Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

James Cronin is Professor of History at Boston College and an affiliate of the Center for European Studies at Harvard University. George Ross is ad personam Chaire Jean Monnet at the University of Montreal, Hillquit Professor in Labor and Social Thought Emeritus at Brandeis University, and Faculty Associate of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard University. James Shoch is Associate Professor of Government at California State University, Sacramento.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

What's Left of the Left

Duke University Press

Contents

Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................................................viiIntroduction: The New World of the Center-Left James Cronin, George Ross, and James Shoch......................................................................1Social Democracy's Past and Potential Future Sheri Berman......................................................................................................29Historical Decline or Change of Scale? The Electoral Dynamics of European Social Democratic Parties, 1950–2009 Gerassimos Moschonas.....................50Once Again a Model: Nordic Social Democracy in a Globalized World Jonas Pontusson..............................................................................89Embracing Markets, Bonding with America, Trying to Do Good: The Ironies of New Labour James Cronin.............................................................116Reluctantly Center-Left? The French Case Arthur Goldhammer and George Ross.....................................................................................141The Evolving Democratic Coalition: Prospects and Problems Ruy Teixeira.........................................................................................162Party Politics and the American Welfare State Christopher Howard...............................................................................................188Grappling with Globalization: The Democratic Party's Struggles over International Market Integration James Shoch...............................................210European Center-Left Parties and New Social Risks: Facing Up to New Policy Challenges Jane Jenson..............................................................241Immigration and the European Left Sofía A. Pérez.....................................................................................................265The Central and Eastern European Left: A Political Family under Construction Jean-Michel De Waele and Sorina Soare.............................................290European Center-Lefts and the Mazes of European Integration George Ross........................................................................................319Conclusion: Progressive Politics in Tough Times James Cronin, George Ross, and James Shoch.....................................................................343Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................363About the Contributors..........................................................................................................................................395Index...........................................................................................................................................................399

Chapter One

Sheri Berman

The aim of this book is to figure out "what's left of the left," that is, what the left or center-left stands for and should aspire to accomplish in our current globalized world. Globalization is seen as particularly problematic for the left because it has thrown into question many of the left's traditional policies and principles. Many insist, for example, that the increasing mobility and internationalization of capital have permanently shifted the balance of power in society in capital's favor. As the exit options of capital grow, so does the bargaining power of employers vis-à-vis labor, thereby complicating efforts to regulate and control business decisions and development. Similarly, increasing international competition is said to make things like generous welfare states and high tax rates an impediment to efficiency and therefore luxuries that states can no longer afford. But perhaps more important than globalization's impact on policies traditionally associated with the left is its direct challenge to many of the postwar left's key ideological principles. Among the most striking features of contemporary globalization debates is the widespread belief in the primacy of economics. In the world envisioned by neoliberals, markets would be allowed as great a degree of freedom and as wide a scope as possible and states would be knocked from the "commanding heights" that they occupied during the postwar era (Yergin and Stanislaw 1998). Given the historic connection between social democracy and the use of the state to provide services, facilitate growth, and generally tame the market and temper its effects, the logic of this position is that at the beginning of the twenty-first century there is not much "left of the left" at all. In fact, a number of commentators have announced that "socialism is dead" and, as Ralf Dahrendorf pointedly insisted, "none of its variants can be revived." It is now time, according to Anthony Giddens, to begin the process of "burying socialism."

This chapter argues that such pessimism and the reading of history that underlies it are not merely premature but wrong. Indeed, the very conditions that have led so many observers to proclaim the left's demise provide an excellent context for its reexamination and perhaps even rejuvenation. This is because for all its purported novelty, the issue at the heart of contemporary globalization debates-whether states can and should dominate market forces or must bow before them—is in fact very old. Social democracy, the most successful version of leftist thinking and politics during the twentieth century, emerged from similar debates within the international socialist movement a century ago. It is only because these debates have been forgotten or misunderstood—at least until the onset of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008—that contemporary discussions of left and contemporary political alternatives are so superficial and intellectually impoverished, and why it is so important to refresh the democratic left's collective memory about its past. This chapter will endeavor to do just that, providing a brief summary of the emergence and rationale of social democracy. It will then use this history to provide a foundation upon which to begin thinking about possible paths forward for the democratic left today.

