From Jacobin flaws to transformative populism: Left populism and the legacy of European social democracy

In the established landscape of research in social sciences, populism is seen as a type politics that chiefly revolves around distinction between “people” and “elite”.1 Within this, different forms can be distinguished—ranging from right-wing authoritarian to liberal-centrist religious varieties. camp political left, often cast essentially democratic endeavor. Drawing on conception inclusive peoplehood, which not opposed other vulnerable groups “below” but solely “elite above”, many authors emphasize it crucial pursue populist strategy order overcome existing hegemonies, deficits, ossifications, class-rule (Grattan, 2016; Howse, 2019; Kempf, 2020; McCormick, 2001; Mouffe, 2018). Throughout past few decades, left has grown considerably. Various studies have investigated history anti-establishment popular movements 19th century, such Narodniki Russia or American Populist Party (Canovan, 1981; Kazin, 1995). Further, also looked at how, 1990s, anti-neoliberal alliances Latin America had their momentum, entered governmental office, far-reaching renewal constitutional orders (Linera, 2014; Weyland, 2013). And particular, last decade, rejuvenation Europe United States relied approaches (Katsambekis & Kioupkiolis, 2019). Taking more systematic stance, theories radical democracy sought demonstrate modern societies structured embodiment an empty signifier. From this perspective, by accident varieties recurrently observed; persistence reflects is, its heart, only concerned with policy-issues “constructing people” (Laclau, 2014). Thus, may episodic, accidental, specific ideology brings vital interests ordinary people fore. Rather, must generalizable discursive strategy—in words Ernesto Laclau: “royal road”—when comes strive for power 2005, p. 67).2 recent years, neo-Machiavellian strand emerged so much construction instead focusing materiality power. inspiration philosophy Early Modernity Niccolò Machiavelli's insights exercise rule, these assume are constantly split “plebian” ruling elites (McCormick, Vergara, 2020a). Against backdrop, amounts plebian “springs politicization wealth inequality reaction systemic corruption immiseration masses, attempt balance scales elite sectors” (Vergara, 2020a, 238). However, historical sheet populisms remains ambivalent. Though recurring attempts change society through mobilizing against observed, they revealed self-defeating dynamics:3 collapse into government once power, inability account how complex actually operate adhering all-too simple people/elite binary distinction; arising incapacity identify reasons failure success apart stressing mobilizations played key role (when successful) were diluted unsuccessful). current debate left-populism, however, broader anti-populist critiques mainly advances objections normative angle (Arato, Cohen, Urbinati, Müller, It argued are, principle, incompatible central achievements liberal democracy, pluralism, separation powers, parliamentary representation. They seem unavoidably entangled and, therefore, need being rejected course action. This article aims move beyond rigidified divide appraisals rejections shifting field inquiry: investigating relation evaluating whether compatible principles conducts reconstruction discussions broadly conceived European Social Democracy “long century” (Hobsbawm). Thereby, focuses leading intellectuals reflecting practical potentials limitations centered will. As emphasized contemporary discourse theoretical study populism, largely conflicts surround articulation.4 Therefore, wide range people-centered identified—popular, folky. While echoes definition opposes elites, stresses inevitability limitations. scrutinizes populism's internal pitfalls reacts contradictions problems inherent structure given societal order. circumventing transhistorical per se perspective closer examination respective circumstances. The ambition provide encompassing investigation whole look some grappled light experiences struggle. will we intellectual trajectory dealt question able incite transformation collective learning processes or, contrary, thwarts them. Admittedly, one should overlook there severe differences mass parties century disorganized party landscape. encourages overcomes juxtaposition variants progressive movement (Arato 2021) class-politics (Seferiades, work historian Christina Morina, understood following extended mid-19th First World War (Morina, 2022).5 was characterized advent new organization, most notably trade unions parties. Despite conflicts, driven shared approach drawn works Karl Marx Friedrich Engels. defining feature located mode inquiry. stressed activists engaged controversies set issues. all assumed, take part evolution sound action derived comprehensive inquiry clarifies scopes moment. common denominator constituted coherence within assumption undergo development (often described “stages”) tenable react objective process. According “attraction lay primarily vaguely