Ideas For Struggle (Marta Harnecker)

Ideas for the
Struggle
Marta Harnecker
2 Ideas for the Struggle
Contents
1. MASS UPRISINGS OR REVOLUTIONS? THE ROLE OF THE
POLITICAL INSTRUMENT ............................................................................. 3
2. CONVINCE, NOT IMPOSE ............................................................................. 6
3. TO BE AT THE SERVICE OF POPULAR MOVEMENTS,
NOT REPLACE THEM ................................................................................... 9
4. SHOULD WE REJECT BUREAUCRATIC CENTRALISM
& SIMPLY USE CONSENSUS? ....................................................................... 12
5. MINORITIES CAN BE RIGHT ...................................................................... 15
6. THE NEED TO UNITE THE POLITICAL LEFT &
THE SOCIAL LEFT ....................................................................................... 18
7. REASONS FOR POPULAR SCEPTICISM TOWARDS
POLITICS & POLITICIANS ........................................................................... 21
8. THE LEFT SHOULD AVOID ALLOWING THE RIGHT TO
SET ITS AGENDA FOR STRUGGLE ................................................................ 24
9. RESPECT DIFFERENCES & BE FLEXIBLE IN REGARDS
TO ACTIVISM ............................................................................................. 27
10. A STRATEGY FOR BUILDING THE UNITY OF THE LEFT ................................. 30
11. POPULAR CONSULTATIONS: SPACES THAT ALLOW
FOR THE CONVERGENCE OF DIFFERENT FORCES ........................................ 33
12. DO NOT CONFUSE DESIRES WITH REALITY ............................................... 36
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 39
Cover design: Kerry Klinner, www.megacitydesign.com.

First published in Spanish 2004; second revised & updated edition 2016.
Resistance Books edition 2016; translated by Federico Fuentes.
ISBN 978-1-876646-75-2
Published by Resistance Books, resistancebooks.com
1. Mass Uprisings or
Revolutions? The Role of the
Political Instrument
1. The recent and not so recent popular uprisings that rocked numerous countries
across the world have clearly demonstrated that the initiative of the people, in
and of itself, is not enough to defeat ruling regimes.
2. Impoverished urban and rural sectors, lacking a well-defined plan, have risen up,
seized highways, towns and neighbourhoods, ransacked stores and stormed
parliaments, but despite being able to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people,
neither their size nor their combativeness have been enough to move from mass
uprisings to revolution. They have overthrown presidents, but they have not
been able to conquer power and initiate a process of deep social transformations.
About this pamphlet

The following text is made up of 12 articles that were first published in Venezuela
in 2004 and that were slightly modified in 2016. They were written without a
predetermined order in mind and I have preferred to maintain this order to facilitate
discussion with my earlier readers. I recommend starting from the topic that most
interests you and then reading the rest of the text. As it is impossible to develop all
facets of an idea in two pages, only by reading the whole text will readers be able to
fully understand each individual article.
Marta Harnecker
August 2016
3. On the other hand, the history of triumphant revolutions clearly demonstrates

what can be achieved when a political instrument exists that is capable of raising
an alternative national program to unify the struggles of diverse social actors
behind a common goal; that helps to cohere them and elaborates a path forward
for these actors based on an analysis of the existent balance of forces. Only in this
manner can actions be carried out at the right place and the right time, always
seeking out the weakest link in the enemy’s chain.
4. This political instrument is like a piston in a locomotive that takes compressed

stream from the boiler and, at the decisive moment, converts it into a powerful
force. Of course, as Leon Trotsky said, it is not the piston or the boiler, but the
steam which drives the process forward.
5. In order for political action to be effective, so that protests, resistance and struggles
are genuinely able to change things, to convert mass uprisings into revolutions, a
political instrument capable of overcoming the dispersion and fragmentation of
the exploited and the oppressed is required: one that can create spaces to bring
together those who, in spite of their differences, have a common enemy; that is
able to strengthen existing struggles and promote others by orientating their actions
according to a thorough analysis of the political situation; that can act as an
instrument for cohering the many expressions of resistance and struggle.
6. We are aware that there are a number of apprehensions towards such ideas.
There are many who are not even willing to discuss them. Such positions are
adopted because they associate this idea with the anti-democratic, authoritarian,
bureaucratic and manipulative political practices that have characterised many
left-wing parties.
7. I believe it is fundamental for us to overcome this subjective barrier and understand

that when we refer to a political instrument, we are not thinking about any
political instrument; we are dealing with a political instrument adjusted to the
new times, an instrument that we must build together.
8. However, in order to create or refashion this new political instrument, the left has
to change its political culture and its vision of politics. This cannot be reduced to
institutional political disputes for control over parliament or local governments; to
approving laws or winning elections. In this conception of politics, the popular
Mass Uprisings or Revolutions? 5
sectors and their struggles are completely ignored. Neither can politics be limited
to the art of what is possible.
9. For the left, politics must be the art of making possible the impossible. And we are
not talking here about a voluntarist declaration. We are talking about understanding
politics as the art of constructing a social and political force capable of changing
the correlation of force in favor of the popular movement, to make possible in
the future what today appears impossible.
10. We have to think of politics as the art of constructing forces. We have to overcome
the old and deeply-rooted mistake of trying to build a political force without
building a social force.
11. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of revolutionary phase-mongering among our

militants; too much radicalism in their statements. I am convinced that the only
way to radicalise a given situation is through the construction of forces. Those
whose words are filled with demands for radicalisation must answer the following
question: What are you doing to construct the political and social force necessary
to push the process forward?
12. But this construction of forces cannot occur spontaneously; only popular uprisings
happen spontaneously. It requires a political instrument that is capable of
consciously building the required forces.
13. And I envisage this political instrument as an organisation capable of raising a

national project that can unify and act as a compass for all those sectors that
oppose neoliberalism. As an organisation that is orientated towards the rest of
society, that respects the autonomy of the social movements instead of manipulating
them. And one whose militants and leaders are true popular pedagogues, capable
of stimulating the knowledge that exists within the people — derived from their
cultural traditions, as well as acquired in their daily struggles for survival — through
the fusion of this knowledge with the most all-encompassing knowledge that the
political organisation can offer. An orientating and cohering instrument at the
service of the social movements.
2. Convince, Not Impose

