Corresponding author: Göran Therborn, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Cambridge (UK), Affiliated Professor of Sociology at Linnaeus University (Sweden). E-mail: goran.therborn.extern@lnu.se ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4652-4371
Historical Expertise: Axel Honneth points out the paradoxical phenomenon that the crisis of the left movement is taking place against the background of disillusionment with capitalism. Do you agree that the Left is in crisis? What are the causes of this crisis? (If you can tell us more about the crisis of the left in your homeland).
Göran Therborn: Crises come and go. From around the millennium shift, for about fifteen years after were years of left and centre-left upturn. Social Democracy got a second chance in Western Europe and a first in the East. An intercontinental alter-globalist emerged in massive demonstrations, the 2008 financial crash regenerated critiques of capitalism at the top of economics. In Latin America a wide spectrum of progressive governments emerged, social democratic in Brazil and Uruguay, left populist initiating a “socialism of the 21st century” in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. The latter also inspired significant new left movements in France and Spain. The democratic eruption of the largely left-driven Arab Spring vitalized the Southern European left.
For various reasons, this left and centre-left Milliennium Boom ended, in defeats against formidable adversaries and in fatal errors and failures. Internationally, the failure of European Social Democracy had perhaps the largest consequences. Its neoliberalism involved an abandonment of the “losers” of globalization and of the restoration of capitalism in Eastern Europe. Thereby the disadvantaged classes lost their traditional representation by parties formerly of social care and reform. Their abandonment provided the social basis for new rightwing political entrepreneurs with a social rhetoric, in Europe East and West, and in USA. Most tragic was this development in Eastern Europe, with Hungary and Poland as model examples. After the brief anti-socialist euphoria after the Communist implosion, Social Democracy was given an opportunity to make Eastern Europe an area of democratic social reform and equality. It did not take it, concentrating on preparing the region for EU market liberalism and geopolitical NATO-fication.
‘The fundamental problems of «really existing socialism» were rooted in its origins, in underdevelopment and in geopolitical state conflicts and war’
HE: The ‘real socialism’ of the twentieth century led to the discrediting of the Left. After the Gulag Archipelago many are convinced that the realisation of any project seeking to create a society based on the principles of social justice would inevitably lead to a new Gulag. How should the Left deal with the tragic experience of the USSR, of the ‘camp of socialism’ in general, and of your country in particular? What is the relationship to the Soviet experience?
G.T.: Socialism was the horizon of all the twentieth century left. It has now largely disappeared from view, with the implosion of the Soviet Union and the turn of China, reinforced by the neoliberal “Third Way” switch of Social Democracy and the failure of the Latin American “attempt at 21st century” socialism. This is an epochal change which has profoundly disoriented the left, and it should be seriously analyzed, instead of arguing with the ideological themes of eternal anti-communism and anti-socialism. The fundamental problems of “really existing socialism” were rooted in its origins, in underdevelopment and in geopolitical state conflicts and war. Underdevelopment meant that “catching up” with the economic level of the rich capitalist countries was necessary for a socialist overtaking of capitalism, and therefore became a priority goal. Geopolitics and war implied that the new socialist states were states organized for war, having to prepare for new wars in a hostile world. Soviet Europe did significantly catch up with Western Europe, without ever becoming level, and from around 1970 the distance began increasing. Communism made China grow again after a century of decline and did so more and better than India. Nevertheless, on a global scale it remained relatively poor and underdeveloped, it was still a “socialism of poverty”, as Deng Hsiao-ping realized, declared, and set about to change.
‘Only after the total defeat of Fascism in World War II was most European bourgeoisies conciliated with democracy’
HE: Many people today do not distinguish between neoliberal market economy and democracy, and therefore see socialism as a threat to democracy. I would even say that they consider democracy and the market economy as one body, just as the people of Mesoamerica did not separate the horse and the conquistador. Is socialism based on democratic principles possible?
G.T.: Of course it is, and we should not forget the history of democracy. It was fought for by the socialist labour movement, and fought against by capital and the bourgeoisie. Throughout the 19th century liberal and conservative opinion held that democracy was incompatible with private property. Moreover, who supported and financed Mussolini and Hitler coming to power? Business leaders and rightwing politicians. Who did Fascism fight against? The socialist labour movement. Only after the total defeat of Fascism in World War II was most European bourgeoisies conciliated with democracy. Even then, they supported Fascist regimes in Spain, Portugal, and Greece.
