By Kieran Kelly
The term “left-wing” is seldom defined and is often grossly misapplied. Some point at Stalinist repression and say that that is an example of how bad the left can be, but such authoritarianism contravenes the defining left-wing principle of anti-authoritarianism. Others have tried to characterise Nazism and Fascism as being half-left and half-right simply because they appropriated left-wing rhetoric for a very right-wing project. Liberalism likewise uses left-wing rhetoric to channel the energies of left-wing ethical or moral leanings into a very right-wing project. The confusion is so great that the US practice of identifying “liberal” with the left is spreading to other countries. In this process the very idea of being left-wing is excluded from public political discourse in such a way that a person’s left-wing convictions are used to attach them to a right-wing ideology. “Left-wing”, however, has an eminently recuperable set of definitional attributes. It began life as an expression of a set of stances, of which each had a binary opposite in a “right-wing”, and it can still be reduced to a similar set. The result is a group of attributes where an individual, a group, or an ideology may be either on the right or on the left, but each individual, group, or ideology may have both right and left wing aspects, and many other aspects do not reduce to this choice. In practice, of course, two imperatives derived from left-wing stances may contravene each other, or be seen as contravening each other, but that should not be seen as of relevance to the left-wing nature of their foundations.
The term left-wing comes from those who during the French Revolution believed in a society based on the revolutionary ideals that had animated the masses. Over time there has been a consensus among left-wing movements on many issues (I exclude here state regimes which adopt left-wing rhetoric, but which, more often than not, are actually right-wing in their nature). My purpose here is to produce a comprehensive and inclusive list. The list below gives an idea of a maximal left-wing philosophy, like a platonic ideal. I am not advocating that people should abandon any beliefs or stances we hold that are actually right-wing. I myself am rather right-wing on the question of individualism, but that doesn’t mean that I am not a profoundly left-wing person. This is a purist sort of vision, not something to try to live up to or even hold as an abstract aspirational ideal.
“Liberty, equality and fraternity” was the original basis of left-wing sentiment. “Fraternity” doesn’t quite work in this day and age and so I suggest that a good core set of left-wing principles to proceed from would be: liberty, equality, community and solidarity.
Obviously a belief in liberty implies an opposition to authoritarianism. Promoting democracy and decentralisation are both, properly speaking, left-wing stances. There are ideas of “positive” liberty, associated with Communist regimes and so forth, and “negative” liberty, associated with liberalism. Positive liberty is associated with the idea of civic engagement as a form of liberty even if it involves the curtailment of individual freedoms. The objection I would raise to this idea is that it doesn’t actually coincide with anyone’s normal usage, nor a dictionary definition of, “liberty”. “Positive liberty” is a concept most closely associated with hostile sources who ascribe it simultaneously to Marx, Engels, the Soviet Bloc, the People’s Republic of China, Machiavelli, Fascism, Nazism and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
Leaving aside positive liberty, it has been pointed out that liberal “negative” liberty has for many throughout history consisted of the freedom to starve to death in a gutter. It is actually worse than that, liberal ideas of “free markets” or “laissez faire” are themselves authoritarian. Liberal ideologues (with the surprising assent of non-liberals of both left and right) portray liberalism as inherently and fundamentally at odds with authoritarianism. Yet liberal regimes can be very brutally authoritarian – particularly, but not exclusively, in imperial and neocolonial coercive practices. They practice extrajudicial executions, paramilitary policing, administrative detentions and physical and mental torture techniques. As a form of authoritarian institution, for example, the brutal US prison system has no contemporary parallels. The perceived contradiction between liberalism and authoritarianism is illusory. A foundation of liberalism, a core definitional belief, is that the coercive power of the state should be used to protect private property regardless of the democratic will of society, or fundamental issues of natural justice, or anything else anyone can think of.
