Blog
The paralyzing struggle over purpose in the northern left
Those who embrace the moniker of the ‘left’ in the richer, northern countries acknowledge that a host of issues and struggles play into its definition. While the labour movement embodies the core of what is conventionally understood as the left, the 20th and early 21st century has seen a blossoming of movements that have brought critical issues together in a mindset that cherishes principles of deep egalitarianism, substantive democratization, cultural diversity (respecting human rights), expansive and well-protected civil rights and freedoms, and increasingly, sustainability and ecological justice. Both the terms ‘social justice’ and ‘global justice’ hint at the passion which drives many who self-identify as being ‘on the left’, to work to advance and enact politics which can help steer the world onto a sustainable course by remedying both the terrifying inequality and deprivation, as well as the severe ecological impacts that attend our standard economic way of doing things in the north. Humanity’s inequities and ecological impacts have been magnified and expanded along with our demographic explosion over the last one hundred years. Against this background, left thinkers of all different stripes have been continually vigilant to draw attention to the political and economic contours of our world that have served to entrench and amplify the global injustices of hunger and thirst, climate change and attendant biodiversity and habitat loss, the lack of access to health, education and protective police services, the lack of essential infrastructure, the lack of space for political dialogue and dissent, or systems and policies that perpetuate discrimination based on race, gender, class or ability. Where war has been seen as the answer to the aims of the right and its protagonists in transnational corporations, the left has never failed to mount a critique of war’s means and ends, and its cheerleaders. Predominant systems of corporate-dominated trade, aid and debt have been repeatedly called out by the left for their entrenchment, perpetuation and worsening of an unjust world, and this inspirational and critical work continues.
One might say that the very work of witnessing to the injustice and violence so much evident in our world in so many ways is, on a certain level, the fuel and the fire of the social movements and people who would identify with the left today. Through embracing this act of witnessing and speaking out, the left acts as a political contradiction to the observed ‘bystander effect’ of social psychology, in which groups of people in close proximity to acts of violence are found not to do anything, and even to simply watch. The acts of witnessing are diverse, well-informed, and universally shared – moreso by the day, thanks to the internet and evolving forms of communication. In many cases and on many levels, analysis from many different quarters of the left shares insights, strength and vision. However, when it comes to forms of political engagement to address the injustice and violence that is witnessed, the northern left suffers from the persistence of a serious struggle over purposes.
The crux of this struggle concerns the very ideas of the state and government. The social-democratic, and in many contexts, green electoral political movements (which all but the most proud of us wish could be united!) are grouped on one side of this struggle over purposes in the northern left. Through advancing left values and visions within the apparatus of the state across international contexts, such movements share legacies and purposes, rooted in the common thread of active engagement in the state and government toward attempting to realize the types of advances necessary to reflect the left’s core values, both domestically (in the north) and as they relate to the South. The idea of the influencing or assuming of political power within the state and government is solidly reflected in this type of work. There is an attitude inherent in this type of work – where it strives for success and is sincere in its purpose – that places a fundamental value on the vehicle of the state and its ostensibly democratic institutions and structures to help to realize the vision of the left. At the electoral level, the process is signified by compromise and incremental advances, always necessarily supported by a base of mass and co-ordinated support.
On the other side of this internecine struggle within the left are grouped those who enact a politics of hatred for the very idea of the state or government. Most who identify with some form of anarchist thinking share this type of perspective, rooted in an absolute rejection of the state. The anarchism-derived layer of ‘state-hating’ within the northern left is augmented in numbers by some interpretations of communist thought; the core idea advanced points to the very impossibility of realizing any of the values and vision of the left under the ‘state’ and its structures as they exist today. Under this type of rubric, revolution is defined as the literal overturning (involving varying degrees of violence) of the state so as to meet the necessary conditions for attempting to realize the values of the left.
The purposes and politics of the state-hating sections of the left, vis-à-vis the electoral political movements are essentially contradictory. In Canada, for example, the right has never suffered from a struggle over purposes of these proportions. The example of the electoral reconciliation of the right in Canada of the Reform Party (a political movement which often publicly betrayed racism, xenophobia, sexism/anti-abortionism and heterosexism) and the Progressive Conservative party (from which Reform had split off in the late 1980s) is a good example. Though the resultant marriage of what is in Canada called ‘social conservatism’ with the more common ‘fiscal conservatism’ on the right remains somewhat uneasy at times (because ‘social conservatism’ is often embarrassing to the right’s electoral ambitions), it is very much an agreeable marriage of convenience that for the right is possible and pragmatic. In contrast, the active face of the left resembles more a low-level war in a broken marriage – a relationship that has never really worked, and so suffers.
