FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Learning From Las Europeas

by

Zaragoza.

Podemos, a new political party, has recently swept into public view in the Spanish state. Striking successes such as placing five members in the European parliament, winning more than a million votes in the European elections, and polling as the second political force in the country speak for themselves, as does Podemos’s charismatic leader Pablo Iglesias, who has become a most-wanted (most hated for some) public personality. Yet what is Podemos? And what lessons does it bring for those aiming to construct an alternative in other parts of the world?

One key to Podemos’s success is that it is popular and even populist in the best sense of these terms. The party systematically refuses to let any single fetishized issue of the traditional Left sideline a truly people-oriented project. A sharp contrast is offered by Left parties in France, which seem to have allowed the immigration issue to displace the problem of workers’ oppression – the historical focus of socialist parties – and have thereby offered a fertile terrain to the Right-wing populists. Not so with Podemos, which though a Left party is unafraid to say it is patriotic, that it defends work and workers, women and mothers, and that it aims to provide a basic income to all citizens.

Podemos has also abandoned a time-honored leftist tradition: defeatism. When Partido Popular leader Esperanza Aguirre attacked the new party for programmatic unclarity on Spanish television, Iglesias replied with wonderful limpidness about what his party was seeking – to preserve social rights, guarantee health care, tax the rich, and limit campaign financing – but he also came forward saying that he had every intention of taking the “caste” that she represents out of power, while cautioning that they had better think about whether they prefer to step down with dignity or without it. This is a refreshingly direct and optimistic attitude in a leftist, reminiscent of the fighting spirit of the late Hugo Chávez.

The intention to vote for Podemos, which translates as “we can,” seems to grow nonstop. Curiously, twice as many people remember having voted for the party in the last elections as actually voted for it. At the same time, Podemos is beset by the very political caste it questions and also criticism, sometimes sectarian, that comes from the traditional Left. These latter sectors doubt that a party lacking in organized bases can actually pressure the state even if it assumes power. They also criticize its leaders for ambiguity about such issues as the public debt, the right of nationalities (Catalan, Basque, Galician) to decide about independence, and the future relation to the European union.

What seems to be lacking in much of this criticism is a reflection on the mediatic context that conditions contemporary politics. Today, mass media saturation makes it almost impossible to distinguish clearly and consistently between maximum and minimum programs, or even between tactical and strategic positions. In fact, nothing indicates that Podemos will not be able to assume positions on all of these issues that would leave the traditional left wholly satisfied. After all, it was none other than Fidel Castro who affirmed that revolutionaries should never lie but do not always have to say the whole truth.

It is common to point to Podemos’s roots in 15M movement of “indignados.” This is correct. Nevertheless, the party’s admirable skill in navigating contemporary politics is in a great measure an achievement of political theory that comes from leftist circles, including those that operate in the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and the webpage rebelion.org. A key component in their updating of the Left is the recognition that capitalism has not only entered into mortal combat with democracy (an idea one can find in such thinkers as Ellen Meiksins Wood and Atilio Boron) but also with the much-touted empire of law (“Estado de Derecho”).

This theoretical discovery is extremely productive: Since capitalism cannot play by the very rules it ostensibly espouses, Podemos’s leaders easily destroy their opponents by showing how it is the parties in power – and by no means the Left opposition – that are anti-system and anti-common sense. Today the Right-wing can only offer a failed state, one so rife with corruption and irrationality that even the slickest ideological whitewashing cannot cover up its patent barbarity. The Right-wing has also become so madly “revolutionary,” if that means willing to destroy all that exists and embrace even the most dangerous novelties, that it remains for the left to say Stop, “ya basta,” and slow down. When capitalist power turns radically destructive, the Left opposition can become “conservative” and constructive.

Of course, the precariousness of the Spanish state’s subimperialist condition – the fact that it constitutes a weak link in the imperialist chain – makes it an especially fertile territory for an opposition party of the Podemos kind (cfr. Greece’s Syriza). When a country undemocratically subordinates itself to the economic dictates of Germany, many of the contradictions that are much less explicit in other developed countries – say between a meaningful patriotism and the attitude of the governing class – come to the forefront and make work easier for the opposition. However, this does not mean that many of Podemos’s central features, such as its firmness in avoiding fetishized single issues as well as its putting at center stage the conflict between democracy and common sense on the one hand and the conduct of government on the other, are not relevant to a renovation of the Left that goes far beyond the borders of the Spanish state.

Here indeed there are lessons to be learned. For while the U.S. left stumbles over such issues as gun control – perhaps an important but far from central problem – a new European Left advances with the banners of common sense, rights to housing and health care, and (yes, surprisingly) even patriotism. Also important is the repositioning of the Left in favor of the defense of society and the construction of substantial democracy. This notable theoretical and practical shift is an almost straightforward consequence of the extremist, undemocratic and destructive character of the ruling classes in all of the Global North.

Chris Gilbert, professor of Political Science in the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela, is passing July and August in the Spanish state.

Chris Gilbert is professor of political science in the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela.

More articles by:
May 31, 2016
Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz
Imperial Blues: On Whitewashing Dictatorship in the 21st Century
Vijay Prashad
Stoking the Fires: Trump and His Legions
Patrick Howlett-Martin
Libya: How to Bring Down a Nation
Uri Avnery
What Happened to Netanyahu?
Corey Payne
Reentry Through Resistance: Détente with Cuba was Accomplished Through Resistance and Solidarity, Not Imperial Benevolence
Bill Quigley
From Tehran to Atlanta: Social Justice Lawyer Azadeh Shahshahani’s Fight for Human Rights
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump, Sanders and the Exhaustion of a Political Model
Bruce Lerro
“Network” 40 Years Later: Capitalism in Retrospect and Prospect and Elite Politics Today
Robert Hunziker
Chile’s Robocops
Aidan O'Brien
What’ll It be Folks: Xenophobia or Genocide?
Binoy Kampmark
Emailgate: the Clinton Spin Doctors In Action
Colin Todhunter
The Unique Risks of GM Crops: Science Trumps PR, Fraud and Smear Campaigns
Dave Welsh
Jessica Williams, 29: Another Black Woman Gunned Down By Police
Gary Leupp
Rules for TV News Anchors, on Memorial Day and Every Day
May 30, 2016
Ron Jacobs
The State of the Left: Many Movements, Too Many Goals?
James Abourezk
The Intricacies of Language
Porfirio Quintano
Hillary, Honduras, and the Murder of My Friend Berta
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes on ISIS are Reducing Their Cities to Ruins
Uri Avnery
The Center Doesn’t Hold
Raouf Halaby
The Sailors of the USS Liberty: They, Too, Deserve to Be Honored
Rodrigue Tremblay
Barack Obama’s Legacy: What Happened?
Matt Peppe
Just the Facts: The Speech Obama Should Have Given at Hiroshima
Deborah James
Trade Pacts and Deregulation: Latest Leaks Reveal Core Problem with TISA
Michael Donnelly
Still Wavy After All These Years: Flower Geezer Turns 80
Ralph Nader
The Funny Business of Farm Credit
Paul Craig Roberts
Memorial Day and the Glorification of Past Wars
Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
Rivera Sun
White Rose Begins Leaflet Campaigns June 1942
Tom H. Hastings
Field Report from the Dick Cheney Hunting Instruction Manual
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail