It's already happening, but the real push has only just begun -- the communist idea will not die easily. What we'll see soon is the Modern Communist Movement in earnest under a new name. With a short revival in the 60s and early 70s, communism has been degraded, especially with the fall of the USSR in 1989, but the ideas didn't die -- communism just put on a modern suit. Progressives, environmentalists, anti-capitalists, some unions and a variety of socialist groups have kept the dream alive. Now that the recession has lingered and Wall Street has been blamed, a new confidence is arising, but still cautious of over-reach.
One idea the Left will address is economic growth. We will hear that endless economic growth is unrealistic, and that the neoliberal push for rapid growth the last three decades has created a credit and debt crisis, plus high unemployment. "Neoliberal" is a term being used to place classical liberalism, free market principles, Country Club Republicans, libertarians, modern liberals who promote economic growth, and practically all capitalist-system acceptance on the Right under the same umbrella. So, on one side of this battle we have the "neoliberals", and on the other side we have the progressive/socialist/communist coalition. Keynesianism will be thrown in with failed liberalism after the present push to "invest" doesn't change poverty and umemployment. Then, it will be demanded that America has to move forward in its evolution and stop fighting the inevitability of a new progression toward social justice, stability and security.
Instability in the world feeds into the Left's desire to create a new world order of stability, security and equity. The key principles are redistribution and regulation. The current finacial crisis is laid at the door of Wall Street, but in a larger narrative, it's laid at the door of capitalism and the remants of classical liberal economic practice. Statism, especially since the beginning of the 20th century, has morphed capitalism and free market principles into a modern State Marketism in which the State manages the direction of the economy at home and internationally. America has always leaned more toward a Merchant-State than a free market, but now we are on the verge of a leftward shift that will transform America for decades to come. There has been a battle in America between the capitalist ideas of classical liberalism and the more socialistic ideas of progressives. We combined the two ideas in the hope that the tension will prevent either extreme from gaining too much power. However, the movement has been steadily leftward and progressive over time. But, really, what has hurt the American economy has been how our mixed economy has removed certain limitations from government, allowing power players in government and in corporations to rig the financial game and amass huge sums of wealth and power.
The Right and Left have battled over ideas, but raw power has had its way while hardly anyone paid attention. Now people are paying attention, and the battle of ideas has heated up, but this time there's a serious desire to limit power. The enlightened Right believes that the power of the State should be limited, while the Left believes that the power of corporations and international institutions like the IMF, World Bank and WTO need to be limited. There are too few people who understand the distintion between the ideas on the Right and the Left. Many on the Right criticize Democrat controlled government because they think they tax and spend too much, and they are too liberal, so the Right wants more freedom to keep what they earn and spend it how they like, but this is all superficial -- many on the right are just as willing to misuse government power if it's for purposes they support. Many on the Left have basic ideas of the Right and criticize Republican controlled government because they think they will violate civil liberties and cause wars and bash unions and protect the wealthy -- this too is superficial.
As I said above, this battle between Left and Right has obscured the real problems, and honest thinkers on both sides have similar goals that could be achieved if the real issues are ever dealt with. Great wealth is not our problem -- power-lust is our problem. The Left is currently misled to believe that if they can only institute methods to control the desire for economic growth and settle on the proper output, then wealth can be redistributed to create stability, security and equity. The Left imagines a static amount of production which can be managed to prevent an unfair accumulation of wealth in certain industries, and, through regulation of industry, minimize the risks of investment, thereby minimizing the rewards -- this will curb the desire of investors, move them out of industry, and create more public/worker-owned companies which distribute the income more equitably.
The Left is working on a philosophy of less, not more, efficient economic growth, and they are not driven by the idea of full employment. The "neoliberal" desire to maintain a high rate of economic growth, high profits and full employment is seen by the Left as the cause of the current financial crisis and wealth inequality. The Left believes that full unemployment in a global economy is an illusion, and that there can be enough production to support a certain amount of unemployment through a gauranteed income to ensure a comfortable "survival" level for those who aren't in the work force -- this is accomplished by not allowing individuals or corporations to amass an unfair amount of wealth.
The Left also wants to transform the idea of globalization to create redistribution between countries. The left believes that the IMF, World Bank and WTO were created to enrich the neoliberal power elite, and that these organizations should work toward stabilizing commodity prices by removing speculation so that speculators don't become rich to the detriment of the poor. The Left's new world requires much State intervention, and international cooperation between countries to intervene in the global economy in order to bring about social justice.
I will write more later to make the distinction between "neoliberalism" and free market principles.