Wang Zhao: An Analysis of the Adjustments in Theoretical Programs and Policy Positions Since the Split of the Socialist International
The Socialist International (SI) is an international organization of socialist, social democratic, and labor parties, along with other organizations, that adhere to the theory of social democracy. It was once the largest and most influential international party organization in the world, dedicated to strengthening ties between member parties, coordinating their views and actions, and promoting the expansion of social democratic thought and movements globally. The establishment of the Progressive Alliance in 2013 marked a split within the Socialist International. While some articles have interpreted the reasons for this split, there remains a lack of comprehensive introduction to the dynamics of the SI since the divide occurred. By tracing the dilemmas faced by the Socialist International in the decade since the split and the theoretical and policy adjustments it has undertaken, we can better understand how the SI—now primarily composed of socialist parties from developing countries—has explored theoretical transformation and its latest developmental trends amidst the hardships following the international financial crisis.
I. Dilemmas Faced by the Socialist International Since the Split
Since the outbreak of the 2012 international financial crisis, social democratic parties have entered a period of political decline, and the Socialist International has faced numerous challenges. Organizationally, its internal mechanisms have become rigid and mired in bureaucratism; theoretically, it lacks innovation and has been squeezed by right-wing discourse; and electorally, both left-wing and right-wing populist parties have diverted the traditional support base of socialist parties, leading to a sustained slump in election results. However, in the face of these challenges, instead of strengthening their union to respond to the crisis, member parties of the Socialist International experienced a trend toward fragmentation. With the founding of the Progressive Alliance on May 22, 2013, the Socialist International split, resulting in two parallel international party organizations for social democracy. This has weakened the overall strength of social democracy and further exacerbated the SI's predicament, primarily manifesting in the following three areas.
First is the organizational dilemma. To begin with, in terms of organizational scale, the number of member parties in the Socialist International has dropped sharply. Changes in membership primarily fall into three categories: first, parties that joined the Progressive Alliance while retaining their membership in the SI; second, parties that downgraded their membership status in the SI and joined the Progressive Alliance; and third, parties that completely withdrew from the SI to join the Progressive Alliance. Currently, the total number of SI member parties has decreased to 132, while the Progressive Alliance has reached 140, which has to some extent weakened the SI's influence. Furthermore, regarding organizational cohesion, the establishment of the Progressive Alliance catalyzed division, opposition, and estrangement among SI member parties, weakening the organization's unity. Finally, in terms of organizational operation, member parties that joined the Progressive Alliance no longer actively participate in SI affairs, causing the SI's operations to fall into a state of inefficiency. For example, meetings of the SI Council, regional committees, and thematic committees have decreased significantly; SI activities are largely limited to publishing comments or statements on international hotspots on its official website, and its organizational coordination and rallying power continue to diminish.
Second is the ideological and theoretical dilemma. Firstly, the Socialist International struggles to propose innovative ideological theories. As founding members, Western European socialist parties were the primary intellectual contributors to the SI, driving its theoretical innovation and development. Their collective "exodus" upon the formation of the Progressive Alliance brought immense challenges to the SI's theoretical innovation. Secondly, its ability to lead the agenda has declined. The SI's policy agenda remains confined to traditional topics such as democracy and human rights, peace and conflict, and climate change and sustainable development, promoting its values of democracy, freedom, justice, and solidarity. However, against a backdrop of a complex international situation, the deep integration of economic and digital development, and the rise of populist parties impacting traditional party structures, the SI—now centered on developing-country parties—lacks the capacity for agenda-setting and leadership on emerging issues. It has gradually lost its voice on major international questions. Finally, there is a lack of theoretical exploration regarding the transformation of social democracy. Since the 2008 international financial crisis, in facing the worldwide crisis of social democracy, the SI has attempted to ideologically correct the "Third Way's" [1] compromises with neoliberalism and revive social democracy by returning to left-wing traditions. However, this has been limited to critiques of neoliberalism without proposing systematic theoretical propositions, showing a lack of theoretical reflection on the question of "whither social democracy."
