The well-intentioned wandering of the Traditional Left

“Ah – the election program from 20 years ago dusted off again?”

That thought occurred to me last week during the Green Left/PvdA campaign: “Living = Expensive.” The intentions are fine with their Cost contingency plan for the Netherlands: fairer wages, lower taxes and stronger public services. But the solutions they present are mostly symptomatic, with no fundamental systemic reforms. Like putting band-aids on a wound that continues to fester. The core of the problem lies deeper: a lack of vision for the future and a stubborn adherence to dogmas from an era that no longer exists. In short: The Traditional Left is on the wrong track.

Fighting a ghost

One of the biggest misunderstandings within the Traditional Left is the persistent belief that capitalism is by definition the problem. In reality, the cause lies more with neoliberalism-the ideology that has set the ground rules for capitalism since the 1980s. By rejecting capitalism as a system, the left is aiming its arrows at a ghost.

As I explained in my earlier story “The biggest misunderstanding about capitalism – and why it imprisons us” : it is this confusion that prevents constructive alternatives from being put on the table. While neoliberal parties continue to put profit maximization above all else, the left remains stuck in the past with calls for nationalization and higher taxes without a clear plan for a fairer and future-proof system.

Historically, the left’s aversion to capitalism is easy to understand. Traditionally, socialism – as the representative of the proletariat – and capitalism – on behalf of the owning class, the industrial elite – were each other’s opponents. I wrote about this at length in my follow-up piece “The historical context: multiple faces of capitalism.”.

But we are now many forms of capitalism down the road, and practice has shown that the effects of socialism are also far from ideal. It is high time to leave that old contradiction behind and turn to a system that serves both the power of markets and the interests of society and planet.

What is so “progressive” about old ideals?

The problem with the errant path of the Traditional Left is not that it leads to the wrong destination, but that its compass is hopelessly outdated. While they like to call themselves progressive, they cling to dogmas from a time when coal mines still provided jobs and permanent contracts were the norm.

Calls for nationalization and more state influence sound like a nostalgic yearning for the golden years of the welfare state, but lack any connection to today’s challenges: digitization, globalization and climate change.

Instead of looking forward, the Traditional Left seems mostly concerned with looking back at a past that is not coming back. Ironically, these parties are so busy trying not to sound right-wing that they forget to offer a credible narrative for the future. By frenetically clinging to outdated norms and values, they lose touch with both the modern labor market and young people who are primarily concerned about sustainability and technological innovation.

Social for employees, market for self-employed workers

Moreover, it is striking how Green Left/PvdA focus so strongly on wage increases and more protection for employees, while the growing group of self-employed workers is barely addressed. Their plans seem written for a labor market that has long since changed. While flex work and self-employment are becoming increasingly normal, the Traditional Left maintains a one-sided focus on permanent contracts and collective bargaining agreements. This mainly shows how little connection they still have with the reality of the modern labor market. And – oh irony! – much of their own constituency consists of self-employed people-people who work in the cultural, media or healthcare sectors often without pensions or disability insurance.

While the self-employed struggle with uncertainty, the only solution offered by the GroenLinks/PvdA seems to be mandatory disability insurance of about 200 euros per month. That sounds social, but mainly serves the insurance market. The problem is not that the focus on employees is wrong, but that the lack of a serious vision for the self-employed mainly demonstrates how outdated their narrative actually is.

A future-proof vision cannot ignore the position of the self-employed. Social Capitalism therefore offers a broader perspective by enabling basic security not only for workers but also for the self-employed.

The social democratic legacy: a credibility problem

The irony of social democracy is that they have allowed themselves to be undermined by the neoliberalism they claim to fight. Labour Party ministers themselves were involved in privatizing public services such as healthcare and public transport. While they now fulminate against market forces, it has often been their own compromises that have led to the selling out of public interests.

The result is a credibility problem that is difficult to fix. How can you speak credibly about the need for public responsibility for healthcare and education when your own party was responsible for thinning that same public sector?

The traditional constituency, which once trusted in strong public services, has seen those same services stripped away under social democratic rule. This betrayal has left deep marks and partly explains why many voters have turned their backs on the PvdA.

Social Capitalism offers a way out of this impasse by bringing public services within public responsibility, but with a forward-looking plan that leaves market forces where they are useful and protects public interests where they are needed.

The ghost of woke

Another Traditional Left wanderer. Don’t get me wrong; the focus on identity issues is understandable and important. Human rights and social emancipation are essential struggles that I do not want to downplay. The problem, however, is that this focus often seems divorced from a strong socio-economic foundation.

While the lower and middle classes are primarily concerned about rising housing costs, utility bills and job security, the emphasis on gender quotas and inclusion sometimes feels like a priority list that does not align with their everyday concerns. The danger is that identitarian issues are seen as a distraction from the failure to make real systemic changes.

Neoliberal economic policies demoralize, but the progressive left meanwhile continues to moralize culturally. The result: society is polarizing.

Social emancipation thrives better with economic stability and equality. One need not exclude the other, but without a credible plan for economic security, the risk remains that identitarian politics will be perceived as superficial. Social Capitalism offers an alternative here by seeing economic security and social emancipation as two inseparable pillars.

Band-aids and smelly wounds

What the left does not seem to want to understand is that higher wages and lower taxes only make sense if accompanied by structural reforms. As long as we allow extreme wealth accumulation and do not address market concentration, we will stick to sticking plasters. The problem is not that companies make profits, but that those profits are hoarded or used for speculation instead of reinvestment in innovation, sustainability and higher wages.

A fair tax on capital and wealth, coupled with profit and wage participation for workers, could be a first step. Not as a utopia, but as a smart market economy that allows money to circulate again.

The enemy of my enemy?

The SP makes the mistake of simultaneously rejecting the European Union in their criticism of neoliberalism. While speculation and tax evasion can only be dealt with effectively at the European level, the SP opposes this form of European cooperation. This is perhaps their biggest blind spot: the illusion that a national solution will suffice in a globalized economy.

Social Capitalism sees an opportunity precisely in European cooperation to make the market fairer and more transparent-with joint taxes on capital, stricter rules against speculation and a fairer playing field for entrepreneurs.

The past as a handbrake

Leftists cling to old recipes while the world around us is radically changing. So the problem is not that their goals are wrong, but that their means are outdated. The irony is that the Traditional Left so vehemently agitates against the nostalgia of right-wing populists while they themselves struggle with a similar longing for a past that is not coming back. They are standing still on their own errant path.

Without a thorough overhaul of the rules of the game, they remain bogged down in symptom relief. It is time to look beyond nostalgia for a 1970s welfare state and summon the courage to redefine capitalism. Not by abolishing the system, but by morally recalibrating it with rules that ensure profit is not synonymous with predatory exploitation.

Social Capitalism: progressive without nostalgia

Social Capitalism offers that redefinition: a system in which profit is a means, not an end. An economy where public services are back in the hands of the state, but without the stifling bureaucracy of old. Where the market is free, but not free to grab. It is not a compromise between capitalism and socialism, but a logical next step that learns from both systems.

The choice now facing the left is simple: remain stuck in old dogmas or help create a future-oriented economic model. It is time to let go of the past and choose a vision that is both socially and economically future-proof.