Socialism

Defining socialism at the beginning of the 21st century presents numerous problems. Most socialist parties have conducted a process of programmatic renewal whose contours are still unclear. Nevertheless, it is possible to catalogue some of the features that define European socialism as it faces the challenges of the 21st century: (1) recognizing that the domestic regulation of capitalist activities must be matched by a corresponding development of supranational forms of regulation (the EU, once contested by most socialists, is seen as providing a terrain for controlling the new interdependent economies); (2) creating a European “social space” as a harbinger of a harmonized European welfare state; (3) strengthening consumer and citizen power to countervail that of large enterprises and of the public sector; (4) adopting an agenda aimed at improving the position of women in society to shed the excessively male-centred image and practice of traditional socialism, and to enrich its long-standing commitment towards equality; (5) uncovering a strategy aimed at securing economic growth and increasing employment without damaging the environment; (6) organizing a world order aimed at reducing the gap between the advanced capitalist countries and those of the developing world.

This list is by no means exhaustive. Nevertheless, it highlights elements of continuity with traditional socialism: a pessimistic view of what the capitalist economy would be able to achieve if allowed to develop without constraints, and optimism regarding the possibility that a politically organized society would be able to progress consciously towards a more desirable state of affairs aimed at alleviating human distress.

The difficulty facing those who still call themselves socialists is that, while they need capitalism and the economic growth and prosperity that it can generate, capitalism does not need them. Capitalist societies can be organized in an economically sustainable way by offering only minimal protection to some marginal groups, such as in the US, or by devolving welfare activities to organizations of civil society such as large firms, families, and social groups, such as in Japan. These alternative models, particularly the US one, have a remarkable capacity to use each crisis to re-emerge greatly strengthened. Socialist leaders and followers are increasingly reluctant to identify themselves with the term socialism—a reflection of the uncontrollable multiplicity of meanings the term has been encumbered with, and of the incapacity of socialists to produce their own dominant meaning. It is as if they had accepted the definition of socialism given by its enemies—a definition that disparages socialism for its alleged illiberality, statism, anti-individualism, and dogmatism, and for rewarding inefficiency and mortifying initiative. This loss of confidence regardless of electoral successes is noticeable. One can lose elections and live on to fight and win another day. But to abandon control of one’s identity, of one’s history, and of one’s tradition may prove to be the final coup de grace for socialism.