Third is the fiscal dilemma. The operation of an organization requires certain financial guarantees, and the SI's funding comes primarily from membership fees. There is no upper limit on fees, and wealthy countries are encouraged to pay more; consequently, the fees paid by Western European member parties were previously much higher than those from developing countries, with the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) topping the list with an annual fee of £100,000. In January 2012, Sigmar Gabriel, then chairman of the SPD, announced the cessation of fee payments to the SI. After the Progressive Alliance was founded in 2013, 69 out of the SI's 162 member parties announced they would join it; the fees paid by these parties accounted for as much as 85% of the SI's total budget. The SPD's fee to the SI was reduced from £100,000 to £5,000, the Socialist Party of France halved its fee to £45,000, and the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland reduced its payment from £10,000 to £1,000. In 2017, a large number of members, including the SPD, officially withdrew and stopped paying fees altogether. Though some parties (like the British Labour Party) retained their SI membership, they automatically downgraded to observer status to reduce their fee obligations. This "exodus" led to a serious loss of dues, causing a budget shortfall and posing a severe challenge to the organization's development.
II. Adjustments to the Theoretical Program Since the Split
As the banner of an international party organization, the theoretical program is of great significance for consolidating organizational strength and achieving goals. Since the split, the Socialist International has adjusted its theoretical program, forming an ideological theory centered on a left-wing flavored set of basic values with "progressive politics" as its direction.
(i) Setting "Progressive Politics" as the Goal and Direction of Theoretical Transformation
Since the 2008 international financial crisis, against the backdrop of prevailing conservatism and neoliberalism, "progressivism" has become a synonym for left-wing policy. Progressivism believes in the common good and social justice, holding that society can be improved through effort. The "About Us" section of the SI's official website uses the title "Progressive Politics—for a Fairer World," demonstrating its distinct character in developing progressive politics. At the 26th SI Congress, the newly elected president Pedro Sánchez proposed making the SI an important ideological platform for the international progressive movement. Notably, after the 26th Congress, every SI press release has been signed with the slogan "In Solidarity; For Progress," highlighting the direction of developing progressive politics. Promoting "progressive politics" that favors individual well-being, social justice, and sustainable development has become the goal of the SI's theoretical transformation. Since the split, the SI has continuously clarified the connotations of "progressive politics" through its successive councils and congresses.
First, it ideologically opposes ultra-liberalism and conservatism, arguing that "we are experiencing a global confrontation between an ultra-liberal ideology and our progressive alternative." Former SI President George Papandreou pointed out the difference between the SI and conservatives: "They speak of fear, we speak of hope. They talk about punishment, we talk about change. They talk about austerity, we talk about reform. They are afraid of the people but want to save the banks. We are skeptical of the banks because we want to save the people." Second, regarding the view of the state, it emphasizes the state's role. Unlike the resistance to the state found in conservatism and ultra-liberalism, the SI advocates for progressive alternatives, viewing the welfare state as a condition for escaping the crisis. Third, regarding the view of development, it holds that true development can only be achieved by placing the economy, society, and the environment on equal priority. The SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society "aims to articulate, from a progressive political perspective, the governance approaches needed to solve global environmental problems, climate change, and these common challenges." Fourth, regarding human rights, it integrates human rights issues into every aspect of social democratic development. For instance, it views human rights as the core of development issues and global cooperation on climate change, formulates migration policies based on the principle of protecting human rights, and treats ownership of personal data in the era of big data as a fundamental human right.
(ii) Centering Theoretical Transformation on Basic Values with Left-wing Characteristics
First, it opposes the neoliberal view of freedom, arguing that the concept of responsibility should be emphasized more. Neoliberal freedom reflects capital's expansionary demand for global market freedom. Only under conditions of open markets can the global system of capitalism be effectively constructed. Since the SI split, the negative impacts of neoliberalism have continued to deepen. To reverse the compromises made to neoliberalism in the late 1990s and reshape its left-wing identity, the SI has changed its view on the principle of freedom. It argues that capitalism and free markets do not equate to freedom, and that emphasis should instead be placed on the responsibility of the individual to society, the responsibility of the strong to help the weak, and the responsibility of the present generation to future ones.
Second, it attaches greater importance to the value of equality to reshape left-wing identity. On one hand, it has elevated "equality" to the level of an organizational principle; the 25th SI Congress stated: "Equality is not an abstract right, but the organizing principle of our political work for the coming decades." On the other hand, it views equality as a complex, multi-layered issue, including gender equality, ethnic equality, equality for religious groups, and equality between the North and South. Furthermore, it advocates for a "true equality" distinct from that of conservatism and neoliberalism. The SI points out that conservatives believe inequality is natural or even necessary, and neoliberals believe equality of opportunity is sufficient; the SI’s moral foundation and values reject these views, envisioning true equality in terms of dignity, citizenship, public goods, and the global commons.
