‘Building the Good Society’ contains no mention of ‘socialism’.

While its analysis promotes ideals of which all socialists would approve – ‘freedom and equality for all’; ‘equitable economic development for the good of all’; ‘solidarity and social justice’; ‘taking … utilities back into public ownership’ – the overall message is one of accommodation to capitalism, though to a ‘fairer’ form of capitalism. Indeed, as the authors put it, ‘capitalism must now become accountable to democracy’. The solution of Cruddas and Nahles is not democratic socialism but ‘a variety of different economic structures and forms of ownership’ where ‘workers codetermine economic decisions of their companies … economic pluralism’.

It is now some thirty years since Margaret Thatcher falsely but successfully equated socialism with Stalinism and with the British Labour Party, and paved the way for New Labour – a formation which in many respects went further down the neoliberal road than Thatcher herself would have dared. (Even the Radical Right did not view the role of universities as being to promote and sustain capitalism.)

Capitalism is in the midst of yet another slump that Keynesian social democracy can at best alleviate. Since social democracy cannot solve the contradictions of capitalism, why not return to Marx for both analysis and solution? Developments in South America bear witness to the continuing efficacy of the socialist project. Twenty-first-century socialism is a further reminder that, while modern socialism was born in Europe – in France, Britain and Germany in particular – Marxism is not Eurocentric. Indeed, as Jean Paul Sartre once remarked, Marxism is a living philosophy. To Sartre’s observation Crystal Bartolovich added that Marxism is not ‘simply a discourse nor a body of (academic) knowledge’ but a living project. That living project continues to flourish around the world, not least in Venezuela, where the United Socialist Party has 6 million members.

It is time for Europe to revisit Marxism and the promise of democratic socialism. Why are left social democrats so wary of the ‘s’ word? In my latest book, Critical Race Theory and Education: a Marxist response (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) I raise some common objections to Marxism and attempt to provide a Marixst response: we are not all basically selfish and greedy; people are not naturally lazy; Marxism doesn’t automatically lead to totalitarianism; socialism doesn’t mean a lower standard of living for all; it needn’t be dreary; and perhaps most importantly, it does not naturally lead to violence. Indeed capitalism has promoted death and violence on an unprecedented scale and continues to do so.

As an educationist, I recognise the role of schools, colleges and universities in attuning the next generation to the ‘inevitability’ of capitalism (its neoliberal variety has recently taken a severe battering and loss of confidence, but it seems to be bouncing back). As a Marxist educator, I also believe that education, by raising consciousness, can play a role in liberating humankind from the exploitation and oppression of capitalism. I am in full agreement with Cruddas and Nahles that ‘the higher education system must be decoupled from the market and from commercial imperatives and treated as a public good’. But so must schools. A large number of equality issues are, quite rightly, routinely addressed from the primary school upwards. It is time to confront what I have called ‘the last taboo’, and investigate the rich possibilities inherent in democratic socialism, in schools, colleges and universities across Europe. Even bourgeois economists are realising that Marx was right about the constant tendency for capitalism to regularly enter recession. Capitalism does not need the ‘sticking plaster’ remedies advocated by social democrats. It needs an undertaker. As bankers recoup profits and demands are made of the European working class to make financial and other sacrifices, there has never been a more opportune time to put socialism back on the agenda of European politics.

Why not?

Note
1. The title of this article is borrowed from G. A. Cohen’s book with the same title, published by Princeton University Press