During the 1970s, left movements were very strong across many parts of the world. Left-led anti-colonial struggles achieved major victories in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the mid ‘70s. In Africa, left-led struggles against apartheid and colonialism emerged victorious in several countries during the ‘80s. But in a basic sense global political landscape underwent a fundamental transformation around 1980. Several globally significant events, not always related but occurring around the same period, have caused a severe setback to left politics in most parts of the world. The significant developments in this regard are:
- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
- Iranian Revolution (1979)
- China-Vietnam war (1979)
- The triumph of neo-liberalism in the US and the UK around 1980
- Economic reforms in China under Deng Xioping starting 1978
The electoral victories of Margaret Thatcher (in the UK) and Ronald Reagan in (in the US) proved decisive for the capital-labour battles in the West: capital won and labour lost. This was a triumph for neo-liberalism at the centre of the global capitalist system. The new orthodoxy aimed at dismantling welfare statism that had gained a great influence in the West (particularly in Europe). The onslaught of capital however was not limited to the West only. The reign of neoliberal ideology spread to the developing world in due course. Many of the developing countries willingly adopted neoliberal policies but others were forced to submit to the Western dictate. The West-controlled Brettenwood institutions (World Bank and IMF) and WTO were instrumental in coercing the developing countries to follow the West’s agenda through mechanisms such as the structural adjustment programmes.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and demise of socialism across Eastern Europe around 1990, the US hegemony across the globe became absolute. The 1990s were thus a period of unipolarity, aptly described as ‘’the end of history’. This was the period of capital’s onslaught. Capital’s commanding position was sought to be strengthened through globalisation, liberalisation, privatisation and financialisation. During the 1990s, capitalist economies at the centre registered uninterrupted economic growth. The IT revolution that originated in the US and spread to other economies, of course, played an important role in promoting growth. Cheap Chinese exports proved helpful in maintaining macroeconomic stability in the industrialised countries. At the beginning of the new century, the Western imperialism resorted to wars for resources. The growth-pushing effects of all these factors however started to wane around the turn of the century. The finance driven growth-push came to an abrupt halt in 2008 with financial sector meltdown in the US which soon spread to other sectors and to other Western economies as well as other parts of the world.
During the last 5 years, the US economy has seen an anaemic growth but the Western Europe is still mired in a near recessionary situation. Most governments in these countries have tried to push the burden of adjustment on to the shoulders of the poor, working people, immigrant communities and racial minorities. Many governments have undertaken austerity measures which have caused misery to a large number of people. Unemployment levels remain high and youth unemployment particularly in Southern European countries remains at depression level.
There has been massive resistance to the anti-people policies in several European countries (especially in Southern Europe). Strikes, demonstrations, and ‘occupy’ movements against government policies have been widespread across many capitalist countries involving large[1]scale participation of labour unions, civil servants, youth, poor, unemployed, immigrant, racial minorities and other affected sections of the society.
In all these protests, there has been large-scale left participation not only from the traditional left but also from different new left movements employing varied strategies of alliance formation and people’s mobilisation. All these agitations notwithstanding, there has been no direct assault on the capitalist system itself as such. Capitalist system’s foundations by and large remain unshaken. The crisis thus remains a crisis in the system, not of the system. Why has the left alternative lost its appeal in the popular imagination?
This is a subject of long historical debate. Centuries long sustained technological progress and capital accumulation at astronomical pace have created conditions for production to reach levels that are capable of providing high economic standard of living to vast number of people in the industrialised world. Of course, all this economic progress was not possible without slavery and the imperialistic exploitation of people and resources in the periphery. The associated military might also made it possible for the European population to occupy vast continents of the Americas and Australia. The indigenous population were nearly eliminated in most of these places.
The role of liberal ideology is no less important here. Ideas of individual freedom and belief in market and sanctity of property rights have near complete control over western mind. Socialist alternatives ask for significantly higher, decisive societal role in matters related to production and distribution. Socialist ideas are thus in direct conflict with the liberal paradigm of individual freedom. The socialist ideas are thus a non-starter in the West, at this juncture at least.
China has seen phenomenal economic growth during the last 30 years. Benefits of growth are however are not spread equitably between people and regions and a large number of people still remain trapped in stark poverty. But, on the other side, there are a huge number of people, especially in the export-oriented coastal regions, who have benefited enormously from economic growth. This huge mass of people (the middle class) is for the first time in the history of their nation tasting prosperity only available to the rich in the past. The present economic paradigm – capitalism with Chinese characteristics – commands (and is likely to continue commanding in the foreseeable future also) complete allegiance from the middle class. Given that the middle class plays a disproportionately large role in guiding policy and in opinion formation, the present economic paradigm faces little challenge from socialist ideas.