Liberalism arose at a time during an ongoing British transformation of oligarchic power. Feudal rights (which came with responsibilities) were transformed into property rights – most notoriously with the “enclosures” of common lands, a process described as “a revolution of the rich against the poor.” Britain’s feudal powers actually consolidated their control through the end (or alleged end) of feudalism and about 50% of the peerage were actually Whigs (aka liberals). By limiting the sovereign rights of the crown and making private property sacrosanct and by creating an ideology of market fundamentalism, the same powerful elites (with no meaningful change) created a new hierarchical authoritarian structure where their material wealth maintained a strict dominance over rural and urban proletarian masses who, now deprived any independent economic resources were arguably less free than the bonded serfs of the feudal system.
This explains why many on the left, including even anarchists, often advocate an increase in government power. Governments, however imperfectly, can be made subject to democratic pressures, while powerful private interests, who can ‘own’ just about anything now including naturally occurring genes, are tyrannies by definition. Which brings us to….
The left-wing has always seen a fundamental injustice in the vast material disparities existing in society. Reponses have varied from the advocacy of the abolition of all private property to various more modest calls for the moderation of the free-market. One might consider that Proudhon, the anarchist famous for saying that “all property is theft” also said “property is freedom.” In the first instance he is referencing not only the inequities of distribution and the concentration of ownership, but the dubious origins of the titles to property. We are fed a constant stream of bullshit telling us that wealth is acquired through work, thrift and judicious reinvestment, but significant wealth almost always is in the hands of those who come to it through inheritance. Social mobility in contemporary societies compares unfavourably with premodern societies – for all their castes and feudalism – and the degree of inequality and sheer obscene wealth (corporate or individual) that exists today has no past equivalent whatsoever. At the same time all significant fortunes have the acquisitive use of violence (against smallholders, indigenous peoples and/or workers) as a necessary part of their origin, whilst their continued existence is heavily reliant on the “legitimate” use of coercive power by the state.
Proudhon’s second statement, “property is freedom”, mirrors the current understanding but lacks the language which we now have available. The social sciences have quite shown that the real issue is access to economic resources (meaning anything from food to education to healthcare). Private property per se may not be the problem so much as the privileges which are extended to owners and what we decide can be owned. There is nothing natural about the idea of owning things, particularly natural resources, as can be seen from the fact that more and more things are being made into ownable private property. This is the neoliberal enclosure movement, another revolution of the rich against the poor where, as in the British enclosure, the rich are often simply gifted ownership of previously commonly held or state-owned resources.
At the other end of the spectrum the necessary corollary of the new enclosure of the commons is that those who don’t own things are progressively stripped of access to resources. One example of this is famine. We are led to believe that famine arises because there is not enough food. This is simply untrue in every respect. Food shortages play a role, but not because of simple “supply and demand” or even, to any significant level, hoarding, but because they prompt predatory speculation which inflates food prices at a time when many have simultaneously lost income through, say, crop failure. More nuanced economicspeak would have it that famines arise because of “distribution” problems, an anodyne usage which leads us to think that its because there aren’t enough trucks or roads. What it really means is that people starve to death because they have no money. A nice piece of paper like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all very well, but our actual system of governance in the real world says that you do not have the right to live unless you can buy food. Those condemned to die are disproportionately children and one of the most obscene aspects of famine is that their parents are forced to choose which of their own children they will kill by denying food and to then watch them slowly die. I just think that we should bear that sort of thing in mind when we get into hypothetical arguments about the rights of the “bourgeois” corner shop owner to their own hard-earned wealth (when we should probably be trying to awaken to the fact that they are also oppressed by the same system).
The left-wing is strongly associated with collectivism as both a means of allowing the masses to exert power and as a way of building a society without, or with less, inequality. This coincides with the fraternity/community/solidarity thing. As mentioned, I’m a bit of an individualist who sees collectivism more as a necessity than as something desirable in itself. It is maybe a matter of emphasis in that I strongly believe in individuals standing together in solidarity, rather than the group standing as one. Thus I don’t feel that I’m entirely the right person to comment on this aspect of the left. I will, however, say that those who overemphasise individual liberty to the exclusion of other left-wing imperatives are clearly right-wing. One might see this as an indication that being left-wing is a matter of balancing competing imperatives. One might take from that a need to change fundamental aspects of society so that there is no contradiction between individual liberty and collectivism. One might even say that people such as economic “libertarians” are actually victims of the inevitable antagonisms of our social system and that is why they can only see “individual liberty” in the perpetuation of structural violence.
