Denmark’s Election: Blurring Political Differences

On 24 March, Denmark goes to the polls in an early election that could reshape the Nordic country’s political landscape

Earlier this year, Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was riding a modest “Greenland bounce” due to the tense stand-off with Donald Trump over Greenland. While this may have prompted her to call a snap election to save her flagging mandate, it is domestic politics that have defined the campaign, and with more than a dozen parties in the mix, the outcome is far from clear.

The results may also mark an end of Denmark’s traditional bloc politics. Since the 2022 election, Denmark has been governed by an unusual “over-the-centre” grand coalition between the Social Democrats, the liberal Venstre, and the centrist Moderates. This arrangement broke with decades of political custom, as Frederiksen chose to govern alongside her traditional rivals despite having a nominal left-wing majority available. The result has been a – predictably – uneasy and often unpopular government, caught between ideological compromise and a restless electorate.

Political Polarization

If Frederiksen’s centrist experiment was intended to stabilize Danish politics, it failed, and the polarization of Danish politics has continued to intensify. The governing coalition has overseen a noticeable rightward shift on economic, social, and migration issues – including the abolition of a popular national holiday to fund weapons for Ukraine – and this has come at a political cost. In the November 2025 local elections, both the Social Democrats and Venstre suffered heavy losses, while the Moderates nearly collapsed entirely.

The Social Democrats’ loss of control of Copenhagen – its treasured stronghold for over a century – underscored the depth of the disaster. A fragmented and polarized political landscape emerged. While the government parties experienced a drubbing, gains were made by the green-left Socialist People’s Party (SF), the right-libertarian Liberal Alliance (LA), and the two main parties of the far right, the Denmark Democrats (DD) and the Danish People’s Party (DF).

Both Sides of the Fence

Rather than interpreting these results as a signal to shift clearly left or right, Frederiksen seems to be trying to do both at the same time. On the one hand, her government has doubled down on already strict (and to many critics simply racist)  migration and integration policies, that have garnered Frederiksen praise from social democrats – and others further to the right – internationally who wish to emulate her rightward tack on migration. On the other, it has made a clear left turn on material issues, placing more traditionally left-wing economic rhetoric and policy promises at the heart of the election campaign.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.  

„Sozialismus ist keine Utopie – er ist voller Leben“

Pelle Dragsted von der dänischen rot-grünen Partei Enhedslisten spricht über sein neues Buch „Nordic Socialism“

In den letzten Jahren wuchs das Interesse am Sozialismus wieder, oft genährt durch wachsende Ungleichheiten, die Klimakrise und das Scheitern neoliberaler Politik. Doch wie sieht Sozialismus aus, wenn er bereits in alltäglichen Institutionen existiert? 

Pelle Dragsted, Abgeordneter im dänischen Folketing für die rot-grünen Enhedslisten, sieht das nordische Modell als Antwort – und die demokratischen und gemeinschaftlichen Elemente, die es bereits beinhaltet. Sein 2021 veröffentlichtes Buch „Nordisk Socialisme“ wurde in seinem Heimatland von der Kritik gelobt und regte eine öffentliche Debatte an, einschließlich einer zehnteiligen Diskussionsreihe in der Zeitung Information. Kurz darauf wurde das Werk ins Schwedische übersetzt; und nun wird es endlich auch auf Englisch veröffentlicht.

In seinem Buch analysiert Dragsted anhand der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Erfahrungen in Dänemark die Strategie der Linken und interpretiert diese neu, was zu einigen unorthodoxen Schlussfolgerungen führt. Ihm zufolge hindert die Sichtweise, dass die Gesellschaft vollständig vom Kapitalismus durchdrungen sei, die Linke daran, wahrhaftige sozialistische Alternativen zum Kapitalismus zu schaffen, und verschleiert den Wert von Einrichtungen wie Mitarbeiterunternehmen und dem nicht der Marktlogik unterworfenen öffentlichen Sektor.

Dragsted betont, dass unsere Gesellschaften tatsächlich eine Mischung aus Kapitalismus und Sozialismus seien (je nach Land in unterschiedlichem Maß) und dass Bestrebungen, den Kapitalismus zu stürzen und durch Sozialismus zu ersetzen, kontraproduktiv seien und radikalen Reformen im Wege stünden, die die demokratischen und sozialistischen Aspekte der Gesellschaft stärken könnten. Auf Grundlage dieser Analyse schlägt er zehn Reformen für eine deutlich demokratischere Wirtschaft vor.

Mit Blick auf die Veröffentlichung seines Werks auf Englisch bei University of Wisconsin Press war der Autor jüngst mit Unterstützung der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung auf Werbetour in den USA. Unterwegs sprach er mit Duroyan Fertl über sein Buch – darüber, was ihn dazu bewegt hat, und wie der Weg zu einer demokratischen Wirtschaft in Dänemark und anderswo aussehen kann.

Duroyan Fertl: Ihr Buch „Nordic Socialism“, wie es in der neu erschienenen englischen Übersetzung heißt, befasst sich mit der wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Geschichte Dänemarks und anderer nordischer Länder sowie mit Projekten, die eine demokratischere Wirtschaft anstreben. Darüber hinaus greift es übergeordnete philosophische und politische Debatten rund um die Linke auf – Fragen wie Freiheit und Demokratie, aber auch sozialistische Strategie – und liefert konkrete Vorschläge zur Förderung des demokratischen Sozialismus. Was hat Sie dazu gebracht, dieses Buch zu schreiben, und was hoffen Sie damit zu erreichen?

Pelle Dragsted: Dieses Buch entstand aus einem Gefühl der Dringlichkeit. Es wird immer offensichtlicher, dass wir nicht weiter zulassen können, dass der Kapitalismus unsere Wirtschaft dominiert – nicht nur, weil er ungerecht ist, sondern auch, weil er das Fundament der Demokratie selbst untergräbt, wie wir in den USA erleben. Die für den Kapitalismus typische Konzentration von Vermögen führt zu oligarchischer Macht. Dadurch beruht politischer Einfluss nicht mehr auf einem demokratischen Mandat, sondern auf der Kontrolle über Vermögen und Wirtschaft. Das ist nicht etwa ein Mangel, sondern vielmehr ein unvermeidliches Merkmal der kapitalistischen Eigentumsverhältnisse.

Sozialismus: von der Utopie zur Wirklichkeit

Aber es ist einfach, den Kapitalismus schlechtzureden. Darin war die Linke schon immer gut. Immer mehr Menschen stimmen zu, dass unser heutiges Wirtschaftsmodell nicht haltbar ist. Warum gibt es dann keine Mehrheit für einen Wandel hin zu einem Modell einer gerechteren, demokratischeren Wirtschaft, zu dem, was wir Sozialismus nennen würden? Das liegt unter anderem daran, dass die Linke sehr gut darin ist, Kritik zu üben und pauschale Aussagen über sozialistischen Wandel zu machen, aber weniger gut darin, eine gangbare Alternative anzubieten und Antworten auf die schwierigen Fragen zu geben, die rund um die Demokratisierung von Wirtschaft, Arbeit und Teilen des Marktes aufkommen.

Zu lange wurde der Sozialismus als Utopie betrachtet und nicht in unseren alltäglichen Kampf integriert – weder in Parlamenten oder Gewerkschaften noch in Volksbewegungen. Die Motivation für mein Buch war, den Sozialismus greifbarer, verständlicher und gangbar zu machen. Ich wollte ihn aus dem Reich der Utopien in unser tägliches Engagement bringen.

Ich freue mich sehr, dass das Buch jetzt auf Englisch veröffentlicht wird. Es ist der richtige Zeitpunkt. Die Welt braucht mehr denn je eine konkrete Alternative zum Neoliberalismus der Mitte und zum Populismus der Rechten. Derzeit bin ich in den USA, wo der demokratische Sozialismus durch den Sieg von Zohran Mamdani bei den New Yorker Vorwahlen [für die Bürgermeisterwahl am 4. November] erneut in den Vordergrund gerückt ist. Wenn mein Buch demokratischen Sozialist*innen in aller Welt dabei helfen kann, wirksamer für eine sozialistische Alternative zu werben, wäre das ein riesiger Erfolg.

 Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

  

“Il socialismo non è un’utopia: è vivo e vegeto”

Pelle Dragsted dell’Alleanza Rosso-Verde della Danimarca parla del suo nuovo libro, Nordic Socialism.

