Mapping Currents of Left-Wing Thought
Part Two (2) — The Anti-Authoritarian Left: The Left Caught in Authoritarianism
Aydin Areta

In this part of the talk, the discussion begins with the historical origins of the concept of the “left”: the arrangement of forces in the French Assembly of 1789, where the left came to signify change, egalitarianism and criticism of the existing order, while the right became associated with continuity, monarchy and hierarchy. But we move beyond this simple definition and argue that the left cannot be understood merely as a political label. In its deepest sense, the left is a response to domination, inequality and the wounds that social, economic and political structures inflict upon human beings. From this perspective, injustice is not simply the product of a few bad individuals; it is sedimented within law, markets, the state and dominant institutions.

We then introduce the left not as a single entity but as a diverse family of tendencies: from social democracy and the welfare state to democratic socialism, Marxism, communism, anarchism, libertarian socialism, the green left, progressive liberalism and even left-wing nationalism. What connects these different currents is their shared sensitivity to those who are excluded, subordinate or marginalized; to class domination, colonialism, concentrations of power and structural inequality. Yet, at a deeper level, this sensitivity also carries a horizontal impulse: the desire to level status distinctions, break hierarchies, remain suspicious of authority and defend those crushed beneath formal and traditional orders.

The central point of the discussion is that horizontalism, although capable of serving as a valuable moral conscience in the defence of justice, can in its extreme form become a paralysing fear of every kind of structure, leadership and common order. Here, with reference to Zeynep Tufekci and the idea of “tactical freeze,” we show how many contemporary social movements, particularly in the age of social media, can mobilize rapidly, fill the streets and create a historical moment, yet subsequently prove unable to transform the energy of protest into organization, programmes, institutions and accountable power. The movement then travels from the passion of the street toward political paralysis.

The discussion concludes by reaching its central paradox: eliminating structure does not necessarily eliminate power. If formal, accountable and observable structures are destroyed, power does not disappear; it returns in a more invisible, informal and unaccountable form. This is something we can see in different historical experiences, from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution and even the Iranian experience: movements that begin in the language of liberation, justice and opposition to authoritarianism can sometimes end by reproducing a new and harsher form of domination. The central question of this section is therefore not a simple criticism of the left, but an attempt to understand its internal tragedy: how can a force that rises in order to free people from authoritarianism become trapped in another authoritarianism when it fails to build structures that are just and accountable?

YouTube link:
https://youtu.be/VjXjvEF-cP4