‘As the US is the world bastion of capitalism, the left has no reason to align itself with the US and the West against «the rest». It has also currently no reason to align itself with any powerful state’
HE: The twentieth century was marked by the confrontation between capitalism and socialism, during which ‘convergence’ took place in the West and resulted in the birth of the ‘welfare state’. Today, the key conflict is between the countries of neoliberal democracy (the conventional West) and the supporters of so-called ‘traditional values’ (Russia, Iran, Afghanistan and others). What can be born out of this confrontation? What position should the Left take in this conflict?
G.T.: Seeing today’s master conflict this way is mistaken, I think. There is no global ideological conflict in the sense we had it in the 20th century, particularly during the Cold War. Moreover, I don´t think it is illuminating to consider Russia a theocracy as Afghanistan and Iran. Conflicts between modern and traditional values are mainly running within religious congregations, between fundamentalist and modernized interpretations of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism, with very different salience in different counties and regions. For example, although both regions are predominantly of the same religion, Christian fundamentalism and its struggle against modernity are much stronger in the Americas, North and South, than in Western Europe.
The current master conflict in the world is geopolitical, and ideology plays mainly a propagandistic role. It is about US and Western world domination, its continuation or its changing into a multipolar world. The economic success of China in the game of capitalist globalization became seen by the US political elite as a threat to US domination. Globalization has been replaced by a more political game of world championship, with new keywords. Instead of open borders and markets, free trade, migration, and unhindered capital movement, we now have national security, national interest, tariffs, import and export bans, investment control, surveillance, sanctions. Against the organized and integrated Western bloc stands a basically unorganized, politically and culturally heterogeneous aggregate of a majority of nation in the Global South, only at most informally led by China. This agglomeration is mainly connected in a common unwillingness of being told what to do by the US and its vassals. As the US is the world bastion of capitalism, the left has no reason to align itself with the US and the West against “the rest”. It has also currently no reason to align itself with any powerful state.
‘Probably the best way to start thinking about an alternative to current post-industrial capitalism is to begin with the overriding question of the twenty-first century, the climate crisis’
HE: Zygmunt Bauman wrote that modern people are unable to imagine a better world than the one they live in today. Is it correct to believe that the decline of the Left is due to its lack of an appealing vision of the future? What should be the socialism of the XXI century? What do you think about the idea of an unconditional basic income?
G.T.: Socialism developed as an alternative to industrial capitalism. An alternative to current post-industrial capitalism has to be different from that of the twentieth century. Probably the best way to start thinking about that is to begin with the overriding question of the twenty-first century, the climate crisis. The consensus of climate science is that the ongoing climate change into uncontrollable extreme weather events is a catastrophic threat to humanity, and must be met by profound economic reorganization. That means that economic growth and private capital accumulation can no longer be the all overriding goal of human societies. Instead, there has to be an overall regulation of sustainability and, to ensure the necessary cooperation of the human species, of norms of fairness and equality.
Unconditional basic income is a dead end and a distraction from serious politics. Either it is a kind of communism of poverty or, at a level comparable to the generous welfare states, politically impossible by democratic means. It is neither a solution of social security nor of the sustainability of economies and societies.
HE: Why do left-wing forces not play a key role in the forcible replacement of one government regime with another, habitually called ‘revolutions’? Does this indicate the Left's rejection of revolutionary forms of struggle or is the classical revolution a legacy of the era of industrial society (Modernity), and no longer corresponds to the needs of the emerging information society? If you can tell us about the experience of leftist forces in the world?
G.T.: In most countries of recent revolutions the left is simply weak, and much weaker than the middle-class neoliberals who have been more prominent. However, the left played an important igniting role in the start of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt. The rebelling popular classes in Bolivia made the Bolivian anti-neoliberal revolution around the Millennium. Rojava is clearly a left project, an autonomous offshoot of the left ex-Marxist-Leninist PKK among Kurds of Turkiye, whereas Iraqi Kurdistan seems to be more of traditionally clan-directed nationalism.
‘The general situation of the left in Sweden has become more uncomfortable, with the NATO-fication and militarization of the country’
HE: Are Left ideas popular in your country? What specific difficulties does the left movement face?
G.T.: Sweden is a country of relatively strong left-right articulation, related to class alignments. At the time of the elections in 2022, 37% of the voters identified themselves as left, opposed to 43% right. Swedish Social Democracy is the historically most successful such party, and nowadays enjoys the support of a third of population. To the left of it, is a transformed Communist, now Left party, with 6-8 % support. The Swedish Left party seems to be stuck below ten per cent, and its hopes of a coalition appear unrealistic for the foreseeable future. It has gained members, up to 30,000, in the past decade, and it stages the country’s largest Mayday demonstration. However, the general situation of the left in Sweden has become more uncomfortable, with the NATO-fication and militarization of the country, under a rightwing government dependent on the xenophobic far right, and with the rightwing turn of social democracy.
