Ideological Absolutism

part 2

Beware Ideological Absolutism 
  
Those who were 'hooked in' to the struggles pre and post-WSSD 
in Johanneburg last year would most probably have read Franco 
Barchiesi's stinging critique of the August 31st March (A31) of 
the Social Movements United (and associated politics of the 
South African 'left') - either on email lists and/or in the 
pages of the first edition of the new SA lefty journal Khanya. 
Earlier this year I was requested to write a response to 
Barchiesi for publication in Khanya. I waited for several months 
in the hope that the reply would be published but unfortunately 
(and for reasons that are still not clear), the editorial 
collective of Khanya have refused to publish it. Given that the 
specific issues raised by Barchiesi are important (both in SA 
and beyond) and involve larger ideological and strategic debates 
for progressive forces that remain ever-relevant, I am now 
sending my reply out via email.

Dale
____________________

Beware Ideological Absolutism: A Reply to Barchiesi
by Dale T. McKinley
 
 
Divergent ideological currents and accompanying political/social 
polemics have always been one of the historic strengths of the 
broad left in South Africa. However, there have been times, 
throughout the various phases of struggle in South Africa over 
the last two decades, when those divergences have exposed a 
glaring weakness of the same left. Specifically, there has been 
a recurring tendency, at crucial moments in South Africa's struggle 
history that have opened space for radical, anti-systemic 
possibilities, for such divergences and polemics to take the form 
of what I would call an 'ideological absolutism'. 
 
Instead of embracing the radical political and organisational 
potential inherent in divergent forms of practical struggle and 
ideological (strategic) contestation, sections of the South African 
left have regularly chosen to elevate the divergences to the level 
of ideological absolutism. In other words, they have, somewhat 
ironically, chosen to hoist the flag of interpretive privilege 
around their own analytical understandings and interpretations 
(in a word - ideology) of the forms and contents of people's 
struggles. 
 
While this might, at first glance, appear as a 'positive' 
contribution to ongoing polemical engagement amongst left forces, 
the real and lasting effect has been to (re)create 'false' 
ideological (and accompanying political/organisational) divisions 
amongst a South African left that has needed, and continues to 
need, all the (real) unity it can get. It is within this context 
that it is necessary to respond to the article by Franco Barchiesi, 
"Marching on the Left", carried in the last edition of this journal.  
 
There are two central arguments in Barchiesi's article. The more 
general argument is that the organisational and ideological 
'politics' of the various leaderships of the South African "left" 
(both inside and outside the Alliance) have historically 
"appropriated" the radical nature and "voice" of the struggles 
and desires of the poor. Barchiesi locates this argument (within 
the present) through applying a theoretical discourse of autonomism 
that tells us how the struggles of the new social movements are 
now independent and contemptuous of what he calls, the "official" 
left and their understandings/practice of libratory politics. 
Barchiesi then applies this in a more specific form by arguing 
that the actions of the "leadership" at the A31 March, 'proves' 
his earlier points regarding the "appropriation" of the voices and 
struggles of the poor. The result, according to Barchiesi, was 
that the A31 March was a complete political "failure" that has 
only served to take the South African "left" backwards. 
 
While the more general argument of Barchiesi might appear to many 
as both accurate and relevant, it is only when the specifics are 
broken down and subjected to critical analysis that it becomes 
possible to locate the interpretive absolutism mentioned above. 
This comes through clearly in the way in which Barchiesi explains 
the character of "movements of the poor.during and after the 
racist regime." While a strong argument can be made for the 
negative impact of vanguardist politics and the political and 
organisational 'expropriation' that has often accompanied such a 
politics, Barchiesi's own presentation and interpretation turns 
an explanatory component into an absolutist analytical foundation.
 
Without the slightest hint of contradiction, Barchiesi states that 
the "movements of the poor" have been rendered "voiceless" by 
various political, social and economic factors that themselves, 
have been "historically determined by the way suburban-based 
organisations, parties, groupuscles, NGOs and self-appointed 
leaders have tried to 'represent' the social subjectivity of the 
poor, their struggles, desires." In one sweeping paragraph, 
Barchiesi analytically consigns the practical and symbolic 
centrality of the struggles of 'movements of the poor' to the 
political and strategic sidelines. Accordingly, their apparent 
'voicelessness' provides Barchiesi with confirmation of the 
counter-political centrality and strategic determinism of the 
'struggles' of self-serving "vanguards" (the "official left") 
and their politics of destructive appropriation and hijacked 
"representivity".  
 
