Discussion Paper to a workshop on "Political economy on 'right wing populism'

1 Politi al E o o y of Authoritaria is a d of ‘ight Wi g Populis . May, Or a , “zydło, Le Pe , Gaula d/AfD … – the EU in a crisis of legitimation etwee eoli eral refor ers a d differe t authoritaria right wi g for es Some short remarks as preliminary answers to the five workshop questions This short paper should give some more drive to the discussion in our workshop. It is based upon the longer and the very long discussion papers which have been already sent and which are also to be found on the workshop blog. I. What is at stake in this debate and in which terms can the underlying issue be most clearly discussed? App oa hi g ‘ight Wi g Populis a d Autho ita ia is f o a pe spe ti e of iti al politi al economy requires us to analyse and discuss these issues from the specific perspective of the development of the relations between people in the economic life of the society. The crucial question here is about the aim and the mode of the on-going process of the socialization of labour, with its societal, economic, social, ecological and global consequences. The te ight i g populis is isleadi g: We should ot fo us ou dis ussio o a y ki d of o u i atio te h i ue di e ted at the popula asses , ut o the ideology, poli y a d especially economic policy of such right- i g age ts, ith thei spe ifi i te est poli ies , ho lai to a t i the i te est of the a o e all o di a y people ithout a y alie a kg ou d . These forces are opposing the political management, as it is dominant in the EU, as ignoring or countera ti g the i te ests of ou o di a y people . They ai at lo ki g the do i a t ki d of globalisation, and especially the dominant practices concerning the management of migration and the rules followed concerning the grant of asylum status. They ignore or they openly hurt the real interests of the majorities of populations in the EU, in Europe and in the world. Often they are more or less directly connected to right-wing extremist resp. fascist forces, but this cannot be generalized as su h. We a t to u de sta d thei atu e , a kg ou d a d su esses, in order to understand our societies more adequately and to become able to work more efficiently on left-wing resp. emancipatory and solidarity-oriented political strategies and on developing societal alternatives. II. What has been the emergence (in social, economic, and cultural terms) of these issues, as indicated and made use of by so- alled right-wing-populis withi the EU a d its e er states, since the beginning of the years 2000? In the beginning of the years 2000, three interconnected developments have reached a new stage, in their dimension and in the intensity of controversially acting together: - Deep global and European changes, - the EU enlargement processes, the pre-history and the implementation of the Lisbon strategy, - ongoing changes in societal and social structures, with the effect of intensifying contradictions, especially in European and EU member countries. 2 This has been connected to increasing pressure on the middle classes in the old EU member states and on the majorities of the populations of the new EU member states. We face   ongoing liberalization, commercialization and privatization, rising social gaps, rising social disillusions, frustrations, and fears, as well as diminishing possibilities to shape the society in a democratic way a crisis of traditional conservatism, of social democracy and, as a result, of political representation. Both tendencies have provoked a critique of globalization which has not been answered by strong left-wing forces in a political offensive, but by an advance of anti-emancipatory and more or less anti-liberal forces. These forces appeal to all possible society members, but preferably to the iddle lasses hi h ha e so ethi g to lose o a e thi ki g that they ould dese e so ethi g better – positioning themselves in a sharp contrast to the people getting or needing social benefits, above all to refugees and to migrants. III. What is the current state of these problems within the EU and in its member states? The societal and social problems which have emerged and above all increased more or less in the years 2000 have been further reinforced by the ways of how the ruling powers have reacted to the crisis as it has broken out in 2008. This concerns especially the management of the Euro und EU ises, hi h has i luded the st ategy EU2020 a d the EMU i p o e e t . The u de lyi g societal and social problems have even been further exacerbated by the wars, conflicts and huge disintegration problems in the EU neighbourhood, in turn reinforced by the specific EU neighbourhood policies. The most tragic and crassest consequences have been the enormous migration and mass escape of people evicted by violence and hoping for a provisional stay or long term residence in the EU. Immigration and islamophobia, racism, anti-liberal EU criticism and a Eu os epti is hi h has ee o e o less st o gly ad o ated a d p opagated ha e ee growing in strength and in many cases they have been influencing specific policies of member states and of the EU. Efforts of coping with ecological and global problems have been marginalised in the e y sa e p o ess. The epe toi e of the o e ode ate fu da e talist ight-wing and autho ita ia fo es ith ega