1. Popular movements and, more generally, the different social protagonists engaged
in the struggle against neoliberal globalisation both at the international and national
levels, reject — with good reason — attitudes that aim to impose hegemony or
control on movements. They do not accept the steamroller policy that some political
and social organisations tended to use that, taking advantage of their position of
strength and monopolising political positions, attempts to manipulate the
movement. They do not accept the authoritarian imposition of a leadership
from above; they do not accept attempts made to lead movements by simply
giving orders, no matter how correct they are.
2. Such attitudes, instead of bringing forces together, have the opposite effect. On
the one hand, they creates discontent in the other organisations; they feel
manipulated and obligated to accept decisions in which they have had no
participation; and on the other hand, it reduces the number of potential allies,
given that an organisation that assumes such positions is incapable of representing
the real interests of all sectors of the population and often provokes mistrust and
skepticism among them.
3. But fighting against positions that seek to impose hegemony does not mean
renouncing the fight to win hegemony, which is nothing else but attempting to
win over, to persuade others of the correctness of our criteria and the validity of
our proposals.
4. Winning hegemony does not require having many people in the beginning.
There are a number of examples in history that demonstrate how, in a
revolutionary situation, a small group with clear ideas, one that correctly analyses
the balance of forces in dispute, that elaborates a correct strategy and tactic, and
that is armed with great passion and the determination to put their ideas into
practice can, within a short timeframe, become a movement that mobilises
Convince, Not Impose 7
hundreds of thousands of people.
5. It is more important to put forward a political project that reflects the population’s
most deeply felt aspirations, and thus win their minds and hearts, than to create a
powerful party with a large number of militants. What matters is ensuring that its
politics succeed in winning the support of the masses and consensus in the majority
of society.
6. Some parties boast about the large numbers of militants they have, but in reality
they only lead their members. The key is not whether the party is large or small;
what matters is that the people identify with its proposals.
7. Instead of imposing and manipulating, it is necessary to convince and unite all

those who feel attracted to our project. And you can only unite people if others
are respected, if you are willing to share responsibilities with other forces.
8. Today, important sectors of the left have come to understand that their hegemony
is greater when they succeed in drawing more people behind their proposals, even
if they may not do so under their party’s banner. We have to abandon the old-
fashioned and mistaken practice of demanding intellectual property rights against
organisations that dare to hoist our banner.
9. If an important number of grassroots leaders are won over to these ideas, it is fair
to assume that their social base will more likely also be influenced by these ideas.
It is also important to win over distinguished national personalities to the project,
because they are public opinion makers and will be effective instruments for
promoting proposals and winning over new supporters.
10. We believe that a good way to measure the level of hegemony obtained by an
organisation is to examine the number of natural leaders and personalities that
have taken up its ideas, and in general, the number of people who identify with
them.
11. The level of hegemony obtained by a political organisation cannot be measured by

the number of political positions they have won. What is fundamental is that those
who occupy leading positions in diverse movements and organisations take up as
their own and implement the proposals elaborated by the organisation, despite
not belonging to it.
12. A political organisation that genuinely does not seek to impose hegemony should
be able to propose the best people for different positions, regardless of whether
they are party members, independents or members of other parties. The credibility
among the people of a political organisation will depend a great deal on the figures
that it puts forward.
13. Of course this is easier said than done. Frequently, when an organisation is strong,
it tends to underestimate the contribution that other organisations may have to
offer and tends to impose its ideas. It is easier to do this than to take the risk and
rise to the challenge of winning people over. The more political positions obtained,
the more careful we have to be of not succumbing to the desire of imposing
hegemony or control.
14. Moreover, as life follows its own course, new problems arise, and with them new
challenges, the concept of hegemony should be a dynamic one. Hegemony cannot
be consolidated once and for all. Maintaining it requires a process of permanently
re-winning it.
3. To Be At the Service of Popular
Movements, Not Replace Them
1. We have previously stated that politics is the art of constructing a social and
political force capable of changing the balance of forces in order to make possible
tomorrow that which today appears to be impossible. But to be able to construct
a social force political organisations must demonstrate a great respect for grassroots
movements, and contribute to their autonomous development, leaving behind
all attempts at manipulation. They must take as their starting point the fact that
they are not the only ones with ideas and proposals; on the contrary, grassroots
movements have much to offer us, because through their daily struggles they have
also learned things, discovered new paths, found solutions and invented methods
which can be of great value.
2. Political organisations have to get rid of the idea that they are the only ones
capable of generating creative, new, revolutionary and transformative ideas. Their
role therefore is not only to echo the demands of the social movements, but also
to gather ideas and concepts from these movements to enrich their own conceptual
arsenal.
3. Political and social leaders should leave behind pre-established schemas. They
have to struggle to eliminate all verticalism that stifles the initiative of the people.
The role of a leader must be one of contributing with ideas and experiences in
order to help nurture and strengthen the movement, and not replace the masses.
4. Their role is to push the mass movement forward, or perhaps more than push,
facilitate the conditions necessary for the movement to unleash its capacity to
confront those that exploit and oppress them. But helping to push forward is only
possible if we fight shoulder to shoulder in local, regional, national and
international struggles.
5. The relationship of political organisations with grassroots movements should

therefore be a two-way street: from the political organisation to the social
movement and from the social movement to the political organisation.
Unfortunately, the tendency continues to be only in the former direction.
6. It is important to learn to listen and to engage in dialogue with the people; it is

necessary to listen carefully to the solutions proposed by the people themselves
to defend their conquests or struggle for their demands and, with all the information
collected, we must be capable of correctly diagnosing their mood and synthesise
that which could unite them and generate political action, at the same time as
tackling any pessimistic and defeatist ideas they may hold.
7. Wherever possible, we must involve the grassroots in the decision-making process,

that is to say we have to open up new spaces for people’s participation. But people’s
participation is not something that can be decreed from above. Only by taking the
genuine motivations of the people as our starting point, only if one helps them to
understand the need to carry out certain task by themselves, and only by winning
over their hearts and minds, will they be willing to fully commit themselves to the
actions proposed.
8. This is the only way to ensure that efforts made to help orient the movement are
not felt as orders coming from outside the movement, and to help create an
organisational process capable of involving, if not all, then at least an important
part of the people in the struggle and, starting from there, win over little by little
the more backward and pessimistic sectors. When these latter sectors understand
that, as Che Guevara said, the aims we are fighting for are not only necessary but
possible, they too will choose to join the struggle.
9. When the people realise that their own ideas and initiatives are being put into
practice, they will see themselves as the protagonists of change, and their capacity
to struggle will increase enormously.
10. Taking all that has been said above into consideration, it is clear that the type of
political cadres we need are not cadres with a military mentality — today, it is not
about leading an army, which is not to say that at some critical conjunctures this
may and should be the case. Nor do we need cadres that are demagogic populists
— because it is not about leading a flock of sheep. Political cadres should
Be At the Service of Popular Movements 11
fundamentally be popular pedagogues, capable of fostering the ideas and initiative

that emerge from within the grassroots movement.
11. Unfortunately, many of the current leaders have been educated in the school of
leading the people by issuing orders, and that is not something that can be changed
overnight. Therefore, I do not want to create an impression of excessive optimism
here. Achieving a correct relationship between the leaders and the grassroots is
still a long way off.
Fidel Castro and Malcolm X, Harlem, New York, 1960