HE: Central and Eastern Europe is a region with high social inequality. Despite that, left-wing forces have lost influence there. What is the reason for this?
G.T.: High inequality often does not only or even mainly mean social injustice, but also disorganization of the popular classes and strength of religious and other cultures of subordination to authorities. I also think that the neoliberal appearance of social democracy around the Millennium discredited left-of-centre politics. We should also take note of the diversity of Eastern Europe. Two countries, Czechia and Slovenia are among the least economically unequal countries of Europe.
HE: At the beginning of the 21st century many people were inspired by the ‘Left Turn’ in Latin America, which was associated with the name Hugo Chavez. However, Venezuela can hardly be called a successful country with its severe economic crisis, galloping inflation and serious violations of democratic norms. Does that mean the ‘left turn’ failed? Do the governments of Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Colombia have the chance to revive it?
G.T.: Chavez governed by free elections and referenda, and when he lost one referendum, he respected it, and due to popular support he overcame a military coup. He was a man full of ideas and initiatives, several successful. But he had an old-style authoritarian and polarizing leadership style, and he could not change Venezuela’s dependence on its oil exports. When the oil price nosedived, by the end of his life – cut short by cancer –and just after, so did the revolution. Then US economic sanctions struck the fatal blow.
The second wave of progressive leaders have much weaker popular and parliamentary support having to tread much more cautiously. Their achievements will be much more modest. The Mexican left is an exception in having strong majority support, but the country is racked by drug violence, and its economy is overwhelmingly dependent on exports to USA.
‘The Left has, of course, to stand up for international law and the UN, against the génocidaires and their accomplices, and for peace against the war hawks on all sides’
HE: Politicians are increasingly implying that the era of peace is coming to an end. In Europe, the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war has been going on for the third year now. In the Middle East Israel is continuing the war in Gaza and teetering on the brink of war with Iran. The world fears China's invasion of Taiwan and the resumption of long-standing conflicts on the Korean peninsula and in the Balkans. Does humanity have a chance to avoid World War III and a nuclear Armageddon? Is it possible to end the above mentioned conflicts or they are ‘hotbeds’ of world war? How do you see the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war and of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What should the left-wing forces do to achieve this purpose?
G.T.: It is scary how war has become a fascination among Western leaders and military. The Nato general secretary is calling members to adopt a “wartime mindset”. The EU leadership is instituting a new commissioner for war and is planning an EU “war economy”. The German minister of defence (a social democrats) and the German intelligence services are predicting a major war between Nato and Russia before 2030. Two American generals have published a scenario of a coming war against Russia, an American admiral has written a novel about a war against China in 2025. Scary is also the active weapons support from USA, the UK, and Germany for the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Scary, thirdly, is also the Western powers’ tolerance (and actual tacit support) of the Israeli humiliation of the unarmed United Nations, banning the UN from providing any humanitarian help to Palestine, after having killed almost 200 UN-employed workers in Gaza declaring UNWRA (the UN help organization for Palestinians) “a terrorist organization”, and openly defying the courts of international law, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court.
The Left has, of course, to stand up for international law and the UN, against the génocidaires and their accomplices, and for peace against the war hawks on all sides. How the Ukraine war and the genocide in Palestine will end, I don’t know, but neither is very likely to end in a stable and lasting peace.
HE: There is a lot of talks today about decolonisation and neo-colonialism. What is the threat of modern Neocolonialism?
G.T.: I don’t see much threat of “modern Neocolonialism”. What I have seen recently, more clearly than before, are the disastrous and enduring effects of European colonialism on the societies and on the economic development of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. It is highlighted by this year’s Nobel Laureates in economics, Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson, and Simon Johnson, primarily in the book Why Nations Fail by the two first-named authors. In the Middle East, the US occupation of northeastern Syria and its oilfields is clearly a colonial ventury,but right now it is uncertain if it will continue in post-Assad Syrua.
HE: In your opinion, which works of left-wing thinkers published in the last decade present the most interesting models of the future, alternative to both the ‘real socialism’ of the last century and the current neoliberalism?
G.T.: Bhaskar Sunkara, The Socialist Manifesto (2019)
Thanks a lot for your answers!