Working on the Left is an interesting experience. As with any group, community, organization or society, there are positives and negatives to constantly organizing with leftists. Over the years, I’ve noticed that people will often talk about issues in very dichotomous ways, sometimes missing important nuances and potential discussions. Here, I hope to contribute some of my reflections to the ongoing and never-ending discussions concerning organizing and political alternatives.

Dogmatism and Ideology

Immediately, I think leftists should avoid and ultimately reject sectarianism and rigid political beliefs. Maybe that’s obvious to some people, but unfortunately I still run into many activists, some of whom are putting in tons of time, who adhere to truly reactionary political ideologies. In many ways, the terms socialism, communism and anarchism have been completely bastardized, warped, mutated. Today, these concepts mean very little to a new generation of activists who seek fresh ideas, or a synthesis of existing ideologies. For the average Joe, those terms mean virtually nothing.

Without doubt, leftists should respect, admire and celebrate previous emancipatory political projects, but only if those projects represent hope for the future. In other words, if the Cuban revolution, for example, can provide worthwhile lessons, then let’s learn from that political experience. On the other hand, if the Cuban revolution provides cautionary lessons, which it does, then we should learn from those as well. We should never be afraid to critique or ask questions. We should always challenge false dichotomies.

In short, leftists shouldn’t overly glamorize previous political projects, but we also shouldn’t completely distance ourselves from them either. Personally, I have no direct connection to the Cuban revolution, but I’ve learned much from reading about the 26th of July Movement, Batista, American Imperialism and so forth. Again, I see no reason to overly glamorize the revolution, as I’m more interested in utilizing what is useful, and discarding the rest.

However, some leftists have routinely felt the need to blindly defend such political projects, simultaneously labeling any detractors as ‘traitors to the cause’ or ‘uncommitted to serious political action.’ Here, I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, I would argue that anyone who is genuinely committed to emancipatory political projects would be the first to criticize former and current revolutions, movements, systems, reforms and so forth. The Left should have the ultimate critique of State Socialism, not those who wish to paint all leftists as totalitarian murderers.

Let me talk about a personal example. For instance, my friend Francisco has lived in the US since his youth. His family migrated from Cuba soon after the revolution. His father, a lifelong communist and supporter of the revolution, insisted on defending the Cuban revolution at all costs, avoiding difficult questions, contradictions and worthwhile lessons. Francisco, on the other hand, sees the revolution as a somewhat antiquated project, but a project that also provides valuable successes and lessons.

While living in the US, Francisco has been forced to navigate many difficult conversations. On the one hand, he regularly encounters Americans who think Cuba is a communist hell, a totalitarian landscape of repression and limited freedoms. In this context, Francisco attempts to convey a positive message about Cuba, explaining to Americans that Cuba, in some ways, provides examples of successful alternatives: socialized education, medicine, community farming, etc.

On the other hand, Francisco routinely encounters leftists who overly fetishize the Cuban revolution or avoid uncomfortable facts concerning political repression and systemic failures in the Caribbean nation. In this context, Francisco tries to explain that while the Cuban revolution has done some good things for its people, it’s important to constantly critique the project. Many leftists are confused after speaking with Francisco as they often seek simple answers: Is Cuba good, or not?

Organizing Within Election Cycles

Right now, in most parts of the world, leftist political parties are not major players in the realm of state power. Sure, in Scotland left-nationalist forces are gaining momentum. In Greece, the leftist party SYRIZA has been elected. And in Latin America, various leftist political projects have captured state power: Bolivia, Venezuela, etc. Without question, all of these projects should be celebrated, critiqued, aided and improved upon.

But what about the rest of us? Overall, leftists around the globe have limited options. Yet, does that mean we shouldn’t engage in the electoral process? After all, showing up to vote is a very minor act. It only takes a few minutes and doesn’t require much effort. Indeed, for those of us living hand-to-mouth, marginal differences between political parties can manifest in very crucial ways.

For example, the slashing of social programs can have catastrophic consequences for poor communities. A simple extension of unemployment benefits can mean the difference between buying groceries, or not having food to eat. Minor differences, while uninspiring and unsexy, still matter to the vast majority of people around the world. Here, leftists are confronted with many choices.

Leftists who enjoy alternative political parties in their respective countries can engage with those parties, better develop their platforms and build electoral options for the future. In this respect, I’m somewhat jealous, as I’d love to have a leftist political party in the US that was rooted in radical social movements. Surely, those who do have these options are a step ahead of those of us who do not. However, that doesn’t mean that people in Greece or Venezuela should stop fighting for more.

For those of us who do not have such options, it’s difficult to choose how to spend our time during elections. Sure, we hope to create electoral alternatives, but we’re usually stuck voting for the candidate or party that we see as simply being less crazy than the prospective alternative. Since this has been going on for decades in many countries, many leftists have become overly cynical, and sometimes unwilling to participate in the process at all.