4. Should We Reject Bureaucratic

Centralism & Simply Use
Consensus?
1. For a long time, left-wing parties operated along authoritarian lines. The usual
practice was that of bureaucratic centralism, influenced by the practice of Soviet
socialism. Most decisions regarding principles, tasks, initiatives, and the course
of political action to take were restricted to the party elite, without the participation
or debate of the membership who were limited to following orders that they
never got to discuss and in many cases did not understand. For most people, these
practices are every day becoming increasingly more intolerable.
2. But in challenging bureaucratic centralisation, it is important to avoid falling into

the excesses of ultra-democracy, which results in more time being used for
discussion than action since everything, even the most minor points, are the
subject of rigorous debates that frequently impede any concrete action.
3 In criticising bureaucratic centralisation, the recent tendency has been to reject all
forms of centralised leadership.
4. There is a lot of talk about organising groups at all levels of society, and that these
groups must apply a strict internal democracy, ideas that we obviously share.
What we do not agree with is the idea that no effort needs to put into organically
linking them up. In defending democracy, flexibility and the desire to fight on
many different fronts, what ends up being rejected is efforts to determine strategic
priorities and attempts to unify actions.
5. For some, the one and only acceptable method is consensus. They argue that by
utilising consensus they are seeking to not impose decisions but instead interpret
Should We Simply Use Consensus? 13
the will of all. But the consensus method, which seeks the agreement of all and
appears to be a more democratic method, can in practice be something that is
profoundly anti-democratic, because it grants the power of veto to a minority to
such an extreme that a single person can block the implementation of an agreement
that may be supported by an overwhelming majority.
6. Moreover, the complexity of problems, the size of the organisations, and the
political timing that compels us to make quick decisions at specific conjunctures
make it almost impossible to use the consensus method on many occasions.
7. I believe that there cannot be political efficacy without a unified leadership that
determines the course of action to follow at different moments in the struggle.
This also requires that a broad ranging discussion occur, where everyone can raise
their opinions and where, in the end, positions are adopted and everyone respects
them.
8. For the sake of a unified course of action, lower levels of the organisation should
respect the decisions made by the higher bodies, and those who have ended up in
the minority should accept whatever course of action emerges triumphant, carrying
out the task together with all the other members.
9. This combination of (a) a democratic debate at different levels of the organisation

and (b) a single centralised leadership based on whatever agreements are arrived
at by consensus or by majority vote is called “democratic centralism”.
10. It is a dialectical combination: in complicated political periods, of revolutionary

fervor or war, there is no other alternative than to lean towards centralisation; in
periods of calm, when the rhythm of events is slower, the democratic character
should be emphasised.
11. Personally, I do not see how one can conceive of successful political action if
unified action is not achieved around key issues. I do not see any other alternative
to democratic centralism for achieving this, if consensus cannot been reached.
12. Only a correct combination of centralism and democracy can ensure that
agreements are effective, because having engaged in the discussion and the
decision-making process, one feels more committed to carry out the decisions.
13. And this commitment will then translate, in practice, into a growing sense of
responsibility, dedication to work, aptitude for problem-solving, as well as courage
to express opinions, to criticise defects and exercise control over the higher bodies
of the organisations.
14. An insufficient democratic life impedes the unleashing of the creative initiative of
all activists, with its subsequent negative impact on their participation.
15. When applying democratic centralism we must avoid attempts to use narrow
majorities to try and crush the minority. The more mature social and political
movements believe that it is pointless imposing a decision adopted by a narrow
majority. They believe that if the large majority of activists are not convinced of the
course of action to take, it is better to hold off until the activists are won over
politically and become convinced themselves that such action is correct. This will
help us avoid the disastrous internal divisions that have plagued movements and
left parties, and avoid the possibility of making big mistakes.
5. Minorities Can Be Right
1. Democratic centralism implies not only the subordination of the minority to the
majority, but also the respect of the majority towards the minority.
2. Minorities should not be crushed or marginalised; they should be respected. Nor

should the minority be required to completely subordinate itself to the majority.
The minority must carry out the tasks proposed by the majority at each concrete
political conjunction, but they should not have to renounce their political,
theoretical and ideological convictions. On the contrary, it is the minority’s duty
to continue fighting to defend their ideas until the others are convinced or they
themselves become convinced of the other’s ideas.
3. Why should the minority continue defending its viewpoint and not simply submit
to the position of the majority? Because the minority may be right; its analysis of
reality might be more accurate because it read the present correlation of forces
more correctly, or understood more accurately the true motivations of specific
social forces. That is why those who hold minority views at a specific moment
should not only have the right, but actually have the duty, to defend their positions,
to fight to convince the maximum number of activists of those positions through
a healthy internal debate.
4. We refer to a “healthy debate” because we have to start by recognising that we

never possess the whole truth. Those who do not share our ideas can be correct.
Also, we should not personalise the discussion. Instead of trying to prove who is
right we should collectively try to work out what is right. The best leaders are those
who promote a process that enables the collective to determine what is right.
5. Moreover, if the majority is convinced that their propositions are correct, then
they have nothing to fear in debating ideas. On the contrary, they should encourage
it and try to convince the minority. If the majority fears a confrontation of positions,
it is probably a sign of political weakness.
6. Is this not the case if we look at some of the left parties and social movements in
Latin America? How many splits could have been avoided if the minority view
had been respected? Instead, on many occasions, the entire weight of the
bureaucratic apparatus has been used to crush them, leaving them with no choice
but to split.
7. Sometimes minorities are accused of being divisive for the simple reason that they
want their ideas to be respected and be given space to debate them. Could it be
that the true splitters are those who provoke division by leaving the minority with
no other option than to split if they hope to continue their struggle against positions
they believe to be wrong?
8. The topic of majorities and minorities also relates to the disjunction or non-
correspondence between representatives and the rank and file. This phenomenon
may occur for different reasons, including: the organic incapacity of those who
represent the real majority to achieve better representation in the mass
organisations; the bureaucratic maneuvers and dishonest methods of a formal
majority to keep itself in positions of power; the rapid change in political
consciousness of those who elected these representatives due to developments in
the revolutionary process. When such a shift in consciousness takes place, those
who only days before truly represented the majority, may now no longer do so
because the people have matured, they now see that others who had proposed to
represent them in a different way were right after all. Under such circumstance,
any majority now only constitutes a formal majority. If new elections were to be
held, new people would be elected.
9. The new culture of the left should also be reflected in a different approach towards
the composition of leadership bodies in political organisations. For a long time
it was believed that if a certain tendency or sector of the party won the internal
elections by a majority, all leadership positions would be filled by cadres from that
tendency. In a certain sense, the prevailing idea was that the more homogenous
the leadership, the easier it would be to lead the organisation. Today different
criteria tend to prevail: a leadership that better reflects the internal balance of
forces seems to work better, as it helps to get all party members, and not only
those of the majority current, feeling more involved in the implementation of
Minorities Can be Right 17
tasks proposed by the leadership.
10. But a plural leadership, along the lines that we are proposing, can only be effective
if the organisation has a truly democratic culture, because if that is not the case,
then such an approach will produce a wave of unrest and render the organisation
ungovernable.
11. Moreover, a real democratisation of the political organisation demands more

effective participation by party members in the election of their leaders: they
should be elected according to their ideological and political positions rather than
personal issues. That is why it is important that the different positions up for
election are well known among the party membership via internal publications. It
is also very important to ensure a more democratic formulation of candidatures
and safeguard the secret vote.
12. Finally, it is essential to understand that an internal democratic culture practiced

by the political organisation, a level of internal tolerance, an ability to act in a
united way even if there are disagreements, offer the social movements a positive
example which they can then try to imitate.
6. The Need to Unite the Political