The politics of state-hating dictates the logic of the violent protest spectacle. Police are necessarily targeted as the most visible and present object of hatred for the state, and setting the conditions for violent spectacles involving police and activists becomes a necessary end unto itself to evoke an image of the repressiveness of the state, cathartic to its haters. Violent tactics including smashing, hitting, throwing, destroying, as well as deliberately provocative yelling, moving against a police line etc. are eminently acceptable to many state-haters, which further amplifies violent spectacles. These in turn capture the bulk of mainstream media attention and as such help to deflate the values and messages of the left, due to the effect of negative attention and public criticism falling upon state-haters who espouse violent tactics, and the idea of ‘diversity of tactics’ as a guiding principle which provides tacit support and legitimation for violent tactics.
While the state-hating left busies itself with these constructed spectacles and related attempts to further paint a portrait of the repressive state which must be dismantled in order to realize the left’s aims, it wilfully ignores and stands aloof from the aims, visions and politics of the electoral left. To the public, this produces the appearance of paralysis: The electoral left is prevented from growing to its full potential by the essential struggle over purposes on the broader left. At a glance, this problem seems insurmountable. How can the electoral left have a working relationship with the state-hating left, when electoral politics are judged by state-haters as meaningless, irrelevant – to be hated, overthrown? How will the left deal with a situation in which its electoral movement must grow to effectively challenge and ideally displace the leaders of the right, but its state-hating movement would rather see the whole electoral-political structure ‘smashed’?
Left electoral movements in the north have the potential to grow into more vibrant and united actors on their various political stages. If too much of the left retains an active hatred for the state, however, it will be enough to continue the futile politics of the violent spectacle, which will continue our stalemate. The world is at much too critical a juncture to allow this to happen, and electoral movements stand a chance of making a difference in realizing the conditions and values of the left. As long as the state-hating left remains aloof or hostile to the electoral left’s politics, the full potential of the left cannot be realized.
Is there any actual evidence of anarchists preventing either the social democrats or the Greens from being successful? The NDP took Ontario, Canada’s largest province, and they literally destroyed themselves. Had they at least said openly ‘Hey NAFTA prevents us from doing this and that, and Bay Street prevents us from doing these other things’ they would have had some function to a larger purpose. Yet they did not do that, not even remotely. As for the Greens, that party has never had its act together thanks to a myriad of problems including an environmental movement that has no social or political literacy as well as the party being a battle ground between Right pro-business Greens ie ‘eco-capitalists’ and those who were Left and previously involved with the NDP. Yes there is a futility to the violent spectacle that we saw at the G20 but that has as much to do with police infiltration as it does anything else. The North American Left is weak for many reasons including an internal depoliticalization and a crisis of intelligence fostered by neo-paganism and New Age spiritualistic nonsense. The abandonment of class analysis and the Union movement becoming pro-business would be even more impactful. The Black Bloc types are only a few pimples on what has already been a very sick body. We need a turn to a more substantive, healthier politics but making certain types of anarchists the newest ‘bogey people’ is not it.
#1. Posted by Cornelius Froese in Winnipeg on July 27th 2010 at 7:14pm
Intriguing comment - I think without the full energy and passion of the whole left engaged with the electoral left, we will stagnate and miss opportunities to grow into a more vibrant movement and advance. It so happens that there’s a good deal of energy being expended in state-hating; while at best from a political standpoint it is arguably, only intellectually and perhaps emotionally cathartic, the aloofness and hostility to electoral left politics keeps that movement from evolving and growing in a hopeful direction. I think of the NDP’s position on Israel or climate change for example, and wonder what might be possible if we had more left/social movement engagement in electoral left politics. It could be that the New Politics Initiative was a kind of watershed of sorts - perhaps too many on the left were disenchanted that the NDP didn’t want to morph into something new; but in hindsight, I wouldn’t have wanted the party wholesale transformed (though I did sign on to the NPI as an individual back then); but rather would like to see the Greens and NDP steered in a better left direction. It would seem to me that state-hating and its consequent effects of aloofness and hostility to electoral left politics help hold back any potential growth and vibrancy…
#2. Posted by Adam Davidson-Harden on July 28th 2010 at 7:10am
Sorry Adam but I do not see specific evidence offered above that the Black Bloc has stopped the NDP or Greens from doing anything. Aside from a few nominally left websites and a recent McLean’s magazine, nobody else is mentioning the G20 violence. For ideas or impressions to continually resonate the Left would need a more prominent intellectual infrastructure, like that of the Centre or the Right but it does not have that; yet another reason for its failure. You may wonder but do you remember the path that the NDP has taken in the past 30 years? It did not call out the Cold War as a sham effort at both furthering US colonialism and offering corporate welfare to mility contractors. Instread it treated the Cold War as ‘misguided’ or ‘stupid.’ Likewise with so-called Free Trade it did not point out the corporatist deceit underneath but instead treated it as a ‘failed’ idea. Any further attempts by extra-parliamentary Leftists to push discourse more progressively would have been firewalled by the same Party ‘speedbumpers’ who were already going to activist meeting to ensure nothing happened. Again nothing would have changed the general crisis of intelligence the Left is drowning in.
