The benefits and limitations of populism for radical-left parties

The 2008 economic crisis created an opportunity for radical-left parties, the most consistent critics of neoliberalism. While some populist parties break through, other left parties did not take advantage of the opportunities created. There are two main arguments in this article. First, left-wing populists were more successful since they adjusted to the dynamics of the class struggle and to the requirements of mobilizing diffused frustrations. The class struggle is split between a union-based struggle, and a non-union-based one, the latter becoming more central in recent decades. It is composed of spontaneous bursts of protest not leading to the building of organized power, making it much harder to stably harness by left parties compared with past union-based struggles. Non-union-based class struggles open a cycle that can be taken advantage of by left parties that conform to its logic and are in a strong enough party system position, as did Syriza and Podemos. Second, left-wing populists nevertheless reached an impasse, since they could unite the left voters' bloc only under unique conditions. Labor market 'outsiders', more precarious, educated and urban youth were at the core of last decades' protest movements and radical-left parties' electoral surges. Labor market 'insiders', non-precarious and relatively economically secure left voters who opted for the left-wing populist option only as a last resort. Populist radical-left parties could not unite the popular bloc entirely, as significant parts of the working class were less accessible to them. Furthermore, populist radical-left parties did not contribute to the building of mass subaltern organizations, leaving little organized heritage. Since populism is more in tune with the dominant form of class struggle, radical-left parties should embrace it, but due to its limitations, it has to be complemented with 'class-for-itself' political methods.