Are Leftists fighting a losing battle?

[Hexen]

Do you think that Leftists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists/Feminists/etc are in reality fighting a losing battle against the Capitalists/Fascists/Nazis/etc? Is there any hope for a better future? Or does the future look bleak?

[Robocommie]

Because Leftists struggle for equality and justice, we can never really lose. We may lose in the short term, but we can never be defeated because the drive for equality and justice is a universal human drive. Even if every single Leftist was killed and every work of Left-wing ideology was burned, it would only re-appear later in another form.

Because we can never ultimately be defeated, but we can win, our ultimate victory is more or less inevitable. It's just not going to be an easy journey and it may take a very long time.

[Invincible Summer]

Like Robocommie said, the left may seem to lose in the short term (which is what all the capitalist media focuses on in their propaganda), but with all the uprisings and movements happening all over the world it's hard to see it as all bleak. Capitalism can only sustain itself for so long before it exhausts itself

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Because Leftists struggle for equality and justice, we can never really lose. We may lose in the short term, but we can never be defeated because the drive for equality and justice is a universal human drive. Even if every single Leftist was killed and every work of Left-wing ideology was burned, it would only re-appear later in another form.
This.Absolutely this.It's either anarchism or the void ;)

[Drace]

Such a concern isn't the smartest thing when financial crisis is striking the whole world.

[Demogorgon]

We are in a rather bad time for the left right now. God knows, if we were in a good position, the financial crises would have led to a revolution in half a dozen places by now. However there have been bad periods for progress throughout history and they always come to an end sooner or later. I don't think in a few decades we will look back fondly at today, but we will be able to safely say things have gotten better since.

[the last donut of the night]

What robocommie said. It seems history has a left-wing bias.;)

[cenv]

Do you think that Leftists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists/Feminists/etc are in reality fighting a losing battle against the Capitalists/Fascists/Nazis/etc? Is there any hope for a better future? Or does the future look bleak?
Our success in the coming years will depend on our ability to connect with people, apply our principles and method in radically new contexts, and be innovative instead of remaining stuck in the past. Instead of saying that revolution is "inevitable," which is just a way to shield ourselves from the fact that we are, as you put it, "losing," we need to focus on how to move forward. The conditions of capitalism create the potential for revolution, but it's up to us to take the first steps towards realizing this potential.

[Daz]

Do you think that Leftists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists/Feminists/etc are in reality fighting a losing battle against the Capitalists/Fascists/Nazis/etc? Is there any hope for a better future? Or does the future look bleak?
I would say the Cap/Fas/Naz are fighting a losing battle. There is no purely capitialist country that I know of, my own is far more socialist than capitalist and aside from a few oddballs, no one takes Nazism seriously.

[NecroCommie]

Many good points have been raised, but I would also like to point out how the general trend in history has been steering exponentially to the left. When you compare the society of the 1000's and 1900's you can see what I am talking about.

[cenv]

I would say the Cap/Fas/Naz are fighting a losing battle. There is no purely capitialist country that I know of, my own is far more socialist than capitalist and aside from a few oddballs, no one takes Nazism seriously.
Canada, like the US, is still capitalist. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, and workers have to sell themselves into wage-slavery to survive. Socialism means that the working class controls the means of production and becomes the ruling class by organizing society along radically democratic lines. None of this has happened, and thinking in terms of "pure capitalism" vs. "impure capitalist" only mystifies class relations.

You could say that "aside from a few oddballs, no one takes Nazism seriously," but that sounds an awful lot like the way people see communists, socialists, and anarchists as well.

[RedRise]

I would say the Cap/Fas/Naz are fighting a losing battle

I agree with this. The far right is being ignored like a whining toddler. But it also seems that nearly all of the left is receiving the same treatment. We are not really in a bad period as nothing actually bad is happening. More that nothing is happening at all - and that's bad. This is a lull in the history of the left. Things will either get better or worse but there is no way of telling. As Demogorgon pointed out though, one would expect there to have been at least some small revolutions during our 'economic crisis' if the left was still doing well. Still, who knows. It only takes one truly brave revolutionary...

[Daz]

Canada, like the US, is still capitalist. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, and workers have to sell themselves into wage-slavery to survive. Socialism means that the working class controls the means of production and becomes the ruling class by organizing society along radically democratic lines. None of this has happened, and thinking in terms of "pure capitalism" vs. "impure capitalist" only mystifies class relations.

You could say that "aside from a few oddballs, no one takes Nazism seriously," but that sounds an awful lot like the way people see communists, socialists, and anarchists as well.
Well yeah they are mixed economies, not purely capitalist or socialist.

