A lengthy and fascinating interview with Joshua Muravchik is in the latest edition of Democratiya. Muravchik talks about his personal journey from the socialist left to neo-conservatism and then goes on to look at Iraq and Islamist terror and the neo-con responses.

I've been contemplating socialism and the left in some of my posts here and so this passage from Muravchik was interesting:

I kept wrestling with the central mystery of socialism. How could something that desired to make things better have instead made things so much worse? Was it that socialists were bad people? From my own experience I am still convinced that most people who embraced the idea of socialism did so from a humane feeling - they wanted the world to be kinder and gentler. Yet socialism's most important results were quite the opposite. Of course, social democrats did things to humanise society when they were in government, but the overall record of socialism, when you add up both sides of the ledger, is quite appalling. 

I concluded that the central problem is asking politics to do something it can't do - to provide the 'leap' that Marx wrote about. This ambition departs entirely from the realities of human existence, which is imperfect and tragic. Life may not be nasty and brutish but it is short and it will always have its share of sadness and disappointment. Religion offers answers to both the shortness of life and the disappointments it contains - whether or not you accept the truth of any particular religion or religion per se. Politics can't do that. If you understand that, you feel a certain constraint on what you seek to achieve in politics, which at the most can offer amelioration. But the socialist thinks that through politics you can transform human life itself. Michael Harrington - a leader of mine back then whom I admired - once wrote that socialism would create 'an utterly new society in which some of the fundamental limitations of human existence have been transcended.' [5] But no political system can do that. Worse, once you say it can you have a logically sound utilitarian argument for killing some people in order to get there. If those people are standing in the way of the new, higher, happier level of human existence, well...

By the way, if you are not familiar with Democratiya - a free-to-read, online journal of what could loosely be called 'Eustonite Internationalists' then take a look through their latest edition - including a speech from Tony Blair - and also their archive which is full of interesting and serious material.

One of the most common characteristics of the authoritarian personalities who end up becoming dictators is their refusal to see themselves as fallible human beings, capable of mistakes or misjudgements. Hugo Chavez is not yet a dictator but he is behaviour has created justifiable concern that he may be heading in that direction. His acceptance of defeat in the referendum indicates he is willing to play by some of the rules of democracy but his reaction to that loss is yet more evidence of his disturbed personal and political personality. 

Because, in his search for blame, Chavez points the finger at almost everyone except himself. Unable to accept that maybe, just maybe, people felt that term limits are a sensible part of the checks and balances of a democracy, unwilling to consider that his demagogic rhetoric about no-voting "traitors", "fascists" and "mental retards" who were "voting for Bush" smacked of both desperation and lack of respect for the Venezuelan people, Il Presidente is now pointing the finger closer to home.

"Chavez, who met government advisors and military commanders outside Caracas to wait for the results, said congress hindered the plan's passage by splitting it into two blocks, the Caracas- based daily reported, citing the unidentified witnesses. Chavez also said his Venezuelan Unified Socialist Party lacked leadership, Nacional reported.

So congress and the party to blame - hmm, when a generalissimo starts to attack his own party and a congress it controls, you sense that there may be trouble on the horizon.

And of course, it is not just his closest political allies who are to blame: "Maybe the nation needs to mature more before we construct socialism," he said.

In both cases, Chavez, who has followed the classic authoritarian-demagogic approach of creating an external foreign threat, a fantastical fear of invasion, is indicating that only he is capable of carrying the country on the path towards ‘socialism'. The party and congress can't be trusted and the people are immature - no wonder he finds it so important to centralise power in his own hands and keep it until "until the last bone of my skeleton dries up."

The danger in all of this is, of course, that after a period of licking his wounds, Chavez comes back determined to press on with his authoritarian agenda (he has already said the proposals are halted only "for now") but also with little or no respect for his allies who he now views with suspicion, especially as some key figures switched to the No vote during the campaign. 

Chavez certainly believes he represents ‘the people" (in the crude communist sense of the term) and it is only a short step from his current rhetoric to start to view any political obstacles as "anti-people".

Add to the mix an opposition emboldened by their triumph and increasingly led by the radical and active student movement (as opposed to compromised old-school politicians) and there is potential for some very hot days indeed in Venezuela. 

Those who view Chavez's reluctant acceptance of the ‘No' as proof that he is a democrat and not a dictator are only half right - he is still not yet a dictator.