Negli ultimi anni, un rinnovato interesse per il socialismo è cresciuto in tutta Europa e oltre, spesso innescato dalla crescente disuguaglianza, dal collasso climatico e dai fallimenti della governance neoliberista. Ma come si presenta il socialismo quando è già presente nelle istituzioni quotidiane?

Pelle Dragsted, membro del Folketing danese per l’Alleanza Rosso-Verde, ritiene che la risposta risieda nel modello nordico e nel riconoscimento degli elementi democratici e cooperativi già in esso incorporati. Nel 2021, il suo libro Nordisk Socialisme (Socialismo Nordico) ha suscitato sia il plauso della critica che il dibattito pubblico in tutto il suo Paese d’origine, tra cui una serie di dibattiti in dieci puntate sul quotidiano Information. Il libro è stato pubblicato in svedese poco dopo e ora, finalmente, sarà pubblicato in inglese dalla Wisconsin University Press.

Il libro di Dragsted sfrutta le esperienze economiche e politiche della Danimarca per analizzare e reinterpretare la strategia della sinistra, giungendo ad alcune conclusioni poco ortodosse. Sostiene che l’idea che le società siano interamente colonizzate dal capitalismo impedisce alla sinistra di costruire con successo alternative socialiste al capitalismo e oscura il valore di istituzioni come le cooperative di proprietà dei lavoratori e il settore pubblico non-mercatista.

In effetti, egli insiste non solo sul fatto che le nostre società sono ibridi di capitalismo e socialismo (con gradi variabili da paese a paese), ma anche sul fatto che le prospettive che mirano a rovesciare il capitalismo e sostituirlo con il socialismo sono controproducenti e ostacolano riforme radicali significative che potrebbero migliorare gli aspetti democratici e socialisti della società. Con questa analisi in mente, Dragsted suggerisce una serie di dieci riforme per aprire la strada a un’economia molto più democratizzata.

Con “Socialismo nordico” in uscita in inglese con la University of Wisconsin Press alla fine di questo mese, Pelle Dragsted è attualmente impegnato in un tour promozionale negli Stati Uniti, supportato dalla Fondazione Rosa Luxemburg. Tra una tappa e l’altra, ha parlato con Duroyan Fertl del libro, delle motivazioni che lo hanno spinto a scriverlo e del percorso verso un’economia democratica in Danimarca e oltre.

Il suo libro “Socialismo nordico” , appena pubblicato in inglese, esamina la storia economica e sociale della Danimarca e di altri paesi nordici, compresi i progetti volti a una maggiore democrazia economica. Affronta anche alcuni dibattiti filosofici e politici molto più ampi a sinistra  – questioni di libertà e democrazia, ma anche di strategia socialista  – e avanza proposte concrete per la costruzione del socialismo democratico. Qual è stata la sua motivazione per scrivere questo libro e cosa spera di ottenere, soprattutto ora che è stato pubblicato in inglese?

Ho scritto il libro per un senso di urgenza. Sta diventando sempre più evidente che non possiamo più permettere al capitalismo di dominare le nostre economie. Non è solo ingiusto, ma, come stiamo vedendo negli Stati Uniti, sta minando le fondamenta stesse della democrazia. La concentrazione della ricchezza insita nel capitalismo crea un potere oligarchico – un’influenza politica che deriva non da mandati democratici, ma dal controllo della ricchezza e dell’economia. Questo non è un difetto; è una caratteristica, un risultato inevitabile dei modelli di proprietà capitalistici.

Ma ecco il punto: non è difficile sostenere che il capitalismo sia dannoso. La sinistra è sempre stata brava in questo. Sempre più persone concordano sul fatto che il modo in cui attualmente organizziamo l’economia non sia sostenibile. Allora perché non riusciamo a ottenere una maggioranza favorevole alla trasformazione dell’economia in un modello più equo e democratico, quello che chiameremmo socialismo?

Uno dei motivi è che la sinistra è stata eccellente nel criticare e nel fare affermazioni ampie e generali sul cambiamento socialista. Tuttavia, siamo stati meno efficaci nel presentare un’alternativa praticabile e nel rispondere alle difficili domande che sorgono quando parliamo di democratizzazione dell’economia, del mondo del lavoro e persino di parti del mercato.

Per troppo tempo, il socialismo è stato trattato come una visione utopica, non radicata nelle nostre lotte quotidiane – che si tratti di parlamenti, sindacati o movimenti popolari. Quindi, la motivazione del libro era quella di rendere il socialismo più concreto, comprensibile e praticabile. Di portarlo fuori dal regno dell’utopia e di inserirlo nel lavoro pratico che stiamo svolgendo oggi.

'L’esperienza nordica ci insegna che il rapporto tra proprietà democratica (socialista) e proprietà non democratica (capitalista) non è fisso.'

Ora che il libro è disponibile in inglese, sono molto emozionato. Il momento sembra giusto. Il mondo, più che mai, ha bisogno di un’alternativa concreta sia al neoliberismo centrista che al populismo di destra. In questo momento mi trovo negli Stati Uniti, dove il successo di Mamdani alle primarie di New York ha rimesso in discussione il socialismo democratico. Se il mio libro potesse aiutare i socialisti democratici di tutto il mondo a sostenere con maggiore efficacia un’alternativa socialista, sarebbe un risultato straordinario.

I paesi nordici sono spesso visti come un punto di riferimento progressista per i loro stati sociali storicamente solidi e la relativa uguaglianza sociale, ma solitamente nel contesto di un capitalismo “più gradevole”. Ironicamente, tuttavia, il punto di partenza del suo libro è un rapporto dell’amministrazione Trump del 2018 che definisce i paesi nordici “socialisti”. Trump ha ragione ? 

Questo è un argomento centrale del mio libro: che i socialisti possono imparare dall’esperienza nordica. Abbiamo trascurato di riconoscerlo a sinistra, e questo ha reso inutilmente difficile sostenere un cambiamento socialista.

Il termine “socialismo nordico” è stato in realtà coniato da Trump. Durante il suo primo mandato, la Casa Bianca pubblicò un rapporto che metteva esplicitamente in guardia contro quello che chiamava “socialismo nordico”. Era una risposta ai progressisti americani come Bernie Sanders e Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, che avevano indicato la Danimarca e i paesi nordici come fonti di ispirazione per la loro visione di socialismo democratico.

In Danimarca, i politici di ogni schieramento hanno rapidamente respinto l’affermazione. Il nostro ministro degli Esteri l’ha definita “assurda”. Persino molti esponenti della sinistra danese hanno respinto l’etichetta. Ma uno dei messaggi chiave del mio libro è questo: Fox News, Trump e persino Bernie Sanders hanno più ragione di quanto siamo disposti ad ammettere quando associano i paesi nordici al socialismo. A mio avviso, il modello nordico contiene già forti elementi socialisti e abbracciare questa verità potrebbe aiutarci a costruire un futuro più giusto e democratico.

Potresti definire cosa intendi per “socialismo nordico” e in che modo si differenzia da altre concezioni del socialismo? 

Se definiamo il socialismo come l’organizzazione delle attività economiche all’interno di un quadro democratico di proprietà comune, allora i paesi nordici sono più vicini al socialismo rispetto, ad esempio, agli Stati Uniti. I paesi nordici hanno vasti settori pubblici – servizi di assistenza, istruzione, sanità – di proprietà e gestiti dal pubblico piuttosto che dai capitalisti. Questi settori sono finanziati attraverso la tassazione solidale, non attraverso gli scambi di mercato. Circa un lavoratore su tre è impiegato nel settore pubblico non-profit nei paesi nordici.

Ma la proprietà democratica non si ferma alla sfera pubblica. Anche il settore privato vanta una lunga tradizione di cooperative, mutue e associazioni, possedute e gestite da lavoratori, piccoli produttori o consumatori. Ad esempio, la nostra seconda catena di supermercati più grande, Coop, è di proprietà dei suoi 2 milioni di clienti. Non c’è nessun Jeff Bezos che ricava profitti quando andiamo a fare la spesa lì. Molti di noi detengono prestiti, assicurazioni o risparmi in cooperative di credito o mutue, tutte di proprietà collettiva. In Danimarca, un’unità abitativa su cinque è di proprietà collettiva tramite cooperative abitative senza scopo di lucro.

