A very limited number of people live off the grid; even less have enough wealth to survive comfortably regardless of who’s elected; and even fewer live in communities organized effectively enough to eliminate the need for a state apparatus. Unfortunately, as it currently stands, the bulk of us live, work and die, largely as a result of political decisions formulated, codified and enforced by our elected representatives and their masters, the wealthy elite.

In the US, a large number of leftist-activists shun elections, and understandably so. Yet, we’ve paid a hefty price for neglecting the electoral realm of struggle. In the meantime, right-wing candidates and movements in the EU embrace increasingly racist ideologies, while their US counterparts are hellbent on implementing the harshest austerity measures. At the same time, many progressive candidates in the US promote uninspiring platforms, whereas Syriza in Greece has reignited the left.

Whether we’re discussing Syriza, the National Front (FN) in France or the Republicans (GOP) and Democrats in the US, political parties and movements in the US and EU offer a range of ideologies and positions. To be fair, some leftists argue that this range is quite limited; some are very critical of Syriza; while others focus on the positive dynamics of their platform and practices. In the US, however, alternative leftist-parties have not taken root, nor have they gained momentum in recent years.

Hedge Fund Masters

Recently, former hedge-fund manager Bruce Rauner was sworn-in as Governor during a hollow ceremony in Springfield, Illinois. Of course, the usual motley cast of lawyers, media pundits, B-list celebrities, and corporate elites were in attendance, most seeking access, others returning favors. Governor Rauner, the former Chairman of R8 Capital Partners and private equity firm GTCR, managed to utter the word “sacrifice” four times during his formulaic inaugural speech.

According to the newly elected Governor, in order “to make Illinois the kind of state that others aspire to become, a national leader in job growth and education quality,” the public must prepare to “sacrifice,” particularly pensioners, kids and union employees. Rauner continued, “Each person here today and all those throughout the state will be called upon to share in the sacrifice so that one day we can again share in Illinois’ prosperity.”

Other than a small number of corporate elites who will always support the mega-millionaire governor, few are willing to tolerate yet another Ivy League lawyer expecting the public to passively accept more cuts to essential services, programs and institutions, especially at a time when the rich are doing better than ever. As roads and dreams crumble in Illinois, the wealthy build helipads for their toys.

Rauner’s father was the former senior vice president of Motorola Inc., the now defunct telecommunications company. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that the son of a former business executive is calling for “sacrifices.” Indeed, wealthy elites loathe the poor. From Australian mining billionaires to Greek bankers, the lowly masses are expected to passively accept draconian measures at a time when the world’s 85 richest individuals own more wealth than the bottom-half the world’s population combined.

Today, hedge-fund managers routinely visit Athens in the hope that, if elected to power, left-wing party Syriza “not push for loan forgiveness from the private sector.” They consider Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras to be “pragmatic,” or, in other words, willing to capitulate to the demands of capital. Nevertheless, few argue that Syriza will bow-down before the capitalist-order as the Democrats in the US or the Socialist Party in France routinely do.

In the US, hedge-fund billionaires commonly support center-left candidates. For example, San Francisco-based hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer spent $75 million (US) on the 2014 mid-term elections, exclusively supporting candidates who expressed concern about global warming and ecological devastation. In other words, hedge-fund billionaires simply manage the electoral-political landscape in the US. Some back right-wing conservatives, while others back neo-Keynesian progressives.

Ideologies

Syriza is often touted as the “radicals” of the EU, shunning austerity measures and speaking in the language of traditional leftists. However, as Paul Mason correctly observes, “even as the symbolism of moderate Marxism is plastered all over Syriza, in reality its programme for Greece is mainstream Keynesian economics.” In short, Mason argues that Syriza is seeking to reestablish the 20th Century Welfare State.