(Footnote: One wonders what contortions the Cuban media had to go through in reporting the Chavez defeat. After all, the line from US sympathisers "Look, he is a democrat!" doesn't quite work as well in Cuba does it? "It was a 'veni, vidi, vinci' of dignity and ethics," said Castro. Well Fidel, when are you going to offer the Cuban people a vote on, well, anything?)

Why we need a left

In my first two posts of this series, I tried to defend opponents of violent jihadism and supporters of the Iraq war from the charge that they had abandoned the values of the left and indeed attempted to make a case that tackling Islamofascism and tyranny are on the contrary, authentic leftist positions to take.

I promised that my next post would look at the broader issue of why a left is still necessary. Clearly this is a topic more suited for a lengthy polemical book than a blog post (Yes, I am open to offers….) so what follows is a brief and simplified attempt to make the case that in the modern world, the values of the left remain absolutely essential if the combination of chaos and dynamism that prevails is to meet with a progressive response.

The first thing that has to be said in any attempt to state the case for the left in 2007 is – forget the far left. Leninism is dead, Trotskyism is dead, Stalinism is dead, Maoism is dead, the concept of ‘socialist revolution’ is dead and the idea of a planned socialist economy is dead. And to that one should add a long overdue – thankfully.

Millions of people were murdered, perished or were incarcerated as a result of ‘socialist experiments’ in the last century. Millions more had their lives and their family’s lives wrecked by communist dictatorships and in countries now described as ‘formerly communist states’ the impact of over four decades of totalitarianism are still felt.

That tiny minority of oddballs who continue to believe in the ‘dictatorship of the proleteriat’ and other euphemisms for state terror should be as unacceptable to democrats as far right-wing opponents of liberal democracy – what is amazing is that they are still regarded as acceptable leaders for ‘peace movements’ and labour movement organisations.

But, of course, while Marxist inspired revolutionary socialism was a horrendous catastrophe, social democracy (or democratic socialism if you prefer) came out of the last century with a pretty good balance sheet. Western European welfare states were inspired by and largely created by the social-democratic parties of the labour movement. The health care systems, the universal education systems, the progressive housing solutions, the victories in terms of wages and work conditions for millions of European workers are a credit to the social democratic project. It was never plain-sailing of course and there were times when the tide turned against social democracy (the era of Kohl-Reagan-Thatcher) and there were times when one wondered if anything would remain of the core aims of social-democracy (the era of the third-way).

But on the whole, social-democrats can be justly proud of the achievements of their parties in the past century. In countries where social democracy took root, real acute poverty is a thing of the past even though great inequalities of wealth remain. Likewise the values of social liberalism also can look back on great progress – great steps forward have been made in gender equality, gay rights, racial equality and religious freedom.

Together social-democracy and social-liberalism have improved the lot of millions of people and won real and lasting victories – if one steps away from the disasters of revolutionary socialism, reject it utterly, then the left has actually enjoyed enormous success – successes which of course need to be defended, expanded and improved upon. But while social democracy in Europe has been able to make headway in the main goal of taking the benefits of a capitalist economy and using the state to more broadly distribute the resources available and has, through regulation and intervention, been able to force capitalists to pay better wages and offer better working conditions, on a global scale poverty remains at an intolerable level with millions living in starvation conditions.

And while liberal democracy reigns across the continent of Europe – no longer restricted only to the western half – large parts of the world remain in the grip of tyrannies or face threats from violent totalitarian movements. It is no coincidence that many of those parts of the world where poverty remains acute are also countries where democracy has yet to be able to take root. And there, surely, lays the answer to what the purpose of a modern left should surely be – defending and expanding on the gains of the victories of social democracy in the west, tackling the scar of global poverty and pushing for the expansion of democracy internationally. In an era of rapid globalisation, the moment seems perfect for the western left to make a real effort to globalise its values.

Yet at the same time, when one reads the debates over the past decade, a lack of confidence in the core values of both liberalism and social democracy emerges which hinders the ability of the democratic left to take on the tasks facing it. Cynicism about the value of democracy as opposed to an enthusiasm to spread it globally and cultural relativism rather than international solidarity risk making the left into a club of parochial critics. An unwillingness to tackle economic questions and a Luddite anti-globalisation stance rather than a concerted effort to create a social-democratic world, leave the left looking like a snooty western elite who wash their hands with some charity rather than address the need to shift globalisation in a progressive direction aimed at eliminating poverty.

The democratic left has much to be proud of (including its opposition to the anti-democratic left) but it must leave behind the cynicism and nihilism that has infected it in the past decade or so and confidently take on a new role as champions of a progressive globalisation and the internationalisation of democracy. In my final part of this series I will sketch out some rough ideas for how that might start to take shape.

