Whatever Happened to the American Left?

[Bud Struggle]

An interesting article in th New York Times from a history professor at my old Alma Mater. (I never met the guy.)



SOMETIMES, attention should be paid to the absence of news. America’s economic miseries continue, with unemployment still high and home sales stagnant or dropping.The gap between the wealthiest Americans and their fellow citizens is wider than it has been since the 1920s.
And yet, except for the demonstrations and energetic recall campaigns that roiled Wisconsin this year, unionists and other stern critics of corporate power and government cutbacks have failed to organize a serious movement against the people and policies that bungled the United States into recession.


Like the left in the early 20th century, conservatives built an impressive set of institutions to develop and disseminate their ideas. Their think tanks, legal societies, lobbyists, talk radio and best-selling manifestos have trained, educated and financed two generations of writers and organizers. Conservative Christian colleges, both Protestant and Catholic, provide students with a more coherent worldview than do the more prestigious schools led by liberals. More recently, conservatives marshaled media outlets like Fox News and the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal to their cause.

(Of course the Left DOES have RevLeft!)


The Tea Party is thus just the latest version of a movement that has been evolving for over half a century, longer than any comparable effort on the liberal or radical left. Conservatives have rarely celebrated a landslide win on the scale of Proposition 13, but their argument about the evils of big government has, by and large, carried the day. President Obama’s inability to solve the nation’s economic woes has only reinforced the right’s ideological advantage.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/whatever-happened-to-the-american-left.html?_r=1

[Imposter Marxist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

[RGacky3]

Differences between now and then

1. HUGE corporate influence, back then money in politics was not nearly what is now.

2. Corporate Media, HUGE now, not that big back then (downplays the left, down plays pro-worker, pro-democracy things, up plays everything pro-buisiness.)

3. Monied PACs, not much back then HUGE now.

4. Union busting is a big industry now, not back then.

5. 2 (or 3) red scares.

6. 50 years of a cold war.

Now ALL THAT COMBINED and its amazing that there is a left in the US, a weak one yes, but one that is growing and strengthening, slowly and without the sparkle of the tea-party, but its there, progressive groups are shooting up, anti-corporate groups, unions are getting traction again, pro-democracy groups.

You can't compare it to the right wing, because they have corporate backing, they have the ruling class behind them, the same with the tea-party, they only became something when they got corporate backing, and they'll go back to being nothing once they loose it, thats what this article is ignoring, the fact that the right wing has the estabilishment and the corporate plutocracy behind them.

But the left in America has it much harder than the left in most of the developed world, due to the strength of the ruling class and the history.

(Btw, its not Obamas inability, its the fact that its not what he wants, his goal is making sure corpoate America likes him).

[Bud Struggle]

The left had lots of victories in the 50-70s. They lost momentum. And the Right was much better at what they do. It was organized. The point is that the Left was occupied with other thngs and they LET the Right gain the intelectual ground.

They could have fought but didn't.

[Commissar Rykov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
The US Bourgeoisie spent a lot of time and money crushing the Left everywhere its head creeped up. The only reason now we are left alone is because we are so divided and disorganized we don't present a real threat.

[RGacky3]

The left had lots of victories in the 50-70s. They lost momentum. And the Right was much better at what they do. It was organized. The point is that the Left was occupied with other thngs and they LET the Right gain the intelectual ground.

They could have fought but didn't.


One critique I have of the left of the 60s and 70s was the so called "New Left" which did'nt focus on basic worker economic issues and fighting capitalism and instead focused on social fights, all the time in the late 70s and 80s, when the neo-liberal sweep came, the working class left did'nt have the strength to fight back, they were too busy fighting for imporant but not as important social issues imo.

What changed imo, was money in politics, a huge rise in corporate power and essencialy the form of super-capitalism we have today, which obviously benefits the right and not the left.

But I'm happy that finally the left is waking up and realizing that its economic issues, fighting capitalism, fighting for workers that is whats gonna make a real difference.

Thats why a protest on wallstreet rather than washington is the way things should be going, and why US Uncut doing anti-bank action is much better than a DC protest.

It also seams that slowly but surely some of the big players in the Union movement, are abandoning the democrats and becoming more independant, an independant union movement is a step forward, giving it more room for militancy, and within the union movement you have pro-democracy movements, a democratic independant union movement imo is essencial.

