Laclau and Mouffe: The Radical Democratic Imaginary

Party—however numerous they may be—this is not freedom. Freedom is always
at the very least freedom for those who think otherwise” (Löwy 1981:74).
12
Luxemburg followed other socialists in making a clear distinction between
bourgeois democracy and socialist democracy, but she saw the latter as preserving
the freedoms that had been won for the workers under bourgeois democracy and
expanding them to include new freedoms that had not been possible for them
under capitalism (Löwy 1981:75).
We can capture some of the independent spirit that thrives in Luxemburg’s
discourse in the form of a warning. We may become dangerously seduced by
leaders who claim that thanks to their “scientific knowledge,” they can grasp
historical “necessities” and predict exactly how a progressive struggle should
unfold. These leaders would impose rigid political programs and restrict
democratic contestation out of the arrogance that arises from the misuse of theory,
when they ought to remain conscious of their epistemological limitations. Further,
theory must be consistently defined and redefined with reference to the concrete
experiences of the disempowered as they struggle against domination, rather
than conjured up in a magical space that has been separated off from the
complexities of concrete political contestations. I will return to this theme, with
reference to Gramsci’s conception of organic philosophy and common sense, in
Chapter 2.
Laclau and Mouffe’s argument also echoes Foucault’s bio-power theory. The
space for democratic contestation must always be preserved within the democratic
struggles themselves, for even the most “progressive” leaderships can deteriorate
into some form of authoritarianism. This potential for authoritarian reaction—
through the disciplining of deviance, the normalization of specific values, and the
neutralization of oppositional forces—is permanent and universal, for it is inscribed
within every institution’s structure. Further, because the potential for authoritarian
reaction is always embedded within institutional structures, it is prior to individuals’
intentions; even the best-intentioned individuals may find themselves caught up
in the disciplinary regulation of democratic differences.