The Cold War has always been a discourse, a conflict of words, "capitalism" versus "socialism." Both left and right used the same words. They disagreed about which word was good and which was bad. Even though the Western Left was, for the most part, sharply critical of Stalinism, it still characterized the Cold War as a conflict between capitalism and socialism. It described the West as "capitalist" and the East as "socialist," and explained the conflict in terms of the expansionary nature of capital and the unwillingness of capitalism to tolerate any alternative.
Now the political system in Central Europe have collapsed and the Soviet system is under severe challenge. The Right is claiming the revolutions of 1989 as its victory. What is happening, according to mainstream commentators, is the decisive defeat of socialism and the triumph of liberal (actually neo-liberal) values and policies.
What is it that has collapsed? Socialism? Yes, if what we mean by socialism is nationalization, central planning, bureaucracy, paternalism, the belief in the ability of government experts to solve social and economic problems. Socialism, in the sense, has collapsed in both East and West. More gradually in the West, under pressure both from the neo-liberal right and the post-1968 generation of social movements. Explosively in the East, once these systems were no longer propped up in fact by the Soviet Union.
And what has won? Liberal values have certainly won. But has capitalism won? In what sense can the West be described as "capitalist"? In Western countries, including the United States, government spending averages 40 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Has the neo-liberal approach of Thatcher and Reagan won? Or have Japan, West Germany and other successful West European economies won? These economies are capitalist in the sense that they are market-oriented and dominated by large private corporations. But compared with the United States or Britain, much greater emphasis is placed on education, social services, public investment, local planning, worker participation, and so on.
And what does it mean to say the West has won? Does it mean that the West is stronger economically or militarily? Does it mean that Western strategies contributed to the downfall of socialism? Or does it mean that East European countries will adopt a Western political and economic model? And, if so, which model? The East Europeans want Western liberal values. But do they want Americanization or Swedish social democracy? And what will they get? "The Worldization" or "Mexicanization," as some are suggesting? Or perhaps an entirely new indigenous model of economic and social organization?
So can the word "socialism" be restored? I think it is difficult. "Socialism" is discredited not just because of the inner contraditions of actually existing socialism. It is also because the Left failed to oppose actively what was happening in the Soviet Union and East-Central Europe. It was the peace movement that championed the cause of human rights. Social Democrat and Labour Parties promoted detente from above, good relations between ruling parties, which was important, but they argued wrongly that this was incompatible with detente from below. They argued that peace came before human rights. Likewise, much of the Left was reluctant to put its energies into democratic struggles in the East, in part because these countries were viewed as "socialist," however distorted.
And there is something in the argument. Socialism is not such a straight forward word as peace. It does contain the notion of a strategy for social justice, a method of social organization that replaces capitalism. Because socialists failed to address the problem of state power, the portrayed of statist forms of economic organization as "socialist" does have some truth. And yet, the absence of an appropriate word with whichs to pursue the goals of material equality and economic democracy, the absence of a framework within which to discuss problems of ownership and control, uneven developmenbt and social policy leaves a vacuum. These concerns will become ever more important in the coming years and we need to be able to conceptualize and articulate them. Moreover, if actually existing socialism has left a negative legacy, it is important to recall the proud and honourable socialist tradition in Europe -- of workers' movements, ideas and education -- that must not be discarded. Is social justice an adequate substitute for the term "socialist?" Do we have to begin the painful and isolating task of redefining and resuscitating socialism? Or should we attempt to develop a new term that encompasses new concerns about democracy, the environment, gender and race, as well as traditional concerns? This is the debate we have to conduct with our new friends in the East.