Huang Fei: An Investigation of the British Leftist Lineage After World War II — A Comparison of the British New Left, the Communist Party, and the Labour Party's Ideologies
The current global landscape is undergoing structural changes. The traditional Western left faces a predicament, radical right-wing forces are on the rise, and the world order exhibits tendencies toward de-globalization and populism. Changes in social power relations resulting from these great global transformations have posed severe challenges to traditional leftist politics and produced many theoretical questions that require scholarly answers. As a country where leftist forces were relatively active during the 20th century, the United Kingdom’s leftist thought has received significant attention in recent years. After World War II, there were three representative leftist forces in Britain, which appeared chronologically as the Labour Party, the Communist Party, and the New Left. Their processes of rise, development, and decline are basically consistent with the general developmental path of the Western left after World War II. Using these three as entry points to analyze their similarities and differences helps in summarizing and scrutinizing the developmental patterns and common issues of the post-WWII Western left, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing contemporary world socialism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era. To this end, this article takes the thought of the British New Left, the Communist Party, and the Labour Party after WWII as research objects. It attempts a comparative analysis of their thought across four dimensions—theoretical foundations, value orientations, practical strategies, and historical positioning—centering on four core questions: "How to view Marxism," "What kind of socialism to pursue," "How to realize socialism," and "What position is held within the leftist spectrum." These four dimensions manifest the following relationship: the understanding of Marxism often constitutes the foundation of leftist thought; this foundation directly influences the value orientation of the socialism the left pursues; practical strategies are reflections on the path to realizing socialism, profoundly influenced by theoretical foundations and value orientations; and the first three dimensions together determine the fourth, namely, the historical positioning within the leftist spectrum. The internal logic of these four dimensions constitutes the basic tenets of the left.
I. The Developmental Trajectory of the British New Left, the Communist Party, and the Labour Party
(1) The British New Left In the late 1950s, the New Left movement erupted across the Western world, among which the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in Britain, the "May Events" [1] in France, and the Civil Rights Movement in the United States had relatively large impacts. The revelation of Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 caused a massive shock within the Communist Party of Great Britain (hereafter "CPGB"), serving as the fuse for the explosion of the British New Left movement. Some former CPGB members, together with other independent leftist forces, constituted the British New Left (hereafter "New Left"). The British New Left movement formed in the late 1950s, developed in the 1960s, and gradually declined under the impact of neoliberalism in the late 1970s. It was a political and intellectual movement that rose in post-WWII Britain, rooted in British indigenous radicalism, merging Marxism, the socialism of the traditional labor movement, and radical youth culture. It aimed to explore a "third way" for socialism, distinct from both "actually existing socialism" and traditional social democracy. During this process, a group of New Left scholars emerged and formed New Left thought. Primary figures included E. P. Thompson, John Saville, Stuart Hall, Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggart, Ralph Miliband, Raphael Samuel, Perry Anderson, and Tom Nairn.
The first generation of the New Left was primarily represented by Thompson, Saville, and Williams. Most were born before the 1930s, had experienced the war, possessed sympathy for the workers, and emphasized the role of national tradition and culture in social development. The second generation was represented by scholars like Anderson and Nairn, born after the 1930s. Most had not undergone the "baptism of war" and were deeply influenced by Continental Marxism. They identified with "structuralist Marxism" and held many theoretical disagreements with the first generation. Hall noted in a later memoir that the two generations of the British New Left represented the generational difference between the pre-war and post-war cohorts, manifesting a conflict between "labor culture" and "metropolitan culture." Major works of the New Left include Out of Apathy and the May Day Manifesto. In the early period, the journals The New Reasoner and the Universities and Left Review were the primary vehicles for propaganda; these two later merged into New Left Review, which became the main theoretical front for disseminating New Left thought.
(2) The Communist Party of Great Britain The Communist Party of Great Britain was founded in 1920. It was initially composed of representatives from the British Socialist Party, the Communist Unity Group of the Socialist Labour Party, and the South Wales Communist Council; later, the Communist Labour Party, the Workers' Socialist Federation, and the left wing of the Independent Labour Party (ILP) also joined sequentially. In its early years, the CPGB’s work primarily involved leading domestic industrial strikes and supporting the anti-imperialist struggles of colonial peoples abroad. In 1935, the CPGB published a systematic party program, For a Soviet Britain. Subsequently, revisions were made in 1951, 1957, 1968, 1977, and 1988. Among these, the 1951 program, The British Road to Socialism, proposed the possibility of a "peaceful transition to socialism." It elaborated on issues such as war and peace, national independence, people's democracy, socialist nationalization, increasing social services, strengthening the unity of the working people, and expanding the Communist Party organization.
