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

a.m.r.'s picture

writeon, re: the Romans
The Roman Empire became increasingly reliant on conquest and slave labour, particularly for the vast latifundia of the later Roman Empire. It needed war to maintain itself, and expended huge efforts on quelling constant slave rebellions and uprisings. Once their expansion ended, the whole thing started to crumble.

This is different to modern-day capitalism eg. look at our trade with China. The Chinese chose (finally) to deal with us and we both mutually benefit. China's economic growth has been largely due to an opening of competitive free-markets within China and trade with the West.

re: revolution solution
You admit you don't have a better solution than free markets and democracy, yet you still advocate a revolution.

Perhaps you think that I'm blindly defending democracy and the free market - I'm not. I think most of history has been unpleasant to nightmarish for most people. Free market democracies seem to be a relative haven from the historical turmoil - I value that. Marxist revolutions promised to be havens too, but ended up as catastrophic humanitarian disasters.

I come from a country that recently did something similar to what you are advocating - discontented with the unequal distributions of income (even though the country was rapidly growing and bringing improved lives for all inhabitants), they had a revolution and smashed the system (a fledgling free-market democracy).

Unfortunately, they, like you, lacked anything better to put in its place and ended up far far worse off - a police state, executions, the liquidation of ideological opponents, the banishment of free speech - it has taken the country decades to begin to recover, and they are still in desparate shape. Like Russia and China, there are still elites, just a different (far tougher, more violent) group. They rue the day that they listened to folks such as you.

writeon's picture

I feel like I'm being asked an awful lot, and surely that's an understatement?! What are your solutions to the dire state of the West's economy, how would you stop us sliding into a new, Great Depression? What kind of society would you perfect as an alternative to the one we have? Are you "right" "left" or "imbetween"? Be positive man, not all this easy negativity!

I'm afraid I regard these kinds of questions as merely rhetorical devices used in a discussion. They aren't really honest questions at all, rather they are statements, that implicity make judgements about one of the parties in a discourse. It's not a new tactic. It's a kind of "ace" one has up one's sleeve and produces with smile and a flourish, and hey presto! end of discussion - I win! Only one needs skill to use them properly, rather like propaganda.

Anyway, the lost Englishman meets an Irishman in the hills and asks him the way to Cork. The Irishman shakes his head, strokes his chin and furrows his brow. Well, I wouldn't start from here, he answers with a wry smile!

That's how I feel about the demand that I promote "solutions" to the global crisis we find ourselves in! Think about it for a second. People are demanding that I come up with solutions to the global crisis of capitalism! How absured does that sound if one examines the thinking, or lack of it, behind such casual requests? Is one to take such demands seriously or what?

Is it possible for any individual to find such solutions? If one bothered would anyone listen? Keynes had a great deal of influence, but then he wasn't seen as a threat to capitalism, he was trying to save it from itself, maybe, for a time, he succeeded. But even he couldn't have imagined the sheer stupidity and greed of the last few decades, the disasterous consequences of unravelling and destroying everything he'd worked for; the state regulating and stabilizing a fundamentally unstable and intensely destructive system, a virtually suicidal system, if left to itself.

writeon's picture

The Solution's in the Revolution!

Is meant as a provocative slogan. Words on a banner.

On the other hand, I sort of agree with my creations attitude. Though I personally don't agree with violent revolutions. I'd prefer something less bloody and destructive.

Nilsey105's picture

writeon
we all seek solutions and to many things.
I think this was put best by none other than John Lennon when he asked ;
"How can i go forward when i dont know which way i'm facing"
Or was that his alter ego speaking?
You are well thought of on here and offer your experience from which some of us have learnt a good deal.
Thank you keep up the good work.

a.m.r.'s picture

"The Solution's in the Revolution!
Is meant as a provocative slogan. Words on a banner."

Dear oh dear - a pathetic prevarication.

Sofiarun's picture

This I the hardest part, the wrapping of the present
without making it look like a dog’s dinner. You just
don’t know which part to start the folding especially
when the whole thing is so irregular and the end of
the cellotape can’t be found. I know, I’ll listen to me
Talking Heads 'Once in a Lifetime' CD: that will get
me head together. And of course a swim. Why don’t
you do the same?

a.m.r.'s picture

writeon, I'll fill in the logical link that you seem to be unwilling to :
The reason you are being asked 'what do you propose to replace the existing system with?' is because you are advocating a revolution and replacing the existing system.

writeon's picture

Golly! I do feel sometimes like I'm on trial here. I do find this judicial, meticulous, inquisitorial, "debating" tactic, or style, rather tedious. It reminds me of war or conflict, where one takes aim at the enemy's weakest spot, the chink in their armour and moves in for the kill. I've never subscribed to this. I've always thought of this as too easy, rather go for the stongest part of the argument, now that's a worthy challenge!

What I also find amusing, is the idea that I'm somehow attempting to "show off" my learning and over intellectualize, when the opposite is the case! I'm actually making a concentrated effort not to flourish my education and qualifications in peoples faces, as I've achieved way too much too easily.

Life's unfair, not everyone had my social and financial advantages, and I feel guilty about it. Would it makes any real difference if I said who I was, where I am and what my formal academic qualifications are, especially as I'm trying to hide them and not appear too conceited and overbearing? I, who came to so much so easily, don't put much store by formal qualifications. I keep worrying about all the things I still don't understand, the complexity around me, how much I've got to learn. How many questions I've got and where are the answers? Bizarrely, I've never really used my academic qualifications. I became a writer of various things because it was more fun and vastly more profitable. There I could have the world I wanted on my conditions. Nobody allowed to alter a comma or a single word with my permission. The pleasures of dictatorship!

Nilsey105's picture

the more you know you know the more you know you dont know

writeon's picture

The Solution's in the Revolution!

What does this slogan mean? Is it totally meaningless?

Let me see if I can make things clearer. I find it hard to understand that "liberal democrats" people who apparently believe in "freedom", at least in the "free market" are prepared to accept profound levels of inequality and the existance of inhereted wealth and privilege, the existance of elites who control so much of society's wealth and power. I have difficulty reconciling elite rule with democracy, that goes for enormous enequality too. But then bourgeois democracy has never really impressed me. I believe real democracy isn't possible in a society which is grossly unfair and wealth and power so disproportionally distributed. One can choose, on the grounds of expediency or strategy, to call such a society "democratic" and "free" but I just don't see it.

This, for me is another paradox of democracy, elite rule, the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a "qualified" elite, in a society that calls itself "democratic". I would argue that it isn't structurally democratic at all. The people do not have the power. Or it's "democratic" in much the same way that Athens was "democratic" or the American Revolution was "democratic" and that is not very much!

Now, this is admittedly a radical view. In much the same way as people demand to know where the successful "socialist" or "communist" is to be found, I want to know where the successful and real "democracy" is to be found. Of course one can argue that this is being to stringent, but isn't that what one demands of "socialism" and "communism" that their states were perfect and real? Why are there two standards? Surely non-perfect democracy should be judged by the same standards as "evil" communism?

If the power isn't in the hands of the people, but in the hands of an elite, which nearly everyone agrees is the case in the "democracies" how can one call them democracies? They are democracies only in colloquial sense.

Latest tweets