Third, it advocates for a new culture of solidarity. Firstly, it emphasizes solidarity as the method for responding to the challenges of the times. The 25th SI Congress noted that the hard-won solidarity between peoples is being attacked by nationalism, xenophobia, and isolationism. Solidarity is not a slogan; in this challenging moment, social democratic parties must stand together more than ever. Secondly, it calls for multi-layered solidarity as a basic pillar of the SI. In the face of organizational fragmentation caused by the Progressive Alliance, it notes that international solidarity is at the core of the social democratic identity and calls for strengthened unity among member parties. In the face of global challenges, it advocates for expanding global cooperation and strengthening solidarity both within and between nations. Thirdly, it proposes using solidarity to defend social democracy. The 2022 SI Council meeting called for defending social democracy with solidarity, defending the fraternity of the socialist family, and working together to "leave no one behind."
Fourth, it places democratic values at the heart of its ideological system. The SI believes that democracy is the foundation of freedom, justice, and social prosperity. As social democratic parties, SI members are defined by their fundamental commitment to democracy and its development. Regarding political democracy, it believes democracy is of overriding importance and treats supporting democratic processes worldwide as a core issue. Given the poor electoral performance of member parties, the SI has proposed views emphasizing the role of the opposition, arguing that in countries where democracy functions well, the opposition plays a vital role in checks and balances. Regarding economic democracy, it proposes the concept of "accountability to the people." Papandreou noted: "In the global economy, the challenge facing democracy is whether the state and the market are accountable to the needs of the people, whether they serve the people's best interests, and whether the people have the power to decide." Regarding social democracy, the SI believes the social democratic agenda focuses on everyone rather than a privileged few, serving as a viable alternative to nationalism and neoliberalism. Regarding international democracy, the SI believes the struggle for world democracy is a fight based on the values of freedom and equality: "Our goal is to ensure every citizen in the world has the same opportunity to live under democratic conditions, exercise their rights of freedom, and end oppression and authoritarianism."
Fifth, it proposes a new conception of peace. First, it elevates peace to the level of an organizational purpose. The Socialist International (SI) maintains that social democracy originated from the peace movement and that peace is the fundamental prerequisite for human progress and prosperity, as well as a precondition for development and democracy; military conflict and the destruction of life run counter to the social democratic movement. Accordingly, the 26th Congress of the SI elevated the value of peace to the status of an organizational purpose. Second, it holds that the causes of peace-breaking are multifaceted, with inequality at their root. The SI believes that peace is not merely the silence of weapons but must be consolidated through equality. Global terrorism is seen as a fundamental threat to peace, security, stability, and the SI's common values. Furthermore, world peace is closely linked to respect for human rights and minority rights, transparent democratic governance, social justice, the fair distribution of wealth, and the sustainable use of resources.
III. Adjustments to Policy Positions Since the Split of the Socialist International
Faced with changes in the external environment, an organization can only achieve better development by transforming itself. Following the split, and against a backdrop of intensified era-defined challenges and various dilemmas, the SI adjusted its policy positions across organizational, political, economic, climate change, and international spheres.
(1) Enhancing organizational vitality and democracy To address the difficulties brought about by the organizational split, the SI focused on enhancing organizational democracy and stimulating vitality through adaptive reforms. First, it promoted the payment of membership fees by linking them to participation rights. Prior to the 26th Congress, the SI issued a notice via its official website stating that only parties that had fulfilled their financial obligations were eligible to participate in the Congress and exercise voting rights; member parties could only participate in nominations and elections for the Presidium if they had paid their dues in full. At the 26th Congress, the SI leadership presented "Solidarity Awards" to member parties that had paid their fees in full. Second, it introduced competitive elections for leadership positions. The 24th Congress of the SI was the first to elect all officials through secret ballots and competitive elections. Although the SI subsequently experienced a split, competitive election was established as an organizational principle. Former SI Secretary General Luis Ayala noted: "As long as the international organization is democratically self-governed by its members, it will continue to succeed." Third, it enhanced the geographical representation of member parties. The key to internal organizational democracy is the active participation and proportional representation of all regional member parties. The election of the Presidium at the 26th Congress adhered to the principle of regional balance, using the D'Hondt method [2] to allocate vice-presidential seats proportionally to each region. Fourth, it advocated for the principle of gender equality. An amendment to the Statutes passed at the 25th Congress changed Article 5 to read: "Our goal is to have an equal number of men and women at all levels of our organization. Gender equality is a human rights issue for our movement." At the 26th Congress, a reform of gender representation was carried out, stipulating that female representatives must constitute no less than one-third of the elected Presidium members.