Left & the Social Left
1. The rejection by a majority of the people of the globalisation model imposed on
our continent intensifies each day given its inability to solve the most pressing
problems of our people. Neoliberal policies implemented by large transnational
financial capital, which is backed by a large military and media power, and whose
hegemonic headquarters can be found in the United States, have not only been
unable to resolve these problems but, on the contrary, have dramatically increased
misery and social exclusion, while concentrating wealth in increasingly fewer hands.
2. Among those who have suffered most as a result of the economic consequences of
neoliberalism are the traditional sectors of the urban and rural working classes.
But its disastrous effects have also affected many other social sectors, such as the
poor and marginalised, impoverished middle-class sectors, the constellation of
small and medium-sized businesses, the informal sector, medium and small-scale
rural producers, the majority of professionals, the legions of unemployed, workers
in cooperatives, pensioners, the subordinate cadres of the police and the army
(junior officers). Moreover, we should not only keep in mind those who are affected
economically, but also all those who are discriminated against and oppressed by
the system: women, youth, children, the elderly, indigenous peoples, blacks, certain
religious creeds, homosexuals, etc.
3. Neoliberalism impoverishes the great majority of the population of our countries;

impoverished in the socioeconomic sense and also in the subjective sense.
4. Some of these sectors have transformed themselves into powerful movements.

Among those are women’s, indigenous and consumer rights movements, and
movements that fight for human rights and in defense of the environment.
Unite the Political Left and the Social Left 19
5. These movements differ in many ways from the classical labor movement. Their
platforms have a strong issues-based focus and they stretch across classes and
generations. Their forms of organising are less hierarchical and rely more on
networks than those of the past, while their concrete forms of actions vary quite a
lot.
6. New social actors have also appeared. What is surprising, for example, is the
capacity to mobilise that has manifested itself among youth, fundamentally
organised through electronic means (internet, mobile phones, etc.), with the object
of rejecting actually existing globalisation, resisting the application of neoliberal
measures, promoting very powerful mobilisations against war and military
occupation, and spreading the experiences of revolutionary struggle, thereby
breaking down the information blockade that had been imposed on left and
progressive ideas.
7. This growing rejection is being expressed through diverse and alternative practices
of resistance and struggle.
8. The consolidation of left parties, fronts or political processes in opposition to

neoliberalism is undeniable in various countries. In others, powerful social
movements have arisen and transformed themselves into major political actors,
becoming important oppositional forces that occupy the frontlines of the fight
against neoliberal globalisation.
9. However, despite the depth of the crisis that the neoliberal model has provoked in
those countries where it is still in place, the breadth and variety of affected sectors
that encompass the majority of the population, the multiplicity of demands that
have emerged from society and which continue to remain unmet — all of which
have produced a highly favorable situation for the creation of a very broad anti-
neoliberal social bloc with enormous social force — the majority of these growing
expressions of resistance and struggle are still far from truly representing a real
threat to the system.
10. I believe that one of the reasons that helps explain this situation is that parallel to
these favorable objective conditions for the construction of a broad alternative
social bloc against neoliberalism, there are very complicated subjective conditions
which have to do with a profound problem: the dispersion of the left.
11. And that is why I believe that for an effective struggle against neoliberalism, it is
strategically important to articulate the different left sectors, understanding the
left to mean all those forces that stand up against the capitalist system and its
profit-driven logic, and who fight for an alternative society based on humanism
and solidarity, built upon the interests of the working classes.
12. Therefore, the left cannot simply be reduced to that which belongs to left parties
or political organisations; it also includes social actors and movements. Very
often these are more dynamic and combative than the former, but do not belong
to or reject belonging to any political party or organisation. Among the former are
those who prefer to accumulate forces by using institutions to aid transformation,
while others reject that option.
13. To simplify, I have decided to refer to the first group as the political left and the
second group as the social left, even though I recognise that this conceptual
separation is not always so clearly defined in practice. In fact, the more developed
social movements tend to acquire socio-political dimensions.
14. To sum up, I believe that only by uniting the militant efforts of the most diverse
expressions of the left will we be able to fully carry out the task of building the
broad anti-neoliberal social bloc that we need to help elect progressive candidates
and, from there, advance in the direction of being an alternative to capitalism. The
strategic task therefore is to articulate the political and social left so that, from
this starting point, we can bring the growing and disperse social opposition
together into a single colossal column.
7. Reasons for Popular
Scepticism Towards Politics &
Politicians
1. I have said that in order to wage an effective struggle against neoliberalism we

must articulate all those who are suffering its consequences, and that to achieve
this objective we must start with the left itself, which in our countries tends to be
very dispersed. But, there are many obstacles that impede this task. The first step
to overcoming them is to be aware of them and be prepared to face them.
2. One of these obstacles is the growing popular skepticism towards politics and
politicians.
3. This has to do, among other things, with the great constraints that exist today in
our democratic systems, which are very different from those that existed prior to
the military dictatorships.
4. These low-intensity, controlled, restricted, limited or monitored democratic regimes

drastically limit the effective capacity for action of democratically-elected authorities.
The most important decisions are made by unelected institutions which therefore
are not subject to changes produced by electoral results; such is the case with
national security councils, central banks, institutions for economic advice, supreme
courts, ombudsmen, constitutional tribunals, media, etc.
5. Groups of professionals, and not politicians, are responsible for making decisions,
or as a minimum have a decisive influence over the decisions made. The apparent
neutrality and depoliticisation of these entities conceals the new way in which the
dominant class does politics. Their decisions are adopted outside the framework
of parties. We are dealing with controlled democracies, where the controllers

themselves are not subject to any democratic mechanism.
6. Moreover, instruments for manufacturing consensus such as the media — which