#3. Posted by Cornelius Froese in Winnipeg on July 28th 2010 at 1:30pm
I am a convinced member of the “state-hating left,” that is, I am a radical who regards the capitalist state as a source of injustice and oppression rather than as a remedy for them or a bulwark against them.
It is certainly true that anti-statist socialists, like me, cannot endorse or contribute to the social-democratic project of those who see the state as an ally, and believe that, contrary to appearances, the state is somehow an anti-corporate force. We anti-statists (including, to name a famous example, Marx <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_State_and_Revolution/Chapter_III>) cannot accept the claim that it is possible to realize “the values and vision of the left under the ‘state’ and its structures as they exist today.”
On the contrary, I would claim that the anti-capitalist project must be rooted in “civil society” (i.e., unions, social movement organizations, co-operatives, community councils, etc.), rather than in the market or the state. The article is correct insofar as it highlights the gulf that separates the politics of “community-based” (non-statist, anti-market) socialism on the one side, and statist (or market) socialism on the other side. Such radically opposed political projects cannot be merged, even though their advocates can and should find ways to co-operate in strategical alliances (“united fronts”) when they can find common demands, etc.
But where the article goes astray (besides the error of choosing the wrong side in the statism/anti-statism debate) is when it claims that all anti-statist Leftists are somehow inevitably drawn to “diversity of tactics.” There is no basis for this claim.
So-called “diversity of tactics” (the proposal to enforce a taboo against criticizing the tactical use of property-destruction during mass demonstrations, on the grounds that such criticism distinguishes “good” and “bad” tactics, and one should never do that) has to do with how some activists try to position themselves within the activist Left as “above criticism.” It is understandable that they try to do that. Who wouldn’t have some interest in a magical device that enabled one to enjoy the benefits of being exempt from all accountability for one’s actions? But most left-activists, because we see the downside in allowing that kind of ploy to succeed, generally reject it, regardless of whether we think (as I do not) that the capitalist state can be an effective vehicle for advancing the “values and vision of the left.”
It is true that some anarchists are both anti-statists and advocates of “diversity of tactics.” But many anti-statists reject both anarchism and DoT.
#4. Posted by S D'Arcy in Ontario on July 28th 2010 at 8:56pm
Twenty-Two Reasons Why Working People Hate the State
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/3218/
#5. Posted by Jeff White in Toronto on July 29th 2010 at 2:49pm
Thanks for that, Jeff, I’ve just left a link to this article and an explanation of its rationale on the site with Petras’ article…
#6. Posted by Adam Davidson-Harden in Kingston on July 29th 2010 at 3:48pm
...because I do believe our arguments (that is, mine and Petras’) are very much at odds. (apologies for the accidental double post…)
#7. Posted by Adam Davidson-Harden in Kingston on July 29th 2010 at 3:49pm
The main reason the “left” is somewhat weak in Canada (in my opinion the left in Canada is much stronger than many on the left would believe), and the left much weaker in the United States is that the Communist Parties are very weak in both countries. Anyone can read history and see that the left is most influential when Communist Parties are strong with a great deal of influence in broad people’s front coalitions. People on the left are going to have to get over their antipathy towards Communist Parties if the left, and the working class, are going to play their roles fully and to the maximum.
There are just too many “guru’s” on the left who have spread, and continue to spread, falsehoods about the Communist Parties in Canada and the United States—- not that neither don’t have problems… just not the problems some claim they do.
The New Democratic Party often gets an uncalled for bad rap from many of these same “guru’s” of the left who use falsehoods… again, this is not to say that the NDP has no problems.
Anti-communism has influenced the left itself in a variety of ways which need to be studied more thoroughly.
For working people Communist Parties provide a pretty good type of organization—- a Party Club structure tied together in a larger network—- together with a very tested and worthy world outlook based upon the science of Marxism-Leninism.
