As an extension of identity-based politics, social movement activism consciously seeks to broaden the scope for resistance. While social movement politics have flourished in the period of capitalist globalisation, they have a long and sometimes contentious history. Well over a century ago, Small described social movement activism and activists as “a confusion of fussy, fidgety folk, blocking each other and everybody else” (1897: 340). It was an intentionally benign criticism. The general thrust of his argument was supportive. “The task which society today imposes upon its members is direct and conscious effort so to organize personal relations that the masses … may together realize their common humanity” (1897: 353-354). Social movement activism also seeks to build a sense of collective identity that is perceived to be broader than class identity. Traditional expressions of these processes, based as they were on class as a defining element, are described as ‘old’ social movements, which most usually take the form of trade union activism. The ‘new’ forms have tended to move away from any overt identification with the working class.
Social movement politics have, for many, replaced the centrality of the working class as a force for change. “In a sense collective identity replaced class consciousness as the factor that accounts for mobilization and individual attachments to new social movements” (Hunt &
176
Benford 2007: 437). The capacity for social movements to mobilise large numbers is evident. The civil rights movement in the US in the 1960s, the anti-Vietnam, anti-nuclear,
environment, the ‘occupy’, anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist movements, are all testimony to the success that these broad movements have in building a constituency. Sustaining
constituencies becomes far more difficult. These movements often share things in common. They are inevitably political, in the sense that they make demands upon the state (Rootes 1997: 71), and make conscious efforts at effecting social change (Giugni (1999: xxi). The efficacy of these movements becomes an issue that is contested:
In their aim of changing the status quo, social movements face a fundamental dilemma. If they ask for short-term policy changes, they have a greater chance that such changes will occur, but they will not alter, in a fundamental way, existing structures and practices. If instead, movements demand long-term institutional changes, they will encounter more difficulties in realizing such changes … Social movements rarely alter political institutions and only under very restricted conditions” (Guigni 1999: xxiv).
Fundamental questions of political theory emerge. They are the questions that Marxists debated a century ago. They are the questions of reformist or revolutionary paths to emancipation.
Social movement theory refers both to reforming and revolutionary movements. Goodwin and Jasper (2009: 4) differentiate between the two forms. They define a ‘revolutionary’ movement as a social movement that actively seeks to overthrow the state, while a broader social movement, deemed to be a reforming instrument, “is a collective, organised, sustained, and non-institutional challenge to authorities, powerholders, or cultural beliefs and practices”
177
(2009: 4). There is a broadly accepted view that the purpose of social movements, and the political agendas they pursue, are aimed at moving society and institutions within that society to a less oppressive position. There is a distinct echo in such an ideological construct to debates of more than a century ago between Marxist and social-democratic theorists.
Social movements are “natural self-evident successors of the labour movement” (Olofsson 1988: 16). Such a perspective has won wide support and particularly since the 1960s and 1970s and the rise of New Left and identity politics. Olofsson argues that the labour
movement, as a representation of ‘old’ class-based politics, is a symbol of social movements whose time has passed. It is a logic that is very much in keeping with the move away from class as a defining point in the social and economic relations of capitalism. Social movements have become, as a consequence, non-class or supra-class organisations. This can be a strength but is also a limiting factor. Diani describes these movements as “networks of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts, on the basis of shared collective identities” (1992: 1). Proponents of new social movement activism describe them as replacing older social
movement forms. Within this lies an inherent assumption that there has been a greater degree of success with the new as opposed to the older ‘obsolete’ movements. It also presupposes a fundamental difference in approach that is not always apparent.