(2) Committing to strengthening and defending democratic institutions Since the split of the SI, democratic politics worldwide has suffered setbacks. The rise of populism has impacted liberal democracy; under market economy conditions, the marriage of politics and economy has "captured" democratic politics; and the rise of big data and social media in the digital age has influenced agenda-setting and electoral activities, with disinformation posing new challenges to democracy. In this context, the SI has proposed policy measures to defend democracy. First, it opposes populism. The SI believes the root cause of the rise of populism lies in the ineffective and unjust responses to the international financial crisis, particularly those related to austerity policies. To counter this, efforts must be made to reduce inequality, increase opportunities, and achieve sustainable growth for the benefit of all people. Second, it advocates for strengthening democratic institutions. This includes enhancing civic political participation, building fair and transparent electoral systems, strengthening the internal institutional building of political parties, and improving parliamentary and judicial systems. Third, it proposes measures to defend democracy in the digital age. Given that social networks can influence voter choice and challenge free and fair elections, the SI calls for vigilance against the interference of new technologies in elections and the adoption of safeguards. Considering the risks posed by powerful personalized profiling algorithms, the SI advocates for the protection of personal data, arguing that ownership of personal data should be regarded as a human right. Fourth, it mobilizes young people to participate in progressive politics. In an era of democratized information, young people are more aware of the world than ever before; they are being politicized and will not be satisfied with the rigid and authoritarian systems of the past. Consequently, the SI calls for social democratic parties to speak for the younger generation and become architects of democratic change.
(3) Formulating economic policy proposals with left-wing characteristics Since the split of the SI, the negative effects of the financial crisis have continued to manifest. In response, the SI has called on all countries to abandon fiscal austerity and formulate new economic policies. First, it takes a clear ideological stand against neoliberalism and the US-led international economic system, proposing to regulate global capital, place politics and democracy above the market, and end financial speculation. The SI believes the market economy cannot ensure justice; in an unequal world economic system, priority must be given to the interests of developing countries and a voice given to vulnerable groups. Second, it presents the principles and vision for center-left global economic policy. The "Restating our Centre-Left Vision for the Global Economy" passed at the 2013 Istanbul Council meeting proposed an agenda including structural reforms oriented toward sustainable growth, international cooperation to prevent tax evasion and avoidance, strengthening financial regulation at national and international levels, structural reform of social security systems, and global cooperation to eliminate poverty and address climate change. The "Declaration on Global Economic Priorities" passed at the 2014 Mexico Council meeting prioritized addressing inequality, strengthening financial regulation, the utilization of big data, and environmental and sustainable development. Third, it places the principle of equality at the core of economic policy. in 2016, the SI Commission on Inequality agreed on a series of fundamental policies to address inequality, including ending tax havens, implementing progressive taxation, levying capital taxes, and linking minimum wages to median incomes. "Achieving Greater Equality in National and Global Economies," passed at the 25th SI Congress, proposed fundamental principles and solutions for promoting equality.
(4) Calling for the protection of the freedoms and human rights of migrants and refugees Since the split of the SI, the issue of migrants and refugees has become a focal point of international concern. The SI states that migration is an issue it must address in the name of solidarity, respect, and social justice, based on its convictions as socialists, and with humanity and courage. First, it has formulated policy documents calling for the protection of the rights of migrants and refugees, successively passing documents such as the "Declaration on Family Reunification," the "Charter of Migrants’ Rights," the "Declaration on the Refugee Crisis," the "Declaration on Slavery and Migration," the "Resolution on Refugees," and the "Declaration on the Plight of Migrants and Refugees Globally." Among these, the "Charter of Migrants’ Rights" passed at the 2015 New York Council meeting serves as the programmatic document for the SI’s policies on migrants and refugees. Second, it focuses on vulnerable groups within the migrant and refugee crisis. For example, it calls for special care for unaccompanied minors and women, opposes the separation of migrant children from their parents, and calls for respect for the human rights of vulnerable children and adolescents. Third, it holds that the fundamental solution to the refugee crisis lies in promoting peace and democracy. The SI believes that the refugee crisis, conflict, and terrorism are closely linked; to end the refugee crisis, one must resolve conflicts, terrorism, and the lack of democracy, promoting the transition of war-torn countries toward peace and democracy. Fourth, it places the principle of multilateralism at the core of responding to the migrant and refugee crisis. The SI believes that solving the global refugee crisis requires coordinated action in conflict resolution, peace maintenance, sustainable development, democratization, and climate change response; the relationship between countries of origin and transit countries also needs coordination. Regarding the allocation of migrant and refugee quotas, it calls on the EU and the international community to formulate consistent policies and urges collective responses from EU countries.