suggested utopian concretely demanded scientific relevance present. [the Democracy] drew Marx's promise knowledge geared here now, belief future oriented tomorrow. For them, Marxism never-completed real world […]” 2017, 16). unifying thread spread Engels very intellectuals, Eduard Bernstein, Kautsky, Vladimir Ilych Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg.6 needs noted Second International broad movement. Not least, syndicalist anarchist ideas prevalent countries resources available end century.7 if reconstruct overall mindset ultimately coined characteristic labor movement, “invention Marxism” (Morina) role. reconstructs short-comings approaches: Section 2 demonstrates that, initially, young 1840s 1850s took skeptical stance politics. Quarrelling insurrectionist time, identified Jacobin flaws tended construct considerable hurdles achieving transformation. contrast critique, demonstrated 3, both reformist well ramifications returned mobilize 1870s onward. 4 investigates Luxemburg—an important figure Democracy—reacted rising constitutionalization proto-populist restatement Volksbewegung 1900s. transformative meant people, establishing processes. 5 presents argument Democracy's cycle itself regard populisms. Contemporary sensitive thus engage context-dependent inquiries. Studies elite: ranging populus dei (people god) system offices catholic church city revolts early modernity, then bourgeois revolutions large segments reference always pivotal (Dupuy, 2002; Hermet, Möller, 2020). French Pierre Rosanvallon argued, decisive stage National statehood consolidated struggles became site conflict. Questions concerning conceive represented amounted controversial issue: “Since 1789 instituted instituant, moving streets embodied representative institutions, diversity conditions unity principle opposing each other” (Rosanvallon, 1998, 17). partial outset, nascent states legislation reflected themselves authorized constituent point departure conceptualized under category “Bonapartism” “Caesarism”.8 latter combined personalized leadership plebiscitarian legitimation, case Louis Napoleon III's ascent toppled France's revolution 1848 paved way “unitary combination” sovereignty monarchical authority (Groh, 1972, 732). turn story. rather critical engagement could well. One delve classical discipline sociology, probably none than G. W. F. Hegel who took, his “Philosophy Right,” sovereignty. After differentiation spheres, state, family, market, he advocated mixed constitution regulate complexities subordinating them sovereign people. suspected would lead totalizing ultimately, destructive effects imposing voluntarism disregarded spheres. He qualified “one those confused thoughts based garbled notion [Vorstellung] (Hegel, 1991, §279, 319). explained since ran risk relying “a formless mass,” likely undermine “internally organized whole” state With argument, scene revolving relationship defense remarks progress taken up Left- Young Hegelians migrated activist circles.9 on, deal fundamental problem: hand, holistic transforming ensemble considered exert effects. But totality hence, required searching “levers” windows opportunity still transcend context. main was: what extent relies viable overcoming society? Most importantly, Engels, whose base Democracy, instigated shift become certain trend make use writings think about freedom (Abensour, 2011; Honneth, Leipold, no running away fact critically discussed Indebted Hegel, started regulated interplay (state form), law (legal civil society.10 defended bold “true democracy” (Marx, 2010e, 30) writings, interested providing explanatory model hegemony emerging capitalist economy ideological tenets mutual coupling (and separation) political, economic, legal sphere. huge repercussions when came clarifying Given circumstances society, privileged inducing sudden change. led tensions circles movement: Alan Gilbert, adopted long-term strategic view openly disdained immediate popularity” (Gilbert, 1981, 122). His “views differed fundamentally short-sighted democrats, anarchists, communists instant victory (Weitling, Heinzen, Bakunin, Kriege, Ruge)” remained ambivalent: lauded “solved riddle constitution” Hegel's “Kritik des Hegelschen Staatsrechts” 2010b, 29). On other, highly aimed resurrecting legacy Revolution.11 attitude reconstructed critique insurrectionism 1840s.12 By insurrectionism, understand revolutionaries—mainly inspired Filippo Buonarroti's activism late Revolution later published book “Babeuf's Conspiracy Equality” (Buonarroti, 1836)—whose aim insurrection Paris thereby, commence revolutionary process “in name (Deppe, 1970, 47).13 A Auguste Blanqui leader 1830 stuck (Draper, 1986, 120 ff). undermined “process development” because envisaged launching spur moment, without revolution” (Marx 2010, 318). insurrectionists “alchemists “incendiary bombs, devices magic effect, expected miraculous astonishing effect basis less rational” introduction class France, echoed stance; endeavors “rebellions old style” “street fighting barricades,” eventually turned out “outdated” did (Engels, 517). mind precisely thinks framework keener lively incapable understanding ills. classic period intellect […]. one-sided perfected does believe omnipotence will, blind natural spiritual limits therefore discovering source 2010d, 199) developed nation, proletariat squander energies—at least initial stages movement—in senseless, futile uprisings drowned blood. Because terms, regards cause evils force overthrow particular form universal remedy. Proof: first outbreaks proletariat. 