When I think of pure capitalism I think of the Ayn Rand definition. She loved the US but even way back then she did not think of it as purely capitalist.

I would not want do live in a Communist state or have anarchy anyways. Socialism is neither far right or far left in my opinion.

What the original leftists railed against ie. poverty, exploitation, lack of democracy etc. is not nearly as pervasive in my country as it was in history. They would call alot of modern lefties a bunch of whiners now.

[cenv]

Well yeah they are mixed economies, not purely capitalist or socialist.
The social relations in contemporary society are fundamentally capitalist. Workers have to sell their labor power to survive, and capitalists exploit workers through wage slavery. The idea that "capitalism" and "socialism" aren't mutually exclusive is a mystification that pushes class relations and the corresponding power structures under the rug.


I would not want do live in a Communist state or have anarchy anyways.
Communism is by definition a society without classes and without a state.


They would call alot of modern lefties a bunch of whiners now.
This is typically how the ruling class dismisses revolutionaries. Problems? What problems? Workers, you have it good enough...

Can I recommend this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/frequently-discussed-topics-t62635/index.html)?

[Hexen]

Well, one of my main concerns is the status of leftism in current times which I kinda feel for some reason that it's fighting a losing battle mainly due to apathy from the majority of the working classes while the Capitalists just continue to makes things much worse...

I certainly do hope there has to be a breaking point to all this though...(well it's most likely that majority of the working classes are actually procrastinating which I fear by the time they finally wake up, it would be too late while they their chance back then...)

Basically what I'm trying to say that apathy may be the biggest threat next to capitalism...

[Pogue]

I'm not pessimistic. The working class is as its biggest, it just needs appropriate organs of power, its nothing big really.

[el_chavista]

Can you tell if this is a Lenin's quotation (sorry for the translation, I'd like to find it originally in English)


We march together in small groups along a steep and rugged way, hardly clinging from our hands. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have come together under a voluntary decision, precisely to fight the enemies and not fall, giving a stumble, into the neighboring swamp, whose residents complain of us from the outset because we have separated into a group apart and we have chosen the way of the struggle and not that of the reconciliation.

[Pawn Power]

Well we'll most certainly loose if we don't fight.

Even if it is a steep uphill battle and the odds our against us, the only other choice, not fighting, guarantees we will loose.

[Kovacs]

See tagline^^

[cop an Attitude]

Agreeing with Robocommie, Freedom is an inherent drive for humans. Some may be satisfied now with their level of freedom but as history shows that most regarded as an "intellect" or "progressive" are never satisfied and always expanding their natural rights. It’s Fascism or Anarchism, power to fewer and fewer (which is happening), or power to the masses. It’s a struggle as old as history and which was fought from John Brown to Spartacus. I say our real enemy isn’t whether it’s possible but if we have enough time left to get there. Our destruction is the inevitable outcome for anything but.

[RadioRaheem84]

We're just living in a period (or at least before the crisis) where the capitalists have successfully convinced the masses that there is no humility in poverty or being working class so you must strive for riches. The upper class has been glamorized to the extent where people would rather strive for material possessions than have their basic needs met (education, health care, pension). I mean it's so strong that not even a financial crisis like the one last year was big enough to wake them out of it.

People who even considered the mildest bourgeoisie reforms were considered "far-left" in the media. Point is, that capitalists have the majority of the public convinced that all "leftism" means is state control of everything, including their lives. They think of a coercive state watching over them like a big brother and taking away their dreams of owning a Bentley one day. Thus, to them Socialism isn't even a viable option.

[cop an Attitude]

Most feel that America and their European counterparts will be shaken up in the next century, in our futures. Peak Oil is a near fact and in a society so heavily ruled by wealth, and those that have that wealth also own lots and lots of the stuff, I doubt they'll switch anytime soon. Collapsing infrastructure, a shrinking middle class, unemployment, economic crisis, overseas warfare, growing education rates, horrible healthcare and poverty are kept at bay in the people's minds by electrically fueled apathy. Looking at the current student population is what gives me little faith in our movement. Student power is a concept long gone in mainstream thought. Some schools such as Berkeley may be holding sit ins but most are more concerned with Facebook, COD2, the Northface and Ugg boots than the future. We are a generation bread by board rooms projected through screens. That’s why I doubt us, because the people can’t be awoken if they’re in a coma.

[redarmyleader]

Social upheaval, i.e. revolutionary uprisings, is inevitable because the antagonisms that exist in capitalism cannot be solved by it. But socialist revolution and the abolition of private property IS NOT.