d to a o e a o ly o ei ed e o o i poli y is, ho e e , ot o ly i o ay o pati le ith a y lai s fo a p ote tio of o di a y people . It is also athe strongly ambivalent with regard to their demands for an authoritarian state, as it includes key elements which clearly weaken the capacity to act of the respective states: the prevention of state economic intervention, the introduction of tax cutbacks, especially in favour of the rich and richer, a reduction in the size and the capabilities of the state apparatus, the privatisation of public companies and of state and communal functions, as well as demands for significantly cutting su sidies fo a y di e sio of ultu e. But these populist fo es at the sa e ti e put forward additional demands for state subsidies in various economic and social areas, for state protection of the health se i e a d fo e efits fo those ho eally eed the , fo fa ilies, fo se u ity a d especially for reinforcing the police. Accordingly, their programs and their propaganda efforts combine the economic aims of neo-liberal deregulation with the mobilization of feelings of antiglobalisation and antimodernisation, on the one hand, and of income redistribution in favour of higher income groups, with social demagogy, and with elements of a selective welfare state 3 protection, on the other hand. Deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation are supposed to strengthen the position of their respective national economies in global competition. At the same ti e, the espe ti e o state should e p ote ted agai st othe states y additio al egulatio . Global competition by low-salary countries is being made use of in finding a justification for p ote tio is . The efo e, the ight-wing populists do, i fa t, t y to put i to p a ti e a contradictory strategy, in order to address an extremely differentiated voter spectrum with strongly divergent interests. This makes it even more complicated to discuss common European emancipatory and solidarityoriented strategies. And the matter is being made even more difficult by the fact that different ight- i g populist fo es do, i fa t, ha e e y diffe e t positio s o e i g the dissolutio o continued existence of the European Monetary Union and the European Union. IV. Which political conclusions can be drawn from all this? The central challenge for the left-wing forces is and will be to search for possibilities to act politically in an effective way, defending the real liberty and equality of all concerned. This starts with initiatives which will be feasible on the local level, within the municipality, constituting the left as an attractive and living force, capable of helping the weakest, of working on specific projects concerning the e e yday life of o di a y people , of effe ti ely deali g ith a y ki d of th eat emerging from anti-emancipatory forces – by organising communication and co-operation of people and groups on specific problems and pursuing emancipatory aims, while at the same time building and strengthening solidarity. This should be connected with a radical left critique of the forms and the modes of the on-going globalisation processes, of the really existing European Union and its agencies, especially addressing those based ithi thei espe ti e o ou t y. A d this should be connected with short- und middle term alternative proposals and with political demands aiming at improving the social situation of the socially weak, as well as the effective social security of the middle classes. The specific ways of living accessible in everyday life – and with them the free access to the commons – should be put into the centre of left-wing strategy. But all of this must be connected with a process of radical self-criticism and with the clarification of the fact, that the dissolution of the EU would be used to their advantage by powerful capitalist oligarchies, as they are based on the TNCs, and would, therefore, further exacerbate the societal, social, ecological and global problems, as they have emerged. V. Questions for further research Five questions - which are closely interrelated – are to be addressed more especially by further research: The first and central question is a very complex one and has been accompanying us now for years already: why is the left so weak? The second question should be about the different agencies – who is doing what, and why, and with which consequences for the political conditions of the different – neoliberal, ight- i g populist a d fundamentalist – agencies? The third question simply has to be: What does all this mean for the political conditions of left-wing agencies? How can we improve the own political economy and the economic policy of the left-wing forces? 4 The fourth question should be about the consequences to be drawn from our analyses for the different scenarios of societal development more or less directly derived from economic developments and therefore also from the economic policies as they have been pursued. The debate connected with these questions challenges us, finally, to address a fifth question: i.e. to advance towards a deeper analysis and a more comprehensive discussion of the politi al e o o y of se u ity . Be ause, ulti ately, e y i po ta t EU leadi g politicians and state rulers want to organise a new consensus within the EU by basing it on issues of security.