Marxists gave us the concept of “class consciousness” and it has been incorporated by other left-wing movements. In basic terms it is a recognition of a societal structure of inequality and injustice. In individual cases it has become problematic, and there may be a need to redefine classes with some of the middle classes having become, essentially, privileged proletarians while many lesser capitalists are subject to the expropriation of their own labour value which actually goes to bigger oligopolistic or monopolistic interests. At the same time an executive class robs capital from investors. Nevertheless, there is a role for class consciousness if it is not dogmatic. At the same time, the left-wing has also discovered numerous other “consciousnesses” which point to the structural elements of an unjust society. Thus the left-wing is: class, race, gender and environmentally conscious. “Race” can be taken to include ethnicity, “gender” to include sexuality. Thus post-structuralism, which asserts that all of this “identity” politics is irrelevant in today’s pluralist world (after all, there’s a black man in the Whitehouse) is actually a right-wing stance.
The left-wing is broadly associated with many enlightenment values: rationality; empiricism; atheism/agnosticism/secular humanism and opposition to religion or organised religion; and logical positivism. I don’t deny that there have been excesses and abuses (although often by those who are otherwise in a firmly right-wing stance), but it is safe to say that, however vaguely and amorphously, something like postmodernism is inclined to be right-wing. Many left-wingers have advocated the abandonment of “progress” and a return to a more “primitive” state (most notably “Tolstoyan” anarchists) but most are more inclined to embrace technology.
Quite simply, the right-wing believes in preserving the status quo (conservatism) or returning to a prior system (reaction, as in “reactionary”). The left-wing (Tolstoy notwithstanding) is supportive of progressive change, usually radical if not revolutionary.
The left-wing believes that people are basically good and believes that problems are solved by ending systemic and structural constraints and ending the domination of narrow elites. The left-wing stance is one that seeks to empower people, hence support of various mass-based power formations from syndicalism to grassroots activism. The right-wing, from Hobbes to Friedman, basically believes that people are nasty, greedy and horrible. I would put that down to a case of projection. Also rather right-wing (when you get down to it) is Leninist vanguardism and the sort of elitist liberalism embraced by many in the establishment who think that people are too stupid to run their own lives. This is another issue that could be discussed at length because, being realistic, what with the current ideological climate, there is considerable room for taking a (maybe) left-wing stance that is somewhat elitist, but if there is an explicit intent to end people’s ideological blinders and empower them I think that this still falls within the bounds of the “left-wing.” I think it is also important to recognise that a left-wing stance supports the free flow of information, which may be the most important fight for us all.
The left-wing has a strong association with universalism and internationalism. The only point I would make about that is that although parochial nationalism is obviously right-wing, when opposing imperialism or predatory globalisation, we should recognise that nationalism may be a non-parochial defensive response, not seeking to privilege one’s own little tribe but rather to fight the oppression of powerful foreign or transnational forces.
I may not have covered all aspects of what is left-wing here, and people may disagree with some of it, and I might just be wrong about some parts. As a whole, however, I hope that this provides a way of thinking about left-wing that prevents the entire phrase from becoming yet another meaningless piece of nonsense used by the media to waffle on endlessly without ever saying anything of substance. Apart from anything else, if you find yourself in a situation where your ostensibly “left-wing” group has been invaded by a loudmouthed right-wing liberal going on about the threat of immigration, and so forth, you can at least turn around and ask them why they are at a meeting for self-professed leftists.
Kieran blogs at On Genocide.
Good first article Kieran! Just a note about authoritarianism- a revolution is one of the most authoritarian things to have ever existed. It is a forcible overthrow of one class by another! The same goes for a revolutionary terror, which is required to eliminate the counter revolutionaries during the dictatorship of the proletariat. We can’t just dispell all authoritarianism, can we? We don’t want an authoritarian society, but to reject authoritarianism is stupid. Authority and the state is a tool we proletarians much use to our advantage.