204) voluntaristic collapses epistemic flaw: erects search adequate strategies quest “omnipotence will,” insinuates governed struggle free-standing will-formations read Casting sets everything motion, avenues evolution. Society, evolve will-expression, sites Still indebted Revolution, gives rise flaw momentous shortcuts self-reflection choices. People-centered advocate, proper scrutiny, mobilization prime choice. assumes any possible defeats due weakness will—either mobilized intensely enough, diluted. tragic circle unfolds: build barricades reformists issue reform bills, even enthusiasm, intensity, will-power before. fail cases, narrow mind, deprived means why failed. Through Ruge's appeal Prussian King. hyperbolic follow Shlomo Avineri point, “stubborn opposition, throughout life, émeute working class” (Avineri, 1969, 194). Nevertheless, evaluative discussing politics: engaging recurrent utterly failing (be guise insurrectionary approaches), interest delicate contribute set-up all.14 general—the dissolution relationships—is act. socialism cannot realised revolution. act insofar destruction dissolution. where organising activity begins, object, soul, fore—there throws off cloak. 206) passage, “Randglossen” brought class-based fore opened alternative insurrectionism. flaws, seemed plausible adopt analytical envisage labor. irony turns upside down. We, “revolutionaries”, “overthrowers”—we thriving far better methods illegal overthrow. order, call themselves, perishing created themselves. cry despairingly Odilon Barrot: la légalité nous tue, legality death us; whereas we, legality, get firm muscles rosy cheeks like life eternal. 522) pure I do share your opinion. Obviously, plays subordinate Germany older industrial development. prevent possibility, moment comes, acquiring temporary importance (it already Frankfort) final sheet-anchor feudal regime. At reactionary falls behind strengthens it; used behaves democratic.17 sum, pursued defined stances according concrete situation stake. out, problem bypassed transferring economic sphere countries, again revolved representation partly changed toward communal ownership sympathized parts Russian Narodnik (e.g. lauding Chernyshevsky, author influential novel “What done?,” foreword second edition capital). evidenced Jones, regulation land tenure him re-evaluate Russia's (Jones, 2016, 579 ff).18 1870s, heyday. Trade committed Marxist variety anti-capitalism too quick forecast Democratic Parties strongly congregated democratizing people: “Between 1890s, country across map Europe, socialist formed give coherent, centralized, lasting form. Until great since, carried burden advocacy Europe” (Eley, 2002, 5). rallied fight suffrage. Adam Przeworski comparative observe while 1840s, trying constitute distinct “separating masses people,” (Przeworski, 1987, 54). If counts persons property, income property position, certainly absolute majority population advanced countries. mixture extraordinarily elements, classes among 1789, long present maintained common—or, similar—interests contrary ones […] (Bernstein, 1899, 103) Bernstein assumed working-class “hegemony assemble “completely elements population”—up “labor party” “people's “identical” 103). democrat's ideal union secretary, tribune every manifestation tyranny oppression, matter appears, stratum affects; “who generalise manifestations produce single picture police violence exploitation […]”. (Lenin, 1960, 423) Although Lenin strategy, clear reduce “single picture” reclaim These underlying connections raise sense oscillation return Democracy. Contrary speculations transfer meaningful economy, underwent further century. taking systems, increasingly expanded making collectively binding decisions claimed bind whole. analysis statehood, sociologist Chris Thornhill “rudimentary features orders” states, guaranteeing “basic mechanisms representation” “clear public procedures determine introduction, promulgation enforcement laws” (Thornhill, 2011, 254). To contest power-relations, became—under conditions—attractive espouse constitutionalism (and, vice versa, contributed immensely sphere). contested re-claiming powers. Luxemburg's proposal 1900s reacted apparent surrounded shift. constitutionalized spheres divisions participation regional councils bargain institutionalized grounds entrepreneurs. Luxemburg falling prey dispersion within—what she called—“industrial constitutionalism” (Luxemburg, 2008, 134). Instead (people's movement; Luxemburg, 1974a, 149). inserted innovative twist collecti