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'm actually making a concentrated effort not to flourish my education and qualifications in peoples faces [..] 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?"
They were perfectly well-hidden until you wrote that.
writeon: "It's so tiresome, this habit you have of creating strawman arguments and then demolishing them and attributing them to me."
I've done no such thing, as I'm sure you know.
writeon: "I don't understand your anger and agression, you seem to invest an incredible ammount to emotional energy in the merest trifles"
No I guess you don't - the across-the-board failure of all Marxist states in history, and their democide of over 100 million in the 20th century, in the direct attempt to fashion their new utopia, to you is a 'mere trifle', and not worth considering - (although you made several long posts attacking me for raising the issue, and attempting to dismiss its significance). To me this is callous disregard - to you I guess it's clear-eyed revolutionary resolve, or something.
I'm not sure that the living care very much about a free presss, or free elections, or the ability to vote.
I don't believe it matters especially who one votes for. The press is certainly not free, and elections is the most free country on earth cost 1.5 billion dollars, not very free in my opinion.
If these things were really were "free" this would make a difference, only they are not "free". Whatever that means in this context, in a market society where everything costs. I'd prefer far more democratic control of all our institutions. With far more elections and far more freedom and access to the media, far less control. We ration so much through the price system, which is fine, one can delude oneself that one has choice, but the choice has already been made for one by one's ability to pay.
It's funny that in a society that's supposed to be so democratic, that so much of it is owned and controlled by a minority with money. A voter has far less real power than a multi-millionaire, yet we are supposed to accept this as normal and a natural thing in a "democracy" why? Are we really supposed to believe that the majority choose democratically to relinquish democratic control over society and hand it over to an elite and very rich minority? Isn't this somewhat of a paradox?
What really characterises our society is not that it's a democracy with freedom for all, but that we live in a market society, where freedom is based not on votes, but on one's access to wealth and power. Sad, but true.
Planetstarbucks.
I'm not sure I can answer your questions adequately without giving too much away about myself, and I'm not interested in that. I value my privacy and my numerous masks.
As I perceive much of the world as a ghastly, grotesque, pantomime; I also find it difficult to take myself or my surroundings too seriously. It's another one of my flaws. I've disappointed a lot of people. Becoming a writer, not a politician, or going into the army, or the city. One of my best friends once called me Tony Blair's evil twin. I'm not sure it was meant as compliment!
I need my ivory tower, so I can work in peace and write. Currently I'm finishing an erotic, political novel about a group of upper-class, anarchist "terrorists" set in Zarist Russia, called "The Tattooed Lady" which deals with some of the issues you mentioned; "slumming" and dilettantism and the "armed struggle." I've never publised under my own, real, name though. It's a conceit.
I'm pretty sure in real revolution I'd be on almost everyones death list, which is probably how I'd like it! It would prove I must be doing something right I suppose!
Well then who would have thought it, PRIVATISATION is making a comeback.
Only partial do i hear someone say?
Maybe thats because it will take a Royal Charter to privatise the Roral Mail totally.
Socialism's Comback my arse. We will have to fight for that never is given freely by the ruling class.
It is disappointing that "capitalism", a MSM/elite construct and "socialism", which is generally portrayed as something fron Eastern Europe,are used as pugil`s in what is a rather shallow debate.
France has over taken the UK as the worlds 5th largest economy....IT HAS A 35 HOUR WORKING WEEK....FRANCE IS BY FAR THE GREENEST developed nation on earth and some 17% of Brits wish they`d been born French...never mind, at a guess, another 20% of Brits wish they were Amerikan.
It doesn`t matter where you look, Sweden at one end and Cuba at the other. Liberal state run economies are more stable and better for the MAJORITY of their people, than pathetic capitalist examples.
I work with Poles and other East Europeans. If they were ever socialist/communist, they underwent staggering NWO brainwashing during the 90`s. Because today, they have no idea of employment rights and they certainly have no idea of the struggle to get them.
While some of you support the capitalist view. I should remind you, that the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) was setup under Raygun. You can google the "PPT", but do it in full, as "power point" ruins the search. The bedrock of capitalism, is the freemarket...but this hasn`t existed since Raygun and this is bourne out by the staggering wealth gap which has opened up over the last 30 years...the construct of STAGGERING elite wealth, was built of easy credit and the complict criminality of our elected (LOL) officials.
Don`t swallow the sweet (matrix) pill, that socialism is making a come back....march on the City and Wall St, burn down their TEMPLES and off with their heads.
amr
was true socialism ever allowed to work anywhere? sharing the spoils and having a fair system would be sooooooooooooooooo unfair on the elite now wouldnt it and whoever gets in power, they are always the ones pulling the strings
The First Shepherd;
"My children are a physical part of me and my wife so
I do what I can to allow them to thrive"
What a kind generous person you are, especially at this time of the year in "allowing" your children and wife to thrive.
Royal Mail
ooops
a.m.r.
You're doing it again, again! You seem to have no capacity to have two or more contradictory ideas in your head at the same time!
You seemed extraordinarily biased against "Marxists" and "Marx" and blame them for the slaughter that's occured in the "Socialist" states. First off, blaming Karl Marx for Lenin and Stalin is absurd. He died decades before they came to power, and as Marx once said, towards the end of his life, "I am not a Marxist!" Can one then blame Jesus Christ for the Spanish Inquisition or the Thirty Years War? This is very primative reasoning, absurd, embarrassing.
Then you do this ghastly thing with the mountains of corpses, weighing them, as if it proves something. Mao killed fifty million and Stalin fifty million and they were socialists, therefore socialims is bad, evil, a failure. That's on the "Red" side of the scales. What about the "Black" side? Millions were killed by nationalist forces during both the Chinese and Russian civil wars, why choose to ignore them? Then one can add the great Western nationalist dictator Hitler who slaughtered millions too. Then the terror bombing of Germany and Japan that killed millions of civilians. Perhaps as many as half a million died in Dresden in one night. Then we surely shouldn't forget the United States attacks with atomic weapons on Japan - half a million or more. Then a few million dead in Korea. Five or six million when the Ameicans invaded Vietnam, Cambodia and Loas etc.
How can you ignore these corpses piling up on your scale, don't they count, why not? You seem to think that "only" killing a few million is somehow "better" than killing tens of millions, how is it possible to think like this, from a moral perspective?
In contrast I think that both sets of numbers and the killings are ghastly, incomprehensible, super-crimes, that must never be forgotten, none of the dead, yet you choose to ignore one side and only see the crimes of the enemy. Rephrehensible and daft as brush thinking!
Carl,
Here's a juicy quote for you. It's from 1991, David Rockerfeller, at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group, that apperently rule the world, if that's not prevarication?
"The supra-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is mayby preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." LOL!