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

What's the point of all this history? Does it matter today? Well, yes, it does. From the very start Democracy has been problematic and qualified in myriad ways.

Was Democracy primarily about voting, and if so who was allowed to vote, a technical question, or was it about the wider concept of Power in society and how this was distributed? Clearly in Athens, the people did not have Power, unless one used the very narrow Athenian concept of citizenship which excluded the vast majority of the people from the democractic process. And even in this limited sense Athenians were involved in intense debate about the distribution of wealth, power and political influence. They never confused voting with democracy or power. They are not the same.

So, one had a nominally "democractic" voting system, but without real power to the people, the majority. The majority didn't Rule. And Democracy as we define it means rule by the people in it's purest and most simple form.

It's somewhat odd that Athenian "democracy" is held up as a model considering it's contradictions and flaws, and the fundamental crack or schism between voting and power. But the Athenian experiment was only a brief interlude and it soon vanished for centuries. Democracy existed in the minds of the educated as an ideal, a dream, a hope. In practice it was dead.

Let's jump a over a thousand years. The English Civil War was arguably the next "democratic" experiment. A time when the traditional chains of fuedalism fell off and revolutionary ideas forced their way onto the stage, ideas that had been in hibernation for centuries. However, this period was even shorter, pershaps only couple of decades, and more fragile and the despotism of the monarch was replaced by the rule of Parliament, not much democracy there. But perhaps a reconfiguration of power within the ruling elite with the Prime Minister taking over the role of monarch. A temporary, elected, monarch.

genecrabtree920's picture

"An ant marched across the face of the Mona Lisa

Its antennae accutely aware of all that was around

A cobweb, a fly, a tiny, tiny, grain of sand

Always onward, through a strange, stange, land"

Hmm sounds like you need to get out more, writeon. Perhaps its time to get a girlfriend?

writeon's picture

Now we enter the more recognizable "moder" period and the American Revolution. Here we see the return of "Athens" but on far larger, national, scale. Democracy returns from the dead!

But in many respects, and this isn't surprising, given the rich men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the American Democratic system, or Republic, had a great deal in common with the Athenian experiment in "democracy." That is, it was carefully contolled and managed, it wasn't direct democracy, it was representative, and it wasn't based on majority rule or Power to the People. No women, no slaves, no poor, no Indians. How many actually took part in the democractic process? Arguably not many more than in ancient Athens.

So we return to the central "paradox" in our concept of democracy. In reality minority rule in a system supposedly given power to the majority.

Obviously voting rights were carefully, prudently, slowly, extended to more and more citizens. Voting became the central characteristic of representative, bourgeois democracy. Voting became both a ritual, a substitute, a fetish, an excuse, for real democracy. Power of course, as in Ancient Athens, real economic power, power over society, was not democratized, it remained, more or less as it always had been, concentrated in the hands of powerful and often competing minorities within the ruling elite. Again a paradox, a contradiction, supposedly democratic societies ruled by elites. In reality a functioning, practical, oligarchy and kleptocracy, cloaking itself in the garb of democracy.

What of now, the present? I think the bourgeois period of Western Democracy is over in all but name. This isn't about redundant concepts like "left" and "right" it's about Power in society. The political empowerment of the great mass of the population, the working class and the middle class is over. It happened to the working class over the last thirty years as they were no longer needed, now it's the turn of the middle class.

writeon's picture

what this means is that this current "crisis" which I think shows myriad signs of developing into a full-blown economic Depression, rivalling or surpassing the Great Depression, will see the virtually destruction of vast swathes of the bourgeois, middle class. This tendancy has been apparent for a long time, especially in the United States. Only the pauperisation of the Middle Class, the destruction of the American Dream, was hidden by the creation of the illusion of prosperity based on the mirage of infinite debt. Now that particular period is definitively over. The great Western middle class is going to be the loser in the coming Depression. It'll be more or less wiped out.

We are not entering a "recession" which will be over in few months or a year. We are entering a long and sustained Depression. I'm not even sure we'll get out of it in our lifetimes. It may, at least in the United States and probably Western Europe, become a permanent feature. Hopefully, the new emerging powers, China, Russia, Brazil, India won't be dragged down by the United States, but this is debatable. It may be too late.

Already we can see many signs that "democracy" and "human rights" are contracting, not expanding in the Western world. This trend will continue, speed up and intesivefy as the economic conditions worsen. I don't think we'll see the return of "socialism" though, something else perhaps, as the middle class get squeezed and paurperised, I think we'll see the return of "Revolution."

writeon's picture

Finally! We, in the West live in a kind of "democracy" and obviously we have more freedom and democracy than in Hitler, Stalin or Mao's totalitarian dictatorships. We have human rights and valuable freedoms, but many of these things are based on specific historic and economic circumstances, they are not natural.