are monopolised by the ruling classes — have been dramatically improved, and
condition to a great extent the way in which people perceive reality. This explains
why it is that the most conservative parties, which defend the interests of a tiny
minority of the population, have been able to quantitatively transform themselves
into mass parties, and why the social bases that support their candidates, at least in
Latin America, were the poorest social sectors in the urban peripheries and
countryside. Happily this situation has changed in the last decades.
7. Other elements that explain this growing popular skepticism include, on the one
hand, the unscrupulous appropriation of the language and discourse of the left
by the right wing: words such as reforms, structural changes, concern for poverty,
transition, etc., along with a questioning of the idea of the market as the solution to
all problems and support for a regulatory role for the state, today form part of its
everyday discourse. On the other hand, there is the quite frequent adoption by
some left parties of political practices that hardly differ from the habitual practices
of traditional parties.
8. We must bear in mind that people are increasingly rejecting clientalist, non-
transparent and corrupt party practices carried out by those who reach out to the
people only at election time; that waste energy in internecine fighting between
factions and petty ambitions; where decisions are made at the top by party elites
without a genuine consultation with the ranks; and where personal leadership
outranks collective leadership. People are increasingly rejecting messages that
remain as mere words and are never translated into action.
9. Ordinary people are fed up with the traditional political system and want renewal,
they want positive change, they want new approaches to doing politics, they want
clean politics, they want transparency and participation, and they want to regain
confidence in politics.
10. This distrust of politics and politicians — which also permeates the social left — is
growing daily, but is not as serious a problem for the right as it is the left. The
right wing can operate perfectly well without political parties, as it demonstrated
Reasons for Popular Scepticism Towards Politics & Politicians 23
during periods of dictatorship, but the left cannot do without a political instrument,
be it a party, a political front or some other formula.
11. Another obstacle to the unity of the left — following the defeat of Soviet socialism
and the crises of welfare state promoted by European social democracies and Lain
American developmental populism — was that it has had great difficulties in
elaborating a rigorous and credible alternative to capitalism that takes into account
the new global reality.
12. Capitalism has revealed its great capacity to re-invent itself and utilise the new
technological revolution for its own ends: fragmenting the working class, limiting
its negotiating power, and creating panic over unemployment. Meanwhile, on
many occasions, the left has remained anchored in the past. There is an excess of
diagnosis and an absence of remedy. We often tend to navigate without a political
compass.
13. Most of the obstacles outlined above, that disrupt attempts to unite all of the left,
are due to realities imposed on us from outside, but there also exists obstacles that
come from within.
14. On the one hand, during the last decades the political left has had many difficulties
in working with the social movements and winning over new social forces. On the
other hand, there has been a tendency within the social left to dismiss parties and
magnify their own roles in the struggle against neoliberal globalisation, an attitude
that has not helped in overcoming the dispersion of the left. Our next article will
focus on these issues.
8. The Left Should Avoid Allowing

the Right to Set Its Agenda for
Struggle
1. In the previous article, I stated that a large section of the political left has found it
very difficult to work with social movements and develop ties with the new social
forces in recent decades. This has been due to several factors.
2. While the right wing has demonstrated great political initiative, the left tends to be
on the defensive. While the former uses its control of state institutions and the
mass media, as well as its economic influence, to impose its new model that is
subservient to financial capital and monopolies, and has precipitated privatisations,
labor deregulation and all the other aspects of the neoliberal economic program
to increase social fragmentation and foment anti-partyism, the political left — on
the other hand — has almost exclusively limited its work to the use of the existing
institutionality, subordinating itself to the rules of the game imposed by the
enemy, hardly ever taking it by surprise. The level of absurdity is such that the
calendar of struggle of the left is set by the right.
3. How often have we heard the left, after discovering that its electoral results were
not what it was expecting, complain about the adverse conditions it had to face
during an election campaign? Yet the very same left seldom denounces the rules of
the game imposed on it, nor does it propose electoral reforms during its electoral
campaigns. On the contrary, what tends to occur is that — instead of carrying out
an educational, pedagogical campaign that serves to increase the organisation and
awareness of the people — the left uses the same techniques that the ruling classes
uses to sell its candidates and seek votes.
4. On the other hand, the current rules of the game imposed by the dominant classes
Avoid Allowing the Right to Set the Agenda 25
hinder the unity of the left and foment personality-based politics. In some countries,
the left is forced to work to support its own party instead of a broader front,
because if it does not, its party tends to disappear from the political sphere.
5. This means that when electoral defeats occur, the frustration, tiredness and debts
incurred during the campaign are compounded by the fact that the electoral effort
does not translate into political growth, leaving a bitter sense of having wasted
time. The situation would be very different if campaigns were conceived from a
pedagogical point of view, where election campaigns are used to deepen awareness
and popular organisation. Then, even if the electoral results are not the most
favorable, the time and effort invested in the campaign are not wasted.
6. It is not surprising that some argue that the cult of the institution has been the
Trojan horse that the ruling system has been able to introduce into the fortress of
the revolutionary left, thus attacking the left from inside.
7. The work of activists is progressively delegated to people who hold public and
administrative positions. Majority effort stops being directed towards collective
action and are redirected towards parliamentary action or building a media
presence.
8. Militant action tends to be reduced to activities on election day, putting-up posters

and other such trivial public acts.
9. And, even worse, party financing is increasingly relying on the participation of

party cadres in state institutions: parliament, local government, election boards,
etc., with all that this entails in terms of dependency and undue pressure.
10. The political activity of the left cannot be reduced to the conquest of institutions; it
must be directed towards changing those institutions in order to be able to transform
reality. A new correlation of forces must be created so that the necessary changes
can be implemented. We have to understand that we cannot build a political
force without building a social force.
11. At the same time, we must also avoid “partyising” all initiatives and the social
movements we relate to; on the contrary, effort must be made to articulate their
practices into a single political project.
12. Additionally, the political left has had a hard time adjusting to the new realities. On
many occasions it has remained firmly locked into rigid conceptual frameworks
that prevent it from appreciating the potentiality of the new social forces, instead
exclusively focusing efforts on forces that have traditionally mobilised, such as
trade unions, but that today are much weaker due to a variety of factors.
13. Lastly, one of the greatest difficulties for the political left in terms of working with
the social left has been the viewpoint that sees social movements as conveyor
belts for the party. The leadership of the movement, positions in leadership bodies,
the platform of struggle, everything is decided by party leaders and the line of
march is imposed to the social movements, thereby not allowing them to participate
in the process of deciding upon the matters that directly affect them.
14. Summing up, in order for the political left to develop strong bonds with the social
left, the political left must renew itself ideologically, change its political culture
and work methods, and incorporate into its arsenal the innovative forms of struggle
and resistance utilised by the social left.
9. Respect Differences & Be
Flexible in Regards to Activism
1. There continues to be a difficulty within the left to deal with differences. In the
past, the tendency of political organisations, especially parties that declared they
were parties of the working class, was always towards homogenising the social
base within which they carried out political work. If this attitude was once
understandable due to the past identity and homogeneity of the working class,
today it is anachronistic when confronted with a working class that is quite
differentiated, and with the emergence of a diversity of new social forces. Today,
we increasingly have to deal with a unity based on diversity, on respect for ethnic
and cultural differences, for gender and for the sense of belonging of specific
collectives.
2. It is necessary to try channeling commitments to activism by starting with the

