[[link removed]]

RETHINKING THE CONCEPT OF THE “SOCIAL MOVEMENT LEFT”  
[[link removed]]


 

Bill Fletcher Jr
July 8, 2024
Liberation Road
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Marta Harnecker meant radical mass movements, not individual
leftists or NGOs. _

Chilean sociologist Marta Harnecker, 16 August 2011. Cancillería
Ecuador, ([link removed])

 

In the early 2000s in the USA, increased attention was paid to the
work of the iconic Chilean Marxist, Marta Harnecker. Writing in the
late 1990s and early 2000s, Harnecker offered significant insight into
what has come to be known as the “crisis of socialism,” and
specifically, the strategic and conceptual challenges facing the
contemporary socialist Left in building a new emancipatory politics,
strategy, and practice. Central to Harnecker’s thinking was the
challenge, particularly in Latin America, of uniting a socialist Left
divided in an unprecedented fashion.

Rather than focusing on historical ideological divisions that had
permeated the Latin American Left through the end of the Cold War,
e.g., between social democrats, pro-Soviet Communists, pro-Cuban
socialists and communists, and Maoists, Harnecker highlighted two
distinct tendencies. First, the "party Left," or what we would call
the "organizational Left," referred to organizations that explicitly
identify as Left; have an overall program; may or may not participate
in electoral work, but have a view of conquering power and sometimes
possessing an armed wing.  The second tendency, the “social
movement Left,” is the concept we shall focus on here. Harnecker
emphasized the need to fuse these two sections of the Left into what
she called a “political instrument,” without which, she
asserted, there would be no advance towards socialism.

Many in the US Left were appropriately intrigued with this
conceptualization and its implications for the work of the socialist
Left in the USA. The problem that emerged almost immediately in the
USA was a misinterpretation of Harnecker, one which carried with it
strategic implications for those who—correctly—believed in the
necessity to construct a “political instrument” to advance
emancipatory politics, i.e., a movement toward socialism.  The
rhetoric of winning the “social movement Left” to socialism began
to circulate in US Left circles and was embraced by many people who
had not participated in the organizational Left but recognized the
importance of organization.

What did Harnecker mean by the “social movement Left?” She was
specifically discussing _mass democratic formations_ that tended to
be rooted in specific mass movements. As opposed to these mass
formations being simply “Left-led” organizations (no criticism
implied), i.e., mass formations where leftists won leadership but
where the formation did not usually have a Left program or objective,
these formations saw themselves as _left-wing projects_, in one form
or another, or may have seen themselves explicitly as revolutionary. 
As opposed to the party or organizational Left, however, these
projects were grounded in specific social movements. Such projects
often included in their work confrontation with the state,
revolutionary political education for members, as well as the
creation of alternative institutions to serve the people. 
 Examples of this might include the Landless Workers Movement (MST)
in Brazil; the Unemployed Workers Movement in South Africa; Via
Campesina (a movement of millions of farmers around the globe); and,
quite possibly, the earlier incarnation of ACT UP in the USA.  There
are also Indigenous mass democratic and revolutionary formations
around the world that would fit into this category.  It is important
to note these are genuine mass organizations. They are not NGOs.

The use of the term “social movement Left” that started to spread
in the USA, and which has led to immense confusion, is the
identification of Left and/or left-progressive, nongovernmental
organizations as _the _social movement Left.  Without implying a
criticism of those working in left and left/progressive NGOs, these
are not the sorts of organizations that Harnecker was referencing. She
was not looking at organizations that were largely driven by staff or
where the category of “member” was elusive or vague. She was not
looking at organizations that were primarily advocacy oriented, though
they all advocated. She was speaking about mass projects rooted in
actual social movements_ that were in their character left_. But
these projects were not political parties. They may have fought to
influence governments and may have aligned with political parties, but
they were not, themselves, political parties.