(5) Proposing climate policies based on social democratic ideals Faced with the global environmental crisis, the SI has proposed climate policies based on social democratic ideals and plans for a transition toward a sustainable world society, prioritizing the prevention of catastrophic climate change. First, it advocates placing environmental protection at the core of economic growth strategies, promoting sustainable economic development and job creation. It argues that economic growth measured by GDP exacerbates inequality and that factors such as the Gini coefficient and the International Labour Organization’s indicators for decent work should be taken into account. Second, it advocates for a sustainable development model. The SI believes that achieving the goal of full development opportunities for all while protecting the planet's future requires a shift toward a sustainable development model. Sustainable development goals align with the values of the global social democratic movement, and the SI must lead the way globally. Third, it has proposed policy recommendations for controlling carbon emissions, such as establishing a Green Climate Fund, ending fossil fuel subsidies, implementing a global carbon tax, and carrying out global infrastructure projects for the transition to a post-carbon economy. Fourth, it advocates for the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The "Declaration on Climate Change" adopted at the 2015 Angola Council meeting placed climate justice at the center of climate policy, supporting common but differentiated responsibilities and maintaining that developed countries have an obligation to bear more responsibility. Fifth, it calls on the Socialist International to lead by example. To fulfill commitments on climate change, the 2017 New York Council meeting established the Commission on Climate Change and Energy, calling on member parties to set an example by reducing environmental damage and promoting the use of electronic documents to reduce the use of printed materials.
IV. Analysis and Evaluation
Since its reconstitution in 1951, the ideological and theoretical framework of the Socialist International has primarily undergone a transformation from democratic socialism to social democracy. The outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis plunged social democracy into a dilemma, forcing the SI to choose between a return to tradition or transformative change. The relevant adjustments and measures taken since the SI’s split reflect the latest explorations of the SI—now primarily composed of social democratic parties from developing countries—to respond to the challenges of the era and revive social democracy. These efforts reflect the progressive nature of a return to left-wing traditions, yet they also suffer from limitations such as insufficient ideological and theoretical innovation. The essence of the SI’s theoretical and policy adjustments is to harmonize social democratic values with the changed environment following the financial crisis, manifesting left-wing characteristics that distinguish it from neoliberalism. However, from the perspective of scientific socialism [3], the theoretical and policy framework of the Socialist International lacks sufficient scientific rigor and still faces structural dilemmas.
(1) Characteristics of the adjustments to the Socialist International's theoretical programs and policy positions First, adhering to basic values is the fundamental prerequisite. The social democratic movement denies the "historical necessity" of socialism and instead advocates for "ethical necessity"; therefore, ethical values such as freedom, justice, and solidarity occupy a core position in the SI's ideological and theoretical system. The SI believes that when basic values are transformed into binding behavioral norms for society through democratic procedures, they can promote the achievement of social democratic goals. Since the split, the SI's theoretical and policy adjustments have always revolved around basic values, imbuing freedom, justice, solidarity, democracy, and peace with new epochal connotations at the programmatic level. Simultaneously, it seeks new means and methods in the organizational, political, economic, social, and international fields to realize these basic values and promote their transformation into specific policies and practices. This adjustment, aimed at realizing basic values, continues the SI's tradition of abandoning institutional substitution in favor of pursuing ethical values, representing the continuation and development of the ethical socialism to which it adheres.
Second, pragmatism, eclecticism, and reformism are the basic principles. The principle of pragmatism is reflected in the SI’s tendency to propose "opportunistic" policy recommendations in response to specific problems, lacking systematic coherence. Eclecticism is a long-standing tradition of the SI; the theoretical and policy adjustments since the split remain an attempt to find a "Third Way" between traditional social democracy and neoliberalism, though they lean more toward the traditional left than they did in the late 1990s. Reformism is the fundamental theoretical feature of social democracy. Since the split, the starting point of the SI's theoretical and policy adjustments remains the repair and improvement of systems within the framework of capitalism. For example, it seeks to develop progressive politics, regulate financial capital, and propose measures to make globalization more humane and democratic, all without touching the existing political and economic structures of capitalism.
