|
|
|
|
| |
Join our e-mail list
to be notified of developments... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Polls > |
| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
The Leftists of the World After 2011.
To transform the world, the leftists of the world will need political unity. There are profound disagreements as to both long-term objectives and short-term tactics. Heated debates are going on about these issues and little progress is occurring to overcome the divisions.
By any definition, 2011 was a good year for the leftists of the world – however narrowly or broadly one defines the leftists of the world.
The basic reason of this was the negative economic conditions from which most of the world was suffering. Unemployment was high in 2011 and it is becoming higher day by day. Most governments faced high debt levels and reduced income. Their response was to try to impose austerity measures on their populations while at the same time they were trying to protect their banks.
The result was a worldwide revolt of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the 99% movements. The revolt was against the excessive polarization of wealth, corrupt governments, and the essentially undemocratic nature of multiparty systems of these governments.
Not only the OWS, but also the Arab Spring, or the Indignados Movement in Spain has identical goals. They all aimed to change the world which excluded the discourses of inequality, injustice, and decolonization which are the ideological mantras of neo-liberalism. For the first time after a long time, ordinary people were discussing the very nature of the system in which they lived; they were no longer taking it for granted.
The question now for the leftists of the world is how it can move forward and translate this initial discursive success into political transformation. The problem can be posed quite simply. Even if, in economic terms, there exists a clear and growing cleavage between a very small group (the 1%) and a very large one (the 99%). It does not necessarily follow that this is a political division. Worldwide, right-of-center forces still command something like half of the world’s populations, or at least of those who are politically active in any way.
To transform the world therefore, the leftists of the world will need a degree of political unity it does not achieved yet. Indeed, there are profound disagreements about both long-term objectives and short-term tactics. It is not that these issues are not being debated. On the contrary, there are heated debates, and little progress is occurring to overcome the divisions.
These divisions among the leftists are not new. That doesn’t make them easier to resolve. There are two major ones. The first has to do with elections. There are not two, but three positions concerning elections. There is one group that is deeply suspicious of elections, arguing that participating in them is not only politically ineffectual but reinforces the legitimacy of the existing world-system.
Others think it’s crucial to take part in the electoral process. But this group is divided in two. On the one hand, there are those who claim to be pragmatic. They want to work from within – within the major left-of-center party when there is a functioning multi-party system, or within the de facto single party when parliamentary alternation is not permitted.
And of course there are those who decry this policy of choosing the so-called lesser evil. They insist that there is no significant difference between the principal alternative parties and supporting to vote for some party that is “genuinely” on the left.
We are all familiar with this debate and we have all heard the arguments over and over. However, it is clear, at least to me, that if there isn’t some coming together of the three groups concerning electoral tactics, the leftists of the world do not have much of a chance of prevailing either in the shorter or the longer run.
I believe there is a mode of reconciliation. It is to make a distinction between short-term tactics and long-term strategy. I very much agree with those who argue that obtaining state power is irrelevant to, and possibly endangers the possibility of, the long-term transformation of the world-system. As a strategy of transformation, it has been tried many times and it has failed.
But it does not follow from this that short-run electoral participation is a waste of time. The fact is that a very large part of the 99% is suffering acutely in the short-run. And it is this short-run suffering that is their principal concern. They are trying to survive, and to aid their families and friends to survive. If we think of governments not as potential agents of social transformation but as structures that can affect short-term suffering by their immediate policy decisions, then the leftists of the world are obligated to do what it can to arrive at the decisions that will minimize the pain.
Working to minimize the pain requires electoral participation. And what of the debate between the proponents of the lesser evil and the proponents supporting genuinely left parties?
This becomes a decision of local tactics, which vary enormously according to many factors: size of country, formal political structure, demographics of country, geopolitical location, and political history. There is no standard answer, nor can there be. Nor is the answer of 2012 necessarily going to hold for 2014 or 2016. It is not, for me at least, a debate of principle but rather of an evolving tactical situation in each country.
The second basic debate that consumes the leftists of the world is that between what I call “developmentalism” and what may be called the priority of civilizational change. We can observe this debate in many parts of the world.
One sees it in Latin America in the ongoing and quite angry debates between the leftist governments and movements of indigenous people – for example, in Bolivia, in Ecuador, in Venezuela. One sees it in North America and in Europe in debates between environmentalists/Greens and the trade-unions which give priority to retaining and expanding available employment.
On the one side of the “developmentalist” option, whether put forward by leftist governments or by trade-unions is that without such an economic growth, there is no way to rectify the economic imbalances of the present-day world, whether we are talking about polarization within countries or polarization between countries. This group accuses their opponents for supporting, at least objectively and possibly subjectively, the interests of right-wing forces.
The proponents of the anti-developmentalist option say that the focus on the priority of economic growth is wrong on two grounds. It is a policy that simply continues the worst features of the capitalist system. And it is a policy that causes irreparable damage – ecological and social damage.
This division is even more passionate, if possible, than the one about electoral participation. The only way to resolve it is by compromises, on a case-by-case basis. To make this possible, both groups need to accept the good faith leftist credentials of the other. But this will not be easy.
Can these divisions among the leftists be overcome in the next five to ten years? I am not sure. But if they are not, I do not believe the leftists of the world can win the battle of the next twenty to forty years over what kind of successor system we shall have as the capitalist system collapses definitively.
* Trans. Can Semercioğlu
(bianet.org, January 3, 2012) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Last 5 weeks in this category |
|
|