After WWII, the CPGB underwent several splits. The first occurred after the revelation of Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" and the Hungarian Uprising in 1956, when some members resigned due to dissatisfaction with the CPGB's blind subservience to the Soviet Union. The second occurred during the Great Debate [2] of the international communist movement in the 1960s; internal splits arose over differing views on the international communist line, leading to the expulsion of some members who formed the "Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)" in April 1968. The third occurred in the mid-1970s, centering on the relationship between the CPGB and the CPSU; in 1977, some members broke away to establish the "New Communist Party of Britain." The fourth occurred in the 1980s, manifesting as a dispute between the majority faction led by Martin Jacques, editor of the party journal Marxism Today, and the minority faction led by Tony Chater, editor of the party newspaper Morning Star. The editor of the Morning Star and a portion of the membership were expelled, later forming the "Communist Party Movement." These successive splits severely drained the CPGB’s vitality. Following the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the CPGB abandoned its former theoretical line and struggle policies, changing its name in 1991 to "Democratic Left" and becoming a democratic socialist group. The former "Morning Star" faction took up the name and banner of the "Communist Party of Britain"; thereafter, what is referred to as the British Communist Party refers to this reorganized CPGB from the "Morning Star" faction.
(3) The British Labour Party As the most influential leftist party in 20th-century Britain, the Labour Party (hereafter "Labour") was founded in 1900, originally named the "Labour Representation Committee." It was an alliance composed of various socialist groups at the time, including the Fabian Society, the Independent Labour Party, the Social Democratic Federation, various trade unions, and some smaller socialist groups. It formed a parliamentary group and changed its name to "Labour" in 1906. In 1918, Labour issued its party program and constitution, Labour and the New Social Order, which mentioned in Clause IV, Section 4, the implementation of socialist common ownership and the abolition of private property. Subsequently, under the influence of democratic socialism and neoliberalism, Labour finally amended Clause IV in 1995, abandoning the goal of socialist common ownership. From the post-WWII period to the present, Labour has experienced four periods of governance: 1945–1951, 1964–1970, 1974–1979, and 1997–2010.
For a long time, Labour was divided into many internal factions, with the struggle between the party’s left and right wings being particularly fierce. The differences between the Labour left and right at various stages focused on four aspects. First, foreign policy: in the early post-war period, the Labour left was extremely dissatisfied with the right wing’s policy of aligning with the US against the USSR and maintaining a "special relationship" with the United States. Second, the revision of Clause IV: in the 1960s, in response to the party being out of power, the Labour right hoped to transform Labour from a working-class party into a "catch-all party" and thus advocated for deleting the content regarding socialist common ownership in Clause IV, which was strongly opposed by the Labour left. Third, defense policy: the Labour left advocated for a unilateral nuclear disarmament policy, while the right argued that Britain should possess its own nuclear weapons. Fourth, the struggle for party leadership: for a long time after the war, the right held the leadership positions, leading to incessant fighting between the left and right. Internal party struggles significantly impacted Labour’s support. To rebuild its leadership position, Labour implemented reforms in the late 1980s, attempting to move from the left toward the center to unite all factions into a cooperative leadership group. In 1994, Tony Blair became leader and proposed the policy of building "New Labour, New Britain." The implementation of this policy transformed Labour from a leftist party into a centrist party. In the short term, Labour attracted a large wave of centrist voters, laying the foundation for victory in the 1997 general election. However, in the long term, this policy blurred the distinction between Labour and the Conservative Party; Labour lost its own class characteristics and drifted further away from its identity as a working-class party.
II. Theoretical Foundation: How to View Marxism
Among these three schools, the New Left appeared latest, and its thought was largely formed based on a critique of the concepts of the CPGB and Labour; this is reflected in its theoretical foundation, value orientation, and practical strategy.
