Neo-Socialism: An Elaboration
This is the second piece which outlines the argument for today’s use of the term neo-socialism. Before continuing here, I recommend reading the first article, published on Lotuseaters.com on January 30th:
In my first article on the terms neo-socialism and neo-socialist, I have outlined the central, linguistic reason for why those descriptors should be used as umbrella terms to identify the radical left of today. Labels commonly used today are either too specific (‘syndicalism’, ‘anarcho-communism’…), too broad (‘leftism’, ‘Marxism’…), too discredited through continuous colloquial use (‘radical leftism’, ‘neo-Marxism’...), or connotationally inadequate (‘socialism’). Opponents of the radical left should come to acknowledge that language is a powerful weapon of social power - and be willing to use it. They should recognize they need a new descriptor to better identify who they are standing against. In that vein, neo-socialism is a term worthy of consideration.
However, linguistics is not the only reasons the term neo-socialism should be used.
By no means am I the first to ever use this label. It has its historical meaning, albeit quite obscure and in very few ways relevant in today’s political debate. Nevertheless, an overview of its historical use can show us why the case for its modern use is even better.
Historical neosocialism never spread far in English-speaking circles. Instead, it became a thing in interwar France and Belgium. Influenced by Henri de Man’s planism, which advocated for a centrally-planned economy where capitalist structures are not destroyed, but preserved and directed for the purposes of the proletariat, the idea historical neo-socialism was most prominently introduced in a book ‘Perspective socialistes’ and promoted by its author, Marcel Déat.
Déat and his neosocialist followers of the 1930s started off as members of the mainstream socialist and Marxist movement of the time. Initially a member of the SFIO, the French Section of the Workers’ International (which later became the still-active Socialist Party), he then formed a group of reactionary socialists who took to challenge some of the core principles of Marxism. Perhaps the most important aspect of this reactionism was the rejection of a ‘hot’ class war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Instead, they advocated for the corporatization of society, where capitalist forces would be subdued by the will of the people expressed through the state, and used for socially-beneficial purposes rather than the nefarious ends they would follow on their own. In political terms, this included a willingness to negotiate and make compromises with the Radical Party, which was seen as a vessel for bourgeois interests at the time.
Partly for their deviations from mainline socialism of the day, the neosocialists were expelled from the SFIO. Another reason was their growing approval of Italian fascism under Mussolini. Being in favour of class collaboration instead of class struggle, in favour of national instead of international solidarity, and in support of corporatism instead of a socialist revolution, Déat’s neosocialists saw value in Mussolini’s approach which rejected the old bourgeois values of capitalism as well as the supposedly ineffective ideals of Marxism to advocate for a ‘third way’ as the most adequate ideology for a modern society.
Eventually, they came to view democracy and parliamentarism as ineffective in achieving neosocialist goals. Drifting further from the mainline left, they started supporting a more authoritarian government instead of relying on the voting power of the proletariat to be the force of social change. The story of historical neosocialism ended up being short-lived as due to their support of collaborationist Vichy France during the Second World War, there was no place for them in the ideological circles of post-war Europe.
In 1934, Fernand Fontenay described the newly-formed movement led by Déat thus:
“The theorists of neo-socialism advocate for withdrawing (temporary, they say) back into the national framework; … the so-called ‘syndicalisation’ of essential industries; the end of the class struggle, notably by the establishment of corporatism à la Mussolini; and to direct society through a state free from various parliamentary leftovers from the past, claiming to perform the role of an arbiter between the diverse social groups and classes.”
In the grand scheme of past movements and events, historical neosocialism is neither important nor very consequential. The role it has played in the recent past has been to offer a bridge between the ideas of socialism and fascism and explain how and why one is related to the other. This connection is well formulated by Richard Griffiths, who states that while historical neosocialism and other “theories of ‘directed socialism’ were not fascist in themselves, they were contingent upon a strong state”. He goes on to add that they were, of course, also “at odds” with more traditional socialist ideology.
It is perhaps impossible to adequately and concisely summarize the central tenets of today’s radical left. It is, of course, not represented by a single party, movement, website, organization, state, or ideology. The view of what it fundamentally is will be different for each reader according to their ‘lived experience’. However, my guess is that most of such views will overlap to a large degree with the exposition of historical neosocialism outlined above. Perhaps the closest connection between the two is the insistence that the state play a decisive role in directing industry and capital. And perhaps furthest away from most of today’s radical left would be its gradual rejection of parliamentarism.
Attempting to revive the label ‘neo-socialism’ does not imply that those described as such today have any concrete allegiance to the neosocialism of the past. However, historical neosocialism’s affinity for Italy’s fascists and Germany’s national socialists is bound to make some of those on the left being called neo-socialists today uncomfortable. Still, most are not aware of the term’s past and will be oblivious to its historical ties. Were the label neo-socialist to become widely used, it would provide, in a very subtle way, an ever-present reminder for the radical left of its own complicated history and its relations with those they see as their primary opponents on the political spectrum. This ever-present, subtle reminder being included in its use is another excellent reason why the term neo-socialist should be used to refer to the radical left today.
Finally, neither can I claim to be the first to use the term neo-socialism in today’s context. Some have already attempted to use the label to describe those that still hold onto the ideology that should have stayed in the past. The neo-conservative Jonah Goldberg has attempted to define neo-socialism anew in 2009. Author and prominent activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has also applied the term to those who ‘remain intrigued by socialism’ in our time:
“The neosocialism that I see taking root today also rejects capitalism as a system, and, just as in the socialism of old, the individual and his own moral contributions are devalued. What matters, once again, is the group (the collective tribe) to which an individual belongs. Again, these collective groups are either oppressive or oppressed, and an individual’s moral worth is determined by looking at the group or groups to which he belongs.”
“Neosocialism carries an ostensible moral appeal for young people who may know little about history or the nature of socialism, or who are disenchanted with the current state of the world.”
I am hoping to contribute to this effort to revive the label. As already outlined in the Indroduction, its usage could prove to be a great tool and weapon for the opposition of the radical left - sorry, neo-socialists. Its derogatory linguistic connotations are exactly what is needed not to give today’s socialism the benefit of the doubt and instead treat it with the contempt and the ridicule it deserves. The historical context of the term adds to this an element of uncomfortableness and shame the ideology deserves for its ugly past.
This means that anyone who observes with concern and distaste today’s allegiance of many to that ideology of the past, socialism, should call them what they are: neo-socialists.
Comments