What’s Next?

There is a growing sense among many that we may be on the verge of a new world order or — to be more accurate — at the end of an old one. Opinion polls show very low confidence in the familiar institutions of governance and high uncertainty about the economy. Voters are rejecting traditional centrists parties, with new alternative parties and movements growing in popularity. There is little or no popular consensus on the path forward and an abiding sense that matters are, in general, going badly.

The global economy is variously afflicted with inflation, stagnation, or both, and growing insecurity. Political leaders are rigidly defending the old consensus or unsuccessfully advancing “new” wrinkles on the old that go nowhere. Inequality of wealth, income, power, and outcomes grow dramatically.

Few are satisfied that we can continue in the old way, but even fewer know of a way forward.

So, it should come with little surprise that intellectuals have taken on the daunting task of describing where we are and where we might be going.

Within the broad left, two characterizations of the current “international order” have been popularized: a policy, “neoliberalism” and a process, “globalization.” Much nonsense has been written and spoken about both. As the terms grew in popularity and usage, their meaning became fuzzier and fuzzier.

There have been useful accounts of neoliberalism that place it both in an historical context and within the evolution of modern capitalism (see my discussion of Gary Gerstle’s book, The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order). Gerstle, notably, gives a credible account of neoliberalism’s origins in the late 1970s and strong reasons for its fragility today.

Similarly, Branko Milanović has offered a credible account of globalization in an article that I recently reviewed. However, he dates it from 1989, when, in fact, the expansion of trade has been consistent from the establishment of the post-war global trade architecture, with qualitative leaps coming from the 1978 “opening” to China, the 1991 demise of the European socialist states, and again with China’s entry into the WTO, but followed more recently by globalization’s wane after the Great Recession of 2007-09.

It is important not to confuse the two: neoliberalism is a political initiative that gained traction from the failings of New Deal Keynesian policy and became policy with the establishment of centrist consensus and its subscription by mainstream political parties, spreading throughout the world as dogma; globalization is an expansive process accelerated with new technologies and the migration of capital to new and expanded labor markets. While they overlap in many ways, they are different phenomena.

An even more recent participant in this discussion is Perry Anderson, writing in the London Review of Books. Contra Gerstle, Anderson sees a still-resilient neoliberalism locked in a political struggle with populism — “The political deadlock between the two is not over: how long it will last is anyone’s guess.”

Within the various fora of left-wing intellectuals, Anderson is a well-known, important, but controversial figure. His writing, his editorship of New Left Review, and his hand in Verso books placed him in the center of UK left intellectual life — independent of Communist and socialist parties — in a role similar to that played by Monthly Review in the US. Wherever Marxism rose in fashion in student and professorial circles, Anderson’s influence could be found.

The publication of Domenico Losurdo’s book, Western Marxism, in 2017 (2024 in English) placed Perry Anderson at the center of Losurdo’s critique of Euro-American trends, a critique generating much attention with the anti-imperialist left. There was certainly some merit to Losurdo’s charge that some of the “Marxism” exercised in Europe and the US was stained by Eurocentrism. Certainly, Losurdo was on to something.

Anderson’s leftism was decidedly hostile to, real-existing-socialism — both East and West — and the various Communist Parties. He opted, instead, for some pure vision of socialism, a version that Marx would have scoffed at as utopian. Moreover, Anderson encouraged a left scholasticism that took young activists further and further from changing the world and more and more toward an academic career.

But the failings of the Western left lie less in any “geographical” disposition, but more centrally in the virus of anti-Communism and the disillusionment after the demise of the USSR. Gary Gerstle — no friend of Communism — captures it:

The collapse of communism… shrank the imaginative and ideological space in which opposition to capitalist thought and practices might incubate, and impelled those who remained leftists to redefine their radicalism in alternative terms, which turned out to be those that capitalist systems could more, rather than less, easily manage. This was the moment when neoliberalism in the United States went from being a political movement to a political order.

Ironically, Anderson concedes as much:

[Behind] neoliberalism’s apparent immunity to disgrace– lay the disappearance of any significant political movement calling robustly either for the abolition or the radical transformation of capitalism. By the turn of the century, socialism in both of its historical variants, revolutionary and reformist, had been swept clear of the stage in the Atlantic zone.

But notice the difference. Gerstle — the liberal — identifies the socialist left as in retreat from socialism, with not a little suggestion that the “redefinition” was based on opportunism. There really was an alternative, despite what elites wanted us to believe.

Anderson — the Western Marxist intellectual — describes the retreat in the passive voice, as though there was no agency in the retreat, merely a “disappearance.” Who or what caused the “disappearance”? Who or what swept socialism clear from the stage? Did it fall from the sky?

There are no regrets of the setbacks to the socialist world. There is no remorse over the sponsorship of student rebellion over worker actions. There is no reflection on the dalliance with the renegades, malcontents, and dreamers on the margins of the left.