The CPGB took scientific socialism as its theoretical foundation, aiming to apply this theory to Britain and the world. Former CPGB General Secretary John Gollan once stated that the CPGB inherited the revolutionary tradition of the British Chartist movement, reaffirmed the struggle goals of the early socialist pioneers, upheld Marxist theory, and rejected reformist ideas of class collaboration. The basic characteristics of the CPGB are: first, being built on the foundation of Marxism-Leninism, including the emerging British Marxist tradition; second, being rooted in the working class and organized to carry out socialist revolution; third, adhering to democratic centralism; and fourth, advocating international solidarity and establishing close ties with the communist movements of other countries.
The ideological foundation of the Labour Party mainly comprises democratic socialism, Fabian socialism, trade unionism, radical liberalism, and ethical socialism. Labour’s self-positioning is that of a democratic socialist party. "Nationalization" and "welfare policy" were Labour's core propositions after WWII, but the CPGB argued that under the "nationalization" context of the Labour right, industries taken into state ownership could not become the foundation of a socialist economy. This is because large enterprises and industries remained in the hands of private capital; these large entities were used to seek profit for capitalism rather than welfare for the working people. Regarding the Labour right government's advocacy of cooperation with the bourgeoisie, the CPGB viewed this as an act of dividing and sabotaging the workers' movement by surrendering to capitalism.
The New Left both inherited Marxism and absorbed and merged democratic socialism, ethical socialism, and indigenous radicalism. The New Left assimilated the "humanist" tradition within Marxism and identified with certain elements of other thoughts; for instance, the emphasis on "morality" in ethical socialism profoundly influenced the New Left. Thompson inherited the Romantic tradition of ethical socialism and insisted that "Marx’s early thought was closely linked to the Romantic tradition," advocating for the realization of socialism through the reconstruction of virtue. The New Left continued Marx’s dialectical critical stance toward capitalism, both affirming the changes and progress brought to society by new developments in post-WWII capitalism and ruthlessly exposing the problems brought by "welfare capitalism." In the 1950s and 60s...
In the 1950s, when "welfare capitalism" was at its peak, the New Left had already begun to expose the problems inherent in "welfare capitalism" and "consumer capitalism" from perspectives such as social stratification, social values, the affluent society, modernization, consensus politics, and the humanities. At the same time, they launched a severe critique of the "new imperialism" led by the United States and Britain after World War II. The New Left's critical examination of "welfare capitalism" and "new imperialism" constituted a challenge to the capitalist order, providing powerful theoretical strength for contemporary socialists to conduct theoretical and normative critiques of capitalism.
III. Value Orientations: What Kind of Socialism to Pursue
The goal envisioned by the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) was to seize state power, abolish capitalism, and subsequently establish a communist society. The communist society in the CPGB’s ideal "is a classless society in which the need for the state as an instrument of class rule will disappear. This society will be without exploitation; the application of science and technology will free the people from monotonous labor, expanding leisure, education, and cultural pursuits to allow human capacities to be fully realized. In this society, just as Marx and Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto, 'the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.'"
The socialism pursued by the CPGB meant the end of capitalist exploitation, economic depression, unemployment, and the danger of war, with the ultimate goal being the realization of human freedom. In subsequent revisions of its program, the CPGB further refined the definition of socialism: "Socialism is a form of society in which the factories, mines, transport, banks, and land—all means of production, distribution, and exchange—are owned by the entire people and serve the interests of the whole."
Differing from the CPGB’s communist goals, although the Labour Party had declared its hope to establish a "classless society" in the early 20th century, it later continuously diluted this class-based character, revising its goal to the more ambiguous phrasing of establishing a "free society." Former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee once stated that Labour's purpose was to establish a cooperative commonwealth and a society of democratic politics characterized by freedom, security, and equality. "We want to give every man, woman, and child in this country a chance to lead the richest life that the resources of our island home allow."
Compared to the value orientations of the CPGB and the Labour Party, the New Left pursued the goal of a "humanist socialism." On the basis of reflecting upon traditional ideologies, the New Left attempted to excavate the humanist core within Marxism, reconstruct Marxist ethics, and build a "humanist socialism" centered on morality. Building on a re-examination of historical materialism, the New Left tried to combine the scientific method of Marxism with human freedom, rationality, and specific historical traditions. They aimed to achieve the free and comprehensive development of human beings by liberating them from the servitude of objects or economic necessity.