But who should leftists organize if not those who are engaged in the electoral process? Sometimes, I get the feeling that leftists assume that there is some sort of silent majority, to use Nixon’s term, of possible, or closeted leftists, who simply aren’t currently engaged, but primed and ready to vote for potential alternative parties, organize for radical changes and resist oppression.

In my thinking, that assumption is objectively incorrect. Yes, it may be true that most people around the globe, at least when polled, agree with a broad array of leftist political programs, but that doesn’t mean that these potential activists and organizers are going to automatically become engaged. Most people still see elections as the primary political arena in which to engage. As long as that’s the case, leftists will need to organize, however limited, within election cycles.

To be clear, I think leftists should engage at all levels. In other words, we should see the entire landscape of social, economic and cultural relations as an ideological/political battlefield. We shouldn’t be afraid to participate with local groups, dominant parties or coalitions. Of course, we should always be weary of co-option and lackluster principles, but leftists should aim to inject criticism and illustrate alternatives, not walk away from the process of educating existing voters.

If regular people don’t spend time with leftists, how can we expect them to gravitate towards more radical political movements, ideas or projects? If leftists refuse to spend time with people when they’re actually organized and interested in the political process (usually election season), how can we expect to build our numbers, our political power?

What do Leftists Want?

When I use the term “leftist,” broadly speaking, I’m thinking of someone who’s opposed to capitalism, imperialism and committed to radically altering society’s social, cultural, religious, political, economic and ecological relationships and institutions. Of course, many leftists are also interested in meaningful reforms, but that’s not our main focus, at least it shouldn’t be, as there are plenty of liberal and progressive groups who are willing to do reform work, and already do.

Again, the vast majority of people might not understand or care what the term leftist means, and that’s fine. Honestly, it’s not that important if people don’t necessarily understand political terminologies. Our job, as leftists, is to convey big ideas, serious critiques of existing power structures and possible alternatives to the status quo, not banter on about semantics.

In some ways, our job is easy, for most people in 2015 fully understand that our global systems are crashing, collapsing, failing, etc. Today, the Left’s biggest challenge is to combat collective cynicism. Most of the people I run into on a daily basis understand that the system is completely screwed up and not functioning on their behalf. However, simply understanding that the system is failing doesn’t necessarily mean that people will resist or start formulating alternatives for the future.

Here, I agree with Michael Albert, who argues that vision is the antidote to defeatism and cynicism. Throughout my time as an activist, I’ve had people ask me, “What do you want to achieve?” In the past, I would use vague and broad statements. For example, I would say, “Well, I want the future to be less hierarchical and more democratic.” Or, I would insist that, “I want less war and militarism and more social programs for the poor.”

As time moved along, I realized that simply telling people that the future will be “more democratic” or “less centralized” is not a serious way of conveying alternatives. I started to understand the importance of nuance and sophistication. More importantly, I started to think about values, vision and cohesive programs for the future. I short, I asked myself: what do we want to achieve with our activism, writings and organizing efforts? And how do we aim to achieve it? Better yet, how do we win?

Asking Interesting Questions

Again, it’s easy to say basic things like: “I want healthcare for all,” which is a completely reasonable and worthwhile suggestion. The question, for leftists, at least I’m hoping, isn’t whether or not people should have universal healthcare, the question is: who’s going to provide healthcare services? Is it going to be the state apparatus? If so, what does that state look like? If not, what other entities could potentially provide such services? If those entities don’t exist, what would alternatives look like?

How should healthcare decisions be made? At the municipal level? At the regional level? At the neighborhood level? At the familial or individual level? I’m assuming this would depend on which questions are being asked and how they affect people. How these decisions are made, by whom, in what fashion, and with what aims, should always be a part of our ongoing conversation about alternatives.

Moreover, how could healthcare professionals pass on their knowledge to others? Could we teach non-healthcare professionals how to administer basic services? Where would these services be administered? Local hospitals? Of course, leftists don’t want privatized services, but who could run the existing hospitals? Could they be run collectively? Is that ideal? How can we better utilize existing healthcare facilities?

In brief, those are some of the questions that I think leftists should be asking ourselves as we approach these very difficult topics. Without question, some communities around the world are currently approaching these issues in nuanced and sophisticated ways. Yet, while I think it’s important to take what we can from successful movements, it’s even more important for people to think for themselves, and to use their inherent creative abilities to approach these topics in new, hopefully interesting and effective ways.

Vincent Emanuele is a writer, activist and radio journalist who lives and works in the Rust Belt. He’s a member of UAW Local 1981. Vincent can be reached at [email protected]

---