The need for a revolutionary vanguard was proven in practice by the Russian Revolution. It was successful, unlike Germany, or France, or Spain (and in these place Fascism - an ideology of a small fringe of society - was the product of failure) because it had a party prepared to fight for the rule [dictatorship] of the proletariat. But Lenin acted on the understanding of Marx and Engels expressed in the Communist Manifesto, under the section Proletarians and Communists.
(http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)
And Marx and Engels drew this conclusion (albeit, not with full clarity and practicality of Lenin) from their study of history and the class struggle and the dialectical understanding that society is not fixed, but fluid; that history is not predetermined or destined towards an ever progressing direction (that is the line of the capitalist).

The bourgeoisie overthrew feudalism because the material conditions existed that made it possible, AND there existed leaders and parties that expressed the political power of the bourgeoisie.

When the Manifesto says "... oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes" it was making exactly the point I just said above, that history does not just go in one direction.

Specifically, The Manifesto was referring to the Middle Ages, known as the Dark Ages for a reason. It is because it is the period of history that directly follows the collapse of the Roman Empire. Because there did not exist the material conditions, nor political organization that could express the power of the oppressed classes within the Roman Empire, a whole civilization was wiped out by the irreconcilable antagonisms of Roman civilization, and society had to, in a sense, start fresh, reinventing things once learned.

But the Enca, Azteck and Mayan empires fall in this category as well; the Enca and Aztek civilization were wiped out by the Spaniards, and the Mayan civilization, like Rome, fell apart all its own. In fact, we know of the Mayan's only from archeology.

It would be nice to think that one day, regardless of what we do or do not do, society will progress and we will have heaven on earth. But such Utopian wishes belong in the realm of religion and the evangelicals who spread the good gospel, not revolutionary politics. Victory on our side - and it is absolutely possible - requires action that expresses power of our side

If we are not fighting to win, to take power, we are certain to lose; but if we are fighting to win victory is absolutely achievable, and essentially guaranteed.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

You know we have a very good saying here in Greece.It goes ''the only lost battle is the battle that wasn't fought'' To the most pessimistic of my comrades, I would like to remind how more dynamic and sensible this system is, compared to previous ones.Due to international and inherently imperialistic nature of capitalism all it takes is a small sparkle to ignite a flame and then boom.Butterfly effect baby.That's what economic crisis are all about.And although the vast majority of the people are unfortunately apathetic, they subcounsciously know that we live in a fucked up world politically and economically and just have no faith it can change to a better one.However when pushed by the conditions those people express their anger and tend to re-evaluate should they find ground to.The duty of the organised Left should be that when those people wake up, they have somewhere to go.But I have started becoming increasingly critical to my views about that lately.I believe that most of today's organised Left is out of touch with the reality or too absorbed by the system and therefore believe that when the revolution comes it will be much more spontaneous.Organisations will rise through the rubble or the existing ones will get empowered.But I seriously don't believe anymore that the actions of a party/organisation/whatever can spark a revolution out of an otherwise apathetic group of people.I am sure however that when the time comes, things are gonna evolve so quick even we are not going to believe it.Apart from that, who told you that being a heretic is easy baby?:cool:

[LeninistKing]

Well US leftists are too sectarian, too divided, and american citizens as a whole are too individualists wether they are in leftist parties or right-wing parties. So it is real hard in USA to create a United Socialist Front, because the US left is divided into many different sectarian parties

.



Do you think that Leftists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists/Feminists/etc are in reality fighting a losing battle against the Capitalists/Fascists/Nazis/etc? Is there any hope for a better future? Or does the future look bleak?

[Hexen]

Well US leftists are too sectarian, too divided, and american citizens as a whole are too individualists wether they are in leftist parties or right-wing parties. So it is real hard in USA to create a United Socialist Front, because the US left is divided into many different sectarian parties

.

Looks like the future of the US looks rather bleak....

I guess it's up to the rest of the world to go socialist, perhaps the US is probably one of the last places that will eventually become socialist after some extreme face lifts...

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

I guess it's up to the rest of the world to go socialist, perhaps the US is probably one of the last places that will eventually become socialist after some extreme face lifts...
I've lost my hope in Amerikkka as well:(Cold war propaganda is so deeply projected into those people that they will denounce whatever comes slightly close to socialism or contains even a tiny portion of red principles.Yet they are ready to embrace any paranoid paranatural conspiracy theory or trend.Who knows, I might be overly to the pessimistic side about that

[Daz]

Communism is by definition a society without classes and without a state.


This is typically how the ruling class dismisses revolutionaries. Problems? What problems? Workers, you have it good enough...

Can I recommend this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/frequently-discussed-topics-t62635/index.html)?
Well some would make a distinction between big 'C' and small 'c' communism. Either way the word is too tainted for me and I never trusted Marx anyways.

