There never were coherent alternatives.

Historically the PES is based on the idea of increasing the material wealth of the working classes. Most of the working classes in Europe, nowadays, have enough material wealth to live decently. It can even be argued that we have too much: considering the ability of the planet to provide equal material wealth to all other citizens (Africa, Lat AM, Asia, ...).

What I am trying to convene is that, since some decades ago, there were actually no big difference from left and right: all proposals were variations of GREED. Asking for a salary increase of someone doing above 1.800 is greedy. The planet cannot sustain that lifestyle for 7 billion inhabitants.

A left program would be more along the lines of:

1. Full employment (at the expense of more salary!)
   
2. Some level of job security (even at the expense of "growth")
   
3. Trading money for time
   
4. Maintenance of community involvement: Some entitlement programs abstract away community - one pays taxes and problems appear "miraculously" solved. The welfare state should be maintained with direct population involvement (say, through a compulsory civil service)

The aspirations by the left are, in essence, the same as the ones from the right. Why go with a copy when you have the original?