The Origins of Social Democracy

Social democracy's intellectual origins lie in a debate that began within the international socialist movement at the end of the nineteenth century. Like now, this was a period of rapid globalization. Spurred on by new technologies in communications and transportation, capitalism had developed renewed vigor and was rapidly spreading its tentacles across the globe. These changes made many question the "orthodox" version of Marxism that had established itself as the official ideology of much of the international socialist movement by this time. The most distinctive features of this doctrine (which was largely codified by Marx's collaborator and leading apostle, Friedrich Engels, and popularized by the "pope of socialism," Karl Kautsky) were historical materialism and class struggle, according to which history was propelled forward not by changes in human consciousness or behavior but rather by economic development and the resulting shifts in social relationships. As Engels put it, "The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that ... the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in man's better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy but in the economics of each particular epoch" (Engels 1962, 365–66). As one observer noted, what historical materialism offered was an "obstetric" view of history: since capitalism had within it the seeds of the future socialist society, socialists had only to wait for economic development to push the system's internal contradictions to the point where the emergence of the new order would require little more than some midwifery (Cohen 1999). And in this drama the role of midwife was played by class struggle and in particular by the proletariat. In Kautsky's words, "economic evolution inevitably brings on conditions that will compel the exploited classes to rise against this system of private ownership" (Kautsky 1910, 90–91). With each passing day, ever larger would grow the group of "propertyless workers for whom the existing system [would become] unbearable; who have nothing to lose by its downfall but everything to gain" (Kautsky 1910, 119).

By the end of the nineteenth century, however, it was becoming increasingly clear that many orthodox Marxist predictions were not coming true. The proletariat was not experiencing a steady "immiserization," small farming and businesses were not disappearing, economic growth was continuing, and general economic collapse seemed increasingly far off. Just as Marxism's failings as a guide to history and economic development were becoming clear, moreover, criticism arose within the international socialist movement regarding its inadequacy as a guide to constructive political action. Parties acting in Marx's name had become important political players in a number of European countries by the end of the nineteenth century, but orthodox Marxism could not furnish them with a strategy for using their power to achieve any practical goals. Orthodox Marxist thought had little to say about the role of political organizations in general, since it considered economic forces rather than political activism to be the prime mover of history.

Around the beginning of the twentieth century, therefore, many on the left faced a troubling dilemma: capitalism was flourishing, but the economic injustices and social fragmentation that had motivated the Marxist project in the first place remained. Orthodox Marxism offered only a counsel of passivity—of waiting for the contradictions within capitalism to bring the system down, which seemed both highly unlikely and increasingly unpalatable.

Orthodox Marxism's passive economism also did little to meet the psycho-political needs of mass populations under economic and social stress. As noted above, the last years of the nineteenth century, like those at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first, were marked by a wave of globalization and rapid, disorienting change. This caused immense unease in European societies, and critics, not just on the left but increasingly now on the nationalist right, railed against the glorification of self-interest and rampant individualism, the erosion of traditional values and communities, and the rise of social dislocation, atomization, and fragmentation that capitalism brought in its wake (Hughes 1977). Orthodox Marxism had little to offer those interested in actively responding to capitalism's downsides (rather than merely waiting for its collapse) and little sympathy or understanding for growing nationalist sentiment. It was against this backdrop and in response to these frustrations that revisionism emerged.

As the nineteenth century drew to its close, several socialists realized that if their desired political outcome was not going to come about because it was inevitable (as Marx, Engels, and many of their influential followers believed), then it would have to be achieved as a result of human action. Some, such as Lenin, felt that it could be imposed, and set out to spur history along through the politico-military efforts of a revolutionary vanguard. Others, not willing to accept the violence or élitism of such a course, chose to revamp the socialist program so as to attract the support of a majority of society. They felt that if the triumph of socialism was not going to be inevitable, it could be made desirable and emerge through the active, collective efforts of human beings motivated by a belief in a better, higher good.

These democratic revisionists rejected the pseudo-scientific and materialist justifications of socialism proffered by orthodox Marxists and called for a rediscovery of socialism's moral roots, for an emphasis on the ideals and spirit underpinning the original Marxist project. (As some contemporary observers noted, they wanted to exchange Hegel for Kant.) Although their thoughts and actions often emerged independently and differed according to local context, democratic revisionists shared an emphasis on the desirability rather than the necessity of socialism, on morality and ethics as opposed to science and materialism, and on human will and cross-class cooperation rather than irresistible economic forces and inevitable class conflict. The most influential member of this group was Eduard Bernstein, an important figure in both the international socialist movement and its most powerful party, the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD).

Bernstein attacked the two main pillars of orthodox Marxism—historical materialism and class struggle—and argued for an alternative based on the primacy of politics and cross-class cooperation. His observations about capitalism led him to believe that it was not heading toward its collapse but rather was becoming increasingly complex and adaptable. Thus instead of waiting until capitalism's demise for socialism to emerge, he favored trying to actively reform the existing system. In his view the prospects for socialism depended "not on the decrease but on the increase of ... wealth," and on the ability of socialists to come up with "positive suggestions for reform" capable of spurring fundamental change (Bernstein 1898).