[Welshy]

Differences between now and then

1. HUGE corporate influence, back then money in politics was not nearly what is now.

2. Corporate Media, HUGE now, not that big back then (downplays the left, down plays pro-worker, pro-democracy things, up plays everything pro-buisiness.)

3. Monied PACs, not much back then HUGE now.

4. Union busting is a big industry now, not back then.

5. 2 (or 3) red scares.

6. 50 years of a cold war.

Besides for 5 and 6, I don't understand why people have this image of now being worse than it was back in the 1890-1920's. To be honest if the left today had to deal with the deportations, use of military on strikers, and the incarcerations for speaking out against war and so on, we'd probably shit ourselves out of fear. Also things were pretty damn corrupted back then as well. And that's just the US. In Russia the bolsheviks had to deal with a situation that I can't imagine todays left being able to deal with.

[Dumb]

Besides for 5 and 6, I don't understand why people have this image of now being worse than it was back in the 1890-1920's. To be honest if the left today had to deal with the deportations, use of military on strikers, and the incarcerations for speaking out against war and so on, we'd probably shit ourselves out of fear. Also things were pretty damn corrupted back then as well. And that's just the US. In Russia the bolsheviks had to deal with a situation that I can't imagine todays left being able to deal with.

In terms of stifling dissent, the threat of state violence is less effective than the appearance that said dissent has been historically discredited.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

...it drowned in a sea of conservative an liberal propaganda...

[Red Commissar]

The problem I have with this article is it speaks more through the point of the 'progressive' liberals rather than the 'left' as we may see it on this site. The author seems to engage in a lot of fantasizing about FDR and the New Deal, and the way labor rallied around it.

I think he's dismissive about the civil rights thing too, at least that's how it came across to me. Those were important gains that can't be understated, that often involved labor anyways. I find that people like him often think where the 'left' went wrong was when it shifted from that to civil rights, as if the two were somehow 'disconnected'.

The only good point he makes is that the current 'left'- by which I assume he means those who consider themselves 'progressive' are too obsessed with elections and politicians, rather than doing some of the tactics that don't involve going to the ballot box.

[Bud Struggle]

The problem I have with this article is it speaks more through the point of the 'progressive' liberals rather than the 'left' as we may see it on this site. The author seems to engage in a lot of fantasizing about FDR and the New Deal, and the way labor rallied around it.

I think he's dismissive about the civil rights thing too, at least that's how it came across to me. Those were important gains that can't be understated, that often involved labor anyways. I find that people like him often think where the 'left' went wrong was when it shifted from that to civil rights, as if the two were somehow 'disconnected'.

The only good point he makes is that the current 'left'- by which I assume he means those who consider themselves 'progressive' are too obsessed with elections and politicians, rather than doing some of the tactics that don't involve going to the ballot box.

You have to remember that the Radical Left--like it appears on this site--doesn't exist to any real exent in real life.

[Welshy]

In terms of stifling dissent, the threat of state violence is less effective than the appearance that said dissent has been historically discredited.

Which is why I didn't disagree with 5 and 6 on the list that RGacky made and to be honest I think it will be a rather big obstacle that american leftist will have to face, at least on the propaganda front.

[RGacky3]

You have to remember that the Radical Left--like it appears on this site--doesn't exist to any real exent in real life.

The radical left in real life was the driving force behind the new deal, FDR would have never passed it had it not been for the communist and socialist parties and the strong union movement.

In the United States the radical is much more subservient to progressives, and while there is a radical left it has no pull, in europe you have radical left parties for people to rally around.


Which is why I didn't disagree with 5 and 6 on the list that RGacky made and to be honest I think it will be a rather big obstacle that american leftist will have to face, at least on the propaganda front.

Your right, but if you look at corporate power now and then, just in monitary terms, and the disparity of wealth, and the giant pull that a few people have it is worse then.

Of coarse we arn't being shot when we strike or sent to prison anymore.

[Bud Struggle]

The radical left in real life was the driving force behind the new deal, FDR would have never passed it had it not been for the communist and socialist parties and the strong union movement. Yes, maybe but that's history. They ae all gone now. And for that matter there aren't many Progressives anyway. The Right has shifted he playing field on economics so far that if Reagan was alive today he would be considered a moderate. So would Nixon.
,

In the United States the radical is much more subservient to progressives, and while there is a radical left it has no pull, in Europe you have radical left parties for people to rally around. True, but the VERY Radical Right, i.e. Fascists and Nazis are much stronger and have considerably more political powe in Europe than thay have in the USA.