Ora, non sto affermando che questi settori siano utopie socialiste. Devono affrontare sfide reali. Ma sono qualitativamente diversi: governati democraticamente e con profitti ridistribuiti tra i membri, non accumulati da una ristretta élite. Contribuiscono a controbilanciare il potere oligarchico anziché rafforzarlo.

Quindi, in un certo senso, uso il termine “socialismo nordico” sia in senso descrittivo che normativo. Descrittivamente, le economie nordiche sono più socialiste di, per esempio, gli Stati Uniti. Normativamente, le vedo come una visione per un’economia futura, ancora più socialista, fondata sulle tradizioni nordiche di proprietà pubblica e cooperativa, che demercifica ampie parti dell’economia.

Molte delle proposte storiche più promettenti per consolidare il “socialismo nordico” esistente  – come la Democrazia Economica in Danimarca o il piano Meidner in Svezia – non sono mai state pienamente realizzate. Al contrario, abbiamo assistito a decenni di neoliberismo affermarsi nella regione nordica, indebolendo lo stato sociale e altre istituzioni democratiche e sociali.  Qual è l’attuale rapporto di forza tra neoliberismo e “socialismo nordico”? 

Il modello nordico raggiunse l’apice negli anni ’70, con lo stato sociale al suo apice e il settore cooperativo che svolgeva un ruolo significativo nell’economia. Si progettava persino una radicale trasformazione della proprietà attraverso il cosiddetto “socialismo dei fondi”, trasferendo la proprietà delle grandi imprese a fondi controllati dai lavoratori. Ma da allora, c’è stato un contrattacco neoliberista al socialismo nordico. Abbiamo assistito all’espansione della proprietà capitalista attraverso la privatizzazione e il ridimensionamento di parti dello stato sociale.

Uno dei messaggi chiave del mio libro è che il fallimento dei socialdemocratici fu la loro riluttanza a sfidare la proprietà capitalista in modo più aggressivo. Troppo potere economico rimase nelle mani di un’élite proprietaria e, quando si presentò l’opportunità, reagì. Questa è una lezione importante: quando i socialisti saliranno al potere, il nostro compito principale dovrebbe essere quello di contrastare il potere oligarchico democratizzando la proprietà in tutta l’economia.

'Senza cambiamenti nella proprietà, tutte le riforme sociali saranno fragili.'

Vale anche la pena sottolineare che, anche dopo quattro decenni di reazione neoliberista, il modello nordico non è stato completamente smantellato. Abbiamo ancora un settore sostanzialmente demercificato, con assistenza sanitaria, istruzione e cura fornite pubblicamente. E il settore cooperativo rimane forte nei settori dell’edilizia abitativa, della finanza e dell’agricoltura.

Ciò dimostra che è difficile annullare completamente questo tipo di guadagni. L’esperienza nordica ci insegna che il rapporto tra proprietà democratica (socialista) e proprietà non democratica (capitalista) non è fisso. È possibile modificare il mix e spostare l’equilibrio di potere.

Queste conquiste progressiste si sono verificate in gran parte sotto i governi socialdemocratici del dopoguerra. Oltre all’abbandono da parte della socialdemocrazia di questo zelo “riformista”, lei accusa anche l’”utopismo” della sinistra rivoluzionaria di aver indebolito le forze democratiche e socialiste nei paesi nordici. Ma va oltre: al posto della vecchia distinzione binaria riformista/rivoluzionaria a sinistra, lei sostiene un approccio che descrive come “gradualista”. Può approfondire questa idea? 

All’inizio del secolo scorso, i socialdemocratici avevano come obiettivo dichiarato un’economia socialista e attuarono riforme che li avvicinarono a tale obiettivo.

Nel corso dei decenni, questo obiettivo è stato annacquato e oggi i partiti socialdemocratici hanno abbandonato ogni ambizione di cambiare il modello economico. Ma dopo la crisi finanziaria, abbiamo assistito all’ascesa di un nuovo socialismo democratico trasformativo dalla sinistra: da Corbyn, Sanders, Podemos in Spagna e Die Linke in Germania.

Ciò che ho trovato così promettente in questi movimenti è che hanno risvegliato l’idea di riforme trasformative, non solo in termini di redistribuzione, ma anche di cambiamento degli assetti proprietari. Sia Sanders che Corbyn hanno introdotto idee di un socialismo basato sui fondi salariali di stampo meidneriano, di cui parlo nel mio libro.

Considero il mio libro parte di questa tendenza: una sorta di socialismo democratico radicale che prende il meglio dalla socialdemocrazia classica e lo combina con l’insistenza su riforme trasformative. Perché l’esperienza nordica ci mostra che senza cambiamenti nella proprietà, tutte le riforme sociali saranno fragili.

Un altro aspetto chiave della tua tesi è l’idea che, anziché due sistemi totalizzanti distinti o modalità di “capitalismo” e “socialismo”, viviamo in una società “ibrida”, con elementi di entrambi che coesistono fianco a fianco. Accusi la sinistra  – sia riformista che rivoluzionaria  – di condividere una nozione errata e inutile del capitalismo come sistema onnicomprensivo. Potresti spiegare questo quadro e cosa ti ha portato a elaborarlo?

In realtà, ho trovato l’ispirazione per questa tesi in un articolo di due marxiste femministe che ho letto 25 anni fa, scritte a quattro mani sotto lo pseudonimo di Gibson-Graham. Nell’articolo, contestano il modo in cui la sinistra ha normalmente concettualizzato il capitalismo come un sistema organico, onnicomprensivo e coerente che può essere eliminato solo da una rivoluzione, in cui un nuovo sistema onnicomprensivo – il socialismo – prende il suo posto. Sostengono che questo modo di intendere il capitalismo abbia reso quasi impossibile immaginare e lavorare per una graduale trasformazione socialista.

Suggeriscono poi una definizione più sottile del capitalismo, in cui il capitalismo occupa solo una parte della società – l’economia in cui il lavoro viene sfruttato. Ciò lascia uno spazio al di fuori del capitalismo – di diversi tipi di economia comunitaria e democratica. Uno spazio che può essere ampliato, che potrebbe essere il fondamento di un futuro socialismo. Negli anni successivi, ho continuato a rifletterci, e mi è diventato sempre più chiaro che, soprattutto nei paesi nordici, è abbastanza ovvio che non abbia senso dire semplicemente che tutto è capitalismo.

Quella fu la mia prima ispirazione. In seguito, scoprii che il defunto sociologo americano Erik Olin Wright era giunto alla stessa conclusione: che le società sono ibridi o miscele di diversi modi di produzione, e che è possibile elaborare strategie su come introdurre più socialismo in questo mix.

Questo mix include un settore cooperativo ampliato, un elemento storicamente forte in Danimarca. Le cooperative devono tuttavia continuare a operare  – e competere  – in un mercato capitalista, e le economie dei paesi nordici sono sempre state fortemente dipendenti dalle esportazioni, il che ha aggravato questa vulnerabilità.  Come possono questi aspetti dell’economia “democratica” sopravvivere, e persino espandersi, quando sono soggetti agli imperativi capitalistici dominanti, sia a livello nazionale che internazionale?

Credo che la nostra storia dimostri che la componente democratica di un’economia può espandersi, allontanando la proprietà capitalista. Ciò è accaduto per circa 100 anni, dal 1870 al 1970, nonostante la forte resistenza della classe capitalista. Non c’è dubbio che la globalizzazione eserciti una pressione sulla componente democratica dell’economia, soprattutto nel nostro settore cooperativo agricolo.

Ma per quanto riguarda le cooperative, è un mito che non possano competere con le aziende capitaliste. In realtà, numerose ricerche dimostrano che sono competitive – e persino più produttive e solide – offrendo al contempo salari più elevati. E possiamo usare strumenti politici per alimentare il settore democratico, ad esempio dando loro la precedenza negli appalti pubblici. 

Forse sorprendentemente, lei esprime un forte scetticismo nei confronti del tradizionale focus della sinistra sulla nazionalizzazione, sull’economia pianificata e sul ruolo dello Stato in generale, preferendo concentrarsi su cooperative, fondi di ricchezza sociale, socialismo dei fondi e un settore civile democratico allargato nella costruzione del socialismo.  Potrebbe approfondire questo approccio?