Within such an absolutist analytical foundation, Barchiesi has 
no problem then launching into the so-called (and vaguely defined) 
"official left". In an early indication though, of the consistent 
contradictions that run throughout Barchiesi's article, the 
initial basis for his attack on this "official left" is that they 
are forever tainted by committing the following 'sins'  - having 
Trotsky books on their shelves, involving themselves in the messy 
world of national liberation movement politics, being associated 
with academia or having to grapple with the constant problem of 
securing financial resources.  As if these obvious 'sins' were not 
enough, Barchiesi charges that this "official left" has 
"systematically tried to recruit social movements' politics for 
the pursuit of political agendas that developed entirely above 
their heads . agendas (that) are coming into increasing conflict 
with the daily practices of movements on the ground".  
 
The first serious problem with this kind of all-encompassing attack 
is that Barchiesi implicitly presents the 'left' (leadership) in 
organisations such as SANGOCO, the SACP and/or COSATU as one and 
the same with 'left' organisations such as the Anti-Privatisation 
Forum (APF) and other South African social movements that have 
emerged in the last few years. There is no attempt (or apparent 
necessity) to understand the political genesis of social movements 
such as the APF, its organisational character, the varied 
ideological positions within its ranks or the conceptual and 
analytical character of the practical struggles that give an 
organisation such as the APF any meaning. Barchiesi offers not 
one line of critical analysis of the APF's specific political 
activities and organisational approach that preceded its 
involvement in struggles against the WSSD and participation in 
the A31 March. He simply omits, conveniently to fit his own 
interpretations any mention of the very real internal dynamics 
of debate and contested forms of struggle that have characterised 
the APF since its inception and in the run-up to the WSSD and 
the A31 March.
 
Barchiesi's failure to make any serious attempt to try and come 
to grips with the real, not imagined, 'character's' of a social 
movement like the APF speaks for itself. The predictable outcome 
is that his characterisation of the ideological, political and 
social character of the new social movements (e.g., rejection of 
'national liberation', plural and diversified 'identities', 
'life-based' struggles and accompanying militancy etc.) appears 
as little more than an amorphous and personalised ideological 
interpretation.
 
As a result, the kernel of Barchiesi's argument - that the 
"political agendas" of the "official left" are coming into 
"increasing conflict" with his self-defined 'characters' of the 
social movements - lacks a necessary analytical connectivity. 
We are therefore required to make a leap of analytical 'faith' 
in judging any meaningful connection between the "historical 
organisations of the 'left'" and the so-named "grassroots 
subjects" (i.e., the poor who make up the social movements). 
All Barchiesi provides is a circular proposition that evidently 
proves itself - the 'voices' of the poor/working class have 
been appropriated (by the "official left"), therefore the poor/
working class are in the process of re-appropriating those 
'voices' (back from that same "official left"). 
 
The (personalised) ideological absolutism that characterises such 
an argument is only further confirmed by Barchiesi's choice of 
presenting, as informed 'fact', the proposition that this entire 
"official left" is guilty of appropriation etc., because "they 
are located on the privileged side of the South African social 
and geographical divide". Taken to its logical conclusion then, 
the core of Barchiesi's position would necessarily apply to 
every individual left activist in South Africa (including 
Barchiesi himself) that, in socio-economic terms, is not part 
of the poor/working class.  There is simply no way, using 
Barchiesi's point of departure here, that any of the hundreds of 
such activists in South Africa can then (legitimately?) make 
ideological and/or practical common cause with the poor/working 
class. If we take Barchiesi at face value, 'we' should all 
simply stop trying and recognise that any 'left' intellectual 
and/or organisational initiative within which 'we' might be an 
integral part, is merely a cover for our undeclared and inherent 
class betrayal and politics.
 