   This is a post about English soccer – but before all you Americans scroll down to something else, let may say it is also about identity and globalisation, capitalism and the decline of the nation-state.    

OK, still here? Right, England has entered one of its periodic crises after the national soccer team failed to qualify for next summer’s European Championships. The qualification process ensures that the top 16 nations in Europe gather together in Switzerland and Austria next year for a big tournament which is second only to the World Cup in terms of interest and status. England, who invented ‘Association Football’ aren’t among those 16 after finishing behind Croatia and Russia and on the same points as that powerhouse of European soccer –Israel. (I don’t need to explain to you why Israel have  play in Europe rather than in competition with the other Middle Easter countries which they would almost certainly win).    

 It is 41 years since the England team last won a prize – the 1966 World Cup - which was the only time the tournament was held in England. Unlike most major powers in the game, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy etc, England have never actually won away from home turf. But, we invented the game, we have the ‘greatest league in the world’ and most English people really believe they, their clubs, their players and their fans, represent the genuine, authentic heart and soul of the game. 

There is no way of comparing this trauma to anything in US sports – if I must try and tempt you with an analogy – imagine that baseball really went global, there was a World Series befitting of the title and the US didn’t even make the play-offs, finishing behind Honduras and South Korea after losing to Venezuela.       

No country in Europe likes their soccer team to not qualify for the Euro finals but in England, the failure provokes deep reactions which tell us a great deal about the tortured sense of identity in the country.      

 First of there is the sense of entitlement that is lost by actual competition – the English assume their place is at the top table for reasons of tradition and history. But unlike bodies such as the United Nations and The Commonwealth, European soccer is based purely on merit and not on heritage. No-one is silly enough to suggest England should qualify automatically (as they do for the UN Security Council) so the response is a vicious search for blame. As usual, and as in most sports, the coach is the first scapegoat. Steve McLaren was sacked before his bosses had even digested their bacon sandwiches the morning after the defeat to Croatia. Then there are the search for the ‘deeper causes’ of the defeat and here the deep pains of English identity start to emerge.    

One of the most popular ‘root causes’ identified this time around has been foreign players in English football. The Premier League (EPL to those Americans who take an interest) is packed with players from all over the globe and none of the elite teams are coached by Englishmen. Liverpool is owned by Americans and coached by a Spaniard. Chelsea is owned by a Russian and coached by an Israeli. The argument goes that because there are so many foreign players in England – English boys don’t get a chance. The argument is utter nonsense for several reasons - primarily because England had similar disappointments in the seventies and eighties when there were hardly any non-British players in the top league.   

Nonetheless, the argument is based on an essential truth – the ability of England’s Premier League to market itself globally, in a similar fashion to the NBA , has generated a huge amount of income which the clubs have invested in buying up foreign players. The result is a championship which is based on the core values of modern globalized capitalism – it is deregulated, internationalised and the team with the most money available usually wins. Imagine an NFL where a previously unheard of Russian billionaire could buy up, say, the Cleveland Browns, purchase Tom Brady and half the current New England Patriots team along with the best players from all the other teams and win the Superbowl easily every, single, year. You can’t do that in American sports because of the regulations – the draft, the salary cap, the rules on ownership etc  – it is a curious state of affairs but compared to the laissez-faire capitalism of English soccer, American sports are almost socialistic.

The English are pretty happy with this state of affairs for their league – they are sports fans, they support their teams in a tribalistic fashion and so no-one amongst Chelsea’s supporters ever complains about a loss of identity given their club is in Russian hands and they only have a couple of English players in their starting line-up – if the Blues win, the Blues fans are happy. The  problem comes when you get to international competition between nation states where the rules are very different. You can’t trade your citizenship, the coach of the national team can’t buy anyone and it doesn’t matter how much money your organization has – selection is restricted to people who are citizens of the country. National team soccer is the last survivor of the old amateur values – you play for honour and pride – not money. You represent your country and not your employers. You are expecting to give your all for glory and not for the next big contract deal.    

And this is where the global success of the English soccer brand falls down – the results show that the players aren’t really good enough or they haven’t been coached well enough and the normal rules of the market – buy some better players – don’t apply.    

So the England players are blamed for not caring enough and the system is criticised for being out-dated – and there are some valid arguments that I shan’t trouble you with here about what precisely, technically is the problem with homegrown English footballers.     

