Established left parties and radical movements fundamentally disagree over whether institutional participation legitimizes rule.

Evidence

On a personal level, Haddad became increasingly annoyed with the MPL. They did not respect the differences between politicians, he felt; they lumped him in with the conservative repressive apparatus he fought against as a young dissident and was now trying to sabotage his administration. He did not believe he was trying to co-opt anybody; the PT was deeply proud of the mechanisms it had developed over the decades to involve social movements in decision-making and bring the streets into the halls of power. These kids were not only refusing to play by the rules, they were pretending that the rules didn’t exist. — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn, 375

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to earlier books on co-optation of social movements and how institutional lefts read street radicalism — same dynamics seen in French laĂŻcitĂ© and cultural studies debates about containing resistance. — connects to: An unresolved party-versus-union divide left the Italian radical movement internally dual; Left solidarity requires heterogeneous coalition rather than unity or horizontalism — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 1743; Rituals of democratic unity fail once parties deem each other illegitimate. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 380 (+1 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: The chasm where each side’s deepest political virtue reads as the other’s deepest betrayal — PT’s proudest innovation (institutionalizing movements) is precisely what MPL regards as the corruption of protest. Refuses the easy villain narrative.

Broader Connections