Barchiesi's criticisms of the 'official left' can convincingly 
be applied to those organisations and leaderships (for example, 
the SACP) that have consistently exposed themselves as being 
completely out of touch with, hostile to and jealous of, the 
radical activities and inherent power of new social movements. 
However, Barchiesi's crude identification and sweeping 
characterisation of this "official left" allows him to then 
present the 'empirical' side of his argument (i.e., the A31 
March) as applying to the various leaderships of the social 
movements themselves. 
 
The stated basis for Barchiesi's endorsement that the A31 march 
would be a "march on the left" (it is not at all clear that 
Barchiesi is speaking on behalf of the entire Indymedia South 
Africa collective as intimated in the article) is that the "time" 
had come for the social movements to "express . their . refusal . 
of the leadership practices of a left that has historically 
tended to reproduce subordination and discursive appropriation 
of the movements' grassroots subjectivity". 
 
And the specific 'crime' of the "leadership" on the A31 march? 
Anecdotal 'evidence' of the 'leadership' apparently "disciplining . 
a group of young comrades" running ahead of the main body of the 
march who, according to the "thoughts" of Barchiesi, wanted to 
"break the cops' line". We are not told how many such comrades 
were supposedly involved and neither are we told how it is that 
the offending 'leadership' managed to restore "order and 
discipline" with an evident "efficiency" so acute that the 
entire episode lasted "just a moment". This 'evidence', combined 
with the "ritualism and conventionality of the Leaders' speeches" 
is deemed sufficient for Barchiesi to confidently conclude that 
the A31 march was an "appalling (political) failure". Even worse 
(for the 'leadership') though, Barchiesi extends his charges 
against this 'leadership' to include acting as "specialised" 
agents who are guilty of 'mediating' an 'artificial unity' (of 
the 'mass') through projecting themselves as the "repository of 
a general ideological discourse" that effectively obliterates 
"the distinctiveness of autonomous singularities".
 
Whew! Leaving aside Barchiesi's complete misrepresentation of 
the Essop Pahad episode, the unfortunate sectarian jibes directed 
at the APF for no apparent reason and the vacuous argument trying 
to connect the so-named 'leadership' to opportunistic recruitment 
of "Islamic fundamentalists" as a means to gain "higher glory", 
it is quite an indictment.  It must be pointed out though, that 
the very 'mass' Barchiesi wants to defend and rescue from the 
'leadership' would have an extremely difficult time making any 
sense of the discourse used by their apparent champion. 
Appropriation can make its presence felt in many different ways.
 
Once again though, the trouble with Barchiesi's frontal assault 
on the 'leadership' of the various social movements (which 
collectively organised, and formed the bulk of participants in, 
the march) is that it wholly bound up in the analytical (and 
subsequently, descriptive) limitations of the very ideological 
absolutism that he is so intent on imposing onto the 'others'. 
Specifically applied to his 'take' on the A31 march, its 
'leadership' and most importantly, the very 'mass' that make up 
the social movements themselves, Barchiesi rests his 'case' on 
the foundation of naked assumption veiled as 'factual' analysis.  
 
What kind of ideological knowledge is it that can so seamlessly 
and confidently assume the ideological, organisational and 
political intent and purpose of the "daily practices" of social 
movements as well as the associated relationship of these 
"practices" to the same for the social movement 'leadership'? 
 
What is the real character of an analysis that makes a singular 
claim to possession of the 'truth' about the "separation" of 
the "leadership" from the "multiple subjectivities" of the poor 
within the social movements, on the sole basis of discursive 
dialectics? 
 
And, what 'brand' of intellectual interrogation is it that 
assumes the social and material foundation for the "form(s) of 
expression" chosen by those who make-up the social movements?
 
Despite a host of organisational weaknesses, political 
uncertainties, social contradictions and ideological confusions 
and contrary to Barchiesi's contentions, the incipient social 
movements in contemporary South Africa are gradually, if 
hesitantly, travelling down the road towards a "commonality of 
themes around the prospect of anti-capitalist liberation". It 
is a road that is most certainly filled with pitfalls and 
potential cul-de-sacs. Barchiesi is right to alert us to some 
of these but the way in which he chooses to do so does not take 
those struggles forward. Barchiesi is wrong when he tells us we 
have moved backwards. A31 was a turning point and the turn was 
forward.
 
ENDS