The Spanish indignados : A movement with two souls

The Spanish movement of 15 May (15-M), the indignados movement, born in the spring of 2011 (Bennasar, 2011; Cabal, 2011; Oliveres et al., 2011; Taibo et al., 2011a, 2011b; Velasco, 2011; Viejo, 2011; VV.AA., 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d), has developed two souls, which are relatively easy to distinguish from one another; if the first has been brought about by alternative social movements, the second has been engendered by those we will refer to, with some misgivings, as the ‘young indignados’. It is important to highlight that these two souls seem to convincingly explain what the movement was at its inception. Of course, the corresponding reality is becoming increasingly complex as time goes on. One of its first notable milestones has been the expansion of 15-M in the form of neighbourhood and village assemblies and meetings. Another event that could well change the face of the movement will be its predictable expansion into the world of work.

Alternative social movements have formed the first of the souls of the emerging movement. For years they have been maturing quietly and steadily, little by little, sowing their seeds. In this respect, they have managed to leave behind the relative trauma of the demonstrations against the war in Iraq in 2003, when an optical illusion made so many believe a radical change was occurring in the popular perception of complex events; many activists learnt that massive demonstrations are as stimulating as they are deceptive, or at least they are if behind the scenes there is no active work being done at the core of society. When I speak of alternative social movements I am thinking of those who have wrought these changes in cities: of the self-managed and occupied social centres, of the feminism, environmentalism and pacifism that have not been integrated into the system, of the networks of solidarity with the South of which the same can be said, even of alternative unionism. In general terms, and in the light of their declared commitment to grassroots democracy and self-management, we can safely describe these people as libertarians.

Although the expression indignados comes with deeply problematic connotations, insofar as it seems to imply that people affected show nothing but indignation or outrage, when it comes to identifying the second soul, the term ‘young indignados’ is a useful one. This second soul is made up, as the term suggests, of young people who in many cases have mobilised themselves for the first time in their lives in an act of protest. In fact, many of these young people have known nothing other than a permanent state of crisis. Keep in mind the fact that in Spain, in the summer of 2011, 45% of young people were unemployed and 650,000 of those between the ages of 16 and 29 were neither studying nor working. Furthermore, 54% of people between the ages of 18 and 34 were living with their parents (López Blasco, 2008). This scene contrasted powerfully with the consequences of an ingenious and efficient process of creating artificial needs amongst young people. There has been a visible deterioration in young people’s university experiences: scholarships are being replaced with credits, fees are increasingly expensive and the conditions of scholarship exams appear increasingly draconian (Fernández Liria y Serrano García, 2009). Elsewhere things do not appear to be faring much better. In the labour market there is an abundance of contratos-basura (rubbish contracts), low salaries and insecurity. Added to these are irregularities such as the fact that these young people are often paid off the books, do not pay national insurance, often suffer ill-treatment and find it almost impossible to access housing. Although until recently those who suffered this degree of insecurity managed to achieve a form of individual resistance in the best of cases, it is becoming increasingly clear that they are beginning to seek collective projects. This is not an obstacle to their frequently embracing demands which appear visibly meritocratic; above all else, they complain, and not without reason, about the disdain with which society responds to undergraduate and masters degrees rewarding them with terrible jobs and paltry salaries. Let us be clear: despite this, not all the young people who concern us fit a meritocratic profile, in the same way that they are not all current or former university students.

It is impossible not to recognise that in its initial composition the movement is an inter-class one and that its ranks are predominantly filled with middle-class members. The majority of ‘young indignados’, and most of the members of alternative social movements, belong to a middle class which through joblessness and insecurity has experienced an incipient process of de-classing (not so much of proletarianisation). Nonetheless it is true that many of these young people come from humble families. It is wage earners, moderately comfortable and with little propensity for revolt, who have been less present amongst the ranks of the 15 de mayo movement.

Having said this, there are two important circumstances we must take note of. The first is the likely consequences of the eventual disappearance of the middle classes (Observatorio Metropolitano, 2011a). If this disappearance does indeed come to pass in its entirety, to speak of a movement fundamentally made up of members of that class will sooner or later lead to, or perhaps already has become, an exercise in the absurd. The second is the possibility that the movement will gain ground in the world of work and as a result lead to a much more complex situation when it comes to its members. It is probably unnecessary to add that this growing complexity will inevitably give rise to a greater generational dispersal than the 15-M movement has demonstrated in its initial stages.