actual potential of each sector, and even of each person, that is willing to commit
themselves to the struggle, without seeking to homogenise these actors. It is
important to have a special sensibility towards finding all those points of agreement
that can allow for the emergence of a common platform of struggle.
3. This respect for differences should also reflect itself in our discourse. We must
break from the old style of attempting to take a uniform message to people with
very different interests. We cannot think of them as an amorphous mass; what
exists are individuals, men and women who live in different places, who do different
things and who are under different ideological influences. Our message has to
adopt flexible forms in order to be able to reach these real men and women.
4. When all our speeches and messages are cut from the same cloth and are
transmitted in the same manner and with the same words, pronounced in the
same tone and through the same megaphone, and when the years go by and the
posters and slogans don’t change, our words lose their value. They can no longer
win the imaginations of anyone.
5. We have to individualise the message, but without losing sight of the common
goals.
6. I believe this issue can help shed light on the issue of the crisis of activism.
Furthermore, everyone knows that over the last few years, a fairly generalised
crisis of activism has occurred, not only among left parties but also in the social
movements and grassroots communities influenced by liberation theology. This is
something that can be explained by the changes that the world has suffered.
Nevertheless, in many of our countries, together with this crisis of activism, we
have witnessed a parallel increase in the influence of the left in society, and an
increase of progressive sentiments among popular sectors.
7. This leads us to the conclusion that one of the factors present in the origins of this
crisis of activism is the type of demands placed upon people in order for them to
be able to involve themselves in organised political activity. We have to examine
whether the left has been able to open up avenues for activism and help nurture
that growing progressive sentiment in society, because not all people have the
same activist vocation nor do they all feel inclined to be active on a permanent
level. This fluctuates a lot depending on the political climate of the day. To ignore
this, and demand a uniform level of activism, is self-limiting and weakens the
political organisation.
8. For example, there are those who are willing to be active over a specific issue: health,
education, culture, and not within a local branch in their workplace or community.
There are others who only feel the need to be active at certain conjunctures (elections,
etc.) but are not willing to do so all year round, even though during key moments of
the political struggle you can always count on them to be there, and in their daily lives
they are promoting the left’s project and values.
9. To try to pigeonhole people who are willing to be active into a single norm which
is the same for everyone, based on 24-hours-a-day/seven-days-a-week level of
activism, means excluding all these potential activists.
10. We have to create a type of organisation that can house the widest range of
Respect Differences 29
militants, allowing for diverse levels of membership. Organic structures have to

abandon their rigidity and become more flexible in order to make the most of
the different levels of activist commitment, without establishing a hierarchy between
these different levels.
11. To facilitate the different levels of activism, it is necessary to adapt the structures
and grassroots units of the organisation to suit the character of the surroundings
in which their political activities are carried out.
Left-wing British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses mass meeting.

10. A Strategy for Building the

Unity of the Left
1. I have previously referred to the necessity of building unity among all left forces
and actors in order to be able to cohere a broad anti-neoliberal bloc around them.
Nevertheless, I do not think that this objective can be achieved in a voluntarist
manner, creating coordinating bodies from above that end up being a simple sum
of acronyms.
2. I believe that this unity can emerge through concrete struggles for common
objectives. That is why I think that we can help create better conditions for this
unity if we put into practice a new strategy of anti-capitalist struggle.
3. I am talking about a strategy that takes into consideration the important social,
political, economic and cultural transformations that have occurred across the
world in the last period. One that understands that the new forms of capitalist
domination go far beyond the economic and state sphere, have infiltrated into all
the interstices of society — fundamentally through the mass media which has
indiscriminately invaded the homes of all social sectors, and in doing so changed
the conditions of struggle.
4. Today, more than ever, we have to confront not only the bourgeoisie’s apparatuses
of political coercion but also the mechanisms and institutions present in civil society
that generate a broad acceptance of the capitalist social order. The capitalist elites
tend to achieve a significant hegemony over important popular sectors, a real cultural
leadership over society; they have the capacity to ideologically subordinate the popular
sectors, even those who are exploited by them. As Chomsky says, propaganda is to
bourgeois democracy what the truncheon is to the totalitarian state.
5. In those Latin American countries where the government is in hands of the

A Strategy for Building the Unity of the Left 31
conservative classes, our challenge is to elaborate a revolutionary strategy within

the conditions of a bourgeois democracy that enjoys a level of acceptance by an
important part of the popular sectors which allows it to maintain itself without
having to recur to repression; what’s more, we have to take as our starting point
the recognition that large parts of popular sectors accept as good coin the capitalist
leadership of the process.
6. For this reason, simple propaganda about an alternative society is not enough.
The greater complexity that domination has assumed, the presence of important
para-state factors that produce and reproduce the existing popular fragmentation
and that attempt to delegitimise the thought and project of the left in the eyes of
the public, means that we must demonstrate that we practice what we preach.
7. To do so, we must develop a process of popular construction opposed to capitalism

in the territories and spaces won by the left, that seeks to break with the profit
logic and the relations this imposes and tries to instill solidarity-based humanist
logics.
8. We must promote struggles that are not limited to simple economic demands—
although these need to be included — but that advance in the development of a
more global, social project that encourages authentic levels of power from the
grassroots.
9. What we are dealing with is the construction of experiences in popular democracy

that are tangibly superior to bourgeois democracy. For example, the elaboration
of a project for a humanist and solidarity-based city in a local government,
promoting a diversity of spaces for participation that allow local residents to
transform themselves into active members of their community. Or the
construction of a community of rural settlements where peasants can establish
diverse forms of collaboration among themselves, not only in agricultural
production, but in the industrialisation and commercialisation of their products,
in the education of their children and the formation of their cadre, according to a
model that foreshadows the new society. Or the building of a student federation
that defends the democratic participation of students in the running of a university
committed to society. Or the construction of a trade union confederation that puts
an end to bureaucratic leadership separated from the grassroots, that defends a
social-political unionism, that overcomes simple economism, and that proposes
as its objective an active insertion in the struggle for social transformation.
10. A strategy of this type can enormously facilitate the cohering of all the sectors of
the left, both those that are members of parties as well as social movement activists,
because it involves a different type of call to action. In order to be active, one does
not necessarily have to become a member of a party, a mass organisation, a
movement; one can become an activist simply by participating in putting into
practice the project of an alternative model.
11. More than just a propagandised utopia that is sterilely introduced into the minds
of men and women in a passive manner as enlightened education without any
practice in concrete construction, we are dealing with the construction of popular
democratic reference points that, given they reflect different practices, tend to
attract new sectors.
12. Moreover, it is only through these practices that many people begin to understand
why it is that to expand their humanist and solidarity-based projects it is necessary
to put an end to the capitalist system that, with its profit logic, raises enormous
hurdles to any type of alternative model.
13. It is therefore an urgent priority to put an end to the “tactics” of shortcuts, of

conjuncturalism, and thread together a practice centered on the promotion of
democratic struggles from the grassroots; in the local construction of forms of
power and popular democracy that allow us to define the meaning and timing of
electoral and other forms of struggle. Otherwise, these practices will not overcome
the long string of immediatism that we have encountered over the past years.
14. But it is also urgent that we overcome grassrootism, localism, apoliticism,

corporatism, all of which limit the struggle of the popular sectors to trade union
horizons or economic struggles.
11. Popular Consultations:
Spaces That Allow for the
Convergence of Different Forces
1. I have previously argued the case for the need to create a large social bloc against
neoliberalism that can unite all those affected by the system. To achieve this, it is
fundamental that we create spaces that allow for the convergence of specific anti-
neoliberal struggles where, while safeguarding the specific characteristics of each
political or social actor, common tasks can be taken up that help strengthening the
struggle.
2. In this respect, I think that popular consultations or plebiscites can be very

interesting spaces. These can allow us to mobilise behind a single concrete task of
convincing—by undertaking door-to-door popular education — a large number
of people and youth who are beginning to awaken to politics, who want to contribute
to a better world, who very often do not know how to do it, and who are not
willing to be active in the traditional way, because many of them reject politics
and politicians.
3. Moreover, this concrete door-to-door work leads to having to directly relate to

impoverished popular sectors and their arduous living conditions. Many can be
radicalised by coming into contact with so much poverty.
4. A recent example of this was the referendum held in Uruguay on December 8,