The fundamental characteristic of the New Left’s "socialist humanism" was the attempt to highlight the humanist spirit within Marxism, foreground the status of human beings as historical subjects [3], place morality at the heart of the socialist revolution, and advocate for the realization of the socialist ideal through moral means. The proposal of "socialist humanism" was a theoretical attempt by the New Left to construct a Marxism with British characteristics and explore a socialist path suited to the country's actual conditions. It affirmed the position of "man" within Marxism and sought to defend Marxist theory within the dimension of "human values." However, this ideology bore heavy traces of utopianism and ethical socialism; this abstract "humanism," divorced from the transformation of economic structures, ultimately fell into a rhapsodic quagmire.
IV. Practical Strategies: How to Achieve Socialism
Differing theoretical foundations and value orientations led the New Left, the CPGB, and the Labour Party to exhibit distinct characteristics in their practical strategies regarding economics, politics, and struggle tactics.
In economics, the CPGB advocated for socialist public ownership and the abolition of private property, insisting on socialist nationalization and a planned economy based on socialist principles. "Effect socialist nationalization of large-scale industry, banks, major supply and marketing monopolies, insurance companies, and the land of large landowners, and implement a government monopoly on foreign trade to break the power of millionaire monopolists and other large capitalists. Implement a planned economy according to socialist principles aimed at fundamentally transforming society."
In its early period of governance, the Labour Party also implemented "nationalization" policies, but it gradually transitioned toward a mixed economy. Under Labour's "nationalization," private capital still controlled major industrial sectors, and Britain's economic structure did not undergo fundamental change; workers lacked decision-making power in enterprises. Labour's "nationalization" "did not truly touch the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie, nor did it fundamentally change the nature of private ownership of the means of production. Regarding income distribution, although Labour proposed policies such as narrowing disparities, eliminating gender discrimination, and implementing financial subsidies, it did not fundamentally change the nature of 'distribution according to capital' [4], nor could it change the capitalist system of exploitation."
In response to Labour's incomplete "nationalization" and mixed economic policies that favored big capital, the New Left advocated for expanding the scope of nationalization onto the basis of the mixed economy and increasing social welfare.
In politics, the CPGB emphasized establishing a people's regime led by the working class in a broad alliance with various classes. State power should be exercised by the working class and its allies, though a parliamentary democratic system and a multi-party system could be implemented to carry out reforms in a democratic manner. Unlike the CPGB, the Labour Party did not emphasize working-class leadership but advocated for an open democratic system. This led the Labour Party to focus excessively on the democratic rights of its members organizationally, resulting in a loose structure and low efficiency. The most prominent feature of Labour's political platform was the policy of "universal welfare." After the war, the Labour government promulgated several social welfare acts, including the National Insurance Act, the National Assistance Act, the National Health Service Act, the Housing Act, and the Education Act, laying the foundation for the British "welfare state." However, Labour's "nationalization" and "universal welfare" policies were "welfare capitalism" implemented without fundamentally changing Britain’s existing social system; the difference from the Conservative Party lay only in the degree and scope of implementation. Moreover, the Labour Party had always carried a liberal tradition. "During and after the First World War, the Liberal Party began to disintegrate, and Liberal intellectuals began to move into the Labour Party, which gave Labour a permanent tendency to seek support to some extent not from within a class, but across class boundaries." Consequently, the Labour Party had a natural inclination toward the center. The New Left held a critical attitude toward the "welfare capitalism" and "consensus politics" promoted by Labour. They believed the "affluent society" brought by "welfare capitalism" was merely an illusion; behind the prosperity lay a severe imbalance between public and private investment, and the capitalist economy possessed structural flaws. They argued that the purpose of "consensus politics" was merely to create an illusion of democratic politics to stabilize the capitalist system. The New Left’s political positions were relatively close to the Labour Left—for example, opposing nuclear weapons and restricting but not eliminating private capital. Thus, the New Left once hoped to practice its political ideals by supporting the Labour Left, placing their hopes on the Labour Left forming a government cabinet. However, in the 1961 internal Labour vote on nuclear disarmament proposals, the Right won the majority, which effectively shattered the New Left’s hopes for the Labour Left.