What is being identified by some in the USA as the “social movement
Left” is not Harnecker’s social movement Left but is,
rather, independent leftists who are in social movements or have
constituted various NGOs_._ The NGOs themselves are not mass
democratic organizations that see themselves as part of a
revolutionary project but are left or left-leaning NGOs that may or
may not have real ties with masses of grassroots people. These NGOs
are largely supported through foundations, rather than membership dues
or forms of creative—and legal!—fundraising. Their agendas, as a
result, are often influenced by precisely where donor money can be
found. They may have more or less significant followings, but they are
not, structurally or politically, led by representatives from a
grassroots membership.

None of this is an indictment of NGOs. This writer has worked in,
worked with, and been the leader of an NGO. The necessity to be clear
on this is not personal or purist but due to several considerations.
For one, the misidentification of the social movement Left can lead to
self-aggrandizement, i.e., it is saying something like, “We are
important because we have led—and do lead—these left or
left-progressive organizations that identify with left causes.” 
NGOs can play a vital role. But hold onto your hat for a moment and
let’s look at the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil.  Do we have
anything like that?  No. Nothing close.

Second, it denies one of the most important social movements in the
USA: organized labor. Organized labor, for all its weaknesses, is a
social movement. It is not a left social movement; it is
multi-tendency. And it is a movement, I hasten to add, where much of
the socialist Left—individually and collectively—has invested a
lot of juice.  It is connected, to varying degrees, with other worker
formations and movements, some of which have been described as
“alt-labor,” some of the latter including NGOs.  Other actual
social movements are also being downplayed in part through an
exaggeration of the importance of left or left-led NGOs. The
implication of misidentifying the NGO Left for the social movement
Left has led, in practice, to downplaying legitimate mass social
movements where the Left needs to be based!

Third, the notion of the NGO Left as the social movement Left can also
tend to downplay the actual work of building socialist organizations,
a problem not limited to the Left in the USA. This problem has plagued
the Left around the world, where NGOs have often replaced Left/radical
formations. Working in—that is, being paid to work in—a left or
progressive NGO can become all-consuming, and particularly to the
extent that the NGO articulates Left rhetoric and supports progressive
causes, it can encourage its staff and associates to believe that
nothing more is necessary. This can result in the notion, “If I am
not being paid to do political work, I can’t do political work.”

Fourth, there can be a tendency towards what I have identified as
“Magnificent Seven” mentality, whereby the staff of the
NGO—leftists—in the absence of a genuine mass membership (by which
I mean, more than a list of supporters), begins thinking
of _themselves_ as the agents of change rather than organizers and
facilitators of mass emancipatory politics. This substitution can
permeate the actual process of constructing a “political
instrument,” and lead to deprioritizing the critical task of winning
over and training grassroots leaders and activists.

While it is certainly the case that many of the Leftists operating
within NGOs have and will play important roles in the construction of
a “political instrument,” the NGO Left is not constructed to do
so. There are landmines for the NGO Left when it comes to accessing
necessary resources.  For example, many of the funders of NGOs are
not sanguine on the question of class and political power, nor the
implications of class struggle within otherwise progressive social
movements. Finally, most NGOs have to play a circumspect role, at
best, when it comes to electoral work.

The construction of a political instrument in the USA (whether a
socialist party, a front, etc.) depends less on the idea of a fusion
of the organizational Left with the social movement Left (or what is
actually the NGO Left) and more on the ability of a re-formed
organizational left_ _to emerge through the painstaking work of
building mass organizations, constructing strategies towards the
achievement of progressive governing power within the context of
democratic capitalism, defeating the far Right, building alternative
institutions (including NGOs), and winning over the actual leaders of
the struggles among subaltern populations to a genuine
anti-imperialist and anti-authoritarian socialism.

There are no shortcuts.

Harnecker was identifying a problem in the split between the
party/organizational Left and the increasing tendency towards the
growth of the social movement Left.  Resolving this contradiction
was, for her, part of addressing the crisis of socialism and the
crisis of socialist strategy.  This insight was and is profound and
one for which we should thank her.  But we do not do her a service by
misconstruing the content and intent of her formulation.

_Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a socialist, long active in the Black Freedom
Movement, trade union movement, and international solidarity. He is
also a writer of both fiction and nonfiction. The views stated here
are his alone._

* socialist strategy
[[link removed]]
* Social Movements
[[link removed]]
* NGOs
[[link removed]]
* Marta Harnecker
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]