Ok, cominciamo dalla proprietà. La domanda a cui dobbiamo rispondere è: se vogliamo sostituire la proprietà capitalista con la proprietà comune dei mezzi di produzione, chi dovrebbe possedere le imprese, le banche, le aziende e così via?

'Ecco in cosa consiste il socialismo nordico. Non utopie lontane. Ma esperienze vissute concretamente che possiamo espandere per costruire un mondo migliore per la maggior parte delle persone.'

Storicamente, i socialisti pensavano che la socializzazione equivalesse alla proprietà statale. Ma l’esperienza con questo tipo di socialismo non è molto positiva, per usare un eufemismo. Creerà necessariamente un’enorme centralizzazione. È anche una forma di proprietà molto lontana. Le fabbriche nella Germania dell’Est erano chiamate “Aziende di proprietà popolare”, ma i lavoratori non si sentivano proprietari. Questo spiega perché ci furono così poche proteste quando le aziende statali nell’Europa orientale furono privatizzate.

Credo che forme di proprietà più dirette – cooperative, fondi comuni di investimento e altri modelli – siano più attraenti perché decentralizzate e responsabilizzano i soci. Ciò non significa che io rifiuti del tutto la proprietà pubblica: penso che dovremmo avere una proprietà pubblica molto più ampia di quella odierna. Ma rifiuto l’idea che il socialismo sia una forma uniforme di proprietà e propongo un mix di diverse forme di proprietà democratica.

Allo stesso tempo, lei  sostiene anche la necessità di preservare elementi del mercato durante la costruzione del socialismo. Potrebbe spiegarlo?

Non credo che possiamo avere un’economia efficiente nell’uso delle risorse senza ricorrere a prezzi e mercati. Ma le aree dell’economia basate sul mercato dovrebbero essere ridotte e le parti in cui utilizziamo meccanismi di mercato dovrebbero essere fortemente regolamentate per evitare le esternalità negative degli scambi di mercato.  

Un aspetto non immediatamente ovvio nel suo libro è quello dell’agenzia: chi potrebbe costringere i capitalisti a rinunciare al loro potere e ai loro profitti, e come? Lei, ad esempio, fa scarso riferimento ai sindacati come agenti di cambiamento sociale . Molte delle sue proposte dipenderebbero probabilmente anche in larga misura dall’iniziativa legislativa o dalla protezione parlamentare, correndo il rischio di un approccio verticistico e statale alla trasformazione sociale. Come potrebbero essere realizzate concretamente le riforme da lei sostenute, pur mantenendo un carattere democratico e pluralistico? 

Si tratta di domande davvero importanti e stimolanti. È ovvio che la riforma che propongo richiede un forte sostegno popolare e delle organizzazioni sindacali, non solo perché i lavoratori devono essere attori chiave nella democratizzazione del mondo del lavoro, ma anche a causa della resistenza che dobbiamo aspettarci dalla classe capitalista alle riforme trasformative. Il modello nordico non sarebbe stato possibile senza partiti sindacali e sindacati forti.

Per quanto riguarda la resistenza dell’élite proprietaria, suggerisco che le riforme dovrebbero essere graduali. Per ogni riforma che riduce l’influenza oligarchica delle élite, la successiva, ancora più radicale, sarà più facile da attuare. Ad esempio, se rafforziamo le banche pubbliche di investimento o creiamo fondi democratici per i lavoratori dipendenti che controllano grandi capitali, diventeremo meno vulnerabili alla fuga di capitali.

Il suo “Socialismo Nordico” è davvero socialismo? Il progetto esposto nel suo libro rifugge qualsiasi “rovesciamento” del capitalismo, o persino richieste più moderate di “trascenderlo” pacificamente. Piuttosto, sembra felice di accrescere gli aspetti “democratici” dell’economia, pur consentendo a quelli capitalisti di continuare a coesistere. Nel dibattito seguito alla sua pubblicazione in Danimarca nel 2021, è stato accusato da alcuni (e non solo dalla sinistra) di proporre semplicemente piccole riforme democratiche (alcune delle quali già sperimentate e fallite) all’economia  capitalista.  Cosa risponde a coloro che contestano che la società che descrive sia davvero socialismo? Lo è?

Sì. Certamente. Se definiamo il socialismo come un’economia in cui la proprietà è democratizzata e il potere nella società e nell’economia si basa sulla democrazia e non sulla ricchezza di pochi.

Rifiuto l’idea binaria di socialismo e capitalismo come due sistemi totalmente separati. Questa idea spaziale di alcune riforme “interne al capitalismo” è, ai miei occhi, un vicolo cieco. La questione è come trasferire il potere dal capitalista al popolo. Dal potere oligarchico a quello democratico. E questo passa attraverso lo spostamento della proprietà dei beni produttivi dai pochi ai molti.

È sempre un mix. Al momento abbiamo un’economia – anche nei paesi nordici – dominata da relazioni sociali capitaliste. Ciò che propongo è un’economia dominata da relazioni socialiste – da una governance democratica.

Nel mio libro, avanzo dieci proposte di riforme socialiste trasformative che si dividono in due gruppi. Il primo riguarda come democratizzare e distribuire la proprietà. Il secondo si concentra sulla riduzione dell’influenza dei mercati e sulla demercificazione di nuovi settori dell’economia, convertendo beni come l’assistenza odontoiatrica, i trasporti pubblici e le comunicazioni in diritti sociali, rendendo così le persone più libere dalla pressione del mercato.

Ecco in cosa consiste il socialismo nordico. Non utopie lontane. Ma esperienze vissute concretamente che possiamo espandere per costruire un mondo migliore per la maggior parte delle persone.

*Pelle Dragsted, portavoce politico dell’Alleanza Rosso-Verde, ha pronunciato il suo discorso durante l’assemblea annuale del partito a Copenaghen, Danimarca, nel maggio 2024.

Traduzione: Ancora Fischia il Vento 

 

”Socialism Is Not a Utopia — It’s Alive and Thriving”

Pelle Dragsted of Denmark’s Red-Green Alliance in conversation about his new book, Nordic Socialism.

In recent years, renewed interest in socialism has grown across Europe and beyond — often sparked by mounting inequality, climate breakdown, and the failures of neoliberal governance. But what does socialism look like when it already exists in everyday institutions?

Pelle Dragsted, a member of the Danish Folketing for the Red-Green Alliance, believes the answer lies in the Nordic model — and in recognizing the democratic and cooperative elements already embedded within it. In 2021, his book Nordisk Socialisme (Nordic Socialism) sparked both critical acclaim and public debate across his home country, including a ten-part debate series in the newspaper Information. The book was published in Swedish soon afterwards, and now — finally — will be published in English by Wisconsin University Press.

Dragsted’s book utilizes Denmark’s economic and political experiences to analyze and reinterpret Left strategy, leading to some unorthodox conclusions. He argues that the view that societies are entirely colonized by capitalism prevents the Left from successfully building socialist alternatives to capitalism, and obscures the value of institutions such as worker-owned cooperatives and the non-marketized public sector.

Indeed, he insists not only that our societies are hybrids of capitalism and socialism (varying by degree from country to country), but that perspectives seeking to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism are counterproductive, and get in the way of meaningful radical reforms that could improve the democratic and socialist aspects of society. With this analysis in mind, Dragsted suggests a series of ten reforms to pave the way towards a much more democratized economy.

With Nordic Socialism set to appear in English with the University of Wisconsin Press later this month, Pelle Dragsted is currently on a promotional tour of the United States supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. In between stops, he spoke with Duroyan Fertl about the book, his motivations behind writing it, and the road to a democratic economy in Denmark and beyond.

Your book Nordic Socialism, which has just been published in English, looks at the economic and social history of Denmark and other Nordic countries, including projects seeking greater economic democracy. It also takes up some much larger philosophical and political debates on the Left — issues of freedom and democracy, but also of socialist strategy — and makes concrete proposals for the building of democratic socialism. What was your motivation for writing this book, and what do you hope to achieve with it, especially now it has been published in English?

I wrote the book out of a sense of urgency. It’s becoming more and more evident that we can no longer allow capitalism to dominate our economies. It’s not just unfair, but as we are seeing in the US, it’s undermining the very foundation of democracy. The concentration of wealth inherent to capitalism creates oligarchic power — political influence stemming not from democratic mandates but from control of wealth and the economy. This isn’t a flaw; it’s a feature, an inevitable outcome of capitalistic ownership models.