Yet, as Jerome Roos recently wrote, “The original Keynesian welfare state arose under a very particular set of circumstances that are in every respect diametrically opposed to those in which Greece and Spain find themselves today.” But, as Roos has said in the past, and Tsipras recently, the rejection of austerity measures and the rebuilding of the welfare state, or some alternative form of it, will likely allow Greek activists some “breathing room.”

As many activists in the US are beginning to understand in the post-2008 world, when people are constantly faced with primary emergencies (drinking water, food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) it becomes virtually impossible to expand one’s thoughts beyond how to obtain the next meal. Creating opportunities for people to feel human again, with a bit of food on the table and some money in the bank, undoubtedly makes a tremendous difference when organizing for social change.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Front Party (FN) has repackaged and presented old ideologies and policies as radical and new. When, in fact, FN’s politics look identical to the platitudes plastered throughout right-wing populist propaganda in the 1930s. Increasingly, the lines between left and right are blurring, leaving average citizens confused when approaching new political ideas, and many international commentators stunned as right-wing political parties and movements grow throughout Europe.

Florian Philippot, FN’s vice-president, recently said in a Financial Times interview, “The left — just like the right — has succumbed to the neoliberal policies of the European Union. They have destroyed public services and have implemented austerity.” Later in the article, Adam Thompson writes, “It is no accident, for example, that the FN is expected to do well in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, located in the country’s northern rust belt. A win there would mark the first time the party won a regional election since its founding in 1972.” Further, Mr. Philippot insists the FN has made considerable attempts to distance itself from racist-extremists.

In an interview with Der Spiegel, Marine Le Pen used interesting language as she addressed the cultural schisms engendered within the current structure of the EU: “Europe is war. Economic war. It is the increase of hostilities between the countries. Germans are denigrated as being cruel, the Greeks as fraudsters, the French as lazy. Ms. Merkel can’t travel to any European country without being protected by hundreds of police. That is not brotherhood.” Le Pen went on to make a distinction between the EU and Europe, saying, “I want to destroy the EU, not Europe!”

Essentially, both Syriza and the FN are recommending Keynesian economic policies: standard economic growth, limited protectionist measures, more manufacturing, financial regulations, eliminating various forms of regressive taxation, expanding the Welfare State, investing in public infrastructure, and so on. The actual economic policy differences between the two parties are marginal, at best. Yet, unlike Republicans or Democrats, both Syriza and the FN are adamantly opposed to further austerity.

In contrast, Syriza’s ideology is much different from the FN’s. For example, Syriza commonly places itself within the context of international struggles, promoting global-solidarity and so forth. Some of their critics on the left argue that Syriza should craft policies to eventually leave the EU; Syriza argues that such a position would cause undue harm to the working-class and poor of Europe. Meanwhile, the FN, abandoning any pretense of being interested in global-solidarity, has taken a more radical view than Syriza with regard to the EU, with Marine Le Pen openly calling for its destruction.

The Rich Rule in America’s Heartland

In the US, the story is somewhat similar, yet quite different. The recent election of Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, and the upcoming mayoral election in Chicago have presented challenges for leftist movements in the state of Illinois. Fortunately, with a Democrat as Mayor of Chicago, and a Republican as Governor, people in Illinois have been reminded of the limitations of the two-party system. Hopefully, this unfortunate situation will allow a space for alternatives to be discussed, debated and eventually implemented.

During his acceptance speech, Governor Rauner focused on three major issues: education, state finances and economic growth. Regarding education, Rauner said, “Next to being a mother or a father, teaching is the most important job in the world, and we must support our many good teachers. That means putting more directly into the classrooms, reforming the education bureaucracy, rolling back costly mandates and giving more students access to great schools.”

What, exactly, is Rauner referring to when he suggests “reforming the education bureaucracy” or “giving more students access to great schools?” Clearly, “reform” and “access” are code words for budget-cuts and privatization. A long-standing proponent of privatizing public goods, Rauner has spent a decent amount of his hedge-fund fortune bankrolling charter schools throughout the city of Chicago, with one private school even being named after him. Consequently, historian Diane Ravich describes Rauner as a “menace to society.”