2003, to decide whether to repeal or ratify a law supporting the partnership of the
state oil company ANCAP — that has held a monopoly over oil since its foundation
in 1931— with foreign private capital. The new company was to be managed and
run by the foreign partner.
5. The vote to reject the privatisation of the state oil company won by a wide margin
(62.02% of the vote), and by a bigger percentage than was foreseen in the polls
leading up to the vote (50.2%).
6. The law had been approved in 2002. Having proven that irregularities were
committed by the new managers of ANCAP, the left-wing political coalition, Frente
Amplio (Broad Front), and allied social and union organisations decided to promote
a campaign to collect signatures in support of a referendum against the law. Around
700,000 signatures were required.
7. In the midst of the petition campaign, the financial crisis of mid-2002 occurred: the
value of the dollar doubled within days, some people lost their life savings, many
bank accounts were frozen, there were massive company closures and
unemployment surpassed the historic high of 13%, rising to 20%, something
unbearable for a country like Uruguay. Social discontent increased. The possibility
of turning the popular consultation into a symbolic act of rejection of the
government’s policies allowed the campaign to grow, gain strength and motivate
people.
8. Even though the mass media was totally hostile and tried to ignore the existence of
the initiative, the house-to-house campaign to collect signatures across the country
was more powerful than the media blockade. The strong point of the campaign,
once again, was the work done in the grassroots, shoulder-to-shoulder, talking
with people in their homes and using modest local radio stations that supported
the cause.
9. The initial weight of the campaign was shouldered more by the social organisations
than the political instrument [party], which was somewhat hampered by its initial
hesitations. But when the Frente Amplio joined the campaign, it once again
demonstrated its clarity in the debates and the great potential of neighbourhood,
trade unionist and propagandistic activism.
10. The initiative was supported by all the tendencies in the PIT-CNT union
confederation, the FUCVAM (Unitary Federation of Mutual Aid Cooperatives)
— which carried out an important mass mobilisation across the whole country —
and the student movement (FEUU), also joined the campaign, although with little
force.
Popular Consulations 35
11. The right wing took the initiative to start with (in relation to the referendum). It
was able to cover the walls of Montevideo with slogans attacking Tabaré Vasquez,
then FA presidential candidate, and in support of the law. Within weeks, thousands
of walls were recovered and the right disappeared off the streets.
12. From that moment on (August-September 2003) fractures began to appear in the
traditional parties: the Partido Nacional (National Party) mayor from Paysandú (a
large city and former industrial center on the border with Argentina, today in
ruins) declared himself in support of abolishing the law. The same occurred with
many local leaders from outside the capital and some mid-level national leaders.
13. Another example, if we focus on recent ones, is the consultation over the Free
Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) held in Argentina in November 2003, where
more than two million votes were cast. It was organised by the Autoconvocatoria
NO al ALCA (Self-initiated No to FTAA), a diverse and large space that brought
together a growing number of movements and trade unions, professionals, women,
farmers, environmentalists, religious and human rights groups, political parties,
and neighbourhood, cooperative and business organisations.
14. Even when some of these consultations lacked legal backing, they still had an
important political effect. Proof of this was the declaration made by Argentina’s
then head of cabinet, Alberto Fernández, who stated that the result of the
consultation should be taken into consideration by the government at the time of
making a decision concerning the FTAA.
15. On the other hand, this experience allowed thousands of activists from different
backgrounds to work together in carrying out the popular consultation.
Participation within this large and diverse space is what enabled the proposal to
reach different popular sectors that are usually separated from each other, both
geographically and socially.
12. Do Not Confuse Desires With

Reality
1. Unfortunately, there tends to be a lot of subjectivism in our analysis of the political
situation. What tends to occur is that leaders, driven by their revolutionary passion,
tend to confuse desires with reality. On the one hand, an objective evaluation of
the situation is not carried out, the enemy tends to be underestimated and, on the
other hand, one’s own potential is overestimated.
2. Moreover, leaders tend to confuse the mood of the most radical activists with the
mood of the grassroots popular sectors. There exists a tendency in more than a
few political leaderships to make generalisations about the mood of the people
based simply on their own personal experiences, whether it is in the region they
are in or the social sector they are active in, or based on the perception of those
around them, who are always the most radicalised sectors.
3. Those that work with the most radicalised sectors will have a different vision of
the country compared to those that carry out their political activities among the
least political sectors. Revolutionary cadre who work in a militant popular
neighbourhood will not have the same vision of the country as those that are
active in middle-class sectors.
4. The same thing occurs in countries where both war zones and legal political spaces
co-exist. The guerrillas who are engaged in real confrontations with the enemy,
and who have been able to win control of certain zones thanks to their military
victories, tend to believe that the revolutionary process is more advanced than
activists who work in legal political spaces in the large urban centers, where the
ideological power and military control of the regime is still very large.
5. The only guarantee for not committing these errors is assuring that leaders are
Do Not Confuse Desires With Reality 37
capable of evaluating the situation not on the basis of their mood, but rather by
taking as their starting point the mood of the bulk of the people, the mood of the
enemy and the international reality. Once this evaluation is carried out, it is
necessary to come up with proposals that allow us to take advantage of the situation
as a whole.
6. It would seem to be a truism to say that it is important for leaders to learn to

listen. We believe that this is fundamental. Nevertheless, what tends to occurs is
that some leaders are so impregnated by preconceived ideas regarding the current
state of affairs, of how things are, of what can be done and what cannot be done,
that in their contact with intermediary leaders and the grassroots, they tend
more towards transmitting their vision of things than informing themselves
about the actual mood of the people.
7. What can therefore occur is that, when one has to make an analysis of the situation,
errors are made, not so much due to the lack of information, but because, despite
information having been transmitted correctly and in a timely manner by grassroots
activists, the leadership has not assimilated it.
8. But it is also important that grassroots activists and middle leadership layers be
objective in providing information. Sometimes they can misinform rather than
inform by providing, for example, inflated numbers for certain mobilisations or
actions.
9. The tendency to delude oneself, to falsify data regarding mobilisations, meetings,