Third, moving from the nation-state toward a global vision is the primary direction. As globalization continues to advance, the world has become more closely interconnected and global issues have continuously emerged; consequently, the SI has increasingly shifted its policy focus from the domestic to the international arena. Since the split, the SI has gradually developed into an international party organization with socialist parties from developing countries as its mainstay. Its member parties span different regions and face complex and diverse domestic issues, leading to significant variations in the implementation of social democratic policies within the framework of the nation-state. In this context, the SI has increasingly focused its policy emphasis on the common problems facing humanity. Regarding values, it emphasizes the international application of fundamental values such as freedom, justice, solidarity, democracy, and peace. Regarding themes, it focuses on global issues such as conflict and peace, environmental protection, and migration. Regarding specific policies, it emphasizes the establishment of a democratic world society, advocates for the regulation of global capital, supports the establishment of welfare states, and promotes democratic global governance.
Fourth, a distinct left-wing character differentiates it from the Progressive Alliance (PA). The establishment of the Progressive Alliance was the direct cause of the SI's split and the difficulties it encountered. The social democratic movement subsequently bifurcated into the PA, dominated by West European socialist parties, and the SI, dominated by socialist parties from developing countries. Since the split, and against the backdrop of the PA moving toward institutionalization, the SI has gradually formed theoretical propositions that belong to social democracy but are distinct from those of the PA. Taking the "progressivism" advocated by both as an example: compared to the PA, the "progressive politics" championed by the SI highlights its left-wing character more prominently, emphasizing the protection of the interests of vulnerable groups and developing countries. From the perspective of the ideological spectrum, the progressive politics advocated by the SI is situated in a center-left position, while the progressivism advocated by the PA shows a center-right trend. From the perspective of international coalition strategies, the parties allied with the SI are traditional social democratic and nationalist parties [4] belonging to the traditional left-wing camp; meanwhile, the PA unites a broader center-left, expanding the scope of the social democratic alliance to even include the Democratic Party of the United States.
(2) The Effects of the Adjustment of the Socialist International's Theoretical Program and Policy Propositions
First, from the perspective of theoretical development, the SI's attempt to shift toward "progressive politics" represents the latest exploration in the reform and transformation of social democratic theory. This is manifested in the attempt to achieve a revival of social democracy by shifting the ideology back to the left and returning to left-wing traditions, which has driven the transformation and development of the SI's theoretical program. The SI has endowed its fundamental values with new connotations aligned with the characteristics of the era, achieving an advancement with the times for its core values. The adjustment of the theoretical program has ideologically coalesced the consensus of member parties, preventing the SI from falling into a greater split. At the same time, the "progressive politics" advocated by the SI strives to embody a left-wing character distinct from the PA, maintaining the SI's status and progressive nature as an international political actor. However, there are also the following deficiencies: (1) Insufficient theoretical innovation and a continuous decline in political leadership, reflecting the limitations in ideological and theoretical construction of an SI centered on developing-country socialist parties. The SI's advocacy for the development of "progressive politics" was a theoretical choice made under the pressures of the post-international financial crisis predicament and the establishment of the PA. Although "progressive politics" draws on the concept of "progressivism," its essence remains an attempt to seek a "Third Way" [5] between neoliberalism and traditional social democracy, albeit with a slight turn to the left. (2) Lack of theoretical systematicity. Although the SI is committed to developing "progressive politics," it has not proposed a future vision for it, nor has it provided a specific plan for achieving this goal. Regarding the connotation of "progressive politics," the SI only offers scattered discourses in leadership speeches or conference documents, and member parties have not conducted in-depth discussions on it. In the elucidation of the fundamental values of social democracy, it often provides specific interpretations for specific problems without systematically summarizing the basic values. Conversely, the PA has not only explained its vision for "progressive politics" through conference documents but has also deeply explored the fundamental values of social democracy through a series of theoretical seminars. For example, centered on democratic values, the PA held seminars in Asia and Europe and produced a policy document titled Building Resilient Democracies.