To be sure, in neoliberal-America, education serves as a means to an end, not an end itself. Governor Rauner reminded Illinois taxpayers of the real reason we educate our children, “A high-quality education is essential for higher lifetime earnings, a competitive, world-class workforce and strong economic growth.” The very concept of education has been bastardized in our time. We no longer learn in order to develop as human beings; we learn in order to be “competitive” and contribute to “economic growth.”

Several analysts, such as Henry Giroux, refer to this process as the “neoliberalization of education.” In other words, kids don’t attend school to expand their thoughts or maximize their creative potential. Millions of children around the globe have been forced to endure the neoliberal educational-landscape, attending classes in order to obtain “higher lifetime earnings.” In short, schools are businesses, increasingly run like businesses, with managers, executives, profit-margins and the rest. In short, we could call this the commodification of thought.

Unsurprisingly, Rauner served as a former adviser to the neoliberal Democrat. Emanuel, who last year closed dozens of public schools in Chicago’s poorest black neighborhoods, undoubtedly believes in tightening the city’s fiscal belt around the necks of the poor, leaving many helpless and disempowered at a time when the rich gobble-up wealth at a staggering pace, radically altering Chicago’s urban landscape. As Peter Brogan notes:

“This has been outlined in numerous planning documents from different city administrations, some of which have been drafted by the Commercial Club and have at the center an urban development strategy based on revitalizing the downtown core and prioritizing the financial, real estate and tourist sectors of the economy while at the same time demolishing public housing and schools in order to gentrify historically African American and Latino working class neighborhoods. These transformations are deeply related to the larger structural crisis of capitalism. The background to this is the crisis of profitability that comes to a head in the early 1970s, and the ushering in a period of capitalist regulation known as neoliberalism, marked by savage attacks on unions, workers and working class living standards.

Reconstructing the built environment of the city has been absolutely central to all of these changes. This is one attempt to deal with the structural crisis of capitalism at this critical juncture. And destroying unions, and teachers’ unions in particular, have been key to that attempt.”

Challenging Growth

Throughout the world, activists are searching for alternatives to the dominant institutions, policies and ideologies of our time. In the US and EU, this means directly challenging and dismantling empire and capitalism. It also means abolishing long-standing cultural prejudices and divisions. Clearly, we’re still light years away from achieving such ends.

In the short term, most people still need steady income or the state apparatus in order to survive. Hence the reason we cannot avoid organizing around elections or within existing institutions. Yet, many people are left searching for truly radical alternatives, or at least candidates and parties who are willing to articulate basic truths about our world, especially with regard to ecological issues.

While it’s encouraging to witness political developments in Greece, such as the rise of Syriza, simultaneously right-wing populist movements and parties are picking up steam in many portions of Europe. Furthermore, the basic policies and ideologies of Syriza are terribly inadequate. Namely, because the living-world cannot withstand another half-century of Welfare State policies. We need drastically new ideas and platforms, not slight alterations of previous leftist movements, ideologies and parties.

Again, I’m not saying Syriza’s rise isn’t a positive development. I’m also not arguing that Syriza is incapable of providing alternative visions for those of us actively organizing in other countries and continents. I’m simply arguing that the natural environment can no longer withstand economic policies formulated in the 19th Century, based on rapid industrialization, production and consumption.

In the end, the material-economic reality and the dominant ideology of economic growth is killing the planet. And yet, none of that matters because it’s not realistic or pragmatic to demand something different. Regardless, numerous studies have suggested that the world must find an alternative to the current “infinite growth paradigm.” We need new trading networks, values and institutions. And we need them now. In today’s context, such demands are not simply the dreams of some fringe-leftists, they are the basic requirements for human and planetary survival.

Vincent Emanuele is a writer, activist and radio journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]

---