|
We all know what representative government is, but I want to look at two alternatives in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests. For the purposes of my discussion here, "representative government" means the tradition structures of representation built around established political parties that are presumed to be adversarial (i.e., Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc.).
Popular Fronts
Popular fronts can be considered a subset of representative government, but with important modifications. The clearest case of a popular front would be, of course, the Popular Front social movement of the 1930's, which encompassed multiple levels of society, both within government (through various agencies of the WPA and similar programs) and outside of government (the Worker's Schools, the CIO, etc.).
Formation-Popular fronts generally arise in response to specific economic and social conditions combined with a high-level threat from within the adversarial party system. So, for example, the Popular Front of the 1930's was obviously a response to the extended Depression, but it was also a specific policy responding to the rise of fascism as a subset of the traditional party system.
Structure-Popular fronts can be read as having a center-periphery structure, where an established Party from within the representative system sets aside doctrine for the purpose of alliance. In the 1930's, the center-periphery would be the CPUSA and other regional Communist Party structures which made alliance with all manner of non-doctrine groups in order to push a more wide ranging defense against fascism. (This reading of the 1930's Popular Front has come under significant pressure from, among others, Michael Denning, who attributes the center-periphery reading to the general attack on the CPUSA and the Popular Front that arose out the social struggle).
Major Point-Despite these differences, the major point is that Popular Fronts tend to still have one foot in traditional representative structures. This distinguishes them from Autonomous Social Movements.
How are Popular Fronts Defeated?-Popular fronts are defeated by breaking the alliances between center and periphery. Since a clear center has essentially dropped its doctrine requirements for the purpose of alliance, the goal of the enemies of popular fronts is to associate anything done by the entire movement with that doctrine. This stands to reason: if group A has aligned with group B only on condition that group B's doctrine not be a condition for alignment, the best way to break them apart is to insist that group B's doctrine is really being employed. This leads to group A being accused of either secretly agreeing with group B's doctrine (the secret Communist conspiracy argument) or being gullible about group B's actual plans (the Duped Fellow Traveler argument). The weakeness of Popular Front's lies precisely in their imputed association with one Party within the representative system.
Autonomous Social Movements
Autonomous social movements refuse the representative structure completely; they are characterized by exit from established frameworks of government. The clearest historical example of the autonomous social movement are the movements that emerged in Italy from the mid-1960's through the late-1970's; these were eventually crushed by the Italian state apparatus by associating them with Red Brigade terrorism, particularly after the murder of Aldo Moro.
Formation-Autonomous social movements arise in response to the complete failure of representative government to provide adversarial support to social struggles. Put another way, when the representatives cease operating in an adversarial mode, they no longer appear as representatives of real social struggle at all (the two parties are just one party, in a basic sense). In Italy, there was the real settlement between the conservative and left parties, combined with the seeming complicity of the union leadership with the capitalists - and this was combined with real social conditions of struggle, particularly the intensification of work processes at the big manufacturing concerns (Fiat, Pirelli, the Porto Marghera petrochemical corridor, etc.). Where you have real social struggle, and seemingly non-adversarial representatives, you will see the rise of autonomous social movements.
Structure-Autonomous social movements may have particular organizational entities that help them communicate internally (Potere Operaio and Autonomia Operaia in the Italian case), but they don't have relationships with distinct parties within the representative structure (very clearly and by definition, they are autonomous with respect to the Parties). Their formation, then, can appear chaotic, when it is in fact far from chaotic: it is a clear effect of social struggles combined with the failure of representation.
Major Point-Occupy Wall Street has the characteristics of an autonomous social movement. Indeed, you can draw a fairly clear line between it and previous autonomous social movements (alternative globalization of the 90's, and even the European autonomous movements of the 1970's).
How are Autonomous Social Movements defeated? - Today's fear is one of "co-optation," of an autonomous social movement (OWS) being eaten up by the representative system (an established Party). This is, in fact, a legitimate fear, but it is a minor one. Autonomous social movements are indeed co-opted. However, they are primarily defeated by state violence.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