Second, from the perspective of policy effects, the SI has achieved continuity and development at the organizational level through policy adjustments, avoiding a more serious organizational split and basically maintaining its influence within the social democratic movement as the PA moves toward systemization. By proposing social democratic policy solutions to the challenges of the times, it has responded to the calls of developing countries and vulnerable groups, demonstrating progressiveness. By returning to the left-wing propositions of traditional social democracy, the SI's image as a "spokesperson for fairness and justice" has gradually rebounded, which is of positive significance for strengthening the world's left-wing forces. As an international party organization with a long history, despite its internal split, the SI remains an important political force in the broad world socialist movement. The policy propositions it has put forward are of positive significance for regulating capitalism, improving the global governance system, promoting world peace and development, and advancing the construction of a new world political and economic order. Although the SI has carried out policy adjustments, it still faces a series of challenges, mainly manifested in the following aspects: (1) The rupture between theory and practice. The theories and policies of the SI carry utopian colors, and many of the measures it proposes remain restricted to the level of theoretical propaganda. In practice, the SI's policy discourse is difficult to transform into policy advantages. In the current global context of "strong capital and weak socialism," it is difficult to obtain leadership over global policy reform and rule-making. Furthermore, there are many marginal small parties among the SI's member parties that cannot function as constructive opposition parties in their respective countries, which greatly limits the SI's ability to translate policy and exercise influence. Putting theory into practice remains a challenge. (2) Conflict between internationalism and national interests. Although the SI advocates for the establishment of a new internationalism and a new culture of solidarity, there is a conflict between the internationalist mission of member parties as social democratic parties and their domestic interests as representatives of the national working class; national interests remain the foothold of social democratic theory and policy. Due to the large number of member parties and the difficulty of coordinating interests, many disagreements still exist within the organization, and the future development of the SI still faces many dilemmas.
(3) The Essence of the Adjustment of the Socialist International's Theoretical Program and Policy Propositions
First, the fundamental purpose of the adjustment of the SI's theoretical program and policy propositions is to adapt social democratic values to the changes in the contemporary environment. Fundamental values serve as a main thread running through the development of the SI and constitute the core of its theoretical system; adjustments to these fundamental values reflect changes in social democratic theory. The SI understands social democracy as the realization of fundamental values such as freedom, justice, and solidarity in different fields. Different understandings of how these values are realized often trigger transformations in social democratic theory. The thirty years following the end of World War II were the "Golden Age" of capitalist development. Socialist parties took Keynesian macroeconomic regulation and the welfare state as the means to realize their fundamental values, achieving great successes in the construction of social democracy. Consequently, the famous European liberal thinker Ralf Dahrendorf called the 20th century the "Social Democratic Century." Since the 1970s, with the emergence of "stagflation" in Western capitalist countries and the deepening of economic globalization, Keynesianism based on the nation-state gradually failed, and welfare state policies became unsustainable. In this context, socialist parties innovated the means of realizing their fundamental values, proposing the "Third Way" that leaned toward neoliberalism, drawing on market principles and implementing "active welfare." The 2008 international financial crisis exposed the flaws of neoliberalism, and internal organizational splits further impacted the values of the SI. In this context, the SI turned its means of realizing fundamental values toward "progressive politics," shifting back to the left ideologically. It proposed a series of policy claims reflecting the interests of developing countries and vulnerable groups, and advocated that in the digital age, we should "put into practice the principles and values representing social democracy by combining them with the opportunities provided by new information technologies and communications," thereby promoting the practice and development of fundamental values under new historical conditions.