In addition to “studying” the criticisms of the Communist Parties, people on the left would be doing themselves and our left-wing movements—- and the working class movement which includes the NDP—- a great service by reading what Communists themselves have to say from a historical perspective as well as what is going on in our countries and the world today.
More than anything, we should all keep an open mind and keep lines of communication open between the various left organizations and movements and try working together more than bickering and fighting because we are up against some very powerful foes.
Some years ago while living in Canada I wrote a review of a book that was a compilation of writings intended to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto. I pointed out what I found most interesting is that each of the writers ignored the fact that Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto (Manifesto of the Communist Party) as a guide to building Communist Party organizations. I wasn’t sure then how so many educated people missed this point, and apparently many people today are still missing this point. To try to seperate Marx and Engels and their writings from some of their most important work signalling the importance of strong Communist Party organizations to the working class and other movements is not very helpful.
#8. Posted by Alan L. Maki in Warroad, Minnesota, USA on July 29th 2010 at 8:28pm
No offense, but this article is one of the more absurd examples of the recent anti-anarchist drivel which passes for critical thought in the publications of the Canadian left. Even the word choice (“state-hating”) is used to conjure up a caricautre of in which to demonize anarchists, as well as other radicals and socialists who see electoral politics as mostly futile as best, with a caricature as hateful people. I’m sure Che Guevara would disagree with the idea that revolutionaries are motivated by hate.
First, mainstream social democratic movements in Canada are politically and morally bankrupt. The NDP is constantly moving in a Blairite direction, taking its cues from ideas of triangulation. Their electoral strategies pretty much consist of marginalizing left-wing voices in an effort to convince elites that they can be trusted and regular Joes that they aren’t all that different from the Conservatives and Liberals. And often when they gain power, they aren’t. Simply examine the dismal records of recent provincial NDP governments. The Greens aren’t much better, as they are pretty well dominated by a right-wing “eco-capitalist” faction. I once had a Green explain to me that Margaret Thatcher had some green ideas because of her position on the miners strike! The Greens are really the Starbucks of Canadian politics - a layer of ethical and conscious imagery, mass produced for mass consumption by hipster liberals with no radical content, no class analysis, and offering no real hope for the future aside from a way to feel good while the planet is getting fucked.
The article seems to almost blame “state-hating” sections of the left for the failure of social democratic electoral politics. First, the author seemingly channels Nancy Ruth in her advice towards women’s groups when he so forcefully denounces anything which could be perceived as violent at a protest. This indicates a problem we have on the Canadian left, in that often protest is passive and ritualized, and focused simply on trying to make a show to get “play” in the media. We sorely need to transcend these liberal politics of “awareness” which put our impotence on display and find a way to move on to the more radical politics of fucking shit up.
Finally, the article displays a certain arrogance common in NDP circles. It seems as though many NDPers feel that theirs is the official party of the left and they are entitled to the support of all left-wing activists and movements. Clearly, they look at us and think “more fodder for the election machine. If only we could get those guys to do grunt-work on our campaigns…” Instead of asking why the increasingly Blairite NDP fails to attract radicals, this article simply dismisses their concerns and pins the blame on the radicals.
#9. Posted by Brian Latour in Winnipeg on August 8th 2010 at 4:02pm
cont’d…
Far from being empowering and “vibrant,” when I volunteered on an NDP campaign, it was one of the most politically disempowering experiences of my life.
Another concern with the idea of melding social movements and the NDP is how the NDP tail often wags the social movement dog. I’ve seen some pretty sorry examples of this in the MFL, as well as NDP hacks actively trying to infiltrate and sabotage the student movement in Manitoba in order to neutralize any opposition to their plans to increase tuition fees.
Finally, I would say that it’s not left electoral movements which hold the potential for a new, vibrant left, but grassroots social movements such as the Palestinian solidarity movement (I’m just using it as an example because it’s a movement that I have been involved in). Simply look at the exponential growth of Israeli Apartheid Week since 2005 from an event at one University to something that takes place in 60 cities worldwide. Compare this to the numerous NDP politicians who denounce Israeli Apartheid Week in rather harsh terms, including calling for it to be banned. Or just look at the treatment Libby Davies received from the new darling of the NDP right, Thomas Mulcair, for acknowledging the realities of 1948. It is clear that the NDP doesn’t want us, and if they do, they wish for us to be seen working on their campaignns but not heard, yet we are chastised for remaining “aloof” from electoral politics.
#10. Posted by Brian Latour in Winnipeg on August 8th 2010 at 4:03pm