But here’s the thing: It’s not difficult to argue that capitalism is harmful. The Left has always been good at that. More and more people agree that the way we currently organize the economy is unviable. So why can’t we get a majority behind transforming the economy into a fairer, more democratic model — what we would call socialism?

One reason is that the Left has been excellent at critique and at making broad, sweeping statements about socialist change. However, we’ve been less effective at presenting a viable alternative and answering the tough questions that arise when we talk about democratizing the economy, the workplace, and even parts of the market.

For too long, socialism has been treated as some utopian vision, not embedded in our daily struggles — whether in parliaments, trade unions, or popular movements. So, the motivation for the book was to make socialism more concrete, understandable, and viable. To take it out of the realm of utopia and bring it into the practical work we’re doing today.

Now that the book is available in English, I’m very excited. The timing feels right. The world, more than ever, needs a tangible alternative to both centrist neoliberalism and right-wing populism. Right now, I’m in the US, where the success of Mamdani in the New York primaries has once again put democratic socialism on the agenda. If my book can help democratic socialists around the world argue more effectively for a socialist alternative, that would be a tremendous achievement.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.  

Ist Finnlands Hinwendung zum Thatcherismus noch aufzuhalten?

Ein Gespräch mit Li Andersson, Parteivorsitzende der finnischen Linkspartei Vasemmistoliitto (Linksbündnis), über die Prioritäten und Herausforderungen der finnischen Linke vor der Europawahl.

Im Vorfeld der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament im Juni 2024 führt die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung eine Reihe von Interviews mit Parteien und Kandidat*innen aus der ganzen EU durch, um den Wahlkampf, die politischen Forderungen und die Herausforderungen für die politische Linke in den jeweiligen Ländern und in Europa zu diskutieren.

Duroyan Fertl sprach mit Li Andersson, EU-Kandidatin und Parteivorsitzende der finnischen Linkspartei Vasemmistoliitto über die Prioritäten der finnischen Linken in diesem Jahr.

Welche Prioritäten hat sich Vasemmistoliitto im diesjährigen Europawahlkampf gesetzt? Was sind Eure wichtigsten Wahlkampfthemen und Forderungen?

Wir wollen den Wähler*innen vor Augen führen, dass die aktuelle Situation in Finnland das ist, was herauskommt, wenn Rechtskonservative mit Rechtsextremen oder Rechtspopulisten koalieren. Auf nationaler Ebene beobachten wir historische Angriffe auf Gewerkschaften und Arbeitnehmer*innen, extreme Sparmaßnahmen im Bereich der sozialen Sicherheit und im Gesundheitswesen sowie Rückschritte in der Klima- und Umweltpolitik. Unsere wichtigste Botschaft ist, dass wir in den Europawahlen dafür sorgen müssen, dass sich diese Entwicklungen auf europäischer Ebene nicht wiederholen – dass bei den Europawahlen genau das auf dem Spiel steht.

Unsere wichtigsten Themen sind Arbeitnehmer*innenrechte und die Notwendigkeit, eine ambitionierte europäische Sozial- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik zu verfolgen. Natürlich hätte in den letzten Jahren viel mehr getan werden können, aber dennoch hat die EU einiges erreicht, insbesondere verglichen mit dem, was die rechte Regierung in Finnland gerade tut. Außerdem ist es nötig, in den kommenden Jahren auf EU-Ebene Jugendrechte, Jungendarbeitslosigkeit und die psychische Gesundheitskrise in den Fokus stellen. Des Weiteren ist natürlich eine ambitionierte Klima- und Umweltpolitik zentral. In all diesen Bereichen könnte ein potentieller Wahlsieg der rechten oder rechtsextremen Parteien den größten Schaden anrichten. Aus diesem Grund stellen wir diese Themen in den Mittelpunkt unseres Wahlkampfs.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

Opposing Finland’s Thatcherist Turn

An interview with Li Andersson, MEP candidate and leader of the Finnish Left Alliance, Vasemmistoliitto, about the challenges facing the Finnish Left in 2024.

As the European Parliament elections this June draw nearer, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is conducting a series of interviews with left-wing parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political programmes, and the challenges facing left-wing forces domestically and at a European level.

The foundation’s Duroyan Fertl spoke to Li Andersson, MEP candidate and leader of the Finnish Left Alliance, Vasemmistoliitto, about her party’s priorities in this super election year.

What are Vasemmistoliitto’s key priorities in this European Parliament election campaign? What are your key campaign areas or flagship demands?

Our narrative in these elections revolves around reminding voters that the current situation in Finland is what happens when the conservative right wing teams up with the far right or populist right. We are seeing historic attacks against trade unions and workers at a national level, with extreme austerity cuts in social security and health care services, and backwards steps on climate and environmental policy. Our main message is that in the European elections we need to make sure this same development is not replicated on a European level, that this is what is at stake in the European elections.

The main issues we are talking about are workers’ rights, and the need for the EU to pursue ambitious social and labour market policies. Much more could have been done in the past few years, of course, but what has come out of the EU has been fairly good, especially compared to what Finland’s right-wing government is doing. We are also highlighting the need for the EU to focus on youth rights, youth unemployment, and the mental health crisis in the coming years. Of course, we are also talking about the need to continue with an ambitious climate and environmental policy.

These are all areas where a potential right-wing or far-right electoral victory would have the most damaging effect, so we are placing them at the heart of our main narrative in this election.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

«Wir besinnen uns auf unsere Grundwerte zurück»

Ein Gespräch mit Frederikke Hellemann, Kandidatin der rot-grünen Allianz, über die Herausforderungen für die dänische Linke im Jahr 2024.

Im Vorfeld der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament im Juni 2024 führt die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung eine Reihe von Interviews mit Parteien und Kandidat*innen aus der ganzen EU durch, um den Wahlkampf, ihre politischen Forderungen und die Herausforderungen für die Linke in ihren Ländern und in Europa zu diskutieren.

Duroyan Fertl sprach mit Frederikke Hellemann, der Nummer zwei auf der Liste der dänischen Linkspartei Enhedslisten (EL), über die Prioritäten der dänischen Linken in diesem Jahr.

Was sind die Prioritäten von Enhedslisten für diese Europawahl?

Unsere Priorität in diesem Wahlkampf ist, die Menschen davon zu überzeugen, dass Enhedslisten auf ihrer Seite steht. Wir wollen ein sicheres, grünes und gerechtes Europa schaffen, das sich gegen die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels schützt. Mehr als der Hälfte des Trinkwassers in Dänemark ist mit Pestiziden und PFAS – sogenannten «ewige Chemikalien» – verunreinigt. In Südeuropa erleben wir Waldbrände und Überschwemmungen. All das sind Anzeichen dafür, dass Europa weder sicher noch gesund ist. Dagegen können wir nur angehen, wenn wir den grünen Wandel vollziehen.

Dazu müssen alle an einem Strang ziehen und die Verschmutzer*innen, die Reichsten, müssen das zahlen. Zum Glück schafft man, wenn etwa Häuser renoviert werden, Windräder gebaut und all das tut, was für ein grünes Europa nötig ist, viele gut bezahlte Arbeitsplätze. Und natürlich wollen wir sicherstellen, dass für diese Arbeitsplätze Tarifverträge gelten.

Deshalb sind unsere Prioritäten Klimaschutz und Artenvielfalt. Wir wollen zu Ende führen, was wir mit dem Grünen Deal, dem Naturwiederherstellungsgesetz und den Vorschlägen zur Landwirtschaft begonnen haben. Wir wollen auch dafür sorgen, dass Geld für die richtigen Zwecke ausgegeben wird. Wir setzen uns dafür ein, das EU-Vergaberecht wieder zu öffnen, damit wir Tarifverträge fordern können, wenn wir als Regierungen oder als Kommunen einkaufen. Wir wollen ein faires Europa und ein besseres Abkommen für Flüchtlinge, damit sie gerechter auf die Mitgliedstaaten verteilt werden und die Kosten von den Reichen getragen werden.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

“Back to Basics”

An interview with Red-Green Alliance candidate Frederikke Hellemann on the challenges facing the Danish Left in 2024.

As the European Parliament elections this June draw nearer, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation is conducting a series of interviews with left-wing parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political programmes, and the challenges facing left-wing forces domestically and at a European level.