How much "freedom" do we really have? This is a complex subject. I don't believe we have a "free" press. Obviously it isn't "free", it's owned by Rupert Murcdoch and a handful of his pals. A few giant and massively powerful new corporations. What about the "free market" this isn't under majority, democratic, control. To suggest otherwise is absurd. The "free market" has not, is not and will never be "free". This is a myth wrapped in propaganda. Uselful, but not particularly convincing, intelligent or impressive, fails completely when subjected to even the most superficial examination.

Once again we return to the central paradox of "democracy" power to the people, yet in reality Power is concentrated in the hands of a minority, can vast wealth and power be anything else? Yet some would seriously argue that in a democracy the people have "chosen democratically" by voting, of their own free will, to emasculate themselves, make themselves powerless, and transfer wealth and power from themselves, the majority, to others - a minority who rule. Why on earth, in a democracy, would they choose such a course? Giving up what little power they have as individuals and allow it to become concentrated in the hands of a "representative" elite.
None of this makes any real sense

One can argue that imperfect, though it is, bourgeois Democracy is better than nothing at all, or some variation of totalitarian dictatorship, of the left or right. This is true, as far as it goes. Only it's foolish not to see it in its historical context or confuse it with the ideal, the Utopia of Democracy, of power of the people, and real freedom.

writeon's picture

Finally, finally! It's odd, though understandable, to see how closely the bourgeois/liberal concept of Democracy mirrors their concept of political economy. The two ideas seem to supplement, reinforce and justify each othre; very usefull.

Is it just a paradox, a flaw or merely a glaring contradiction, that socalled believers in "freedom" and "democracy" argue for the benefits of elite or minority rule, by a "representative" or "best-fitted" minority, both in the fields of economics and politics? Isn't that why one insists on defending vast disparities in wealth in society and therefore power? Real power in society is based on wealth, not on votes. Luckily I have lots of the one and I don't bother to vote anymore.

In much the same way that the "free" capitalist "market" is a competatinve one, in theory at least; one conveniently avoids the role of monopolies in this idealised world; the strong survive, the weaker fall. This is form of vulgar, social Dawinism, superimposed on both economics and politics. The stronger, the best political ideas survive and triumph in the "free" political sphere in open competition.

The fact that this isn't the way the world functions in practice makes no difference at all. Dogma and ideology triumphs over objective reality every time, because it's in our interests to believe in this mythology about "freedom."

What this current crisis shows, with stunning clarity, is how different the "free market" system actually is compared to harsh reality. Reality which is normally hidden by the systems apparent "success."

genecrabtree920's picture

Oh god hes still typing!

This makes me chuckle by the way:

"We are not entering a "recession" which will be over in few months or a year. We are entering a long and sustained Depression. I'm not even sure we'll get out of it in our lifetimes."

Yes indeed- itll last until we die. Now, how is it that this mere history teacher who is prepared to spend hours teaching people who dont pay him and didnt ask for a lesson knows more than the overwhelming majority of serious economists?! Hmm? How does he do it?! All the main organisations in the world- IMF, world bank, economics parts of the UN, central bankers, highly respected economists, etc etc all say roughly "we dont know how long itll last- probably through 2009, maybe into 2010..." with varying degrees of disagreement... Some may say itll end in 2009, some say 2010, some say 2011. How are they all able to be so wrong when writeon here knows itll last decades more?!

genecrabtree920's picture

Look at the times of his posts! Dear god! See whats wrong with history lessons writeon?! What a waste of time it all is!!! What a waste of a morning!

07 December 2008 at 09:51
07 December 2008 at 10:35
07 December 2008 at 10:53
07 December 2008 at 11:05
07 December 2008 at 11:29
07 December 2008 at 11:58

Sofiarun's picture

Here's a christmas cracker puzzle, but it's not funny
(which ones are!).

Before the 'industrial revolution' , before all the
factories, the coal mines, the railways, the big
bridges, and the canals etc what man resided in a
most suitable locality and did meritorious things for
others?

Here's a clue: Like a Buddhist monk he would often
receive reward from the excess of those he helped,
not just coins. Oh yea he met lots of different types of
people. What's in a name?

Nilsey105's picture

antileft;
"All the main organisations in the world- IMF, world bank, economics parts of the UN, central bankers, highly respected economists, etc etc all say roughly "we dont know how long itll last- probably through 2009, maybe into 2010..." with varying degrees of disagreement... Some may say itll end in 2009, some say 2010, some say 2011. How are they all able to be so wrong ......"

For the same reasons they never told us the truth about how it was all aranged via the Basle Accord of 1998.

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/quigley/2008/0919.html

Latest tweets