POLITICAL LABELS & A CRITIQUE OF THE ATENEU CANDELA
(AND OTHER FRIENDS ON THE RADICAL LEFT)

Daraka at hoverbike asked fellow members of “our little democratic left corner” of the blogosphere to write responses to this question:

In our post-post-modern era, in which we are told by pundits and social scientists that ideology is dead, what is the importance of political labels? How do you label yourself? Is there a unique discussion around labels in your own national or regional political culture?

Here’s my belated response, somewhat awkwardly tacked onto a critique I’d been previously drafting of the political practices and attitudes I’m surrounded by here in Spain:

Some of my activist Spanish friends who read this blog poke fun at me for labeling the movements I choose to associate with and the beliefs I hold with ideological terms like 'left' or 'socialist'. For them, I imagine, such terms have been usurped and sullied by more centrist institutional forces (like the PSOE) and thus can no longer accurately demarcate what they personally stand for. Or perhaps they associate usage of such political labels with the 'old left' (or the social-democratic or Leninist variety) whose plans for wielding state power and transforming society are operationally dead (again, in their minds). Some may object to classifying one's beliefs beyond vague references to the 'global movement' and instead argue that we need a 'post-identitarian' inclusive political vocabulary (along with an ill-defined 'multitude' as today’s political agents). And there may even be those who subscribe to a form of amorphous, anti-capitalist, social movementism (or 'autonomism'… ack, labels!) whose volunteerism and emphasis on near total decentralism is simply incompatible with most models of socialist politics.

In my personal interactions here I’m mostly in the closet about the ideological framework I work from. And yet I stubbornly cling to political labels even if I’m the odd one out. I’ve chosen a set of comrades here who have consciously opted for a style of political engagement that I find fresh and exciting, but also limiting at times. While my cohorts will insist that they share no overarching ideology and have successfully worked to breach the sectarian divide, there are some general beliefs that seem to inform their ideas. I agree with a large part of their analysis, vision and mobilizing approach, so I will only focus on what occasionally sets us apart.

I offer these critiques knowing that they don’t fairly apply to everyone or to every situation. Much of the time I find that my comrades here possess a remarkable degree of sophistication and commitment to being both practical and visionary. The context from which they have individually formed their political philosophies and organizational methods is obviously distinct from my own and this fact can’t be overstated. Friends from the Ateneu Candela are invited to share their responses to the following criticisms:

Premature casting off of the old: A tendency to regard political traditions of yesteryear as ossified and an obstacle to change. An emphasis on “new” movements, “new” paradigms, “new” strategies can mean discounting “old” insights that still remain operational. Such a posture can lead easily to a second fault:

Disdain for reformist gains: Ignoring or deriding past and present achievements, that while piecemeal, have unquestionably improved people’s lives and the functioning of society. A kind of all-or-nothing purity can accompany this posture, one that typically celebrates only those victories that have come out of protest mobilization.

Lack of an inside-outside strategy: Focusing almost exclusively on grassroots movement building within either a local or global context. Such an approach can mean having little real impact on policy outcomes that are negotiated through large, imperfect institutions often at the national level. A look to the left-wing resurgence in Latin America, for example, points to the efficacy of developing a more fluid (although always contentious) relationship between electoral politics and pressure from below.

Distorting the crisis in representational democracy: A rejection of formal institutions, that while weak and incomplete, are still some of the best (least bad) systems for gauging public desires. This posture can leave independent activists to themselves, with no democratic mandate, little concrete policy agenda, and with virtually no accountability to the larger decision-making process that most citizens associate with democracy. Such an approach can lead radicals to denounce progressive, elected officials (in government, unions, student associations) as traitors when they make occasionally necessary compromises needed to sustain voter support, to maintain majoritarian coalitions, or to push for new legislation.

Each of these related limitations, as I see them, inversely reflect my own political sensibilities that too have developed and changed over time (from my years as a pre-teen environmentalist, a high school-aged Trotskyist and later settling into the democratic socialist family of pragmatic idealists). It goes without saying that my above criticisms in no way indicate that I am soft on the shortcomings of social democracy. I’m daily reminded of the center-left’s inability to offer genuine alternatives to the disaster we know as global capitalism. The conventional social democratic left of today is low on vision and far too accommodating to concentrated private power. The parties that typify this tradition may now find themselves as part of the elite political class they once mobilized against.

Are these descriptions caricatures? Certainly, to a degree. But I think they begin to describe the bizarre world of politics I try to negotiate between. From my point of view, a political strategy that doesn’t both incorporate electoral politics and institutional reform along with local community organizing and social movement disruption will necessarily be incomplete.

Having people sympathetic to our politics in positions of power (with democratic transparency) will almost always be better than ignoring government as an arena of struggle. And if there are politicians that aren't terribly sympathetic to our goals but they are our only shot at defeating a more right-wing candidate, we should still have the political maturity to advocate for the "least bad". This may sound unprincipled, but it is precisely the opposite. Voting is a strategic and not a moral act. Undermining the right-wing and shifting social and economic power into the hands of ordinary people means taking advantage of every opening available to us. This seems incredibly obvious to me, so I'm astonished when I hear arguments (not uncommon from Ateneu Candela participants) to the contrary.

Asserting one's political labels and affiliations is useful but only in certain contexts. I generally call myself a 'democratic socialist' and not just to associate myself with a particular organization. I prefer this label to 'social democrat' for reasons that are more or less spelled out here: Wikipedia, Towards Freedom, but also in the last paragraph in Geoff’s related blog entry. Since the political vocabulary in the U.S. is so impoverished and the spectrum of “acceptable” debate is narrower and skewed to the right, I think it’s imperative to speak clearly and convincingly about ideology and its practical (non-dogmatic) implications. I also regularly invoke the much broader category of 'the left' when discussing politics, since this allows me to argue my ideas within a larger and more diverse community.

A 21st century Left capable of steering us away from ecological collapse, overcoming inequalities built on class, race and gender oppression, demilitarizing much of the planet and simultaneously offering a compelling alternative that maximizes liberty, solidarity and personal fulfillment must include a strong dose of socialist ethics and policy prescriptions. I doubt we'll be a majority within this ongoing project of social and economic transformation any time soon (or ever), but without more folks proudly waving the democratic socialist flag, I fear we'll fall short on the vision and program needed to get us out of this mess.