I could do with a non existant Radical Left so long as I don't have a strong Nazi party here in the US. It's not a bad trade off.

[tir1944]

Is it true that there are almost no communists in America/that they don't have any real influence among the masses?

[Bud Struggle]

Is it true that there are almost no communists in America/that they don't have any real influence among the masses?

Yes. They might have some influence 80 years ago. But they are all gone now. There are some Progressives, but almost no one that tows the real Marxist or Anarchinst line.

Every year the couple of fractured Communistesque parties run people for President, etc. and they always get a few hundred or maybe even a thousand votes--but that's about it.

[RGacky3]

And for that matter there aren't many Progressives anyway.

Among the American populace there are many progressives, a majority, problem is they are not organized, they are not as politically active and many are marginalized.

The right wings sucess recently and shifting hte economic field is almost entirely due to corporate support and the rise of corporate PACs, like the chamber of commerce.

your right about history, but we have to learn from history, FDR did'nt make the new deal, it was unions and socialists, they did'nt do it by supporting FDR, they did it by pushing him.

Progressives in America, who if you look at polls and statistics are hte majority have the problem of not having corporate support, not being policially active, not having any major political party behind them, having a bait and switch being done on them (like Obama) by the democrats and being opposed by corporations.

You'll obviously say "all they gotta do is start voting," and sure your right, but we have to look at this based on the facts and what is the political situation in the US, you have a small radical right movement with huge monied support and a monolithical political party behind them, and then a majority of progressive in the states in many movements, or in no movement, with almost no support and a weak tacid political party that only gives them lip service every now and then.


True, but the VERY Radical Right, i.e. Fascists and Nazis are much stronger and have considerably more political powe in Europe than thay have in the USA.


Ehhh, I would'nt say that, depends how you define radical right, the radical right in europe is no more radical than the tea party (actually they are much less radical), if your talking about skinheads, well then your just talking about racist thugs, and you have those here too.

There is NO connection betweeen having a radical left and a radical right, many countries that have strong a radical left have no radical right (meaning fascist), such as the country I'm in, and many others.

When it comes to the US I see the cup as half full, the left has survived almost unsurvivable odds and are pushing ahead and growing.

[RGacky3]

The communist/socialist parties of 80 years ago are not the left of today, nor should they be, we live in a different world now.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^Gee. there's nothing you said there that I disagree with. :) (Both posts.)

[Rafiq]

We took a blow in the 90's. A big one, with Neo Liberalism and 'economic growth'.

They were naive to think we would disappear. But we are back, and we are coming.

[Robert]

Is it true that there are almost no communists in AmericaYes


that they don't have any real influence among the masses? Also yes. (No offense, but is this really a surprise?) They don't have any real or even any superficial influence.


Comsters get all excited about worker demonstrations in places like Wisconsin, not understanding that if the demonstrators prevailed (which they didn't), they'd have the government implement Liberal reforms and safeguards, a pair of commie nightmares.

[RGacky3]

Comsters get all excited about worker demonstrations in places like Wisconsin, not understanding that if the demonstrators prevailed (which they didn't), they'd have the government implement Liberal reforms and safeguards, a pair of commie nightmares.

The more important outcome is not necessarily what reforms came out of it its much more the idea that WE have power, that working people can fight back, thats the victory that came out of Wisconsin.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes Indeed. But that doesn't mean they aren't fun to hand around and discuss things with. :)



The more important outcome is not necessarily what reforms came out of it its much more the idea that WE have power, that working people can fight back, thats the victory that came out of Wisconsin.

All it showed was how disorganized and how impotent the Left really is. What started out as an actual protest turned into a pizza eating hippie party.

When I sent the pizzas I knew you guys had lost.

[RGacky3]

All it showed was how disorganized and how impotent the Left really is. What started out as an actual protest turned into a pizza eating hippie party.

When I sent the pizzas I knew you guys had lost.

I don't think ANYONE has that view of the protest, other than you, who's just being a debbie downer.

[Prometeo liberado]

It's my contention that the Left in America has fallen by the way side for no other reason than that which started in the late 90's. When Walter O'malley sold the beloved Dodgers to fox I distinctly remember Gus Hall say "my days are done here, and so is that RAT Gorby!". All very simple.:thumbup1: