How many Left-wing Radicals exist in America?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I have heard from some sources that it is no more than about 15,000. The person that told me this says you can get an accurate number simply by either taking the parties that exist at their word about their size (party members are usually honest if you're nice to them and they think they could potentially recruit you) and adding up the numbers, or if you want to be critical, only taking the number of people who show up to their Congresses (as these are the most serious and committed cadre of the organization).

The largest Left group seems to be the ISO at 2,000 or so (so they claim, and which seems reasonable, judging by the attendance numbers at their yearly Socialism 20XX gatherings). People say that the ISO is several times larger than even the next largest group, but that the next largest groups are all roughly the same size (200-500).

There are also probably quite a large number of Left-wing Radicals who are not affiliated with any well known groups, but for accounting purposes, their size is inherently unknownable.

Sometimes people will cite mass surveys and claim "11%" of people think communism is good or whatever, but these surveys seem basically meaningless to me. There was an article in The New Yorker that came out in 2004, which makes me believe only about 10% of the population even properly understands bourgeois politics as presented by the mainstream corporate media, much less the world of Radical Leftism. So I just dismiss all that out of hand.

In Lenin's pamphlet Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, written on the verge of the October Revolution, Lenin claims the size of the Bolsheviks was 240,000 members in a country with a population of about 150,000,000.



Since the 1905 revolution, Russia has been governed by 130,000 landowners, who have perpetrated endless violence against 150,000,000 people, heaped unconstrained abuse upon them, and condemned the vast majority to inhuman toil and semi-starvation.


Yet we are told that the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik Party will not be able to govern Russia, govern her in the interests of the poor and against the rich. These 240,000 are already backed by no less than a million votes of the adult population, for this is precisely the proportion between the number of Party members and the number of votes cast for the Party that has been established by the experience of Europe and the experience of Russia as shown, for example, by the elections to the Petrograd City Council last August. We therefore already have a "state apparatus" of one million people devoted to the socialist state for the sake of high ideals and not for the sake of a fat sum received on the 20th of every month.

The ratio here is 1 to 625. For every one Bolshevik, there were 625 people in Russia. That is roughly 0.16% of the population, or roughly two tenths of 1 percent. Assuming any Revolutionary Party needed a similar ratio in the United States, we would need a party with about 500,800 people in it.

If this is the magic number needed for a communist revolution, it seems to indicate to me that society should start seeing the effects of communist agitation long before this is ever reached. Even though the entirety of the organized Radical Left in America is much smaller, does that mean it is irrelevant?

I don't think so. I would think, as the number of committed communist cadres increased, the Labor Aristocracy would need a corresponding increase in size, in order for the bourgeoisie to maintain control over the working class and mislead them. How large the Labor Aristocracy is, is another question entirely, though I would assume there is probably a rough formula that someone could come up with by studying the history of past revolutions and especially past failed revolutions in Europe.

So, anyone have any information on this matter?

[BIXX]

While personally I don't support a vanguard policy, I think it would be interesting to somehow get an accurate count of all the leftists in the United States, and eventually, the world.
I think there are probably far more leftists in the US than what we seem to be seeing, however, I don't think that as of now we are all as organized as we'd need to be for a revolution.

Edited to add: I like this post. I would like to see some in depth research on this matter.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

While personally I don't support a vanguard policy, I think it would be interesting to somehow get an accurate count of all the leftists in the United States, and eventually, the world.
I think there are probably far more leftists in the US than what we seem to be seeing, however, I don't think that as of now we are all as organized as we'd need to be for a revolution.

Edited to add: I like this post. I would like to see some in depth research on this matter.

Thank you for your kind words, Comrade!

Many groups exaggerate their size, but in my experience, this is usually done only to a limited extent. If they claim to have 300 members, they usually only have about half that in committed cadre. I think attendance of National Congresses is a good gauge of the actual size and potential influence of a Radical Leftist party, and in my experience, the claimed number of members, divided in half, is about the amount that show up to important organizational meetings (usually a Congress, but not every group does that).

Another interesting piece of data would be the actual number of Democratic and Republican party operatives (for lack of a better word). How many people are actually engaged in the day-to-day work of these two bourgeois parties? My experience tells me it is much smaller than one might at first guess, but I haven't done any research on it.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

I always appreciate quantitative approaches to revolutionary science, but let's not forget an important qualitative factor: the class composition of pre-revolutionary Russia vs. the current-day United States.

pre-revolutionary Russia actually had a peasant majority, and while the Bolsheviks managed to get a decent amount of them on board, they had much fuller social penetration in the industrial proletariat; this turned out to be the decisive factor.* the working classes of the United States, even in the agrarian sector, can almost universally be characterized as one type of proletariat or another, and therefore we have a greater challenge ahead of us in terms of proportionality of revolutionaries to the general population.


*please excuse the sexy-sounding terminology

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

I always appreciate quantitative approaches to revolutionary science, but let's not forget an important qualitative factor: the class composition of pre-revolutionary Russia vs. the current-day United States.

pre-revolutionary Russia actually had a peasant majority, and while the Bolsheviks managed to get a decent amount of them on board, they had much fuller social penetration in the industrial proletariat; this turned out to be the decisive factor.* the working classes of the United States, even in the agrarian sector, can almost universally be characterized as one type of proletariat or another, and therefore we have a greater challenge ahead of us in terms of proportionality of revolutionaries to the general population.