strikes, the weight of each organisation, is quite common in politics. For instance,
saying that thousands were mobilised when it was really only hundreds.
10. This triumphalist focus is the product of the mistaken idea that we are always
right, that we are always the best, that everything we do ends up in positive
results for us.
11. It is not only in regards to numbers where self-delusion exists; it also occurs when
evaluating actions that have been proposed. If the goal was to win a certain amount
of representation in parliament but this was not achieved, recognition is not given
to the fact that the number of votes received was below the expectations that had
been created; instead, there is always an attempt to find a way to present the event
as a triumph, for example, stating that the number of votes increased compared to
the previous election. If a national strike is proposed, but only a partial strike is
achieved, this is not recognised as a defeat; rather the success of the strike is talked
up because more workers did not go to work compared to previous actions of this
type, etc.
12. If leaders do not listen — something that requires a large dose of revolutionary
modesty — and, at the same time, they receive falsified information, then proposals
are made which — taking false premises as their starting point — are not adjusted
to the real possibilities of the forces on the ground. As such, battles that are
planned out can lead to significant defeats because they are not based on the real
correlation of forces.
Bibliography
1989. “The Question of the Vanguard and La izquierda después de Seattle, Siglo XXI.
the Present Crisis in Latin America”, Link: http://www.rebelion.org/docs/
Rethinking Marxism, Summer 1990, Vol..3, 95169.pdf
No. 2, pp.34-63. Link: http:// 2006. Rebuilding the Left (Zed Books,
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ London & New York, 2007). Link: https://
08935699008657911. The ideas presented www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/rebuilding-
here have been taken from a book I was the-left/ In Spanish: Reconstruyendo la
working on at the time, Vanguardia y crisis izquierda (1ª edición El Viejo Topo-CIM:
actual, which has not yet been translated to España, 2006); (2ª edición: Caracas, 2006 &
English. Siglo XXI: México, 2008). Link: http://
1990. Vanguardia y crisis actual o Izquierda www.rebelion.org/docs/97076.pdf
y crisis actual. Link: http:// 2013. A World to Build. New Paths toward
www.rebelion.org/docs/92106.pdf Twenty-First Century Socialism (Monthly
1991. Hacia el Siglo XXI. La izquierda se Review Press: New York, 2015). In Spanish:
renueva. Link: http://www.rebelion.org/ Un mundo a construir. Nuevos caminos (El
docs/92377.pdf Viejo Topo: España, 2013). Link: http://
2001. Haciendo posible lo imposible, La www.rebelion.org/docs/178845.pdf
izquierda en el umbral del Siglo XXI. Link: NOTE: You can find a complete
http://www.rebelion.org/docs/95166.pdf bibliography of all of Marta Harnecker’s
2002. “Forging a Union of the Party Left works in Spanish, including a short
and the Social Left”, Studies in Political summary of the topics addressed in each one
Economy 69, Autumn 2002, pp.137-155. and where they have been published, on
Link: spe.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/spe/ Rebelión. Link http://www.rebelion.org/
article/download/6689/3688. This is the noticia.php?id=87882&titular=rebelión-
second part of the book La izquierda después amplía-la-recopilación-de-las-obras-
de Seattle (The Left After Seattle) which has completas-de-martaharnecker-con-la-
not yet been translated to English. inclusión-de
Ideas for the Struggle was originally written in Venezuela

in 2004. But the lessons it draws and the points it makes
have it organise its members?
Marta Harnecker (1937-2019) was a Chilean sociologist,
political scientist, journalist and activist. She visited
Australia and addressed various meetings in 2016.

Ideas For Struggle (Marta Harnecker)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ideas For Struggle (Marta Harnecker)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ideas for the

Cover design: Kerry Klinner, www.megacitydesign.com.

About this pamphlet

3. On the other hand, the history of triumphant revolutions clearly demonstrates

4. This political instrument is like a piston in a locomotive that takes compressed

7. I believe it is fundamental for us to overcome this subjective barrier and understand

11. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of revolutionary phase-mongering among our

13. And I envisage this political instrument as an organisation capable of raising a

2. Convince, Not Impose

hundreds of thousands of people.

7. Instead of imposing and manipulating, it is necessary to convince and unite all

11. The level of hegemony obtained by a political organisation cannot be measured by

not belonging to it.

5. The relationship of political organisations with grassroots movements should

6. It is important to learn to listen and to engage in dialogue with the people; it is

7. Wherever possible, we must involve the grassroots in the decision-making process,

fundamentally be popular pedagogues, capable of fostering the ideas and initiative

Fidel Castro and Malcolm X, Harlem, New York, 1960

4. Should We Reject Bureaucratic

2. But in challenging bureaucratic centralisation, it is important to avoid falling into

9. This combination of (a) a democratic debate at different levels of the organisation

10. It is a dialectical combination: in complicated political periods, of revolutionary

2. Minorities should not be crushed or marginalised; they should be respected. Nor

4. We refer to a “healthy debate” because we have to start by recognising that we

it is probably a sign of political weakness.

tasks proposed by the leadership.

11. Moreover, a real democratisation of the political organisation demands more

12. Finally, it is essential to understand that an internal democratic culture practiced

6. The Need to Unite the Political

3. Neoliberalism impoverishes the great majority of the population of our countries;

4. Some of these sectors have transformed themselves into powerful movements.

8. The consolidation of left parties, fronts or political processes in opposition to

1. I have said that in order to wage an effective struggle against neoliberalism we

4. These low-intensity, controlled, restricted, limited or monitored democratic regimes

of parties. We are dealing with controlled democracies, where the controllers

6. Moreover, instruments for manufacturing consensus such as the media — which

8. The Left Should Avoid Allowing

8. Militant action tends to be reduced to activities on election day, putting-up posters

9. And, even worse, party financing is increasingly relying on the participation of

2. It is necessary to try channeling commitments to activism by starting with the

militants, allowing for diverse levels of membership. Organic structures have to

Left-wing British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses mass meeting.

10. A Strategy for Building the

5. In those Latin American countries where the government is in hands of the

conservative classes, our challenge is to elaborate a revolutionary strategy within

7. To do so, we must develop a process of popular construction opposed to capitalism

9. What we are dealing with is the construction of experiences in popular democracy

as its objective an active insertion in the struggle for social transformation.

13. It is therefore an urgent priority to put an end to the “tactics” of shortcuts, of

14. But it is also urgent that we overcome grassrootism, localism, apoliticism,

2. In this respect, I think that popular consultations or plebiscites can be very

3. Moreover, this concrete door-to-door work leads to having to directly relate to

4. A recent example of this was the referendum held in Uruguay on December 8,

12. Do Not Confuse Desires With

6. It would seem to be a truism to say that it is important for leaders to learn to

9. The tendency to delude oneself, to falsify data regarding mobilisations, meetings,

Ideas for the Struggle was originally written in Venezuela

You might also like