India too has experienced good economic growth during the last 30 years, albeit at a pace much slower in comparison to China. Like China, economic growth in India has been associated with rapid increase in disparity in income as well as wealth. Half of the population in India remains almost untouched by this high income growth process. But, on the other side, certain sections of the society, vast in numbers, have benefited enormously from the present growth pattern. Like in China, in India also there is a huge middle class which has seen real economic prosperity, for the first time in the history of the nation. The euphoria being generated by rapid economic growth in the middle classes in India (and China) is probably comparable to euphoria generated among the upper and middle classes in Europe by colonial conquests during the pre-war years. The middle class in India, with enormous faith in the system, form the major support base for the capitalist system in the country. The task of achieving broad unity of poor and working people, which has traditionally been the left’s agenda, is rendered quite difficult by this development.
In the Latin American countries, there has been a resurgence of left-oriented people’s movements during the past decade. In countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia, governments have taken many radical steps which have had serious redistributive content and which have enhanced local communities’ and workers’ control over production process. In this regard, Latin American countries appear to be on a path very different from other developing countries especially in Asia.
Latin American countries are known for very high disparity levels. Most of these countries have per capita income levels which are quite high in comparison to other major developing countries. But these countries had experienced a decade long stagnation or even downturn in their living standards even before the onset of the current global economic crisis.
One distinguishing feature of the Lain American countries is that the gap between the rich and poor is very stark. There is not much middle ground: the middle class is not very dominant either in numbers or influence. Earlier rules by dominant classes (or even in present wherever they exist) were materialised under the leadership of military with crucial support from the imperialist centre, the USA. The present ascendancy of pro-people movements – capturing state power in a few countries and providing effective resistance in several others – can be partly be explained by the absence of sizeable middle class which usually forms the backbone of support to the rule by dominant classes in situations where levels of disparity are very high (as is the case in China and India).
The popular political response to the present crisis in the (continental) Western Europe has taken the forms of protests, strikes and blockades. In Southern Europe and France, public sector employees, trade unions, students, immigrants, racial minorities, and other organised and unorganised sections of middle and lower classes have come out on streets and are resisting quite forcefully their respective governments’ moves to shift the burden of the crisis on to the common people. The political tradition and history of the dissent, tradition of trade unionism and student activism are the factors that determine the form and content of the protests.
In the (continental) Western Europe, welfare programmes are strong. Education and health services are free or very cheap and the coverage is near universal. The unemployment benefits are quite generous. Budget cuts and austerity measures there threaten the living standards of vast majority of people, including those belonging to the middle class. The threat of cuts brings the people out to streets as they want to protect the safeguards they have won through long struggles in the past.
With the relatively strong welfare programmes and unemployment benefits providing cushioning effects, the levels of disparity in living conditions in effective, practical terms, tend to be lower in these countries. Austerity measures and budget cuts thus threaten a disruption in their living pattern. The resistance on the part of the people we are witnessing is a reaction against this forced change. It is basically aimed at preserving the gains of welfare statism: it does not transform into a threat to the existence of the capitalist system.
After the Second World War, no left movement has progressed much simply on the basis of class question. During the 1960s and 1970s, left’s paramount importance in global political transformation was secured on the basis of its leading role in anti-colonial struggles in many parts of the world (Asia and Africa). But this phase ended with the significant victories of the anti-colonial struggles in South East Asia in the mid ‘70s and in Africa in the mid ‘80s. With these victories, Western direct colonial occupation had more or less ended (with the exception of the more complicated cases of Palestine and Ireland). But during this period, some globally significant developments in this respect took place. One important development, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Here the invading power was not from the traditional Western imperialist nations but rather a country widely perceived as a socialist nation. And here, the resistance came not from left movements but from movements based on traditional Islamic ideology.
During the phase of unipolarity (1990s), the Western imperialist powers (particularly the US) generally restrained from pursuing colonial conquests in the Third World countries. It is true that, in addition to regular interventions in Latin America, this period saw major military attacks on the part of the Western nations (particularly the US) as in the First Iraq war (1990-91) and in Kosovo war (1999), but these were without using ground troops.
In the beginning of the new century, with the end of ‘the end of history’ period, Western colonial conquests restarted. The West did not want to miss this historically unprecedented opportunity, provided by the sudden unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union, where they saw no challenge to their global domination from any quarter.
Most of the globally significant political transformational developments are taking place in the Muslim world and Latin America today. The Western nations led by the US mobilised on massive scale military forces in their traditional conquest mode to attack several Muslim/Arab countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently, Libya). The resistance in these countries to the colonial forces was offered by forces committed to Islamic ideologies (mainly Sunni). The Western powers have long been planning to attack Shia or Shia-led countries (Iran and Syria) but so far have not been able to materialise their plans.
