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
writeon
i admire your persistance to challenge both of those above i am sorry i wont become involved anymore than i have done . The two of them remind me of the national front elements i fought against during the 60s and 70s.
They both make statements as if they were absolutes and when challenged for the source of their quotes they google the topic and give out a right wing comment that fits their point.
This is no way for debate to proceed.
Dialectical methodology Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis
This is what happens when you are on more than one thread at a time.
Stay off the red wine or the computer. Is the only answer.
meat eating leaftist,
Yes, but you'll notice that the best welfare systems of the world all exist within free-market democratic nations. It's the empowered mass choice of free individuals in a democratic society to care for the poor.
I think you are under a misconception, European nations still operate with free markets, which is just the voluntary exchange of goods at prices arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. Free-markets imply property rights, of course.
Do we really want to see authoritarian socialist parties in power? Would the far left in power be any different from the far right?
Rather than bang on about migration how about arguing that that we require stable Energy efficient communities, and the loss of workers from these communities, impoverishes them and pushes up energy costs. Britain remember is an island, is not a huge landmass like the states, with yet to be discovered resources, or even like central Europe.
a.m.r.
Hey looney, read some about Great Hunger in Ireland. When people where dying, capitalists refused to hand over part of their crops. For them doing business and abstract liberal freedom where much more important than human lives. Moreover, government could not react, due to lack of regulation and pressure given by the local free marketers.
There was relatively more victims in Ireland than in Ukraine.
Dont forget about Bengal Famine. Wild west in USA as well as extermination of local tribes in South America where caused by the free market ideology either.
But not only this. Contrary to your and anileft paranoic visions Hitler as well as Mussolini where strong supporters of capitalism.
Economic systems of Third Reich and Fascists Italy where similar to that in Francos Spain. Are you insist that Gen. Franco was a lefty?
Nazis recieved strong support from bankers, middle-class and businessmen. They where all former voters of German Liberals.
"Data from a number of coutries demonstrate that classic fascism is a movement of the propertied middle classes, who for the most part normally support liberalism" - Seymour Lipset.
Mind you, liberalism in a european sense, which mean right wing free market ideology.
Soon after elections in 1933 Hitler formed coalition with Conservative Party. Now, he could get rid of those few left wingers inside Nazi movement who took seriously the socialist promise of National Socialism. After Nazi left had been annihilated during the Night of the Long Knives Hitler emerged as a business friendly Fuhrer.
meat-eating leftist,
Of course I think genuine socialism is a good thing - ie. by democratic consent, we agree that we will share some of the fruits of our efforts to sustain and help the poor. Right-wing thought has a greater emphasis on encouraging and providing the poor with the education and tools to learn to provide for themselves and become empowered.
After all, until we have incredible robots doing all the work, we're still going to have to do work. I think it's better to work in a free-market, with choices made by our individual selves, reflecting the concerns of ourselves and our loved ones, rather than some State apparatus making the decisions.
It's the Hegelian Marxist "socialism/communism" and Fascist school of philisophy that I strongly object to, with its insistence on subjugating the individual in a much more total sense to the "Greater Good". It's just slavery, and is the fruit of ill mind. Hegel, for example, was rather a failure at the exercise of rational thought.
"The State is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State."
Hegel, Philosophy of Right, "The State"
Even in the United Sates right wing politicians, pundits and journalists have been using the great S word, the taboo subject - "Socialism" to describe the massive State intervention to save the US economy from collapse.
This isn't a secret, something I've dreamt up. It's a fact. What's happening. The Truth. Of course such blatant, massive state support for Ameican financial capitalism and the "free market" does look, superficiallly at least, like socialism. The market is supposed to be self-regulating, free and competative. Society is supposed to mirror the market. It's a market society with a market politicall system. Money is God. Mammon rules. Play by its rules or die, go under. Only the strongest, the heatlhy, the fittest survive.
Of course this is all absurd dogma. No society really functions like this, not even the United States. The market is far too destructive to be allowed to function freely. The point is to conrol the state to nuture and protect the market from competition. Monopoly captialism hates competition! Competition costs!
The problem today is the formal, official religion or political ideology of capitalism is so obviously not working as advertized that it's becoming impossible to deny or obscure how society really functions - twin rule by the state and capital in a symbiotic and anti-democratic relationship.
"Why it that free markets have given more people more choice, more material comfort and better health in the past two decades than any centrally planned economy ever delivered in history? And when Marxism is praised, does anyone ever explain why it is that every Marxist state has relied on torture, a brutal secret police, purges, concentration camps and murder to survive? Oh, and why did most of them also inflict either famines that killed millions, grotesque environmental degradation or spectacular poverty on their people during their existence?"
Michael Gove
"Dialectic materialism does not know dualism between means and end. The end flows naturally from the historical movement. Organically the means are subordinated to the end."
Leon Trotsky
antileft
Looney right strikes back.
You have completley lost the plot.
No one support minimal state anymore, my dear. There is widespread consensus about state function in Europe. Debate is only about wether we need little bit more or perhaps little bit less state in our economies.
Sarkozy pledge many things during elections, like freezing taxes and rasing benefits or even defending France against effects of globalisation. Soon after election he has created 100 000 jobs due to government spendings. And now, well, look for yourself
"French President Nicolas Sarkozy has used France's position as holder of the rotating European Union presidency to call for a massive expansion of the political bloc's economic coordination."
"European auto companies cannot be allowed to suffer a competitive disadvantage, Sarkozy argued -- especially at a time when carmakers are being forced to reorganize their production systems in order to comply with climate change targets. "We can't be naïve, we must protect our industry," he said."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,585558,00.html
In Britain, Labour promised to cut VAT tax (good) and to raise top rate of income tax to 45% (lol)
And as for Berlusconi, well, he actualy promised everything, even nationalisation of Air Italia.
Dont forget about Obamas victory. State interventionism as well as raising taxes for the Rich is next to come in USA right now. Cool isnt it?
meat eating leftist,
The EU's giant farming subsidies (France's, really) mean that African farmers cannot hope to compete against French goods in the European market. Oh well - I guess the socialists do care, but not about the third-world - is it all talk?
Free-market trade has the potential to enrich both parties. Free trade with China, India and the developing world has already raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. What has socialism ever done for these countries (apart from cause the death of over fifty million Chinese, that is) ?