But the big picture is that soccer, like other sports, is transforming itself and globalizing itself in a way which leaves the old nation state framework looking increasingly like a sideshow. On a week to week basis fans, owners and coaches don’t care about nationality – they want results and entertainment. Most of the time, the English enjoy the chance to watch top international performers either in the Premier League or the Europe-wide Champions League. The pangs of pain only come when cash no longer can talk – when soccer enters a timewarp and we go back to an era when the rules are different. The pain is enhanced because the English like to think they represent the old values of the game when in fact they epitomize the modern transformation of the sport into a global entertainment and marketing industry.   

There are no signs that the trends will change – if anything they are likely to intensify -  and so the English will slowly have to get used to the fact their national team is mediocre but they have the most marketable professional league in the world. And in this respect England will become more American.    

There are no nation-state battles in American football or pro baseball and the Olympic competition in basketball and hockey is a sideshow for anyone who seriously follows the NBA or NHL. Americans are lucky in that so few countries play baseball or football – they can simply enjoy the NFL and MLB without worrying about what the rest of the world is doing. The English are going to have to learn to do that -  not to care about nation-state competition – and that won’t be easy for a people who remain attached to tradition while being at the vanguard of tradition-smashing global, capitalized sport.

[Read part one here.] 

Who says we aren’t lefties anyway?

I want to try to deal quickly with the accusation – so frequently heard and read – that no-one who supported the Iraq war can still be considered a left-winger or a real liberal. Despite the frequency with which this jibe is heard, it doesn’t stand up to even the most elementary consideration – and here then is an elementary consideration.

Most liberals supported the US’s armed interventions in Balkans without considering themselves to have crossed over to the right. Perhaps that was helped by the fact that many conservatives were opposed to those interventions and that the President at the time was Democrat Bill Clinton. Yet, most liberals accepted that the armed force of the United States can be used for a good cause.

Next up was Afghanistan, where many liberals were willing to support the overthrow of the Taliban regime, a manhunt for terrorists, a US led occupation and the attempt to ‘enforce democracy’. This time the President was George W Bush, but that fact didn’t lead the liberals to announce themselves converted to right-wing Republicanism – they supported a just war, even when they found themselves on the same side as Bush and the neo-cons.

Yet when it comes to Iraq, where of course there was a much bigger split in opinion over whether it was a ‘just war’ or not, anyone who took the position that the armed removal of the Saddam dictatorship was desirable is now accused of having sold out to Bush and forfeited any right to consider themselves ‘of the left’. The actual core case of liberal and left supporters of the Iraq war – that the Saddam regime was essentially fascist, totalitarian and murderous and its overthrow would be an act of liberation – is rarely addressed. Very few in the anti-war camp are willing to even consider that there may have been a left-case or simply be a disagreement over whether or not Iraq could be considered a just war or a different view of the wisdom of the timing or circumstances of this particular war. For the bulk of the anti-war movement, we are now beyond the pale, sell-outs and neo-cons. We have ‘lined up behind Bush’ or become ‘cheerleaders of US imperialism’.

That so many of the people uttering these clichés were themselves with Bush over Afghanistan or supportive of ‘imperialist bombs’ falling on Belgrade does not seem to register. It seems we are guilty by association with an incompetent right-wing administration. Guilt by association is always a weak piece of rhetoric and its facile nature is shown by the fact that it only seems to work one way. The anti-war left do not consider themselves to be tainted by the fact that right-wing isolationists, nationalists and downright fascists were also opponents of the war. Nor does it comprise a sell-out that while Kurdish socialists welcomed talk of liberation, Saddam himself praised those who took to the streets to oppose his removal.

It is very tempting to look at this ‘argument’ and shrug one’s shoulders and say “Who cares what they call us?” It is tempting for liberal-hawks to disassociate themselves totally from the modern left and leave the ‘left-right’ labels for the last century. But that would be a mistake for two obvious but crucial reasons.

Firstly, despite the domination of the Iraq issue over political discourse in the past few years, being left-wing or liberal isn’t just about foreign policy. To put it bluntly – Michael Moore is full of shit when he talks about Iraq or terrorism but he is right about healthcare. Bush may have been right about Iraq but he is wrong about most other things.

Secondly, in the struggle against violent Islamism and for the expansion of democratic rights globally, the right aren’t doing a very good job and an alternative approach is sorely needed. The constituencies in the Middle East who offer the best chance for progressive change – human rights activists, women’s groups, student movements, liberal intellectuals, the labour movement – are all natural allies of the left and they have been betrayed by the anti-war movement and ignored by the pro-war right. In the next two parts of this series I want to address those two reasons and move the argument away from why we are still lefties to why it is still necessary to be a lefty.