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
the slaughter of human life on the red and black side i pointed out 3 weeks ago. you have left out Franco,
Salazar, amongst others . and then we come to the virtual anialhation of the new world indigenous groups and the deaths of miilions in the name of the British Empire.
I like you find it very disturbing that some commentators can only see the one side. But two wrongs dont make a right.
We have to remember the history so as to not make the same mistakes again.
Honestly writeon, you do rant.
"But what we did have, and why we've been so successful, despite our physical disadvantages, was our superior brains and our ability to work together for the common good of the group. Fundamentally this is why we not only survived but evolved to rule over an entire planet."
There are many reasons why we have survived, writeon. One of them is an ability to work together. Another is our tendency to compete. It's not relevent- your lengthened simplification of the bottom line is flawed. The bottom line is this: if you ask most people to work hard out of kindness or love or whatever- they will say NO. Simple as that! Philosophising is NOT going to solve this problem. Talking about "trust" or how a community of 10 simpletons who were all related used to love each other is NOT the point!
"So humans from a anthropomorphic and a philosophical, and practical perspective, have for millenia rejected this crude and absurd idea that we are merely "beasts" fighting one another, red in tooth and claw, in a pit called the "marketplace." Far from being an accurate discription of what we are, what our "nature" is, what the bottom line is, this characature of what it means to be human, is merely a "blip" in our long history, a trifle, a temporary phase we are going through."
Writeon, if you want to disprove my point then youre going to have to spell out how youre actually going to solve this problem! Its about INCENTIVES. Philosophy is not going to do it. Give it to me bluntly- how are you going to convince me to work hard when Im not paid more for doing so?? Spell it out, writeon. What's the deal???!!! I dont need you to tell me that "oh the backbone of society is love blah blah blah" or "kindness and love makes the world go round so blah blah blah"- tell me HOW you are going to get me to work?!
What is the incentive?! Why should anyone work hard when their wages are similar?? Spit it out. Clear. Limited sentences. Go - Im waiting.
writeon: "First off, blaming Karl Marx for Lenin and Stalin is absurd. He died decades before they came to power.."
I didn't blame Karl Marx for the deaths, and have never done so - I clearly blamed Marxist states. A strawman argument.
Marxist states are guilty of democide, an additional horror apart from war - the mass killing of their own subjects. Ignore it if you want to.
The major use,by the powers that be, in relation to immigration, has been to lower the REAL WAGES of the working population. This has been done on a global basis, not in the Uk alone.
Real wages in the, worlds biggest economy, the USA have dropped steadily since the 1970s.
In the UK through the 1980s real wage levels dropped and then in the 1990s they moved higher until the influx of cheap east european labour.
Just part and parcel of capitlist economics low wages equates to higher profit margins equals increased shareholder dividends.
The reason I'm focusing on Marxist states is because the topic of the article is "Socialism's comeback". The large red flag at the head of the article suggests the Marxist socialism is what the author has primarily in mind.
The forces of repression are closeing in and surrounding the whole of Europe
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=13111
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=13108
http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=13038
Write on;
You are right on a number of points write on.
-The wealth of the West has indeed been partly
achieved through the labours of the Third World and
the theft of land and subjugation of indigenous
people.
-individuals have only a binary choice between two
parties, although if one party strays too far one or
t'other they out on their arses.
- that there is a rich minority who hold most of the
wealth which in turn allows them to have power of
their lives and those of others.
However you fail to recognise that you are part of that
minority. When you see yourself in relation to all the
people in the world you are one of the richest. What
you consume is far greater than most other people.
You have the power to curtail your consumption, sell
many of your possessions, and redistribute all of the
excess to very poor people in the third world. Do I
see you doing this? Go on you be the first because
no one else is doing it. Certainly not people like
Noam Chomsky who is a multi-millionaire and makes
even more dosh by play acting the socialist.
The red flag has not be seen fluttering over Europe,
only loud hailers telling others to start hoisting it.
They make a lot of noise but keep their hands tightly
in their own pockets.
Don't worry about the future or feel guilty of the past.
Do what you need to do. Do what you ask others to
do.
Nilsey,
I've come to have a lot of difficulty with concepts like "socialism" "liberalism" "conservatism" "capitalism" - I'm really not sure what they mean any longer. It's almost like we've sucked the meaning out of this words by misuse and overuse. They are like dried out pieces of old driftwood lying on the beach after the tides gone out.
I think the "battle" now and even more so if the future is going to be, as it probably always was meant to be, about democracy pitted against totalitarianism. Or much simpler, rule by the many or the few.
The immediate future is going to be very "interesting" as a lot of what we've taken for granted in modern life, virtually vanishes overnight. This "crisis" isn't a "credit crunch" and it never was. It's a deep-rooted crisis of capitalsm the like of which we haven't seen for generations. It won't be over next year and the economy isn't ready to bounce back like a coloured beach ball on a sunny day.
This is the a Big One. Arguably it has the potential to be even worse than the Great Depression for a number of reasons. If one compares where we are now in the cycle, with the Great Depression, today, things are probably worse and collapsing at a faster rate. Also Britain is far more vulnerable and a far more fragile economy and society than it was in the 1930's. Britain's economy isn't robust. It's top-heavy with "froth" millions of jobs that have the potential to disappear like dew in the morning sunlight.
The UK's skill and industrial base was undermined and allowed to crumble away to an extraordinary degree compared to most other industrial nations,and I believe we are going to pay a very heavy price for this policy of malign neglect.
Over the last thirty years the working-class was impoverished and crushed, now it's the turn of the middle-class who were duped by Thatcherism and her New Labour children. Now the years of illusion are over, perhaps never to return for most people.
The end of consumer capitalism and "freedom"
You'll notice, writeon, that I don't upbraid you for mentioning other atrocities, yet you object to me mentioning socialism's atrocities in a thread about socialism.
What should I do, keep my chin up, focus on the Glorious Socialist Dawn just over the horizon, and ignore the blood and body parts beneath my feet?
a.m.r.
You seem to think you're sly. You are not. You seem to think you can split hairs with consumate skill, you can't. You are an amateur at this game, propaganda, leave it to the professionals.
Earlier, go back a look, anybody can, you use terms like "Marxist" "Marxism" and "Marx" virtually as synonyms. So, you, like Marx, draw a distinction between the man and his theories, and espcially how they are interpreted, abused and used by others before and after his death? So there's no direct link between Marx's writings and Stalin and Mao's actions? It's an indirect link then? Or, as you've stated above, Marx's ideas, (though he's personally excused), are so demonstrably wrong and dangerous, defying what we know about human nature etc. are still responsible for Stalin and Mao's atrocities. So the man is innocent, it's just his ideas that are guilty? You are definitely not clear at all that you don't blame Marx. This is too subtle for me, probably because it doesn't make any real sense. Solomon would have given up and wept at this stuff!
You keep putting words in my mouth. Do you serously think I won't notice? It's so obvious and yet you keep doing it. Why are Trolls like this?
You state that I am ignoring the Marxist states mass killing of their own people, which you seem to believe is worse than killing foreigners, why? How is mass killing of foreigners "better" than killing one's own people?
What annoys me, is your statement that I'm ignoring the mass killings on the "red" side. This is simply a fabrication, a fanstasy, a lie. The proof is in my above post where I state clearly and unequivocally that I'm aware and against the killing on both sides, "red" and "black"! The entire point is I'm against all the senseless killing, but you are clearly not!
Why do you bother to make false statements about me that are demonstrably not true, that are lies? It's a sign of desparation because you arguments don't hold under scrutiny, only this realisation is beyond you.