There are plenty of reasons to affirm that, despite eventual divergences and disagreements, the two souls described have mutually invigorated one another and have accepted that they have a shared path to tread. While the first clearly understood what the ‘young indignados’, in all its forms, meant, I have little doubt that amongst many of the members of the second it was understood that what the alternative social movements were saying contributed a wealth of knowledge that allowed them to go beyond a superficial contestation of the existing order. While the first observed that behind the buenismo (goodism) that seemed to pervade many of the ‘young indignados’ positions there lay values and ways of relating that were worthy of respect and support, the second did not bat an eyelid when, during the many demonstrations organised, messages with a radical content were invoked. The message ‘it will end, it will end, social peace will end’ was closely followed by a sign reading ‘Capitalism shouldn’t be reformed: it should be destroyed’ at the end of the march on 19 June in Santiago de Compostela. The rapprochement described can be readily explained: there have not always been clear boundaries between the two souls portrayed.

The distinction between the two options of ciudadanismo (citizenism) and anticapitalism, although to be used with caution, is an interesting one. The ciudadanista proposal attempts to take on a precise problem and has, because of this, a temporal and limited character and tends to incorporate attractive forms of expression. In essence it aspires to address external authorities – parties, institutions – with the aim of making them modify specific attitudes and politics. As a result, and by definition, it does not contest capitalism itself, it does not consider problems in terms of class and it tends to dilute its demands in a more diffuse way (Delgado, 2011).

The profile of the anticapitalist proposal is different. As can be easily imagined, in this case we are faced with a more general opposition to today’s existing system, which gives priority to class war and which hopes to persevere in time. It most often departs from the certainty that capitalism has lost many of its brake mechanisms which in the past allowed it to save face, and concludes that, as a result, it is embarking on a journey of terminal crisis. Not long ago we might have used the term ‘workerist’ to describe this proposal; today that term appears to engender more problems than it solves. This is for two principal reasons: whilst the first remembers that many of the traditional working class are dramatically integrated into capitalism’s game – that of growth and consumption – the second highlights the eruption in recent decades of new emancipatory subjects, such as those who have been taking shape around feminist and environmentalist discourses. In fact, many of the most radical criticisms of contemporary capitalism are beginning to arrive from these groups.

Even though – and we return to the name with caution – many of the ‘young indignados’ appear to have adopted a ciudadanista discourse from the start, it is often easy to identify amongst them a drift towards anticapitalist positions that are common in the alternative social movements. Added to the mix, and in the fabric of today’s capitalism, let us not forget that there is a certain return to the rules of the game of the past, as a result of the reappearance of new forms of exploitation. Such a return surely represents a stimulus for the answers that appear to be strictly anticapitalist.

It has often been pointed out that the movement has an anti-system nature and is a response to an apolitical project. The first of those labels is of limited interest, however helpful it is in revealing how increasingly uninspired many media manipulations are becoming. A good few years ago, a formula was devised that spoke of those who were anti-system; this was intended to portray rapidly and forcefully a bunch of superficial, angry and violent people. Prison – or, in the best of cases, the asylum – was the only place for these people. Things have changed in such a radical and rapid way that what was a disqualifying label has begun to be perceived as praise by many of those affected and occasionally by many neutral observers.

The second of these labels gives rise to a more problematic discussion: one born of a self-identification by many of the members of the 15-M movement as apolitical and, beyond this, as belonging to neither the left nor the right. I do not believe one should pay too much attention to these definitions, which in the eyes of many would reveal a certain naivety in those who take them as their own. In the case of the first, this is because it evidently commits to the aim of highlighting a distancing from official political lines which, when it does not refer to a hastily expressed libertarian code, makes some sense. In the case of the second, it appears to take as its point of departure the equally debatable assumption that the categories of left and right are today as much a source of confusion as a useful tool when it comes to describing what one is or what one is proposing.

It is relatively easy to appreciate, amongst the ranks of the movement, two different positions. While the first might lean towards simply demanding from the authorities the introduction of the corresponding changes, the second, closer to the alternative social movements, seems to understanding that what is really needed is to begin to build, from the ground up, a new and autonomous world, without paying attention to what, if anything, these authorities may be able to offer. While the first would aspire, above all else, to influence others, the second would first and foremost turn its attention towards the growth of the movement (Observatorio Metropolitano, 2011b).

It is true that in the current phase it is relatively easy to find paths of rapprochement between the two positions described. One of these is the one that points out that movement proposals are directed to common people for the express purpose they know and debate. To this end, and at the present moment, it is not about influencing leaders but about bringing about a growth in the support for 15-M, without encouraging the unfolding of the fight for autonomy which the alternative social movements often defend.

It is important to add that 15-M is, culturally and socially, an urban movement. All its activity has been concentrated in cities, with a very reduced presence in rural environments. Despite this, the urban presence of the movement has often had two main objectives. If the first has been to bring about an active decentralisation, bringing decision making closer to the ordinary citizen, the second has been to signal the importance of putting a break on the indiscriminate growth of cities and, in parallel, to recover many of the elements of rural life that are gradually being lost with the passing of time.