Anarchism would be ideal in a small community but in our present mass society it would be a nightmare, I would rather live in this quasi-socialist state we are in now.

[#FF0000]

Well some would make a distinction between big 'C' and small 'c' communism. Either way the word is too tainted for me and I never trusted Marx anyways.

Anarchism would be ideal in a small community but in our present mass society it would be a nightmare, I would rather live in this quasi-socialist state we are in now.

So you're a liberal democrat then?

[RadioRaheem84]

I've lost my hope in Amerikkka as well:(Cold war propaganda is so deeply projected into those people that they will denounce whatever comes slightly close to socialism or contains even a tiny portion of red principles.Yet they are ready to embrace any paranoid paranatural conspiracy theory or trend.Who knows, I might be overly to the pessimistic side about that

Yes, my country has been massively effected by the Cold War propaganda. Some of it is a good thing like being distrustful of a giant over reaching state (and sometimes corporate power) but most of it is bad as anything that helps society as a whole is seen as part of that overreaching state. Somehow they translate "worker owned" to mean "state owned", as in the state owns the means of production on behalf of the worker, i.e. not really changing the social relations of power only shifting them from a private to public entity. As if the country is to be run like the post office or something. There is no way, in this nation, to make socialism sound any different than that. The definition is fixed. Anything to the contrary would just sound strange to Americans and would seem like a rouse to instate Statism into the country (as if there isn't a whole bunch now!).

Although, if we were to effectively promote our ideas of work run and managed enterprises and show successful examples of them in the world, this could work. The idea of worker self determination and self management could translate favorably to a lot of Americans. ALL of the working class types I mentioned this to love the idea, it was mostly the middle class manager and petite-bourgeois types that I talked to that disliked the idea.

All of them though thought that the concept wasn't socialist but capitalist. The more Randian types couldn't get around the concept and kept insisting that worker run in socialist terms means state owned. So what must also be done in this instance is to not let the cappies usurp the co-op movement and have them translate it as some "multi-owner" capitalist enterprise scheme.

[Calmwinds]

It really seems dishonest to put capitalists in the same group as fascists or nazis.

I've lost my hope in Amerikkka as well:(Cold war propaganda is so deeply projected into those people that they will denounce whatever comes slightly close to socialism or contains even a tiny portion of red principles.Yet they are ready to embrace any paranoid paranatural conspiracy theory or trend.Who knows, I might be overly to the pessimistic side about that

It's not like they are unjustified in it. Most of them truly believe in the horrors of cold war propaganda and if the propaganda was true, they would certainly be rightfully afraid of that sort of mythic monster of communism. Some also truly believe that socialism/communism is not the best choice, and are not doing it for 'money' or for the 'capitalist system'. They truly do believe that socialism is not for the best welfare of its people, and it so happens that those people are present in greatest number in America.

I mean, the battle first has to start with actually making 'socialist' and 'communist' not a insult by clearing up the fears that are assosiated with those terms, maybe then we can get somewhere.

[Killfacer]

We're not fighting a losing battle, we're just fighting a battle in which the only direction we've moved in the past 50 years is backwards.

[RadioRaheem84]

It really seems dishonest to put capitalists in the same group as fascists or nazis.


It's not like they are unjustified in it. Most of them truly believe in the horrors of cold war propaganda and if the propaganda was true, they would certainly be rightfully afraid of that sort of mythic monster of communism. Some also truly believe that socialism/communism is not the best choice, and are not doing it for 'money' or for the 'capitalist system'. They truly do believe that socialism is not for the best welfare of its people, and it so happens that those people are present in greatest number in America.

I mean, the battle first has to start with actually making 'socialist' and 'communist' not a insult by clearing up the fears that are assosiated with those terms, maybe then we can get somewhere.

This is true. I don't blame them. I mean, how can you? The average American really believes that they are free in this nation (and to a large extent, we are). When they think of Communism and or socialism, they think of rebels coming into their home or taking over the state and instigating control over their daily lives through fascist like coercion.

Although, they also oppose democratic socialism, or what they think of as socialism in Europe.

[Invincible Summer]

Well some would make a distinction between big 'C' and small 'c' communism. Either way the word is too tainted for me and I never trusted Marx anyways.

Why don't you "trust Marx?" What has he ever done to you?

And to be frank, radicals/revolutionaries can't let small things like communism's bad rep within the mainstream get to them. They continue the struggle, despite the obstacles, to get people thinking about/acting on egalitarian ideas.