The foundation’s Duroyan Fertl spoke to Frederikke Hellemann, second on the list for Danish Left-Green Alliance, or Enhedslisten, about the Danish Left’s priorities in this super election year.

What are Enhedslisten’s key priorities or campaign areas in this European Parliament election campaign?

For this campaign, we have an umbrella theme of convincing people that Enhedslisten is on their side. This means creating a Europe that is safe, green, and just, that is safe from climate change. We are finding dangerous pesticides and PFAS — so-called “forever chemicals” — in over half of the drinking water in Denmark. We see flooding and forest fires in the south of Europe. All these things point to a Europe that is not safe and not healthy and the only way to combat these things is to complete the green transition.

For this to happen we need everyone on board, and to make sure that it is the polluters — the richest — who pay. Luckily, when you renovate homes, when you build windmills, when you do all the things that are necessary to create a green Europe, you also create many well-paying jobs. And, of course, we want to make sure that those jobs have collective agreements.

Therefore, for us the key priorities are going to be climate action and biodiversity — to finish what we started with the Green Deal, with the Nature Restoration Law, and with the proposals touching on agriculture. We are also campaigning on ensuring public money is spent in the right way. We want to reopen the EU Public Procurement law so we can demand collective agreements when we are buying as governments or as municipalities. We want a fair Europe and a better deal for refugees, with a fairer division among member states, and for all of this to be paid for by the rich.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

„Wir müssen den Menschen Hoffnung geben“

Ein Gespräch mit Hanna Gedin von der schwedischen Linkspartei über die Prioritäten und Herausforderungen der schwedischen Linken vor der Europawahl.

Im Vorfeld der Wahl zum Europäischen Parlament im Juni 2024 führt die Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung eine Reihe von Interviews mit Parteien und Kandidat:innen aus der ganzen EU durch, um den Wahlkampf, ihre politischen Forderungen und die Herausforderungen für die politische Linke in den jeweiligen Ländern und in Europa zu diskutieren. Duroyan Fertl sprach mit Hanna Gedin, der Nummer zwei auf der Liste der schwedischen Linkspartei Vänsterpartiet, über die aktuellen Prioritäten der schwedischen Linken.

Welche Prioritäten setzt sich die Vänsterpartiet für diese Europawahl? Was sind die wichtigsten Wahlkampfthemen und Forderungen?

Wir haben drei Prioritäten in diesem Wahlkampf: Klimawandel, gute und sichere Arbeitsplätze, und die Lebenshaltungskosten-Krise. In mancher Hinsicht ist die EU beim Klimaschutz progressiver als die rechte schwedische Regierung, die gerade klimapolitische Errungenschaften der letzten Jahre wieder zunichtemacht. Dennoch verbietet das auf EU-Ebene vorherrschende neoliberale Dogma staatliche Beihilfemaßnahmen für die gewaltigen Investitionen, die für den grünen Wandel nötig sind. Es muss den EU-Mitgliedstaaten erlaubt werden, massiv in eine gerecht gestaltete sozial-ökologische Transformation, in die Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen und in eine bessere Lebensqualität für viele Menschen zu investieren. Gleichzeitig muss die EU aufhören, die fossile Industrie zu subventionieren.

Beim Thema gute Arbeitsplätze geschieht die Priorisierung von Kapital und Wettbewerb in der EU zu Lasten der Qualität der Arbeit. Ein Beispiel dafür ist die aktuelle Debatte um die Richtlinie zur Plattformarbeit. Wir wollen außerdem die Regeln für das öffentliche Beschaffungswesen ändern, die den niedrigsten Preis zum Hauptkriterium für die Auftragsvergabe gemacht haben, was zu Sozialdumping führt. Zusammen mit den europäischen Gewerkschaften fordern wir eine Erneuerung des öffentlichen Vergabewesens, die Sozialklauseln und Tarifverhandlungen in den Vordergrund stellt.

Letztlich sehen wir bei den Lebenshaltungskosten, dass die Inflation zu mehr Armut und sozialer Ungerechtigkeit geführt hat, während gleichzeitig Schwedens Großkonzerne historische Gewinne erzielen. Wir müssen eine neue Gesellschaftsform aufbauen, von der alle Menschen profitieren statt nur einige wenige. Ein tiefliegender Grund für die Wohnungskrise in Schweden – die durch Wohnungsknappheit und steigende Mieten verursacht wird – ist, dass Wohnraum auf dem europäischen Markt schlicht als Ware angesehen wird, was uns daran hindert, staatliche Beihilfen für den Bau neuer Wohnungen zu vergeben und öffentliche Wohnungsunternehmen dazu zwingt, die Marktregeln einzuhalten.

Lesen Sie den vollständigen Artikel auf der Website der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung - Büro Brüssel.

 

”We need to give people hope”

An interview with Hanna Gedin from the Swedish Left Party Vänsterpartiet on the priorities and challenges of the Swedish Left ahead of the European elections.

In the lead up to the 2024 European Parliament elections this June, the Rosa Luxemburg-Stiftung is conducting a series of interviews with parties and candidates from across the EU on the election campaign, their political demands, and the challenges for left forces domestically and at a European level.

Duroyan Fertl spoke to Hanna Gedin, second on the list for Swedish left party Vänsterpartiet, about the Swedish left’s priorities this year.

What are Vänsterpartiet’s key priorities in this European Parliament election campaign? What are your key campaign areas or flagship demands?

There are three key priorities for this campaign: the climate transition, securing good and safe jobs, and the cost of living crisis. In some respects, the EU is more progressive on climate than the right-wing Swedish government, which is now dismantling years of climate policies, but the neoliberal dogma that prevails at the EU level prevents state aid measures to deliver the large investments needed for the green transition. EU member states must be allowed to make huge investments for a just transition, creating jobs and a better life for many people, and the EU must stop subsidising the fossil industry.

On the issue of securing good jobs, the EU’s prioritising of capital and competition comes at the expense of job quality – the recent fight around the platform work directive is a case in point. We also want to change the rules around public procurement, where securing the lowest price has been made the key condition for making procurements, something that leads to social dumping. Alongside the European trade unions, we are calling for a new kind of procurement where social clauses and collective bargaining are made the key factors.

Finally, on the cost of living, we can see that inflation has led to more poverty and increased social injustice, while at the same time the big companies in Sweden are making historic profits. We need to build a different kind of society, one that works for all the people, not just for a few. One reason we have a housing crisis in Sweden – which is being caused by a shortage in apartments and increasing rents – is because housing is deemed to be just another commodity on the European market, preventing us from using state aid to build new housing and forcing public housing companies to operate under market rules.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

“Death or Liberty” – Australia’s Battle of Vinegar Hill at 220

220 years ago, on March 5, 1804, several hundred armed rebels – mostly escaped Irish political prisoners, veterans of Vinegar Hill and the United Irishmen rebellion of 1798 – clashed with British armed forces near Castle Hill in western Sydney. They lost, but while their rebellion was short-lived, it was far from the impromptu uprising many suggest. Rather, it was just the latest, and largest, manifestation of an ongoing Irish republican struggle in the fledgling colony.

In terms of scale, the ‘battle’ of Castle Hill was truthfully little more than a skirmish in the bush in western Sydney. Only a handful of rebels were killed, the rest fled, and their leaders were easily captured by crown forces under a false flag of truce. The rebel forces were poorly organised and divided, while – due to betrayal – hundreds more who would otherwise have joined them did not. Even so, the rebellion shook the colony to its core – a reaction that can only be understood in the context of the years immediately preceding it, both in Sydney, and in Ireland.

A vulnerable penal colony

By 1800, Sydney Town was a young settlement of barely 12 years, with only 2500 European inhabitants – 43 percent of them convicts. Further inland, Toongabbie and Parramatta had a combined population of under 1500, and perhaps another 1100 – mostly free settlers – could be found in the Hawkesbury. The colony was dotted with several small garrisons, but the military presence was confined largely to Sydney Town.

The economic viability of the settlement was also still uncertain, particularly after huge floods in 1799. This instability was to continue for several years, with ships sent to seek emergency food supplies from India as late as 1813. While hindsight can give rise to a misleading sense of inevitability, this vulnerability would have been palpable at the time, not least to hundreds of Irish political prisoners – convinced republicans and veterans of a large-scale armed rebellion against the British only months before.