Bernstein's loss of belief in the inevitability of socialism led him to appreciate the potential for political action. In his view, orthodox Marxists' faith in historical materialism had bred a dangerous political passivity that would cost them the enthusiasm of the masses. He felt that the doctrine of inevitable class struggle shared the same fatal flaws, being both historically inaccurate and politically debilitating. There was actually a natural community of interest between workers and the vast majority of society that suffered from the injustices of the capitalist system, he argued, and socialists should regard dissatisfied elements of the middle classes and peasantry as potential allies ready to be converted to the cause.

Bernstein's arguments were echoed by a small but growing number of revisionist socialists across Europe, who shared an emphasis on a political path to socialism rather than its necessity, and on cross-class cooperation rather than class conflict. During the last years of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twentieth, revisionism progressed in fits and starts, within and across several countries, and although Bernstein and his fellow revisionists insisted that they were merely "revising" or "updating" Marxism, their fiercest critics—the defenders of orthodoxy—saw clearly what the revisionists themselves were loath to admit: that they were arguing for a replacement of Marxism with something entirely different. By abandoning historical materialism and class struggle, they were in fact rejecting Marxism as thoroughly as Marx had rejected liberalism a half-century earlier. But the revisionists were not yet ready to fully accept the implications of their views and make a clean break with orthodoxy. The result was growing tension and confusion, which left the international socialist movement, like many of its constituent parties, a house divided against itself. The First World War and its aftermath brought the house down.

The vast changes unleashed by the Great War led many on the left to explicitly reject class struggle and historical materialism and to openly embrace their antitheses—cross-class cooperation and the primacy of politics. The doctrine of class struggle suffered a critical blow with the outbreak of the war. Socialist parties across the continent abandoned their suspicion of bourgeois parties and institutions and threw their support behind the states they had hitherto pledged to destroy. The doctrine came under even more pressure in the postwar era, as the democratic wave that spread across much of Europe confronted socialists with unprecedented opportunities for participation in bourgeois governments. Given a chance to help form or even lead democratic administrations, many were forced to recognize the uncomfortable truth that workers alone could never deliver an electoral majority and that cooperation with non-proletarians was the price of political power. The war also revealed the immense mobilizing power of nationalism and bred a generation that valued community, solidarity, and struggle. Populist right-wing movements across the continent were riding these trends, and many socialists worried that clinging to orthodox Marxism's emphasis on class conflict and proletarian exclusivity would prevent them from responding to the needs of ordinary citizens and thus cause them to lose ground to competitors.

The second pillar of orthodox Marxism, historical materialism, was also dealt a critical blow by the war and its aftermath. The pivotal position occupied by socialist parties in many newly democratized countries after the Great War made it increasingly difficult to avoid the question of how political power could contribute to socialist transformation, and the subsequent onset of the Great Depression made submission to economic forces tantamount to political suicide. Protests against liberalism and capitalism had been growing since the end of the nineteenth century, but war and depression gave these protests a mass base and renewed momentum, with the legions of the disaffected ready to be claimed by any political movement promising to tame markets. Orthodoxy's emphasis on letting economic forces be the drivers of history meant that here too it ceded ground to activist groups on the right.

As socialist parties stumbled and fell in country after country, a growing number of socialists became convinced that a whole new vision was necessary for their movement—one that would supplant rather than tinker with orthodoxy. So they turned to the themes set out by revisionism's pioneers a generation earlier: the value of cross-class cooperation and the primacy of politics. In the context of the interwar years and the Great Depression this meant first and foremost using political forces to control economic ones. Where orthodox Marxists and classical liberals preached passivity in the face of economic catastrophe, the new, truly "social democratic" leftists fought for programs that would use the power of the state to tame the capitalist system. Neither hoping for capitalism's demise nor worshipping the market uncritically, they argued that the market's anarchic and destructive powers could and should be fettered at the same time that its ability to produce unprecedented material bounty was exploited. They thus came to champion a real "third way" between laissez-faire liberalism and Soviet communism. These themes found their advocates within all socialist parties. In Belgium, Holland, and France, for example, Hendrik De Man and his Plan du travail found energetic champions. De Man argued for an activist strategy to combat economic depression, an evolutionary transformation of capitalism, and a focus on the control rather than the ownership of capital. Activists in other parts of Europe echoed these themes: in Germany and Austria reformers advocated government intervention in the economy and pseudo-Keynesian stimulus programs; and in Sweden the Swedish social democratic party, the SAP, initiated the single most ambitious attempt to reshape capitalism from within (Berman 2006).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from What's Left of the Left Copyright © 2011 by Duke University Press. Excerpted by permission of Duke University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.