Sometimes it appears that the democratic left is engaged in the labour of Sisyphus. Sisyphus, according to the Greek myth, was condemned by the gods to spend eternity in an utterly futile task: to push a boulder to the top of a hill, only to see it roll down to the bottom each time. Leaders of the left have their own peculiar burden to shoulder. When progressive parties pursue a moderate strategy of accommodation with capitalism, they may achieve egalitarian gains but rarely enough to satisfy their militant followers. But if they pursue a more confrontational stance vis-à-vis inherited structures of privilege and power, they risk instigating an economic crisis that may usher in a crushing political crisis as well. This pattern is evident in the Global South, the focus of this post, but it probably applies also to the Global North.

Consider the basic dilemma. On the one hand, proponents of moderate social democracy have eschewed class conflict in favour of a social accord in which financial and business elites assent to a degree of #redistributionfromgrowth. As I suggested in my earlier post on moderate social democracy, redistribution largely takes the form of a welfare state providing essential services and universal social protections, cash transfers to the poor, high minimum wages and good jobs fostered by a proactive developmentalist state. #Leftistgovernments such as those in Brazil since 2006, Uruguay under the Frente Amplio since 2004, Chile under Socialist presidents since 2000 and Costa Rica in an earlier period achieved some success in reducing poverty and, in some cases, inequality as well.

Though not without accomplishments, moderate social democracy nevertheless suffers from clear limitations. A small #capitalistclass continues to control the oligopolies that dominate the economy. A few wealthy families or large corporations own the bulk of the mass media, which typically engage in unrelenting criticism of the progressive governments. #Corporateelites, by means of campaign contributions, lobbying and even bribery, maintain disproportionate political influence. The inter-generational transmission of privilege persists. Children of the elite attend superior private schools, have access to premium private health facilities and benefit from wealth and social contacts in securing their livelihoods. Despite some attenuation, high income and wealth #inequalities persist in comparative terms in cases such as Brazil and Chile. Thus, the unequal life chances of citizens that are linked to hierarchical class relations belie the goal of equal freedom to which the left is committed. Furthermore, the compromises that the governments entertain to pass legislation through legislatures in which the governing party holds a minority of seats demoralize the militants and rank-and-file supporters. What is needed is redistribution of wealth, educational resources and political power, not just income.

But, on the other hand, a shift by the leftist party from class compromise to class struggle by attacking inherited privilege is likely to have disastrous economic and political consequences. Class conflict today, if conducted within a democratic system, takes the form of left populism or a radical social-democratic strategy. In either case, the response of national and transnational capital within our integrated global market system is similar. The radical turn instigates massive capital flight, together with a capital strike. The two together underpin a rapid decline in the value of the national currency and a rise in the inflation rate. Lay-offs lead to growing unemployment while consumer goods become scarce owing to capital and other controls and the declining value of the currency. The result is an economic crisis that readily becomes a political crisis as the mass media and the opposition parties blame the decline in living standards on the radicalgovernment. In an earlier era, Salvador Allende’s Unidad Popular was the classic illustration of this pattern of class struggle, leading in this case to the Pinochet coup of September 1973 and the installation of a murderous dictatorship.

It is little wonder, in light of these patterns, that parties of the democratic left settle for class accommodation rather than class struggle. However, the accommodation of the elite’s interests and the necessary compromises breed disillusionment among militants and supporters. After all, the Socialist Party in Chile and the Workers Party in Brazil are both revolutionary socialist parties in their origins. Disaffection was evident in Chile in 2006 during a Socialist presidency, and periodically thereafter, as students took to the streets to press their view that education was a right, not a commodity; they were joined by other groups with a variety of environmental and social grievances. In Brazil in 2013, during a Workers Party administration, a series of massive urban protests ignited by a small hike in transit fares in Sao Paulo similarly signalled popular disaffection. These demonstrations also evolved into more general protests – about the waste of money on the World Cup and Olympics facilities, crime, corruption and the poor state of public services. Although the governments in question had brought many important changes, their rhetoric had raised expectations to a level that could not be satisfied within the limits of moderate social democracy.

The left in Latin America and elsewhere is thus caught in a bind. But is the left, like Sisyphus, doomed to futility?

Not really. There are ways to loosen the constraints weighing on the left. For one thing, not all countries are equally vulnerable to capital or the imperial centers of the global system. While the price of hydrocarbons is high, countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador have greater leverage within the world system than less well endowed neighbours. When the price declines, of course, leftist governments in these countries become exceedingly vulnerable. It is also possible for radical leaders to forge international alliances that augment their policy autonomy, as #HugoChavez sought to do; the rise of China as an economic and military power enhances the feasibility of this strategy. Though in no sense a model for the left, China nonetheless has an interest in counterbalancing the power of the West by supporting heterodox regimes. In the longer run, establishing regional organizations of like-minded states would buffer aspirant socialist movements from the neoliberal international economic order. Socialism in one country is even less feasible today than in the 1920s. Regional organizations, such as the embryonic ones that have emerged in Latin America in the past decade, might possibly provide alternatives to recourse to such neoliberal institutions as the World Bank, the IMF and bilateral or multilateral trade agreements. In the longer run still, there is the possibility of reconstructing #globalization in a direction more amenable to the left. But that is another, very complex, story.

by