In recent decades, a sector of the world's intellectual community has been strained by open debates surrounding the left. The urgent need for an alternative, particularly in the context that has emerged since 2006, and the severe global capitalist crisis in which we find ourselves, have been significant concerns. The relevance of the hand As an analytical category, its characterization, the continued relevance—or lack thereof—of the projects it once championed, interpretations of its historical trajectory, its successes and defeats are all subjects of analysis and debate. Added to this is the diversity and abundance of individual and collective research, seminars and lectures, edited volumes, and documentaries that focus primarily on the left in general. The same academic, political, and social intensity can be found within the framework of recent commemorations that have triggered a wave of memory and feature the left as a protagonist (such as the centenary of the Russian Revolution or the 50th anniversary of May '68) (Herrera 2017, Aguirre 2013, Marchesi 2019).

In Latin America in particular, concerns about the future of the left are not merely a matter of reminiscence but also a space for debates that aim to assess the possibilities of its political activity in the pursuit of specific goals or horizons, such as those related to participation in, conquest of, or administration of the state. This is evidenced by the questions, expectations, and/or critiques raised, for example, by the progressive cycle known as “21st-century socialism,” which inaugurated a process of reflection by intellectuals from diverse regions interested in closely following not only its development and potential for implementing an alternative proposal in diverse contexts and processes such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, and Paraguay, but also its capacity to realize a joint regional project (Modonesi and Webber 2019; Boron 2019; Ruiz 2019). Another important contextual element to consider in the emergence of debates about the “future” of the left at a global level is the rise of the far right or radical right in Europe since the last decade and the emergence of right-wing governments on our continent in the last period.

Thus, from political, sociological, and historical perspectives, we observe a surge in research and discussion, to which the work and proposals stemming from this Working Group's trajectory have undoubtedly contributed. The effort has focused on participating in the current debate, primarily by revisiting and problematizing its historical trajectory and its persistence to the present day. Various texts have addressed the processes of politicization, the commitment, and the "rebellion" inherent in "being on the left." The identity construction and political culture of its activism, the diversity of its organizational expressions, intellectual networks, and connections with social movements and their main struggles were some of the topics explored. Ultimately, we assume that being on the left implies a decision, an ethical/political stance, and a challenging practice that transforms reality, anchored in traditions (Williams, 2009) and future horizons.

From the above, a fundamental thesis emerges: the left is not an ontological foundation or an a priori definition. As Bolívar Echeverría (2006) argued, an organization or social actor can only be leftist if it “is in it,” that is, as long as its political activity coincides with a critical stance toward the development of capitalism in concrete terms. And it is precisely this dimension, that of action, that constitutes the backbone of the present proposal. From our perspective, the emphasis on the practicePolitical activity, understood as a transformative political practice (Sánchez Vázquez, 2003), inspires new analytical possibilities, from a comparative and transnational perspective, for understanding Latin American history and the present. In this sense, it is necessary to clarify that political activity undoubtedly involves a clash of ideas, projects, or programs, and that ideological struggle exerts a substantial influence on praxis. However, the practical nature of political activity demands “concrete forms, means, and methods of struggle” that warrant careful exploration.

Therefore, in an ongoing dialogue with the current state of our societies, we seek to review and trace historical trajectories that situate scenarios, actors, and perspectives that transcend national frameworks, and recover the initiatives, attempts, and commitments beyond the temporary triumphs or failures of the Latin American left. There is no doubt that the praxis of the left is a fundamental part of Latin American history, not only in the most visible junctures or epoch-making revolutionary moments. Ultimately, it encompasses the various moments in which the left manifests itself as an organic whole through actions that engage its members—individually and collectively—within a process that serves as a platform for its diverse organizational bases. In this way, workers, students, indigenous people, peasants, intellectuals, women, and young people, united under the banners of the left and its mobilizing praxis, have managed to conquer and shape spaces that have massified politics, eroded the consensus around the various transformations and cycles of capital, and contributed—with highs and lows, setbacks and advances—to shaping a process of social democratization aimed at changing the prevailing economic, political, and social relations.

In this sense, the historical cycles opened by the crises of oligarchic regimes on the continent, the exhaustion and crisis of developmentalism, the dictatorships that plagued the vast majority of the region's countries, and the debates surrounding democratization processes, as well as the hegemony and neoliberal offensive of right-wing governments across much of the continent, become a relevant scenario for investigating the praxis that allows it to identify itself, articulate itself, and project itself as an alternative. We frequently witness protagonistic (peaceful) forms of action, and other exceptional (violent) forms of action with high intensity, which are part of a repertoire of action that transcends and complicates its opposition. Petitions, marches, strikes, rallies or elections, assemblies, printing and distribution of pamphlets, banners, publications, along with other forms of direct action from longer-standing traditions of struggle, have allowed the development of fundamental symbolic issues such as affirmation, cohesion and the breaking of an order considered normal.

Identifying and explaining the meanings of the various forms that the anti-capitalist struggle has taken, both in its historical trajectory and in the present day, will constitute a contribution not only to the history of the Latin American left but also to advancing towards the understanding and explanation of the trajectories of social mobilization in a longer-term perspective, which provides elements to understand the projects and perspectives of current movements.