In struggle strategies, the CPGB advocated for combining democratic struggle within Parliament with grassroots movements outside of it to establish a People’s Parliament and government representing the will of the people. "A united labor movement must strive to elect Labour and Communist Members of Parliament who can consistently implement policies of peace and socialism." In its 1951 program, The British Road to Socialism, the CPGB proposed the "theory of peaceful transition"—that is, achieving a "peaceful transition" to socialism via the democratic transformation of Parliament. The specific path to transition was through cooperation with a Left-wing Labour government to establish a broad democratic alliance. This was the CPGB's attempt to explore a British path to socialism, but peaceful transition did not mean abandoning the labor movement; the CPGB agreed that "only through the political and industrial struggles of the masses can the peaceful transition to socialism become a reality." Some scholars point out that although the CPGB’s "theory of peaceful transition" represented an exploration of an independent path, it overestimated the socialist elements within the Labour government, lacked operational struggle tactics, and lacked a scientific and reasonable judgment of Britain's national conditions and future trends.
Unlike the CPGB's strategy of combining parliamentary struggle with the labor movement, the Labour Party—influenced by democratic socialism and Fabian socialism—emphasized parliamentary struggle, advocated for class cooperation, opposed violent revolution and class struggle, and stressed taking state power through Parliament to promote gradual socialist reform. This emphasis on parliamentary struggle was also a general consensus among post-war Western social democratic parties. Differing from both the CPGB and Labour, the New Left proposed a "peace + revolution" strategy. This involved combining evolutionary transformation with saltatory [5] change, allowing socialist elements to mature within capitalism before making a revolutionary breakthrough to achieve socialism. While Labour advocated a gradualist reform model and traditional communism emphasized a violent revolutionary model, the New Left attempted to combine the quantitative change of the former with the qualitative change of the latter. They sought to accumulate quantitative changes in all aspects of social life, allowing socialist elements and forms to grow and mature within capitalism, and then performing a "peaceful revolution" at a specific juncture to achieve qualitative change. The key point of qualitative change lay in the transfer of class power—that is, the power of capital being ousted from the commanding heights and socialist democratic power being realized. This is the watershed between the highest stage of capitalism and socialism. The New Left also proposed that socialists accelerate the arrival of this critical juncture by critiquing the capitalist financial system and mass media, breaking the "fetishism of Parliament," fighting actively, seizing parliamentary power, and utilizing changes in the international environment to promote domestic revolutionary breakthroughs.
V. Historical Position: The Relative Positions and Issues of the British New Left, the Communist Party, and the Labour Party in the Post-War British Left Spectrum
Among these schools in the post-war British Left spectrum, based on their positions and viewpoints, the order from left to right is: the CPGB, the New Left, the Labour Left, and the Labour Right. The CPGB stood on the far left of the spectrum, advocating for socialist public ownership and the abolition of private property. Both the Labour Left and Right advocated for "nationalization" and "social welfare" policies and agreed on a mixed economy model, but with different emphases. The Labour Left believed the scope of "nationalization" should be expanded so that major industrial sectors were held by the government, while social welfare should be increased without excessively catering to bourgeois interests. The Labour Right tended to look after the interests of the bourgeoisie; in their view, major industrial sectors should remain under the control of private capital, with "nationalization" limited to auxiliary sectors. The New Left was initially close to the Labour Left in political views and once hoped to achieve socialist goals by supporting them, but after the failure of the nuclear disarmament proposal in 1961 and the shattering of those hopes, the New Left began its independent exploration. The main difference between the New Left and the Labour Left lay in their attitudes toward capitalism. The Labour Left believed capitalism could be utilized to promote the realization of socialism, whereas the New Left launched severe critiques of the defects of "welfare capitalism." The New Left’s positions lay between the CPGB and the Labour Left and, objectively, pushed both the CPGB and Labour toward self-renewal. To solve the problems brought by "nationalization," after returning to power in 1964, Harold Wilson’s government implemented reforms, attempting to replace "nationalization" with "planning"—formulating economic plans, strengthening state intervention, and restricting the market economy, while simultaneously promoting revolutions in science, technology, and education, transforming British industry, and increasing social welfare. On the other hand, with the support of the New Left, the strength of the Labour Left was also bolstered. In the 1970s, the Labour Left's power was for a time sufficient to contend with the Right, and a sharp leftward shift appeared within both the Labour Party and the trade unions. Regarding the CPGB, since the publication of The British Road to Socialism in 1951, it revised its party program and constitution multiple times in 1957, 1968, and 1977 based on domestic and international situations. The New Left's criticism also placed pressure on the CPGB leadership, making them pay more attention to exploring a socialist path in combination with their own reality rather than blindly following the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