Also, what is your ideology?
You raise some interesting points. I’ll start by saying I’m an anarchist. For me that is a moral conviction akin to a faith more than a political stance – particularly not a programmatic political stance. Obviously that means that my politics stem from my anarchism but, as with many anarchists that I know of, the manifestation comes from my own judgements. I can’t speak for others (although I think many would agree) it is kind of like Taoism – you have to be self actuated, if you’re looking for an authority to impart an ideology, your probably not really of an anarchist persuasion. Obviously this means that one applies one’s moral convictions to given issues. Take the example famous political assassin Sifu. When he became an anarchist he renounced political violence as being inherently opposed to anarchist principles. Would he have applied different criteria if he was in Madrid in 1937? Maybe he would have (I would), but he was also acutely aware, from experience, of the price paid for using violence and the advantage it gives in legitimising state violence.
I note too that you make presumptions about the nature of revolution, the nature of the contemporary class structure, and even the nature of the “dictatorship of the proleteriat”. I don’t believe in Marx and Engels vision of epochs and revolutionary changes in the relations of production creating an new ruling class and so forth, but since right-wingers attack it so much, I might as well give the “dictatorship of the proletariat” its full due. It is a conceit referencing the Roman office of dictator – a temporary extra-constitutional office used in extraordinary circumstances. Any class antagonisms under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” would be residual, because the proletarian ruling class would not be exploiting another class. Hence I don’t think you could call it authoritarian, and the use of the term “dictatorship” is meant to imply a temporary hierarchical order that is little more than an unavoidable but ultimately insignificant bump in the inevitable march of history.
Slavoj Zizek has opined that Gandhi was more violent that Hitler or the Khmer Rouge. If one allows his terminology to stand (wherein fundamental social change is a more profound “violence” than actual violence), and one excuses him for choosing two piss-poor examples that don’t actually work, one can see his point. Gandhi, in these terms, was more “violent” than the American Revolutionaries, the French Revolutionaries, the Mexican revolutionaries, and the Chinese revolutionaries of 1910-11. My point is that revolution does not require authoritarianism, nor mass violence. Indeed, Zizek’s central point that overt violence is itself a sign of impotence and a failure of political will is more-or-less correct – or at least has some truth. The fact is that you can have a very violent revolution and simply end up with a different set of people at the top of a new narrow oligarchy.
Marx was clearly a profound and important thinker, without real parallel. But we have clear examples available, which had not occurred in his lifetime, that show that his understanding of revolutions was imperfect. The role of nationalism, for example, and the centrality of demands for land reform in 20th century revolutions doesn’t accord with his vision.
That said, however, there is no rule that says that your vision of revolution cannot be authoritarian. I would say, though, that like my individualism your espousal of authoritarianism (even as a temporary expedient) is a right-wing trait. My personal belief is that violence, or “diversity of tactics” as some anarchists call it (as in “as soon as I get the chance I’m going to diversity-of-tactics that cop right in his bollocks”), best serves right-wing ends. Contra Zizek, I think that Hitler’s “diversity of tactics” were incredibly violent in both senses, but it is pretty difficult to achieve left-wing transformation with violence. It might seem a bit Star Wars, but the outcome really must reflect the nature of the means. A defence against reactionary aggression may be a different matter, I don’t know. Fanon is certainly fascinating on the subject of using violence because he harboured few if any illusions, yet still was a famous advocate of violence. I’m not sure he would advocate violence for us here and now though. And I’m not sure that violence need imply a broader authoritarianism in a revolution. Revolutionary violence describes only a range of tactical choices (though the effects may be profound) and the one thing I agree on with the “diversity of tactics” crowd is that it does not define a movement is it chooses within this range of tactics, though I don’t think they understand the full ramifications.
We would be expropriating the bourgeoisie, seizing the means of production; this requires violence. You cannot have a revolution without bloodshed. Look at my earlier article with the Malcolm X picture. It would be nice to have a peaceful revolution, but we would be left with the same system, same classes etc.
We need to smash the bourgeois state to atoms.
