Good old European socialism?
The EU does anything to hinder the return of this great invention of the 19th century.
In my country there was a judicial coup d'état that destroyed all the old Left-Wing parties (that apparently lost any support from Moscow after 1989).
What was left of the Italian Left?
It became more and more the European branch of the American Democratic Party. That's its name. Democratic Party.
With all due respect, but the DP of the US is economically right-wing.
Not sure what happened in Europe, although the U.S. was on a good course during the 20-25 years after WW2. Then things started to waver.
While the U.S. suffered considerably less physical damage than European or Asian nations during WW2, there appeared to be some long-lasting psychological damage. The U.S. had previously been a more neutral (sometimes referred to as "isolationist"), insular, and provincial by European standards. The first Red Scare (characterized by the Palmer Raids just after WW1) was more xenophobic its scope, mainly about protecting America from "foreign influence," which also led to more severe restrictions on immigration which weren't really lifted until the 1960s.
I don't think Americans were necessarily against the idea of workers getting better wages and working conditions, as support of the labor movement and unions grew from the 1920s and peaked in the 50s and 60 (which was roughly the period of the second Red Scare). If the Communists had not been atheists, they might have had a better chance of gaining hearts and minds in America.
America's Cold War strategy was ostensibly to oppose the Communist Bloc internationally, as well as persecute Communists domestically. Yet it also included domestic reforms apparently designed to answer many of the Communist and Socialist criticisms of the U.S., which is why the Powers That Be supported organized labor and civil rights, among other reforms. There were those who wanted to show the world that America was truly the "land of the free" in fact, as well as in propaganda.
It was far easier to gain the hearts and minds of the common people if they were given a greater share of the fruits of capitalism, which is why the U.S. economy improved by leaps and bounds during the post-WW2 period. The standard of living increased rapidly, the infrastructure was enhanced and modernized, and life overall had gotten quite comfortable and relatively luxurious for even the working classes. Serious attention was paid to civil rights and strong reform movements were gaining momentum and support from up on high. After all, we couldn't very easily present America as a propaganda showcase to the world (which we were trying convert to U.S. style capitalism) when there were such gross and blatant racial injustices. Likewise, the disparities between rich and poor had to be dealt with, so many of the improvements which many Americans now take for granted were made during this time.
Propagandists were also able to gaslight Americans into thinking that our economic and military good fortunes were all the result of a capitalist "system" and our supposed devotion to "freedom." The standard line was that "we" (Americans) single-handedly saved the "free world" from fascist tyranny and that we were continuing the fight against the threat of global communist tyranny. The propaganda machine would routinely neglect to mention the contribution of other powers in WW2 (particularly the Russians and Chinese), as well as the fact that America's industrial and economic good fortune was a consequence of most of the rest of the industrialized world being devastated in the war.
Of course, during the same period, there
were Western Socialists who differentiated themselves from the Communists, and in fact, it was commonly taught socialism was more evolutionary than revolutionary, as well as far more moderate and democratic than its communist cousins. Unlike today, people back then knew the difference between socialism and communism. They knew the difference between Eugene Debs and Joseph Stalin, but try to explain that to capitalist ideologues in the present day, and they simply don't understand. (Of course, today's capitalists come from the same ideological mindset as those who believed that FDR was a Communist and that the Beatles were a Communist plot to undermine the West.)
That's why labor unions and many other progressive reforms could come about, even at the height of the second Red Scare. Unlike today, paying workers better wages and implementing social programs for the poor was not considered "communistic," just as long as it was presented in a patriotic and non-atheistic manner.
However, anti-communism had become so virulent and vicious that a strong backlash developed, culminated in the tumultuous anti-war demonstrations of the 60s and 70s. Most of those who opposed America's anti-communist militarism were not necessarily communists or socialists, but they were decidedly "anti-anti-communist." They seemingly believed that anti-communism had gone too far and advocated for more progressive, egalitarian beliefs which were called "pinko," but not "red" (although this tended to vary among different degrees of right-wing thought). Even those who opposed the Civil Rights movement would constantly insist that it had nothing to do with race, but everything to do with communism (as Civil Rights leaders such as MLK were constantly associated the so-called "communist conspiracy").