As the latest of these three left-wing forces to emerge, the New Left occupies a transitional position in the history of post-WWII socialist development. It both inherited the ideological and movement characteristics of traditional left-wing forces, such as the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and the Labour Party, and laid a certain foundation for the diversified development of socialist movements in the late 20th century. Compared to the traditional Left, the New Left shares several theoretical points of similarity: for instance, identifying with the seizure of leadership [6] through parliamentary struggle to establish state power led by the working class; emphasizing the mobilization of working-class power and supporting strikes as a form of movement; and advocating for the maximum mobilization of all social strata in terms of its class base. Simultaneously, the New Left attempted to enrich and expand new socialist strategies: for example, advocating for diversified forms of socialist movement that should not be limited to industrial strikes; and emphasizing that Marxist and socialist intellectuals should participate in and play a key role in political movements. In the 1960s and 1970s, as waves of strikes and student movements surged across Europe and America, Marxist intellectuals also became politically active. "In Britain, Marxist historians—such as Christopher Hill, Edward Thompson, and Eric Hobsbawm—enjoyed immense prestige, large followings, and secure professional status. In France and Italy, the core categories used to explain the French Revolution and the Risorgimento were those articulated by Marxist historians." [19] At the same time, various new social movements emerged, such as feminism, the ecological movement, anti-racism, and new forms of mass youth culture. A key characteristic of the traditional Left was its opposition to traditional authority, especially capitalist authority. By the late 20th century, simple anti-capitalist opposition evolved into a rejection of social authority, and the socialist movement trended toward diversification. The issues centers by the New Left spanned many aspects of society, including the wealth gap, educational equity, healthcare and housing security, feminism, imperialism, transnational corporations, and the Cold War. It also inspired attention toward non-material issues such as human nature, culture, focus on the individual and the self, and care for vulnerable groups. In the humanities and social sciences, the concepts, ideas, and methods proposed by the New Left exerted a positive influence on late 20th-century history, sociology, political science, and cultural studies, driving the innovation of theoretical paradigms across disciplines.
It is necessary to point out that although the New Left proposed several views distinct from the traditional Left, the New Left and its ideas also possessed certain limitations. It was precisely these issues that limited the breadth and depth of its influence. Ideologically, New Left thought never managed to ascend into a systematic or standardized theory; its fragmented and non-systemic views made it difficult for the public to quickly grasp its core essence. The early New Left was deeply influenced by ethical socialism, viewing socialism as a moral ideal. Its ideas lacked a scientific foundation and carried a relatively strong utopian hue. As one of the most important theoretical cornerstones in the development of socialism from utopia to science, Marx’s analysis of the general laws of capitalist economic operation was almost entirely absent from New Left thought. This neglect of economic factors made it difficult for the New Left to find a fundamental way to break through capitalism. Organizationally, the New Left lacked internal cohesion and suffered from serious ideological divisions. It lacked a unified and firm theoretical source, and its pursuit of values was pluralistic and dispersed. It neglected the theory of the revolutionary party and possessed a strong tendency toward intellectual elitism, which alienated it from the masses [7] and prevented the full mobilization of working-class initiative. Furthermore, the measures it proposed for socialist revolution and construction lacked practical feasibility. These problems restricted the development of the New Left, making it difficult to exert substantive political influence. The decline of the New Left after the 1980s was due not only to external environmental influences but also to these internal defects.
Post-WWII Western left-wing forces experienced a developmental process ranging from prosperity to downturn, followed by a gradual struggle for revival amidst setbacks. Before the war, left-wing forces strove for governing power through struggle. In the 1950s and 60s, these forces were developed and consolidated. Since the late 1970s, with the global expansion of neoliberalism, the survival space for the Left has been continuously squeezed. Following the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Western Left suffered heavy blows and underwent restructuring, struggling for survival and experiencing a brief "revival" in the late 1990s. After the 2008 financial crisis, the Western Left again adjusted and updated itself according to the new situation, showing a certain degree of "reversion" toward traditional left-wing concepts. For a long time, the Western Left has generally faced several problems. First, blurred identity. Left-wing parties have vacillated between being "class parties" or "catch-all parties." This lack of clear identity has led to a blurring of their social and class bases, creating an urgent need to reshape a unique left-wing identity and image. Second, numerous factions and serious internal fragmentation. Although alliances such as the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties and the "Initiative" of Communist and Workers' Parties in Europe have formed, the Left remains internally fractured with frequent conflicts, making it difficult to exert powerful influence. Third, the theoretical system is insufficiently systematic or standardized. Although there were innovative theoretical attempts like "Eurocommunism" and the "Third Way," these were essentially modifications of past left-wing principles merged with liberal and reformist discourse, failing to withstand the tests of changing times. Fourth, there is an excess of critique but a deficit in construction. Regarding protests against the existing capitalist system, the Left is often able to point out the flaws and crux of the problem sharply; however, it struggles to propose effective, practical solutions for overcoming crises and solving problems. These issues have greatly restricted the development of the Western Left.
