Posts
Where Do You Fit?
William Sundwick
Modern liberalism
goes back a long way. Let’s start with John Locke in the 17th
century. He came up with the idea that governments exist to serve the needs of
the people. Obvious to us now, but directly opposed to the divine right of
monarchs. He was influential even in his own lifetime. The Glorious Revolution
of 1688,
establishing the supremacy of Parliament, was a Lockian idea.
All contemporary democracies are fundamentally liberal
structures. The tension with the authoritarian right visible today in the
United States and Europe has more to do with anxiety about who should be
part of the polity than what that polity should provide its members.
In the 19th century, tensions emerged with the
first industrial revolution. Karl Marx became the icon for those who saw
politics as a conflict of power wielded by the owners of capital over those who
produce their wealth (workers). That was then. Now, anticipating a “fourth
industrial revolution,” it is becoming clear that wealth tends to
perpetuate itself – it doesn’t really depend on workers at all! Workers have
lost most of the power gained over 200 years of struggle and liberal governance.
Economic prospects seem bleak for all who aren’t plugged
into the capitalist wealth machine (mostly residing on Wall Street). It’s the
current version of Marx’s alienation
of labor. Yet, we’re loathe to divorce ourselves completely from the ideas
of freedom and social contract in that very old liberal tradition. The liberal
solution to the problem of alienation is based on disincentives for “excessive”
accumulation of capital. Primarily, redistribution of wealth via taxation. Real
leftists reject this solution as not going far enough to redress the imbalance
of political power. And, political power is more than mere economic
resources – it’s cultural. Liberals retort that leftists are guilty of “class
reductionism.” Liberal societies, after all, allow for social mobility,
right?
Class is the focus for the Left in the 21st
century more than wealth -- leave wealth to the liberals, they say. Yes, money
is a common denominator in acquisition of political power (especially in the
U.S.), but what the Left wants is a reversal of the dynamic behind ascendance
of “elites.” Liberals may choose to make everybody happy with more money
(Universal Basic Income is the current hot topic in liberal, and neoliberal, circles),
but Real Leftists want to throw out the “money people” (Wall Street) from
government altogether, feeling that an entirely different class should be in
charge. Paradoxically, in the U.S., Donald Trump was supposed to be the kind of
person the working class could get behind. Except, of course, he is the bastard
child of Wall Street to begin with. Could a Bernie Sanders be the best answer? It’s
populism, whether left or right.
Liberals generally counter populism with attempts at making
everybody’s life more comfortable. It’s not about power, but comfort. If you
give people enough stuff, maybe they’ll go away. Pitchforks come from more than
discomfort, says the Left.
If the real contest in democracies is between classes and
how much influence they can wield in government, then we should explore what
defines these classes – the ins versus the outs. While it
sometimes seems that multi-party parliamentary systems have more flexibility in
accommodating class struggle, American political history also provides examples
of realignments of the two major parties over time.
The Democratic Party of today is a strange (by historic
standards) coalition of apparently divergent class interests – Wall Street
capitalists find common cause there with communities of color and others who
define themselves as marginalized, and with the well-educated minority of the
population seeking to protect their privilege. The Republican Party seems to
consist of a combination of “self-made” (allegedly) capitalists and culturally
conservative religious communities, provincial rather than cosmopolitan in
outlook (“people like me” versus “the other”). This bipolar party structure leaves
those with strong left-wing convictions no home. It’s usually a story of
compromise for American leftists – how much can they stomach to call themselves
a Democrat?
So, what do American “leftists” believe? They despise
liberals as much as the right-wingers in the Republican Party do. Yet they
understand the economic structure of society to be based on exploitation of the
labor of people like them. They no longer believe they can achieve “the
American Dream” of one day becoming a successful capitalist themselves,
probably not even their children. Privilege is so baked into the “elite”
classes, who mobilize to protect it, that extraordinary political means are
necessary to change it. They don’t want crumbs from the liberal establishment –
they want power! How do they plan to seize it?
I have not met a single American Bolshevik – people who believe
in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If
there ever were such animals, they probably all died out, or were co-opted,
sometime around mid-century, during that unprecedented postwar prosperity with
high participation of organized labor. Racial identifications with the Left
persisted into the 1970s. But co-optation, and intimidation via police violence,
mostly put an end to that. Women and young people? We’ve seen some organizing
success with women recently (#MeToo movement), but young people will likely be
co-opted by forgiveness of student loan debt – and higher starting salaries. That
remains to be seen.
Anybody still committed to the Left imagines using social
media to mobilize large numbers of people behind left-wing political candidates
– and, doing it fast enough to save the planet from ecocide. The media message
is crucial, but the goal is to ultimately seize victory through the ballot box.
They expect great resistance here, however. Voter suppression and
gerrymandering of legislative districts present real threats. And the judicial
branch of government appears less friendly with each passing year. But seizing
power democratically has long been the hallmark of Democratic Socialists and social democrats
alike – the latter not necessarily committed to eliminating capitalism, anyway,
hence of questionable “leftist” credentials.
Despite all the sniping at the “Democratic establishment”
and resentment of “academic elites,” there remains a basic respect for
democracy among the American Left – they have bought into the fundamental
liberalism of the last three centuries. My bias here tells me that the liberal
project is working. The differences between leftist and liberal will lead to a
synthesis: a “Left-liberal” or “Liberal Socialist.” More
leftists will be co-opted into the elites, convincing others that, given more
attainable education, they too can become part of the governing elite.
The only ones left behind will be those who choose entrenched
community traditions over current economic/political reality: otherwise known
as conservatives. Looking inward and backward always succumbs to looking outward
and forward.