The first ships carrying around 400 of these Irish political prisoners arrived at the start of 1800, sent as exiles-without-trial to the New South Wales colony in the aftermath of the failed United Irishmen rebellion of 1798. While some were senior members of the United Irishmen, arrested before the rebellion had begun, others had seen action in Waterford, Wexford, the Midlands, and the north. It would soon become apparent that the long journey to Australia had failed to break their spirits.

Sedition and conspiracy

As early as February 1800, records tell of a seditious meeting among the Irish being broken up in Sydney, while another plot was reported in May. In September, another conspiracy among the Irish prisoners was uncovered, with plans to take the Sydney barracks and overthrow the Governor, and for the rebels to then live on the settlers’ farms until they heard back from a message they would send to France. More disturbances were reported in October, with suspected ringleaders shipped off to Norfolk Island to defuse their plotting – unsuccessfully. In December, a rebellion on Norfolk Island was apparently averted only by the pre-emptive execution of two of its leaders.

Such accounts make the colony seem a hotbed of rebel activity, but it is difficult to know how much was true, and how much was British paranoia. One witness testified to the notorious “Flogging Reverend”, Samuel Marsden, in 1800 that she became convinced the Irish were planning “something that was improper” after seeing them “talking very earnestly in Irish”. A sectarian bigot, Marsden was already predisposed to distrust the Irish, describing them as "the most wild, ignorant and savage race that were ever favoured with the light of civilisation", while considering Irish convicts even worse, “depraved beyond all conception”.

Bigotry and sectarianism

Yet while the evidence of conspiracy and unrest may have been often flimsy, the British fear and distrust of the Irish was real enough, reflecting both ingrained ethnic prejudices and genuine political insecurities in aftermath of the events of 1798. Governor John Hunter – replaced by Governor Philip Gidley King in late 1800 – repeatedly complained to London that the Irish prisoners were “turbulent” and “diabolical” and called for the number of Irish transportees to be drastically reduced in the interest of colonial security.

Another consequence of the 1800 Irish scare was the establishment, on September 7, of an official civilian paramilitary movement: the Loyal Associations of Sydney and Parramatta, each with a captain, three sergeants, two drummers and three corporals, 36 privates in the Sydney group, and 29 in Parramatta. These loyalist paramilitaries were suspended by Governor King in August 1801, but recalled on December 9, 1803, when news arrived that France and England were at war. They marked the beginning of a conservative, protestant, “law and order” tradition that was to continue well into the twentieth century, built on profound distrust of, and discrimination against, the Irish Catholic community in Australia.

Echoes of Emmet’s rebellion

Further ships soon arrived from Ireland – the Anne, which reached Sydney in 1801 after surviving a mutiny by the prisoners onboard, and the Atlas I, Atlas II, and Hercules in 1802. Each carried more veterans of 1798, along with the latest updates of the state of unrest in the Irish countryside. Perhaps in response to news that the rebellion had finally been defeated, reported Irish agitation in the colony lessened, so much so that the British allowed the colony’s first Catholic priest to (briefly) perform his ministry. As late as March 1, 1804, Governor King wrote to London that the Irish in Sydney were now behaving themselves.

The spark for a new rebellion was already being kindled, however, after the whaling ship the Ferret arrived in Sydney in January 1804, bringing newspapers dating from August 1803. These bore tidings of Robert Emmet’s new United Irish rising near Dublin – but not of its demise, which followed closely in the weeks that followed. Not to be dampened by news of later events, word of Emmet’s uprising spread through the colony like wildfire, and six weeks later – whether by coincidence or not, on Emmet’s birthday – that spark became a flame.

“Liberty or Death…”

Literally, as it turns out. Instructions spread on March 4 that the rebellion would begin at nightfall, and the official signal was when one of the leaders, John Cavenah, set fire to his hut at Castle Hill Government Farm at 8 o’clock. That night, some 200-300, mostly Irish, prisoners escaped from the prison farm, led by Philip Cunningham – a key architect of the rebellion. A Kerry-man, Cunningham was a veteran of the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion and of its aftermath, where he had been captured and tried in Clonmel while rebuilding the United Irishmen in Tipperary. He had also been involved in the mutiny on board the Anne during its journey to Australia.

The signal fire was not seen by his comrades at Green Hills (today's Windsor) on the Hawkesbury River, but Cunningham proceeded with his plan regardless, taking weapons, ammunition, and food from the Castle Hill Government Farm, and recruiting local supporters. The rebels - their numbers soon swelling to over 685 - adopted the slogan “Death or Liberty” as their rallying call, planning to join hundreds more from the Hawkesbury area, to rally at Constitution Hill, and to march on Parramatta and then Sydney’s Port Jackson itself. There they would establish Irish rule and send those who wished it back to Ireland to reignite the 1803 rebellion.

Damned Betrayal

After looting the government farm, the rebel group divided into smaller parties, going from farm to farm on their way towards Constitution Hill, collecting further supplies and recruits. Their actions were informed by intelligence gathered the previous year, when 12 escaped prisoners sought out friends and sympathisers in the surrounding districts. Even so, many lost their way during the night and failed to reach the rendezvous point – including a group of 70 under the command of Samuel Humes. These losses were worsened when plans to join with hundreds of prisoners in the Hawkesbury region went awry after John Griffen, the courier taking their mobilisation orders, betrayed the uprising and surrendered to authorities that night.

Another small group of rebels attempted to enter Parramatta to set a building alight as a signal for local rebels and those in Sydney to join the rebellion, but two defectors again ruined the plan. Captain Edward Abbott commenced defensive measures in Parramatta and sent a message to Governor King in Sydney. King, alerted to the rebellion late during the evening of March 4, declared martial law, although when news of the uprising reached the small colony, a great panic set in, with some officials – including Samuel Marsden – fleeing the area by boat. Major George Johnston of the New South Wales Corps (himself later to play a key role in the Rum Rebellion coup d’état of 1808) quickly gathered a force of British troops and a large civilian militia – including the Sydney Loyal Association – to pursue the rebels.

New Ireland

With the element of surprise lost and plans to mobilise rebels in the Hawkesbury, Parramatta and Sydney having failed, the uprising was confined to the area west of Parramatta. Cunningham, lacking any sign that Parramatta had been taken, and without the expected reinforcements, was forced to withdraw the rebel group to Toongabbie to re-assess strategy, gather new forces, and perhaps find his lost comrades. In the process, he also collected a significant number of arms, by this point possessing of perhaps a third of the colony’s entire armaments, but the rebel forces continued to dwindle in number. Those that remained are reported to have proclaimed the area around Constitution Hill "New Ireland”.

Meanwhile, Major Johnston’s much smaller crown forces endured a forced march through the night, coming to within only a few kilometres of the remaining rebels, now reduced to approximately 233, on the morning of March 5. Outnumbered and tired, Johnston decided to employ delaying tactics, riding on ahead of his men along with a trooper, Thomas Anlezark, and the colony’s sole Catholic priest, Father Dixon – himself an Irishman exiled to Australia following 1798 – to demand the rebels surrender, and to otherwise parley with them while his troops advanced to a more favourable position.

“… and a ship to take us home!”

Sending first the trooper Anlezark, and then Father Dixon, to demand (unsuccessfully) that the rebels down arms and accept an amnesty, Major Johnston himself finally rode up to meet them. Cunningham’s response, however, remained emphatic: “Death or liberty”. It is sometimes claimed that he also said, “and a ship to take us home”, although that addition is first recorded some while later. During this exchange, the government troops and the loyalist militia finally appeared, lining up behind Major Johnston. Seizing his opportunity, Johnston – still under a flag of truce – took Cunningham and another rebel leader captive at gunpoint.

Quickly retreating with the captured Cunningham, Johnston ordered crown forces to fire on the rebels. After fifteen minutes of gunfire, followed by a charge, between 15 and 20 rebels were killed, the others scattering into the bush in disarray. An unknown number – certainly more than a dozen – were killed in the pursuits that followed into the night and the following days. Governor King then announced leniency for those who surrendered before March 10, leading many of those who got lost on the night of March 4 to give themselves up, while the large group commanded by Samuel Humes was captured by the Parramatta Loyal Association militia at Castle Hill.

