We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Friday, November 12, 2010

‘Dancing with Dynamite’: The Future of Latin America’s Leftist Movements

Article by Kari Lydersen from In These Times. (a book review)
In his captivating book Dancing with Dynamite, to be released in September or October, Ben Dangl explores the complicated choreography between unfettered popular struggle and the state institutions that are necessary to a functioning civil society—yet by nature are forces of moderation, compromise and cooperation.
The book's author is rather critical of Kirchner's government in Argentina because it essentially preserved the capitalist system and the Argentine ruling class.
Kirchner effectively demobilized and bought off the middle class…After applying these divisive, demobilizing, and repressive tactics, the government used the simple strategy of patience and attrition while public activism died down
On the other hand, did not Kirchner pursue a better course than most capitalists by first refusing and finally renegotiating the IMF and World Bank debts? See this. Should the working class have fought against this government? Things can get rather complicated at times.

A similar situation existed here in the US during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Memories of the Soviet revolution were still fresh in the minds of many people both on the left and right. The US ruling class was nearly hysterical over the event. There was no unemployment in the Soviet Union and they were making rapid strides in developing their economy under central planning. Little was known at the time as to the authoritarian methods used in this command economy. 

Hence the ruling class opted to allow Franklin Roosevelt, a member of the capitalist aristocracy and old wealth section of the class, to lead the government. He introduced a lot of social democratic measures to divert much of the pressure from left wing movements that wanted more radical changes. Many leftists at that time were enthusiastic supporters of FDR. Left historians like the celebrated Howard Zinn admired FDR and was essentially a social democrat.
Roosevelt and the New Deal created jobs for millions of people. And, oh, there were people on the—you know, out there on the fringe who yelled “Socialism!” Didn’t matter. People needed it. If people need something badly, and somebody does something for them, you can throw all the names you want at them, it won’t matter, you see?
                                             **********************
Democracy is social movements. That’s what democracy is. And what history tells us is that when injustices have been remedied, they have not been remedied by the three branches of government. They’ve been remedied by great social movements, which then push and force and pressure and threaten the three branches of government until they finally do something. Really, that’s democracy.