If someone called you "stupid," would you stop learning things or doing things the way you normally do them, just because you know someone thinks you're "stupid?" Probably not. You'd work harder to show them that you're not stupid, yes?


Anarchism would be ideal in a small community but in our present mass society it would be a nightmare, I would rather live in this quasi-socialist state we are in now.The end goal of anarchism is basically communism (stateless, classless society). How would it be a nightmare, especially given the networking technologies of the modern age?

I understand that it's difficult to fathom uprooting the capitalist system and replacing it with communism (and many commies have only a vague clue as to what a communist system should look like, myself included), but basically becoming apathetic and saying that you're content with the way things are now is defeatist. You may be comfortable with the way Canada operates now, but what about in 5, 10, 50 years? Capitalism unchecked (i.e. without opposition) will only make lives worse for people around the world, and it is very doubtful that quasi-democratic-socialist states will be able to uphold their egalitarian values against growing bourgeois influence.





Although, they also oppose democratic socialism, or what they think of as socialism in Europe.

Yeah, what's with that? Sure, you get taxed a lot, but isn't it better to have a "free" education and healthcare, rather than paying tens of thousands just to get a college education or a hip replacement? Why do lots of conservative Americans seem to WANT inequality?

[which doctor]

Many good points have been raised, but I would also like to point out how the general trend in history has been steering exponentially to the left. When you compare the society of the 1000's and 1900's you can see what I am talking about.

I don't think you can really compare the 1000's to the 1900's in terms of a "left," and if you do, you have a pretty broad conception of "the left." The most significant differences betweens these two epochs are the means of production on which they were based on, feudalism and industrial capitalism, respectively. Marxists, as well as anyone else who wants to emancipate the working-class and create communism, should speak of their role within the left as that of being the historical subject of the dialectical half of the proletariat, a specific product of industrial capitalism. There may very well be a historical tendency for the exploited to fight against their exploiters, as seen in the various peasant and slave revolts of the feudal times, but we as leftists should concern ourselves most immediately with how the proletariat will act as the mover of historical blocks this time.

The question "Are leftists fighting a losing battle" is a false one because it is not a battle in the traditional sense of the word because it boundaries are in now way definite. I think as long as capitalism exists, there will be the tendency to overcome it through class struggle, and thus the possibility of communism. We're not necessarily 'losing' the battle because it's not a battle that can be definitively lost. But to assume that if we're not losing it, we must be winning it, would be to instill a false optimism and self-confidence in the belief that things will naturally progress from capitalism to communism, as if guided by some mystical spirit. We must remember that its humans who make their own history.

[#FF0000]

It really seems dishonest to put capitalists in the same group as fascists or nazis.

Why?

[Antiks72]

Do you think that Leftists/Communists/Socialists/Anarchists/Feminists/etc are in reality fighting a losing battle against the Capitalists/Fascists/Nazis/etc? Is there any hope for a better future? Or does the future look bleak?

There is no fight, and there is no movement. Nothing has changed yet. I would say things are bleak right now, but that doesn't mean something CAN'T happen in the future to precipitate public unrest. Frankly however, I don't see that happening right now. As far as leadership is concerned, there's really nobody I see that grabs me. The only thing I'm seeing is a lot of in house mental masturbation and arguing on things in the past, things that really don't matter much for the time being. Radical leftism is hopelessly fragmented right now with no end in site.

[ZeroNowhere]

It really seems dishonest to put capitalists in the same group as fascists or nazis.I'm fairly sure Nazi Germany was as capitalist as Sweden and such. Which is to say, purely so. As well as the economies supported by most fascists, unless there are some who would prefer feudalism which I have not heard of.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm fairly sure Nazi Germany was as capitalist as Sweden and such. Which is to say, purely so. As well as the economies supported by most fascists, unless there are some who would prefer feudalism which I have not heard of.


Agreed. It was more or less run like an authoritarian social democratic state, if that makes any sense.

[Hexen]

There is no fight, and there is no movement. Nothing has changed yet. I would say things are bleak right now, but that doesn't mean something CAN'T happen in the future to precipitate public unrest. Frankly however, I don't see that happening right now. As far as leadership is concerned, there's really nobody I see that grabs me. The only thing I'm seeing is a lot of in house mental masturbation and arguing on things in the past, things that really don't matter much for the time being. Radical leftism is hopelessly fragmented right now with no end in site.

Looks like Capitalism is driving this world into hell in a handbasket after all....

[chegitz guevara]

You know, the cappies can destroy the environment. We don't win if they do that.

We are in a race against time. Our job isn't just to make the revolution. Literally, we are the only hope of saving civilization, and billions of human beings. We have a generation or two in which to succeed.



No pressure.