VI. Conclusion
Since the late 1970s, under the influence of neoliberalism, capitalism has developed in a largely unrestricted state and undergone global expansion. On one hand, this has brought about the strengthening of monopolies; on the other, it has led to the prevalence of financial capitalism. Wealth has shifted from labor toward financial speculation, and the massive development of credit led to the creation of financial bubbles, eventually triggering the 2008 financial crisis. Global capital concentration and over-accumulation have generated increasing instability and exacerbated inequality. On the one hand, finance is no longer a tool for serving the productive forces but has become the master of economic life, distorting economic development. On the other hand, financial capital has gained political power and controlled the major political parties of Western nations, turning them into mouthpieces for financial titans. The crises faced by contemporary capitalism are persistent and systemic, rooted in the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Phenomena such as the difficulty of economic recovery, serious polarization between rich and poor, ideological crises, declining soft power, and intensifying social conflicts increasingly expose the fragility of this system. How to transcend capitalism and reconstruct a new international system is a question that contemporary socialists need to ponder. In this regard, Marx provides us with powerful analytical and critical tools. Marx’s analysis of capitalist economic laws and contradictions still offers profound answers to the questions of our time. If 21st-century socialists wish to understand and transform the world, they should apply Marxist analytical and critical tools to ensure that left-wing thought serves the pursuit of socialist goals.
For the British New Left, the "cultural turn" was not an escape from politics, but rather a broadening of the political sphere. By shifting the focus of critique from the economic base to the cultural superstructure, they successfully integrated the daily life experiences of the working class into the Marxist analytical framework. However, this focus also led to a degree of "fragmentation" within New Left theory, making it difficult to form a unified political program capable of effectively responding to the systematic onslaught of neoliberalism.
In contrast, the British Communist Party (CPGB), though possessing a rigorous organizational structure and a clear theoretical tradition of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, found it difficult to break free from the constraints of traditional "orthodoxy" in the face of a changing class structure and the emergence of "new social movements." While the Party attempted to adapt to the new era by proposing the "British Road to Socialism," the inherent tension between its "vanguard party" logic and the pluralistic demands of British civil society ultimately limited its political appeal.
The Labour Party, as the primary political vehicle for the British working class, has long fluctuated between "Old Labour" social democracy and the "Third Way" [8] of the New Labour era. This reflects the internal tension within the British left between "reform" and "transformation." While the Labour Party possesses the capacity for institutional mobilization, its excessive reliance on parliamentary struggle [9] has, at times, led to a disconnect from the grassroots mass line.
In the New Era, as the global landscape undergoes profound changes unseen in a century, the evolution of the British left's genealogy offers important historical lessons. Whether it is the New Left’s cultural critique, the CPGB’s insistence on the socialist orientation, or the Labour Party’s exploration of governance paths, all demonstrate that the Sinicization of Marxism [10] and the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics must uphold the fundamentals and break new ground. We must not only persist in taking the development of productive forces as the central task to promote high-quality development and achieve common prosperity, but also continuously improve the superstructure, promote whole-process people's democracy, and advance the Four Comprehensives in a coordinated manner. Only by integrating the universal truths of Marxism with a country's specific realities and its fine traditional culture can we ensure that the cause of socialism remains vibrant.
[8] Donald Sassoon, One Hundred Years of Socialism: The West European Left in the Twentieth Century (Social Sciences Academic Press, 2017 edition), p. 592. (Author’s affiliation: School of International Studies, Renmin University of China) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Scientific Socialism, Issue 1, 2021.