The current technology does not allow a serious military challenge by would-be revolutionaries against the state. There is no way you can just arm the peasants or arm the workers and expect anything but their immediate massacre. Likewise, guerilla activities, urban or otherwise, are simply off the table in Western countries and will never again topple a Western-backed or BRIC-backed regime. Revolutionary violence is really constrained now to terrorism and assassination. The ANC renounced such acts of violence as counter-productive. Sabotage was a much more effective direct action tool. The experience of the Palestinian resistance is also instructive. The assassination of Rehavem Ze’evi was avenged manyfold by Israel (an experience which also occurred to Sifu, whom I mentioned earlier). Likewise every military success sees massive violence unleashed, while every rocket attack which even suggests a risk of civilian casualties legitimises Israeli killing, Israeli destruction, and the ongoing imposition of Israeli control and occupation as a “security measure”.
As for smashing the bourgeois state, my answer to that is that we are not in a bourgeois state, we are in a neo-fuedal state and if you want to commit a revolutionary act you should smash the false-consciousness of the bourgeoisie who are still suffering under the delusion that they are the ruling class. The fact is that Marx got it wrong when he created a vision of a bourgeois ruling class and capitalist mode of production as being one unified system. He was, perhaps forgivably, overly focussed an industrialisation and rural proletarianisation – but we don’t have that excuse from our later perspective. Even Rosa Luxemburg wrote that “capitalism in its full maturity also depends in all respects on non-capitalist strata and social organisations existing side by side with it.” She referred here to many things, including the continued importance of commodities produced in a non-capitalist system. More importantly she referred to the essential production of not only raw materials but also commodities outside of Britain, responding not to the mechanics of the capitalist system, nor to “market forces,” but rather to the direct application of imperial coercion. To put it another way, there was a crucial persistence of “feudal” relations of production through planters and latifundistas. Their tool of expropriation was not wage slavery, it was direct violence with whip and gun. Proxies or imperial armies completed the job, or should proxies fail to do their part properly, Western gunships would soon appear. The “dark satanic mills” were only the tip of an iceberg of a feudal system were labour was mostly unfree, and where, as they remain to this day, the most important means of production are created by nature, not human.
The bourgeoisie have had their day. They’ve had the keys to the car taken off them, because, in the end, their interests are closer to those of the proletariat than they are to a narrow plutocratic elite that wishes to maintain and even deepen the concentration of wealth and power beyond any sane measure.
History is really quite clear in one thing – it is not revolutionaries but rulers who bring about revolution (ignore the American Revolution here because it was an inter-elite struggle – US elites were already the de facto ruling class, but the transition to formalising that provoked conflict with an empire which was, in fact, waxing in power itself). In our time the system is broken. How long it may remain so, I do not know. Change is ongoing, and revolution is a matter of degree, but drastic upheaval seems guaranteed in our lifetime. A conscious revolutionary should aim to see that this time results in the least harm and the greatest good possible, not as part of a “vanguard” but as a human being armed with a sense of justice and a willingness to act without orders, without dogma and without uniform. That’s my idea of a revolutionary spirit.
I do not leave a comment, but after browsing through a great
deal of comments on this page What is (and is not) Left-Wing?
| ACA The Underground. I actually do have a few questions for you if it’s allright.
Could it be simply me or do a few of the comments come
across as if they are written by brain dead folks? 😛 And, if you are posting on other social sites,
I would like to keep up with you. Could you post a
list of the complete urls of your shared sites like
your twitter feed, Facebook page or linkedin profile?
I’m flattered. Am I right in thinking that you are from the Georgian political magazine Tabula?
I write mostly on international relations, war and genocide. I must warn you that might not like a lot of what I have to say if the editorial line of Tabula is any indication. I sympathise with antipathy towards Russian interventions, but there is no excuse for favouring NATO, nor the US and the UK. The crimes of these powers are greater than those of Russia. Every victim of their violence is as worthy of recognition as victims of Russian violence.
The best way to follow my work is through the blog: http://ongenocide.com/. You’ll find it easy to contact me or direct questions to me from there.
Never heard of Tabula sorry. We’re mostly from the UK