Aftermath

The extent of British alarm over the Castle Hill rebellion can be measured by the scale of repression that followed. While some have estimated that 39 rebels died in, or as a result of, the Castle Hill uprising, the precise numbers will never be known. Around 230 people were arrested in the days following the rebellion, of whom nine were executed. Eight of these received a court-martial, while a wounded Cunningham was hanged without trial on the steps of the Government Store at Windsor, which he had claimed he would burn down. Interestingly, of those executed, four were Protestant, and two were English.

Two prisoners – including Humes – were hung from the gibbet, while two others, Bryan McCormack and John Burke, were reprieved and detained. Seven were whipped with between 200 or 500 lashes and sent to the Coal River chain gang at Newcastle, and a further 23 others were sent to the Newcastle coal mines. Another 34 prisoners were placed in irons until they could be "disposed of”, but their fate remains unclear. Of the approximately 150 rebels that remained, many were sent to Norfolk Island on good behaviour bonds, but the majority were pardoned and allowed to return to their previous lives, it being adjudged that they had been coerced into rebellion.

The International Society of United Irishmen?

Martial law ended on 10 March 1804, but the Irish insurgency in Sydney – both real and imagined – continued. Two Frenchmen who had come to the colony to cultivate vines were expelled on suspicion. More realistic plots continued to develop, with authorities on the constant alert over the following three years. For his part, Governor King was convinced that the true leaders of the 1804 rebellion had remained out of sight, and were continuing to plot the colony’s demise. As a result, he sent numerous suspects to Norfolk Island as a preventative measure.

Whether King was correct will likely never be known – the identity of the rebellion's co-conspirators in Parramatta, Sydney and the Hawkesbury are lost to history. It is true, however, that the rising was neither as spontaneous nor isolated as most Australian historiography would have us believe. Indeed, there are unverified claims that at least two Irish prisoners who arrived in February 1800 on board the Friendship were corresponding with the United Irish leadership around Emmet to establish a secret branch of an “International Society of United Irishmen” in Sydney to act there under direction from Ireland.

Loyalist paranoia about Irish republicanism was further fed by the arrival in February 1806 of another group of Irish political rebels on board the Tellicherry. They included the last hard core of United Irishmen, and were led by none other than Michael Dwyer, the “Wicklow Chief”, who had only surrendered in December 1803 on condition of voluntary exile to the United States of America. Perfidious Albion, of course, had other ideas, sending Dwyer, Hugh Byrne, Martin Burke, Arthur Devlin, John Mernagh, and a dozen of their comrades to Botany Bay. Perhaps regrettably, the loyalist fears of renewed rebellion were misplaced.

Australia's Vinegar Hills

Known as Australia’s “Battle of Vinegar Hill” due to its links with the Irish events of 1798, and that famous battle in particular, the 1804 Castle Hill rebellion is now commemorated at the Vinegar Hill Memorial, Castlebrook Memorial Gardens, in Rouse Hill. A monument was unveiled by former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1988, carrying the names of several contemporary politicians and councillors, but with none of the rebels. This rather blinkered oversight was remedied on the bicentenary of the rebellion in 2004 with a new plaque.

The Castle Hill rebellion was also the opening sally in a longer struggle for democracy in Australia in which Irish republicans have played a key part. The anti-authoritarian streak, and the lived experience of many Irish in Australia, found its expression in the widespread popular support for the Kelly Gang in northeast Victoria, in the better expressions of Australia's trade union movement, in the struggle against conscription during World War One, and in the fight for Aboriginal rights. In 1920, 100,000 people marched in Melbourne's annual Saint Patrick's Day Parade to demonstrate their support for Irish independence.

Perhaps the most iconic such expression, however, took place fifty years after Castle Hill at the Eureka Stockade rebellion on the Ballarat goldfields in Victoria. It, too, was defeated in blood, but the popular support it enjoyed saw one of its key demands realised: a Legislative Assembly in the Victorian colony. The Eureka rebels – migrants from every corner of the earth – were inspired by the same ideals of liberty, justice, and freedom as the heroes of '98 and '04. Led by Peter Lawlor, the brother of Young Irelander James Fintan Lawlor, they raised a standard of liberty while using the password "Vinegar Hill".

Impact workshop: “The Left in Power”, Copenhagen 9-10 June

In June 2022, the Brussels Office of Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung hosted a workshop in Copenhagen to better understand and compare the central issues, experiences and strategies of left-wing parties’ participation in, or support of, governments in the region. The event was face-to-face and by-invitation only to guarantee an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality to participants.

The workshop brought together 30 party activists and decision-makers from among the political left in Sweden, Denmark and Germany.[1] Participation included current MPs, members of the party leadership, and activists with experience at the regional and local level from Enhedslisten (Denmark) and Vänsterpartiet (Sweden), as well as DIE LINKE officials and elected representatives from several German states and state parliaments (Thuringia, Brandenburg, Berlin, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Bremen and Hamburg).

Participants had the opportunity to exchange viewpoints on analysis and strategy, learn from each other and connect, gaining useful insights into the experiences and debates of left parties in the Nordic countries and Germany. A dynamic mix of inputs, interactive methods, small group discussions and strategy development, concentrated on a number of key questions, including the case for the “left in power”, strategies and tactics for making this a reality, and the question of placing limits or “red lines” on government participation.

The workshop was part of an ongoing series of events with a focus on the Nordic countries organised by RLS Brussels.

Read the full report at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Denmark’s left in crisis?

Denmark’s radical left party, the Red Green Alliance, is in a spin. At the November 1 general election, it lost a quarter of its support, a third of its seats, and its influence with government. Alongside the immediate financial and political ramifications, the result has opened up both internal and public debate on what went wrong and why – exposing strategic disagreements over the party’s direction.

This was the Red Green Alliance’s (RGA) third electoral retreat in a row, following the 2019 national election and last year’s municipal vote. The party won just 5.1 percent of the vote, down from 6.9 percent in 2019 and its historic high-water mark of 7.8 percent in 2015. The result is worse if you consider the party was averaging 8.1 percent support when the election was called in October. Compared to expectations during the campaign, the election results came as something of a shock.

In the regions, the party’s vote continued to drop, with many voters turning to the Social Democrats or the Green Left party, and confining RGA support largely to the big urban centres. There too the party faced setbacks, with many supporters of radical change backing the new Independent Greens or the environmentalist Alternative instead.

The party’s Main Board soon announced an internal review and plans to address the sudden financial shortfall, but this review was pre-empted somewhat by an article in Politiken, Denmark’s main newspaper. In it, former party spokesperson and outgoing MP Pernille Skipper blamed the poor result on – among other things – outdated party structures, calling for an intensification of the “modernisation” process begun a decade and a half ago, and for greater political manoeuvrability for MPs.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.

Denmark to hold early elections as Social Democrats move right

On November 1, Denmark will vote, seven months ahead of schedule. Polls show left and right blocs almost neck-and-neck, and the risk of an outright win for the right-wing remains real. However, with Social Democratic Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen seeking to hold onto power through an unlikely coalition across the middle, a rightwards shift seems inevitable.

The early election was called when the Social Liberals, one of three smaller parties propping up the Social Democrat minority government, threatened a no-confidence motion after damaging criticisms in a report on the government’s handling of a Covid-19 mutation on Danish mink farms in 2020.

Frederiksen, widely applauded for her handling of the Covid pandemic, faced accusations of arrogance and abuse of power over the government’s cull of all 17 million of the country’s farmed mink. The official investigation revealed no legal basis for the cull, and while the Prime Minister avoided sanction, it has damaged her popularity.

Denmark is dominated by bloc politics and coalition governments, and both major political blocs – red (left) and blue (right) – currently sit even in the polls, with a slight advantage to the red bloc. With no obvious winner, two new parties – one nominally centrist, the other on the right – may decide the outcome.

Unusually, Frederiksen has called on centrist and centre-right parties to join her in a broad coalition across the political middle ground, to find "joint solutions to the country's major challenges”. While the Social Liberals, the Socialist People’s Party and the Moderates agree, the leaders of the two traditional opposition parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, have rejected the idea.

The proposal is also opposed by parties on the far-right, and by the radical left Red-Green Alliance, another of the parties that has kept the government in power for the last three years. Indeed, Frederiksen’s proposed coalition is also deliberately designed to diminish left-wing influence on government, and to shift Danish politics further to the right.

Read the full article at Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung - Brussels Office.