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.