In many other Muslim/Arab countries, massive politically transformational struggles are also taking place (the Arab Spring). But there is no single narrative possible to describe these diverse movements. Depending on place and situation, these movements can be characterised into several categories: anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, anti-military, pro-military, or pro[1]democracy. These movements, in most places involve massive middle-class participation. But in most places, there are strong undercurrents of Shia-Sunni rivalry and religious fundamentalism. Secular and left forces are involved here and there, but are hardly at the fore-front anywhere.
The assertion of Islamic identity and culture (even if full of intra- or inter-religion strife) is the most important aspect of all these struggles in the Islamic world. Opposition to Western culture (which is hegemonic globally) is even more primary than opposition to (exploitative) economic thrust of the Western colonialism/neo-imperialism. In other words, resistance against Western cultural imperialism is the common thread in all these struggles across nations in the Islamic world.
The question of culture has now become a dominant one in other developing countries too. The US domination associated with unipolarity phase that was most pronounced during the 1990s now appears to be ending. China and several other large countries have seen sustained economic growth over the last three decades. And these countries are also acquiring substantial military might. This is leading towards a multi-polar world. In the historical periods, in situations of emerging multi-polarity, a fight to finish war among the existing major powers would break out to resettle the hierarchies in the international arena. In today’s nuclear age, a contained war which could result in winners and losers is not possible. Thus, in the absence of major war between major powers, the trend of multi-polarity is set to strengthen in the future. It has implications not only in economic and political arena, but also for the issue of cultural domination.
An important aspect of western global domination over the last several hundred years has been the domination of western culture. It has meant subordination of other civilisations. Now that the Western domination in economic and military fields is ebbing, other hitherto suppressed and dominated cultures are poised to reassert themselves. This is already happening in the Islamic world in a major way.
In major civilisations such as the Chinese and Indian, which have survived the prolonged western onslaught, reassertion of the indigenous cultures is not unimaginable. This has implication for the left project. Left ideology (socialism/Marxism) has Western roots. Marxism is a critique of capitalism. It seeks to provide an alternative to capitalist economic system. Its philosophical critique of the western society focuses on consumerism, alienation, individualism, etc. But the whole discourse is located in the western social domain. It does not take cognizance of cultures of non-western civilisations. It is unable to negotiate with them. This aspect is likely to provide increasing hindrance to spread of left ideology in the non-western countries.
For long, the tag of progressivism has been attached with western society. This is because western society is associated with industrial revolution, technological progress, high living standards, unchallenged military might, democracy based on universal suffrage, individual liberty, media freedom, and even ideas of Socialism and Marxism. Although slavery, colonization, genocide of indigenous peoples, two world wars, use of nuclear weapons on civilian population and environmental crisis are also associated with it, but these are largely ignored in the dominant narrative. But seriousness of negative aspects of science and technology developments, governed by laws of capitalism, is also becoming too obvious to be denied. Nuclear weapons, bio-technology and climate changes, all with links to high S&T and pursuit of economic growth, now threaten the very survival of human life on the planet. In addition, there are clear signs of cultural decadence and social decay in the western societies. For all these reasons, the hitherto suppressed non-western cultures and civilisations are likely to start questioning western cultural supremacy and demanding equal status vis-a-vis western counterparts in the coming times.
As there is no discreet left perspective on the question of culture, the challenge to the dominating western culture comes largely from religion/tradition/non-western civilizations based perspectives. This is happening not only in non-western cultures but also within western societies themselves. The neo-conservatives in the US while believing in neoliberal values in economic matters espouse conservatism in social and personal/family life and blame the dominant culture for the societal decay. In many places (in both western and non[1]western societies), the oppositional space is being occupied by religious/fundamentalist (or even fascist) forces. It is clearly evident in Islamic countries. But in Europe and America also, fundamentalist (or fascist) tendencies are emerging. In India too, there is a surge of communal forces.
This brings us to the current case of Latin America. The left’s progress in Latin America is happening even in the absence of direct military US intervention. Of course, Latin America has a long history of US intervention and there have been historical opposition by peoples of Latin America against it. But the struggles there now are not Vietnam-type anti-colonial struggles. Although indigenous peoples and cultures survive in some areas (Bolivia, etc.), the peoples inhibiting Latin America are largely of European descent. The left ideology thus does not face the kind of cultural resistance it faces in non-western civilisations such as the Chinese and Indian and in the Muslim world. (It is however an issue as far as the indigenous peoples are concerned.) Here economic disparity also has a role to play – the rich-poor divide in Latin America is quite stark and the middle space is not that prominent.
Does it explain, even if partly, the differences in popular acceptance of left ideas between Latin America and other developing countries?
About the Author:
Dr. V. Upadhyay is a world renowned Economist and Prof. Upadhay has taught at the most prestigious institutes in India and Canada. He was the Head of Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of IIT Delhi, and had previously worked with IIT Kanpur, New Brunswick University, Canada, Prince Edward Island University, Canada and Rajasthan University, Jaipur. His area of interest is development Economics and has written around 100 research papers. He is also a member of Indian Political Economy Association.