Anderson writes of “the widely differing set of revolts… united in their rejection of the international regime in place in the West since the 1980s.” “What they oppose,” he asserts “is not capitalism as such, but the current socio-economic version of it, neoliberalism.” And what was the role of New Left Review in taking socialism off the table?

Like so much of the academic left, Anderson and his colleagues were fully compliant with the post-war Western intellectual catechism: ABC – “Anything But Communism.”

Not surprisingly, Anderson sees a bleak future: either a continuing neoliberal nightmare or an ineffective populism, possibly offering worse outcomes.

In the last few weeks, the discussion of the next international order further develops with an intervention by Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, an establishment figure who has taken the rare enlightened position on Ukraine and Palestine. In Giving Birth to the New International Order, Sachs argues that:

The multipolar world will be born when the geopolitical weight of Asia, Africa, and Latin America matches their rising economic weight.  This needed shift in geopolitics has been delayed as the US and Europe cling to outdated prerogatives built into international institutions and to their outdated mindsets.

Sachs endorses a view widespread on the Left, a utopian view that a diverse and multi-interested group of states organized around diverse and often contradictory grievances against the reigning US-centered international order — the BRICS alliance — can produce “a new multilateral order that can keep the peace and the path to sustainable development.”

Almost instantly, Sachs article was met with a critical response from Dr. Asoka Bandarage, who challenges the BRICS commitment to social justice for the smaller, weaker, less powerful nations:

Unfortunately, BRICS appears to be replicating the same patterns of domination and subordination in its relations with smaller nations that characterize traditional imperial powers. Whether the world is unipolar or multipolar, the continuation of a dominant global economic and financial system based on competitive technological and capitalist growth and environmental, social and cultural destruction will fundamentally not change the world and the disastrous trajectory we are on.

Through her intimate knowledge of Indian-Sri Lankan relations, Bandarage shows how decidedly unequal power relations function even with the BRICS founders, questioning: “…would this truly represent a move towards a ‘New International Order,’ or would it simply be a mutation of the existing paradigm of domination and subordination and geopolitical weight being equated with economic weight, i.e., ‘might is right’?”

A welcome voice joins the conversation with the April 16 issue of the Morning Star. Andrew Murray — Marxist trade union and anti-war leader — affirms that “[t]his is a moment of transition, so we should hold firmly in our heads that the destination is not foreordained.”

Indeed.

Murray, like the others, sees neoliberalism as the current order: “a prolonged assault on working-class institutions, on the social wage and on the sovereignty of the countries of the global South, with the state receding from some of the obligations it had assumed after 1945 — the maintenance of full employment for example.”

Unlike the others, he sees 2008 as the apogee of neoliberalism’s ascendance:

Neoliberalism met its own Waterloo in the crash of 2008. The stagnation in living standards since has been paralleled by an intellectual stagnation of the ruling classes, unable to easily preserve the old systemic assumptions yet equally incapable of transitioning to new ones.

Murray reminds us that the previous transitions always included the socialist options, noting a fascinating quote from former French socialist president François Mitterrand — frustrated by difficulties around the Programme commun of the Communists and Socialists — reportedly saying “in economics there are two solutions– either you are a Leninist or you won’t change anything.”

Until Murray’s contribution, no one even hints at a Leninist solution.

The leading oppositional candidate for a “solution” today is right populism. And we must take note of Murray’s warning: “Previous transitions have been accompanied by war, or at least violent social convulsions.”

If elites continue to cling to neoliberal dogma, “that hands the initiative to the Trumps, Le Pens and Weidels who embrace a lot of Hayek and a little of Hitler, a rhetorical dash of Roosevelt and nothing of Lenin,” concludes Murray.

Conclusion 

The growing sense that neoliberalism is a spent force, both popularly and in practice, leads to the question: “What comes next?”

Ruling circles offer only two choices:

1. Clinging to a nearly 50-year consensus of deregulation, privatization, public/private partnership (socialism for the capitalists), dismantling of social safety nets, austerity, growing inequality, and money-democracy.

2. A right-populism that postures as anti-establishment, but maintains existing unequal relations of power and wealth, employs bully-democracy, while dismantling the institutions and organizations of their opposition, and scattering their forces.

Neither choice challenges the socio-economic system that spawned both options: capitalism. Neither option serves the interest of the people.

The liberal Gerstle, the social democrat Milanović, the academic Marxist Anderson, and the multipolarista Sachs offer us a return to a disastrous neoliberalism or blind faith and hope in a yet-to-be-discovered solution.

Only Murray offers an approach with historical antecedents and the prospect of a sharp break with capitalist malignancy.

We must remember that those who have been swayed toward right-wing populism were despairing for better alternatives. Blaming their votes when they are offered no real choice is arrogant foolishness. Better we find a real alternative.

Without another alternative emerging, the neo-nationalism of right populism — expressed today as tariffs, sanctions, barriers (protectionism) — will inevitably lead to war.

The only answer to an obscenely inhuman capitalism hell bent on a catastrophic path is the “Lenin” answer: socialism.