When Socialism gave up its intellectual roots in Marxism, for fear of being associated with Stalinism, it lost the ability to create an alternative narrative and intellectual discourse which could challenge the dominant discourse.

So what now passes for Socialism acknowledges the superiority of Capitalism over Communism, accepts the validity of the notion that Stalinism somehow derived from Marxism (when it had more in common with Tsarism) and just seeks to curry favour by reacting to the excesses of Capitalism.

At least the Greens come from a different intellectual base - starting with the finite resources and resilience of the world's ecosystem - and concluding that the Growth is Good meme of Capitalism is in itself unsustainable because it fails to take external/environmental costs into account.

People can see where the Greens are coming from, even if their policies have been largely appropriated by the establishment.  But where are socialists coming from if they do not have the sort of fundamental analysis of the dynamics of Capitalism that Marx provided?

The collapse of Communism meant the Capitalist elites no longer had to negotiate with socialists to share out the proceeds of production.  Socialists were discredited and survived only by becoming Keynesian social democrats.

But what new analysis/dominant narrative has come out of the near collapse of financial capitalism?  So far, not a whole lot.  People aren't prepared to go back to the old socialism/communism, and the social democrats failed to control the excesses of Capitalism - so they don't really have an intellectual basis or raison d'etre.

We're in a very volatile period where proto-Fascists and snake oil salesmen like Berlusconi and Ganley are making the running.  The utterly pathetic efforts of European Socialists to develop any kind of an alternative vision that people can buy into, or even a strong leadership alternative to Brown/Berlusconi/Barroso means that we are in danger of a very scary descent into hell - last seen in the 1930's.

notes from no w here

Before 1945 the party had a picture of the problems of the time and some ideas about the golden age of socialism to come. It was just the route map, from now to then, that was missing.

The 1945-51 Attlee government implemented the ideas of Liberal theorists like Keynes and Beveridge. It created the welfare state. It also nationalised lots of industries. This was the high point of British socialism.

Since 1951 Labour has gradually moved away from any sort of socialism. The managerial approach of men like Blair and Brown, has produced a party that seems to be incapable of new thinking on any profound level.

Gaitskell said that Labour was a crusade or it was nothing (at a time when western Europeans did not worry about the way the Muslim world regarded crusades). Now Labour is a cabal of professional politicians more interested in personal advancement than any ideal (however inadequate). If it is a crusade; it is the one which sacked Constantinople, for fun and profit, rather than fighting in the Holy Land.

Possibly the imminent long period in opposition, due to start after the general election to be held at some point in the next year, will provide an opportunity for renewal.

Perhaps the age of socialism, as a political idea, has passed. Perhaps the lack of constructive new approaches demonstrates that a completely new paradigm is needed.

NB: The above vision is influenced by current British specific political problems and may not apply to some other parts of the European Union.