Valdai Club

Unlike 1917, which was a year of socialist rebellions, the general verdict on the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution is that a repeat of a seizure of power led by a socialist party has been completed discarded.  The shock waves experienced over the ten years from the global financial crisis of 2007 have had no significant revolutionary effects. Instead, 2017 signifies two major developments: the intensification of ‘populist’ discontent in the core countries of capitalism and a shift in the balance of political and economic power to the rising countries in the east led by China.

Discussions of the October Revolution, which have taken place in connection with its hundredth anniversary, have dwelt on the role of Lenin and the Communist Party in the seizure of political power, on the subsequent success of the USSR as a force for modernisation in the USSR and Asia, and its impact on the West.

In December 1991 the USSR was dismembered into 15 sovereign states. What consequently was lost in the break-up of the USSR were the social and economic objectives promised by October. Perhaps the most important one was the vision that one could build a society without capitalists, the market and private profit.

Stefan Zweig in his 1927 book, Decisive Moments in History, ranks Lenin’s return to Russia in October 1917 as one of the three most decisive ‘moments’ in recent world history. The others were the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815.

The election of Donald Trump, the UK’s exit from the European Union, and strong challenges to the current ruling elites by populist parties in France, Greece, Holland, Hungary and Poland confront the neo-liberal ruling elites. These social movements, universally dubbed as ‘populist’, offer an electoral choice but we remain puzzled as to what policies they are likely to implement.

Britain will be faced with widening the scope of its trade and finding new markets to replace those lost in the European Union. Consequently, there is likely to be a strengthening of links between members of the ‘Anglo-sphere’ (the English speaking countries). Without the membership of the UK, Germany will become the hegemonic power and dissatisfaction with the current policies of the EU will no doubt lead to its reform.

A victory for Theresa May would certainly lead to a strengthening of the UK’s relationship with the USA in the context of established NATO policy. Its current policy with respect to ‘terrorism’ in the Middle East and a ‘resurgent’ Russia would continue.
A Labour government would undoubtedly lead to a less aggressive UK foreign policy though within the framework of NATO.

A political compromise with Scotland would have to meet the Scots’ claims for greater self-government. A federal United Kingdom would open up the possibilities of Scotland taking not only more powers from the UK government but also of regaining some of the authority now exercised by the EU.

Leaving the EU is not a calamity. It opens up immense opportunities for the UK to strengthen associations not only in Europe, which extends outside the EU, but also in the wider international community. Brexit may itself lead to new opportunities for both the UK and the EU.

For Theresa May, the British people’s vote to leave the European Union not only unlocked the door to the post of Prime Minister. In her interpretation the vote signalled a deeper malaise with conventional Conservative policy.  She displays a suspicion of Russia and China and opines that one should ‘engage but beware’ of President Putin.