The labour movement activism that the ‘new’ social movement advocates describe and critique suffered from a process of integration into the capitalist state structure. Wheelwright (1953) traced the trajectory of the trade union movement and of state responses to union activism. He noted three phases in the relationship between the unions and the capitalist
178
state. The first is one of hostility and attempts at suppression on the part of the state. The second is a position of tolerance but sees the state offering little cooperation to the unions. The third phase is one whereby the unions enter into a period of cooperation and partnership with the capitalist state. This incorporation was noted by Trotsky who described the situation in Europe in the 1920s whereby there “is a powerful international organisation of the trade union bureaucracy. It is thanks to it that the whole structure of capitalism stands upright” (1974: 247-248). Macionis (2007) in discussing newer forms of social movement activism outlines four stages that constitute the ‘life-cycle’ of a social movement. These are success, co-optation, repression, or establishment within the mainstream of society. There are striking similarities between his description and that of Wheelwright. That there are clear points of connection between ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements indicate that problems associated with program and intent remain unresolved. It raises significant questions as to the perceived purpose of the ‘movement’. Bernstein’s (1975: 202) controversial claim that the eventual destination (socialism) is of less importance than the ‘movement’ is once more played out.
Capitalist globalisation and the rise of social movement politics have evolved together. These protests have been both national and international in scope. Some have adopted an ‘anti- capitalist’ perspective. Others have focussed on war, poverty, or environmental issues. Organisers have successfully been able to draw millions of people into protest and political action. The World Social Forum and the ‘Occupy’ movement, among others, highlighted the discontent that many people were and are feeling. These often supra-class or non-class actions have assumed a growing significance as the globalisation of capitalism has
progressed. These movements are a reaction against globalisation (Giugni, McAdam & Tilly 1999, Castells 2004). Political responses, either at a state level or between actors at the sub- state level, frequently share a view that economic actions and outcomes can be separated
179
from the globalisation of capitalism – that capitalism and globalisation can be regarded as separate entities. Anti-globalisation becomes, for some, a euphemism for ‘deglobalisation’. This has become more apparent since the anti-World Trade Organisation protests in Seattle in 1999 (Smith 2001: 1-20, Ayres 2001: 55-68). Bello (2004) promotes the idea that
globalisation can be reversed and that the nation-state is the vehicle through which such a reversal can be effected. Evans (2008) argues for a movement that will effectively
democratise and shift the hegemonic structure of globalisation. Sklair (2002: 273-277) identifies a range of challenges to globalisation including protectionism, social movements and the green movement. The result is a conscious promotion of nationalism in the face of capitalist globalisation.
Sutcliffe (2002) identifies a problem that goes to the heart of the anti-globalisation, anti- capitalist movement. Many critics of globalisation can see no way forward and therefore the only path appears to be backwards, often to nationalist political forms:
If history is a straight line and we do not like the road ahead there is nowhere to go but back … If the problem is identified as capitalism and not globalization and if capitalism is global, then that suggests that anti-capitalism is the solution and that anti-capitalism must also make itself global, producing counter proposals not to globalization as such but to global capitalism and capitalist globalization (2002: 56). The term anti-capitalist has a range of interpretations and has the potential to confuse and diffuse ideas and arguments. For some, anti-capitalism can denote a movement that seeks to transform society along socialist lines. For others, it might be a movement based upon ecological principles that may, in turn, look to a pre-capitalist means of production. While Sutcliffe’s broad interpretation of the term would indicate a forward movement beyond
180
capitalism, the prospects for confusion remain. Harvey (2010b), for instance, outlines a range of potential lines along which anti-capitalist movements might run, including anarchist and autonomous movements, traditional labour/socialist political expressions, social movement politics effectively promoting local issues, and identity politics including those of gender, sexuality, ethnicity and race. Ultimately the issue of social movement politics, whether ‘old’ or ‘new’ becomes a question of purpose, of motive, of determining what result is either desired or required.
The purpose and utility of social movement politics is fundamentally connected to the relevance of Marxism in an era of capitalist crisis. It is a question of determining the most appropriate way forward. This has been the central issue surrounding Marxist debates for a century. Marxists argued as to the various merits of reform or revolution. The issues surrounding identity politics and the broader social movements echo those debates. This is not to suggest that social movement activists have not had spectacular successes in
mobilising millions of people. These mobilisations have cut across class lines and have drawn attention to the inequalities inherent in capitalist globalisation. It is in analysing the relative strengths and weaknesses of these movements, that the relevance of Marxism as an
organisational model can be tested.