An analysis of the political conjuncture

(Paraphrased from a talk by Vivek Chibber)

We are in the midst of what is probably the greatest economic crisis of capitalism since the 1930s, and yet the political project of neoliberalism remains ascendant. If anything, the fiscal dimensions of the crisis are being mobilized to push forward with the restructuring of state institutions. There have been pockets of mobilization and resistance, but insofar as they become organized political forces at all, they have been absorbed by the legacy institutions of 20th century social democracy--i.e. the parties and unions. Yet these institutions of the "center left" no less than the their counterparts on the right have long since become committed champions of neoliberalism and, in the current situation, austerity.

The move by the social democratic parties to commit themselves as above all good managers of the capitalist economy has only confirmed a sort of political and above all electoral "confusion"--as large segments of the population become disengaged from the political process or even express outright hostility by voting for far-right parties. Yet this abdication on the part of social democracy on its role as representative of popular interests has not yielded any increased relevance of the self-described radical left. The radical, revolutionary left has clung to its rejection of the "incremental" road to social transformation that is still associated with (although in practice abandoned by) social democracy. However, the "insurrectionary road" that they proclaim as an alternative has no possible of political traction, let alone success.

The irony is that both the mainstream social democratic institutions and the revolutionary factions arrayed on their left flank are children of the Second International. This shared legacy, in fact, plays a large role in the shared ineffectiveness. The organizational inheritance of the Second International is the disciplined, vertically consolidated party and union. However, once an organization is integrated with the bourgeois state, top-down control necessarily produces demobilization and both encourages and enables the marginalization of militants by the leadership.

While it is understandable that marginalized militants would respond by rejecting integration with the the institutions of the capitalist state, in favor of the hope of insurrection and revolution, barring an act of god no advanced capitalist state is going to fall to insurrection. The welfare state, whatever its attenuation in recent decades, has changes the political landscape fundamentally. As a result, even if any future left mobilization would need to start-out with "extra-parliamentary" and even illegal tactics, sooner rather than later it would need to orient itself to the state. The state is simply too closely bound up with the the well-being of every individual in society to be ignored.