
You’ve got to have a dream,
If you don’t have a dream,
How are you going have a dream come true?
and
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/17/opinion/edfriedman.php
Nilsey105: "Robert Conquest was not on any of the reading lists for Russian studies at Lancaster University in the mid 1970s as he was considered far too right wing and biased in his writings. So he is dissmissed."
I'm not surprised that they didn't have Robert Conquest on the reading list at Lancaster University at that time. By the mid-1070's the university faculty must have been in the final stages of denial about the Soviet regime's massive atrocities - Conquest wouldn't have been the historian to read if one wanted to maintain the good Soviet myth. After all, he showed not just Stalin, but also Lenin, to have been architects of state genocide.
I don't think the main body of his historical work, regardless of his political views, is seriously contested by anyone, is it?
(1070's ->1970's in post above, sorry)
First Shepherd
How unfair to Karl. He was greatly loved by his children and at least tolerated by his artistocratic wife. But arguing that Marx's ideology was really an expression of psychological disorders is entirely false. At its core is a compelling argument about how value is created and distributed which has not been refuted by any reputable economist, dispite many efforts. This does not mean he was right of course.
He was wrong about value: it's created by human interaction, not isolated labour. And he was wrong about the inevitability of class confllict. We have survived (and dare I say progressed) because human co-operation has triumphed (in the end).
I say. Isn't that socialism?
Nilsey
I think you are a bit harsh on anti-left. If you think he
(I’m assuming this!) is merely a product of his
environment, especially his parents, then he can’t be
blamed for his name calling. Indeed he can’t even
feel any shame. Besides he has made some very
valuable contributions to the ‘process’. He often gets
right at the crux of dilemmas shedding our words of
their woolly coats. He is like a blacksmith (black
sheep!) smashing questions with his hammer onto
the anvil of truth. It is no wonder that he gets
frustrated when ‘write on’ doesn’t address his
questions but pops up from the ceiling at a weirdo
tangent. I think write on is just trolling at times.
A possible solution is that anti-left should write his
question in number form;
e.g. 1. How would you get people to make an effort
to create things if they know most of it will be taken
from them via taxation to the government?.
Then ‘write on’ pastes this question at the top of his
text and tries his best to answer.
A peacemaker must provide a practical solution.
I am pleased that you have been examining my
words, but please don’t assume anything fascistic
thatcheristic yet for my message is not complete. I do
understand the value of government, and
cooperation and generosity to others. However, my
generosity has a limit especially when it starts
appearing like a Nigerian banking request. You’ve
got to press delete at some point.
To prove my generosity, I have a present for you that
will arrive before the big day. It will be your most
precious gift ever and you can share it with others.
Oh I wonder what it will be? Any guesses?
Did you know that late December was celebrated
with present giving hundreds of years before Christ
was born? The Christians kind of grafted the pagan
festivals into their own. As Boney M sang, ‘ Ooooh
those naughty Christains’. Or was it Russians or was
it shepherds?
"A possible solution is that anti-left should write his
question in number form;"
Good point. Here it is- without any insults or bad manners. Nilsey105 and writeon can then answer in number form:
1. If we are all paid similar amounts for our work, why would anyone work hard?
There- only one. I have, however, asked this question so many times without getting an answer that I suspect its simply a big hole in their ideas and they prefer to avoid it than deal with it.
Pencils,
I'm foolish for bothering I suppose. Being drawn into a kind of game or trap, where the outcome is pre-determined. Not being able to let lies stand un-refuted, no matter what the cost. It's another of my flaws.
But there's reason behind it. Back in the "old country", in Austria, one of my ancestors taught, he was accused, by Austrian Fascists, of various thought crimes; supposedly he "wasn't national minded" he was "an intellectual snob", he "showed disdain for real Austrian values", he was "upper class", he was a "red", he was full of "Jew thinking", ect.
In one afternoon I lost my grandmother and three aunts, gunned down and tossed into a ditch by Ukranian fascists, so it's kind of personal when one encounters echoes of the same kind of thinking and ideology that eventually led to these senseless killings; rabid sectarianism, ultra-nationalism, exceptionalism, faith in blood and ethnicity - all the old, tired, worn-out myths - it's hard to let them pass. One feels as kind of historic responsibility not to give up, but to be determined, resolute and persistant, to oppose the rising darkness and the feast of lies at the heart of nationalism.
It's an attempt not to be silenced and remember, not to forget, who killed the women in the ditch and why.
And I believe that by opposing nationalism and giving them enough rope, they eventually hang themselves with their own words, and reveal their core attitudes and thoughts about "human nature" and the enemy, and these thoughts are very dark and dangerous and seem to always come back to blood.
Unfortunately I have more questions than answers.
Are questions and questioning established ideas in themselves necessarily negative?
Are "simple" questions really as "simple" as they appear at first glance? I think not. Questions don't exist in perfect isololation from the world. There are "hidden" assumptions and premisses and implicit answers contained in almost all, seemingly innocent, questions.
Why should I attempt to answer questions that perhaps have no answer, simple or not? Why should I allow myself to be dictated to? If I'm in the dock and under violent attack, don't I have the right to remain silent if I choose?
What if the answer to a "simple" question requires a very long and complex answer?
What if I don't have an simple answer because there is no answer, there is no solution, at least not one I can find, and without calling into question the fundamental assumpstions that frame the question, yet are not explicit, but implicit and therefore open to interpretation?
It must be nice to think the world's as simple as it seems to be on the surface, at least for some people, who don't appriciate the incredible complexity of physics and the "world" of the atom.
What is Love?
Now that's a short and very simple question, surely nobody doesn't understand it, yet what about the answer? How simple is it? Can one answer in just three words? Or thirty thousand? Wouldn't one expect a very simple question to have a very simple answer, or not?
But aren't these simple questions really a form of beartrap, ready to spring? Should one really step into one of them voluntarily, why?
" Shallow 'left' and 'right' denunciations do nothing to help raise the
global economy from the mire it has sunk into. In conclusion, therefore, we need to sing a Requiem to egotistic individualism and the reign of 'elite minorities' even when we, ourselves, become the victims of this change." .... stateswoman 06 December 2008 at 18:07
Noblesse Oblige that Leads, stateswoman. Thanks for ITs Sharing.
"stateswoman, could you briefly describe how the new society will work and look like? How will it prevent the formation of elite minorities? ..... a.m.r. 07 December 2008 at 03:44
Here AI Seventh Heaven, a.m.r. ...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultana%27s_dream ..... Global Communications HQ
"The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is mayby preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." ..... writeon 08 December 2008 at 20:59
I wonder when they are going to try it, writeon? Have they not Everything they Need Yet? As a Concept, has it Few Peers and that must make IT Worthy of Shared Thought/Sublime Effort. :-)