In a speech at a meeting of “Democratic Russia” delivered in Moscow on 1 June 1991, a year after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin described the catastrophe that had befallen his nation: “Our country has not been lucky. It was decided to carry out this Marxist experiment on us. It has simply pushed us off the path the world’s civilized countries have taken... In the end, we proved that there is no place for this idea.”
What Yeltsin meant of course was that socialism as a system of economic management at least was dead. For Marx, socialism stood or fell by its capacity to deliver a society that would generate greater wealth than capitalism and spread that wealth in a more equitable fashion. Socialism died when these claims collapsed. Many on the Left are now grudgingly prepared to concede what would previously have been unthinkable to them: the failure of Marxism, the evils of Communism, even the taint that socialism has incurred by its genetic involvement with both. Socialist journals now even feature essays on God and religion. But even while conceding all this, Leftists still do not want to give up what they consider the noble ambitions behind the tarnished hope. They will give up the socialist past, but not the socialist future; they will distance themselves from the totalitarian temptation, while continuing to embrace the radical cause.
But there is a problem. By the 1970s, many socialist veterans had concluded that working within the European capitalist system had become a viable option. They would try to give capitalism a human face. As a result, they stopped using the rhetoric and slogans that had marginalized them from the political mainstream. Labels like ‘radical’, ‘leftist’, and ‘revolutionary’ sounded stale and so, gradually, activists began to use the much less threatening ‘progressive’. Today, the word ‘progressive’ is the term of choice for practically everyone who hugs a politics that used to be called ‘radical’.
But there is a second problem. The move to acquire some sort of new identity had led thinkers on the left to propose new strategies: eventually, what was happening on the ground was formulated into a thesis by sociologist Anthony Giddons, Tony Blair’s chief adviser, who came up with “The Third Way”, a thesis which found enthusiastic followers in Gerd Schroeder, Blair and Bill Clinton. For some time it seemed that the final solution had been found and this resulted in the dominance of the Left after the war.
The recent European Parliamentary elections however have shown that social democrats have failed to connect with the values of voters in the difficult times we are experiencing. They have failed to offer any economic solutions to the financial crisis. The ideological meltdown prevented them from agreeing on a candidate who would run against Barroso, making the latter’s election a given. Add to the mix growing public concerns about crime, immigration and Islamic terrorism and it is easy to understand why the umbrella of the Left, which accommodated all and sundry on the margins of society as well as those suffering injustice, found it difficult to offer adequate shelter. The rejection of the Third Way’s ideology that once had been a source of strength for the Left, had now become its weakness. And again, the failure lay in the inability of social democracy to come up with viable economic systems.
The question therefore is whether social democrats can return to their old ways, to that idea that Yelstin described had no place to go to.
Well, that is for social democrats to answer. But one can now see the reason behind the PL’s adoption of “progressive”. At the moment it is simply an appeal to attract to the Labour fold those who want divorce; those who are in a state of cohabitation; the gay community thirsting to apply the word “wedding” to their union; and anybody else with a grudge, real or imagined.
It also explains why we have had no word yet about how the PL will manage the economy, how it will administer social justice, how it will support the ever-increasing costs of the health system and tertiary education, how much space it will allot to private enterprise and what its tax proposals are.
As Anthon Giddons, now Baron Giddons and a Labour Peer, puts it: “Political ideas today seem to have lost their capacity to inspire the political leaders to lead. If political thinking is going to capture its inspirational qualities, it has to be neither simply reactive nor confined to the everyday and parochial. Political life is nothing without ideals, but ideals are empty if they don’t relate to real possibilities. We need to know what sort of society we would like to create, and the concrete means of moving towards it.”
Although his words should have a general application, he was obviously appealing mostly to the Left. Has the Left found an answer?
Dr Muscat is leader of Azzioni Nazzjonali