This Working Group is a continuation of the Working Group “Being Leftist in Latin America Yesterday and Today.” There, historians and sociologists met to deepen their research on Latin American leftist activism through individual case studies. This Working Group broadens its perspective to a more global and integrated analysis. Cuba, Paraguay, and Ecuador are added to the original countries, generating new comparative and interpretive possibilities. One of the conclusions of the previous Working Group, which serves to structure this proposal for renewal, is that the very definition of “leftist” is a contested terrain, where interpretations always tend to exclude or limit the universe. Therefore, “being leftist” is more a praxis linked to a vision of social transformation than a defined theoretical-ideological affiliation. In this sense, it can be understood as a cultural notion, in the vein of R. Williams (2003), but historically it has adhered to the values ​​of equality and freedom, although not always to the same degree (Archila, 2008). For the GT, the term “left” is situated around coordinates that imply a commitment to acceptance: the self-definition of the subject, and the consideration of the analyst.

This universe becomes even more complex given that “being left-wing” is intertwined with the socio-cultural and historical constructions of the nations in which it develops. In this sense, while “leftists” in Asia, Europe, and the Americas share some common aspects, they also have significant differences (both in practice and in perceptions and cultures) that are products of the surrounding social reality. It is also true that, at least in the Latin American case, “being left-wing” implies a certain arc of solidarities forged in a social reality strongly marked by a specific relationship with imperial powers (Carr and Ellner, 1993). Unlike the North American or European left, “being left-wing” in Latin America involves points of contact with Marxism, nationalism, and populism, as well as with indigenism and Black identity, insofar as they challenge oppression, whether national or racial.

Therefore, the Working Group defined the term “left” as an analytical category, a complex construct, fraught with tensions, filtered through the prejudices of the socio-cultural reality of each individual and social group. Of course, the political spectrum admits many intermediate nuances, although it is the antithetical extremes that define it (Archila, 2008).

In the study of contemporary Latin America, it is remarkable how research has largely ignored—or almost ignored—the left as a protagonist. This is surprising given the long-standing interest in studies of Latin American revolutions as well as the workers' and peasants' movements of the 20th century. The left seems to have disappeared, especially after the rise of populist movements. This is not to say that the left was the sole protagonist, or that it was without its errors, sectarianism, and problems. Rather, it is that 20th-century Latin America was characterized by a dynamic and dialectical relationship between the left and social and intellectual movements, and that its history is incomprehensible without considering this relationship.

While the periodization of the historical development of the Latin American left is necessarily inexact, in principle we can point to four clearly identifiable moments:

The first phase, or origins, is situated roughly between 1880 and 1920. This period was characterized by the development of diverse anarchist and socialist tendencies whose practices had a profound impact on the organizational structures of workers and peasants, as well as on culture and the social imaginary. These organizations and individuals were fundamental in structuring craft unions, the first peasant federations, and the first groups and organizations that defined themselves as revolutionary. These early leftists were important in disseminating class-based and dissenting ideas, which were expressed through newspapers, novels, works of art, and a whole range of cultural networks. These ideas were based on nineteenth-century traditions and cultures—liberalism, artisanal radicalism, and indigenism—and on a Latin American Christianity to reinterpret them and build a structure of feeling that became a “common sense” and a “correct” behavior even among those who did not share the leftist and dissenting ideology.

A new era began in the 1930s, influenced particularly by the global crisis that started in 1929. This period could be termed “communist,” characterized by a new praxis influenced by the Leninist militant model. This praxis was shaped by the repression of anarchists, the co-optation of various socialist parties, the influence of the Russian Revolution, and the development of large-scale workers' mobilizations. Driven and dominated by communist parties, this left led numerous social struggles across the continent while inheriting, incorporating, and reinterpreting aspects of the previous period's ideology and practices, giving rise to what are now understood as “class-based” and revolutionary concepts.

From 1960 onward, the third period emerged, marked by what has been termed the "New Left." This movement found its origins in both splinter groups from communist parties and Trotskyist groups from the preceding period. These splinter groups combined with those from the populist and nationalist movements of the time, creating a complex and complex landscape that is difficult to categorize. This New Left was profoundly influenced by both the Cuban Revolution and the figure of Che Guevara, as well as by the Vietnam War, leading to the development of a new leftist praxis.

The defeat of the left at the hands of dictatorships and restricted democracies laid the groundwork for the fourth period and a new praxis in the chronology of the left, spanning from 1989 to the present. According to Carr and Ellner (1993), the military dictatorships of the 1970s were the national experiences that most influenced the contemporary left. This situation convinced “many leftists that the formal democracy they had previously scorned was a conquest worth defending at all costs in order to build upon it.” This coincided with the emergence of new social movements, which “foreshadow a new type of democracy,” whose main characteristics are the autonomy of civil society and grassroots participation.

During each period, leftist organizations and groups were composed of members whose origins and historical experiences might have differed, but who shared cultural elements (a shared emotional framework) that translated into a common language, symbolism, and practices. These elements matured during each period and were passed down from one generation of leftists to the next. Thus, an entire imaginary and tradition were transmitted and kept alive despite repression.

Unlike the previous Working Group, which emphasized the process of politicization, commitment, and “rebellion” that defined “being on the left” (Pozzi 2016), this proposal focuses on investigating leftist praxis and its connection to both the ideology of social transformation and the previously studied process of politicization. This suggests a dynamic and comparative approach that transcends the definition of rigid and potentially limiting periods. In other words, the processes of politicization, praxis, and social transformation are incomprehensible without articulating them within the complex and historical framework of the phenomenon we have defined as “the Left.”