The most relevant events taking place world-wide are doing so beyond the boundaries of predominant theories and even in contradiction to them. Twenty years ago, conservative political thought declared the end of history, the advent of ever-lasting peace overseen by the "normal" development of capitalism – in freedom and to the benefit of all – finally freed from the competition posed by socialism, the latter having been irrevocably consigned to the rubbish bin of history. Against all these forecasts, there was, during this period, more war than peace, social inequalities became more deeply etched, starvation, pandemics and violence intensified, China "developed" without freedom and by means of massive human rights violations, and finally, socialism was back on the political agenda of certain countries. I am focusing on this latter point because it consitutes a challenge not only for conservative but also for progressive political thought. The absence of an alternative to capitalism has been internalized as much by the one as by the other. In the progressive camp, this accounts for the predominence of "third ways", seeking to find in capitalism a solution for the problems which socialism was unable to solve.
In 2005, the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, placed the construction of "socialism in the 21st century" on the political agenda. Since then, two other rulers – like Chavez, elected democratically – Evo Morales (Bolivia) and Rafael Correa (Ecuador), have opted for the same route. What is the meaning of this apparent denial of the end of history? What is the visage of the proposed alternatives to capitalism? What potential, what risks does it carry with it? Socialism re-emerges because neo-liberal capitalism not only has not honoured its pledges, but has also attempted to conceal the fact through military and cultural arrogance; because its ravenous appetite for natural resources has embroiled it in unjust wars and ended up ceding power to some of the countries that have them; because Cuba – whatever one’s opinion on the regime there – continues to be an example of international solidarity and dignity in its resistance to the super power; because, since 2001, the World Social Forum has been pointing to post-capitalist futures, albeit without defining them; because in this process visibility and strength have been gained by social movements whose struggles for land, water, sovereignty in feeding their peoples, an end to external debt and racial and sexual discrimination, for cultural identity and for a just and ecologically balanced society appear to be doomed to failure under neo-liberal capitalism.
Twenty first century socialism, a self-explanatory formulation, can be defined for the time being rather more for what it is not, as opposed to what it is: it does not want to be the same as 20th century socialism, whose mistakes and failures it does not want to repeat. It is not, however, enough to posit such an intention. A thorough debate is needed on the mistakes and failures if the wish to avoid them is to have any credibility. When in December of last year, President Chavez announced his intention of creating a unified socialist party to include several parties which support the government, the fear this generated that here was a proposal for a Soviet-style single party regime acutely demonstrates how clearly people still remember the recent past. If such a de-identification with 20th century socialism is to be achieved in a meaningful way, some of the following strands of its alternative should emerge: a peaceful and democratic regime grounded on the complementarity between representative democracy and participatory democracy; the legitimacy of a wide range of opinions, with no place for the sinister figure of the "enemy of the people"; a production mode which is based less on State property and more so on producer associations; a mixed property regime in which private; State, and collective (cooperative) property exist side by side; competition over a long period of time between the economy of selfishness and the economy of altruism, shall we say, between Microsoft Windows and Linux; a system which will be well-equipped to compete with capitalism in generating wealth and which will be better than capitalism in its respect for nature and distributive justice; a new, experimental type of State, more de-centralized and transparent, so as to make it easier to exert public control over the State and create public spaces that are not run by the State; a recognition of interculturality and pluri-nationality (as applicable); the permanent struggle against corruption and the privileges issuing from bureaucracy or party loyalty; a boosting of education, knowledge (scientific and other) and an end to sexual, racial, and religious discrimination taken on as governmental priorities. Is such an alternative possible? The issue is on the table. Under existing conditions, it seems more difficult than ever to implant socialism in a single country but, on the other hand, applying the same model to different countries may not be a solution to be entertained. Thus, there will be no socialism in the 21st century, but rather socialisms. They will have this in common, that they will recognize themselves in the definition of socialism as a never-ending democracy.