Second, the logical thread of the adjustment of the SI's theoretical program and policy propositions is the reconciliation of the relationship between social democracy and liberalism. The SI has proposed several intellectual sources in its theories and policies, but in terms of the fundamental values it pursues, "democratic socialism has only one source, namely liberalism." Specifically, this refers to the legal and ethical principles advocated by Enlightenment thinkers during the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity. When Eduard Bernstein revised Marxism, he pointed out that "socialism is the legitimate heir to liberalism, not only in chronological order but also in its spiritual content," and that socialism could be called an "organized liberalism." Thomas Meyer also noted: "Historically, modern socialism is the thorough and continuous development of the liberal movement of the modern era." Looking at its history of more than 70 years, the relationship between the SI and liberalism has been one of both opposition and cooperation. Theoretically, the Frankfurt Declaration adopted in 1951 proclaimed the struggle to "build a new society in freedom by democratic means." In the context of the Cold War, although the SI criticized liberalism, because it abandoned the systemic alternative to capitalism, there was no fundamental difference between it and liberalism in terms of maintaining national interests. On the economic level, since it abandoned the public ownership of the means of production, the mixed economy advocated by the SI was consistent with the liberal goal of maintaining private ownership. On the social level, the welfare state policy was also jointly established by socialist and liberal parties. By the end of the Cold War, although the SI's theories and policies showed convergence with neoliberalism, they still reflected the characteristics of a "Third Force" between communism and capitalism. Since the end of the Cold War, against the backdrop of the collapse of the bipolar structure, the SI accelerated its compromise with liberalism. This compromise reached its peak with the proposal of the "Third Way" in the late 1990s. With the advancement of neoliberal globalization, the trend of convergence between the SI's theories and policies and neoliberalism deepened. Since entering the 21st century, as the drawbacks of globalization have gradually become apparent, the SI has step-by-step adjusted its relationship with neoliberalism. For instance, the 22nd SI Congress proposed ideas for global governance and explicitly opposed neoliberalism. The outbreak of the 2008 international financial crisis marked the bankruptcy of neoliberalism characterized by laissez-faire. After experiencing a "deep integration" with neoliberalism, the SI's theories and policies were also stamped with its brand. Since the split, under the backdrop of intensifying internal and external crises, the SI has attempted to draw a clear line with neoliberalism, re-proposing theories and policies that embody social democratic characteristics, reclaiming the identity features lost due to the compromise with neoliberalism, and revitalizing left-wing politics. The SI pointed out: "Because neoliberal ideology is deeply rooted among the elites, new efforts must be made to explain the content of social democracy and make our voices heard." However, as seen from the adjustments, while the SI is working hard to "separate" from neoliberalism, it has not put forward a systematic theory. The future development of the SI will depend on how it handles its relationship with liberalism and whether it can propose theoretical claims that embody its own distinct characteristics.
Third, from the perspective of scientific socialism, the theoretical programs and policy positions of the Socialist International (SI) lack scientific rigor and face structural dilemmas. First, by ignoring class contradictions and conflicts, "human liberation" cannot be achieved through incremental reforms. Scientific socialism holds that in a class society, class struggle is inevitable and will trigger social revolution and systemic replacement, ultimately realizing communism and human liberation. Although the theory of social democracy advocated by the SI does not ignore the existence of classes, it opposes the use of class struggle and revolutionary means to resolve the class contradictions and conflicts inherent in capitalist society; instead, it attempts to promote the gradual realization of fundamental values such as freedom, equality, and justice through reformist means. Since the split, although the SI has promoted a shift in social democratic theory toward "progressivism," it still adheres to a "reformist" [6] character. This determines that the theories advocated by the SI cannot achieve the fundamental goal of "human liberation."
Second, by ignoring the class nature of the state, it is impossible to truly realize socialism while accepting the premise of the capitalist state. Scientific socialism maintains that the state is, in its essence, the product of irreconcilable class contradictions and an instrument for the ruling class to exercise its dictatorship; in a capitalist society, it is the instrument of the bourgeois dictatorship. Therefore, the proletariat must overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and "use its political supremacy" to "organize itself as the ruling class." [7] However, the conception of the state advocated by the SI strenuously opposes the dictatorship of the proletariat. Although the SI adjusted its theoretical program after the split, it still takes the identification with the capitalist state and its democratic political system as a basic premise. Yet, without changing the capitalist system, the socialist ideal can hardly be truly realized.
Third, the policy positions of the Socialist International are subject to the developmental conditions of capitalism. In 1951, the Frankfurt Declaration adopted by the First Congress of the Socialist International continued the revisionism of Bernstein [8], advocating that the pursuit of socialism be grounded in ethical values. This policy model determined the pragmatic character of the SI's policy positions, and the premise of not overthrowing the capitalist system also determined the non-thoroughness of its policy claims. Since the 2008 international financial crisis, the world economy has fallen into recession. The policy positions characterized by macro-control and redistribution advocated by the SI have fallen into a policy dilemma due to a lack of funding sources. Socialist parties that moved closer to neoliberalism were unable to propose effective countermeasures in the face of the crisis, and the practice of returning to Keynesianism appeared out of step with the times. Regarding this, some scholars have pointed out that constructing a progressive economic growth model that can serve as an alternative to conservative economic orthodoxy is more necessary than ever. "It is no exaggeration to say that the future of progressive politics depends on our ability to formulate such an alternative model." However, judging from the adjustments in theory and policy since the split of the Socialist International, progressive politics and its policy positions will always be constrained by the development of capitalism as long as the capitalist system remains untouched. This determines that the structural dilemmas of the Socialist International’s theory and policy will persist over the long term.
(Author’s affiliation: Institute of Contemporary Socialism, Shandong University) Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 2, 2023