In 2010, the late British historian Tony Judt questioned the malaise that was engulfing our world after the great crisis of 2008 in an essay that, sixteen years later, remains relevant. The book, which in the Catalan version was titled The World Is Not Enough, began with a resounding warning: "There is something profoundly wrong with our current way of life." After recalling that "we cannot continue living like this," in a world so unjust and unequal, and noting that, however, "we seem incapable of conceiving alternatives," the essay advocated a return to social democracy, which is the policy that has historically brought the most well-being and equality to European society and which Judt considered, without idealizing it, as "the best option available." Of course, as long as it served to change the current state of affairs. In fact, the book concluded with a paraphrase of a well-known statement by Marx: "So far, philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."
The world, however, does not seem to have taken the path that Judt indicated. The malaise persists, within the context of an economy that is capable of creating a lot of employment but not of correcting inequalities. Because, as the economist Antón Costas recalled, "economic growth, by itself, does not improve citizens' lives." In fact, today, and despite the good macroeconomic figures, the undoubtedly most disturbing factor is the housing crisis, the enormous difficulty that young people and newcomers have in accessing affordable housing. This persistent malaise stems, in large part, from the 2008 financial crisis and, above all, from the way it was handled. Instead of reforming the system, as even the right-wing proposed - the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, said at the time that it was necessary to "refound capitalism on an ethic of effort and work" - we witnessed a bailout of the banks based on an immorality: the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses. It is true that it was not reasonable to let the financial system collapse: it was "too big to fail," we were told. But the result was that, in essence, we found that politics could not be imposed on economics.
On the other hand, the strength of social democracy –whose credibility was vindicated at last week's summit in Barcelona, after years of inaction– had precisely been to tame the market: accepting the capitalist system (and therefore renouncing revolution), but ensuring redistribution and social welfare. The British Labour Party had said, "We do not worship the market, we use it," but then they did not practice what they preached, and Tony Blair, the leader of a so-called Third Way, became, for many, the heir to Mrs. Thatcher. The result is that, apparently, the economy has been more powerful than politics. Furthermore, in the European sphere, the inadequacy of a half-built federation, the European Union, lacking basic instruments such as fiscal union, which should be the other side of monetary union, has become evident.
It is in the face of this undisputed dominance of the globalized economy that, in recent years, a part of the population has channeled its discontent towards far-right options. I do not ignore, although I cannot dwell on it for reasons of space, other elements that have contributed to this drift: from cultural battles – in which the left has acted with a certain hubris– to the spread of powerful tools for mass control and manipulation such as social networks. The result, however, is that these sectors have not hesitated to throw away their vote, a vote that is essentially a protest vote and on which it will be difficult to build anything good. The proof is where these forces have reached, touching power: they fail immediately.
All in all, it is important to say that Europe – and the Western world– is not advancing towards fascism. We are very far from the 1930s: a century and a much-improved world separate us from what existed then. Even more so: the anti-system forces that have emerged in recent years cannot properly be called fascism. In any case, we know that fascist experiments lasted little (although they did cause great suffering) and ended very badly: and this is what will happen now. The reaction has already begun, as we have seen in Hungary and Italy. But for this to happen, the left must propose itself again, and above all, to subject markets to the general interest: it is doing so in cities like Paris or New York, and there are reasons to believe that it can do so on a global scale. It must, however, get to work. A lot of work has piled up.