Globally, the U.S. was focused mostly on Containment, as well as the build-up and enhancement of our strategic (nuclear) forces of ICBMs, SLBMs, and long-range nuclear bombers. A major turning point, however, occurred as a result of the Sino-Soviet split, which Nixon (a shrewd geopolitician) was able to capitalize on. In terms of the overall big picture, Vietnam was a minor loss compared to Nixon wooing China and gaining (for all practical purposes) an ally against the USSR. That was probably the major turning point in the Cold War, as it put the Soviet Union more and more on the defensive. The Soviet defense posture and national security aspirations had to shift more towards China and the East.
A lot of people think it was Reagan who "won" the Cold War, but my view is that it was actually Nixon who should be credited, since he was the one who set the tone for US-Chinese rapprochement which worked against the USSR.
Reagan was also more of an anti-socialist on ideological and economic grounds, although he and his followers seemed to have a poor grasp of global geography, politics, or history. However, that didn't really seem to matter, as Reagan's militarism and hostile rhetoric was enough for the world to stand up and take notice. China was also advancing rapidly and becoming more and more "capitalist-friendly," even while remaining "Communist" in name. Reagan apparently didn't care that they were still "Communist," just as long as they were anti-Soviet. (Reagan even jumped into bed with Iranian and Afghani militants, just because he saw them as anti-Soviet as well.)
As a political and economic philosophy, socialism was strongly opposed in the U.S., and it only became more intense under Reagan. At the same capitalism was enjoying a resurgence, and the earlier influences of the Civil Rights movement and other progressive causes had made some inroads and caused capitalism to be repackaged and rebranded. It was made to appear to be more egalitarian and racially/religiously tolerant, focusing solely on the raw components of business and economics. Many people blame "political correctness" and various elements of identity politics on liberals and progressives, although I think it largely came from corporate America.
Corporatizing the Civil Rights movement and other progressive ideals was nothing less than sheer political genius which took the wind out of socialism's sails. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Bloc embraced capitalism with reckless abandon, and China's authoritarian government also continued with its business-friendly policies, which Western corporate and other business interests saw as a huge opportunity (which is how we ended up in bed with China).
The capitalist ruling class understood that much of the American left didn't
really want "socialism," as such. They saw that all they really wanted was an end to provincialism. The social movements which came about were as much about challenging the old, traditionalist order. Fact is, most people just wanted to have fun and frolic, without all the old-fashioned, fuddy-duddies and religious puritans putting a damper on things. Moreover, capitalists recognized the enormous profit to be gained from rock-and-roll, more sex and violence in cinema, and other things to distract the public, so that they would become more contented and pleased with capitalism. The hippies who might have been more socialist in the 60s realized that communes and free love weren't all they were cracked up to be. After the fall of Nixon and the end of the Vietnam War, they started to become more amenable to capitalism and moved more towards making peace with the "establishment" as they saw it at the time.
By the same token, socialist societies were seen as drab, ugly, deprived, and even more provincial and prudish than Southern Baptists (even though socialists were technically atheists). Their governments hated Western decadence and hedonism, while Western liberals and progressives reveled in that. There's the old line attributed to Emma Goldman "If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution."
All of these various influences and events have led us to where we are now. Socialism, as a political philosophy, is facing an uphill battle, particularly in first-world countries which have largely thrived and flourished under the umbrella of Western liberal democracies who have been allies and economic partners since WW2.
The major capitalist powers built up an enormous amount of wealth during the ages of exploration, colonization, and imperialism, and (at least in the U.S.), there was more than enough excess wealth after WW2 that the upper classes could afford to be far more generous with the lower classes than they otherwise would be in leaner times. Of course, people in other countries got the short end of the stick, which are (apparently by pure coincidence) the same countries pejoratively referred to as "third world" (or as Trump called them, "****hole countries"). It seems it's no accident that our countries are so rich and comfortable, while so many other countries in the majority of the world are doing so poorly.
This is the "elephant in the room" that's largely ignored by both major political parties in the U.S., but it is an issue which is looming large just the same.
I'm not sure what direction socialism or the left in general will take in the U.S. I'm even less sure about what's happening in Europe in that regard. It seems many countries have a certain degree of right-wing nationalist or quasi-nationalist sentiment on the rise. Russia and China also appear to be getting more nationalistic.
Socialism may need to present itself as an alternative to the growing trend of nationalism, which can only end in world war and disaster for humanity. And the fact is, we can't expect peace and cooperation in a world full of capitalists running roughshod throughout the "global economy." There's a lot of pissed-off people being left in its wake.
