“the hangman has a thousand faces”

[alanjjohnstone]

I thought this article was of interest written by Clifton Ross, who i can't say i know of.  

The Two Lefts and Venezuela

Quote:

Venezuela and Nicaragua both emerge from, and operate out of, the same sector of the left about which Tinoco spoke: the sector which disdained the idea of civil rights and believes there has “to be authoritarian thought married to the proposal of social transformation.”

This left is messianic and utopian (although they would adamantly, emotionally and fiercely reject such a characterization—which, I would argue, gives weight to the characterization) and is best exemplified by Marxist-Leninist communism in its many varieties (Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.). This sector of the left believes in an apocalyptic revolutionary project that aims at the destruction of the capitalist economic system and the construction of a “socialist” system of production and the remaking of humanity in the image of the messianic (proletarian) class led by a vanguard party under the iron hand of the leader. It is essentially anti-liberal, and it conceives of “the People” in singular form, as having one “general will” (Rousseau). It conceives of the State (proletarian, of course) as the vehicle for this utopian project, which is why state power must be “taken,” and only those social forces that engage on the side of this project, under the direction of the (proletarian) State, ruled by the vanguard under the direction of the ruler, have recognition. The other social forces, in this conception, must be neutralized or destroyed, as must all forces that oppose, challenge or question this utopian project. “Truth” and “morality” for this sector of the left, is simply defined as that which advances the struggle of the self-appointed vanguard, and no more. Trotsky expressed much of this in his essay, “Their Morals and Ours” …Take a look around the internet at those sites that call themselves “socialist” or “communist” … and you’ll find many variations of this basic ideology. Most who come out of the socialist or communist left no longer openly, or even consciously, hold to these ideas, but the basic framework or mythos persists in habits of thought or as an unconscious framework or intellectual reflex or ideological tic.

Of course the left advocated by the article is not socialism and admits to it.

Quote:

This left is willing to join James Scott and give “two cheers” to the petty bourgeoisie and small businesses since it sees the idea of the centralization of economic power, nationalization of businesses, and the top-down control of the economy as being inefficient, tending toward corruption and destructive of local community businesses and of community itself.

It describes itself as the "left of social movements"…not of the socialist movement 

Quote:

The social movement left has a conception of the People that is plural and pluralistic, rejecting the very idea of a “general will” in favor of a belief that there are as may wills as there are people. This left, therefore, envisions an open and conflictive society where ideas are debated rather than imposed from above by a vanguard party or an iron-fisted ruler. While the left of social movements may (or may not) accept leaders and leadership, it has a very different conception of leadership: leaders shouldn’t occupy their positions forever and they serve rather than rule, or, as the Zapatistas would put it, they “rule obeying” …We have rarely, if ever, seen a convergence of interests between a government and social movements. That’s why we have no interest in “taking state power,” nor do we have any interest in “hegemony” to impose a utopian project of any sort; rather, the social movement left encourages diversity of opinion, critical thought, and an autonomous and independence from the state.

This approach is in contrast with the M-L

Quote:

real “cadre” never question the vanguard or its leader: they are, after all, only there to “empower and amplify the articulated priorities of the movements and governments” they are in solidarity with…In both Venezuela and Nicaragua, a new political class rules with all the images, rhetoric, slogans, and even ideology, of the Marxist-Leninist socialism of the twentieth century. Now it’s been rebranded as “Twenty-first Century Socialism,” but the independent social movements aren’t fooled: the students who came out against the Bolivarian government in February 2014 are as clear about that divergence of interests as the Nicaraguan movements fighting the Sandinista government with its neoliberal brand of developmentalist “socialism” in partner with corporate interests from Communist China.

 

[Author]

Posts