There are many things different today, that is definitely true. Lenin himself commented on how much more difficult it would be for American revolutionaries than it was for the Bolsheviks. To quote Lenin:



It goes without saying that, out of this tidy sum, at least five hundred millions can be spent as a sop to the labour leaders and the labour aristocracy, i.e., on all sorts of bribes. The whole thing boils down to nothing but bribery. It is done in a thousand different ways: by increasing cultural facilities in the largest centres, by creating educational institutions, and by providing co-operative, trade union and parliamentary leaders with thousands of cushy jobs. This is done wherever present-day civilised capitalist relations exist. It is these thousands of millions in super-profits that form the economic basis of opportunism in the working-class movement. In America, Britain and France we see a far greater persistence of the opportunist leaders, of the upper crust of the working class, the labour aristocracy; they offer stronger resistance to the Communist movement. That is why we must be prepared to find it harder for the European and American workers’ parties to get rid of this disease than was the case in our country. We know that enormous successes have been achieved in the treatment of this disease since the Third International was formed, but we have not yet finished the job; the purging of the workers’ parties, the revolutionary parties of the proletariat all over the world, of bourgeois influences, of the opportunists in their ranks, is very far from complete.

There are many things different today that could give us an advantage as well. Even though it seems the bourgeoisie has used mass media technologies like television to better control the population, it seems the internet to me is one avenue to much more effectively Agitate the workers and Propagandize the advanced section of the working class.

But there is also the questing of mapping out the Labor Aristocracy, and determining how to best stomp out this disease in the labor movement.

In any case, figuring out where we are at is necessary for us to figure out where we are going, and how to best proceed.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It would be pretty impossible to know the exact number since so many unaffiliated radicals exist. I think that is one reason joining a party should be encouraged.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

It would be pretty impossible to know the exact number since so many unaffiliated radicals exist. I think that is one reason joining a party should be encouraged.

I would personally guess it is no greater than the section of the Radical Left that is within a group. You have to ask, who radicalized these people in the first place?

But anyone know of any numbers regarding the size of the Democratic Party in terms of party operatives/cadre (for lack of a better term what to call someone who actively organizes for the Democrats)?

[Geiseric]

A better comparison would be bolsheviks : total working class, which was about 10,000,000. That is the only demographic which communism appeals to. Peasantry doesn't usually pump out too may communists, and poor peasantry has not much capibility to independently organize for communism.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

A better comparison would be bolsheviks : total working class, which was about 10,000,000. That is the only demographic which communism appeals to. Peasantry doesn't usually pump out too may communists, and poor peasantry has not much capibility to independently organize for communism.

Well, I don't think the peasants can simply be ignored. The Bolsheviks did a lot to win them over. Nor could they have retained State power by simply ignoring them. Lenin specifically doesn't ignore them when talking about retaining power in Russia, and tried to appeal to them on the basis of land reform. "Peace, Land, Bread!" and all that, remember?

Also, do you have a source on the number of workers in Russia before the revolution?

[Let's Get Free]

The "radical left" has been decaying for decades now.

[Skyhilist]

I think that a vanguard party would fail miserably in America, especially with only .16% Being a part of it. But one thing that might be helpful was I rember from a recent poll that 11% of Americans said they'd support the U.S. going communist.

[Per Levy]

The ratio here is 1 to 625. For every one Bolshevik, there were 625 people in Russia. That is roughly 0.16% of the population, or roughly two tenths of 1 percent. Assuming any Revolutionary Party needed a similar ratio in the United States, we would need a party with about 500,800 people in it.

If this is the magic number needed for a communist revolution, it seems to indicate to me that society should start seeing the effects of communist agitation long before this is ever reached. Even though the entirety of the organized Radical Left in America is much smaller, does that mean it is irrelevant?

communists dont make revolutions, workers do though and to be quite honest, knowing many of the partys of the "radical left" in the usa the lesser the better, let them all be gone and their shitty politics with them.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

communists dont make revolutions, workers do though and to be quite honest, knowing many of the partys of the "radical left" in the usa the lesser the better, let them all be gone and their shitty politics with them.

Do "workers" make revolution just any old way? If so, why hasn't there been a workers' revolution in America?

How do workers take power without a party?

[Drosophila]

Do "workers" make revolution just any old way? If so, why hasn't there been a workers' revolution in America?

Because the American working class hasn't gotten to the point where it has decided to organize itself against capitalism. Also, why is "workers" in quotations?


How do workers take power without a party?They operate the means of production, therefore they can stop capital's function.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Leftist tradition and culture is dying in America, and it's a good thing too.

[Skyhilist]

The Leftist tradition and culture is dying in America, and it's a good thing too.

Could you clarify why this is a good thing?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Could you clarify why this is a good thing?

I view left-wing activism as mostly being about conserving a certain political culture that belongs to the past.
A lot of "ultra-left" communists dislike The Left. You should read Tiqqun.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A number in the tens of thousands does sound about right, with maybe a million or two sympathisers who aren't affiliated with an organization. If we're being generous.

While people often overstate the influence of the far-right in the USA on this board, I do think that as a "radical tradition" they have a lot more influence than the far-left. Not in the sense of fascism or neo-nazism or whatever, but more in the sense of right-wing populism. "Revolution" here often seems to have a connotation of overthrowing the government, cleaning the scum out of Washington DC and getting the USA back to it's original intent as a uncorrupted republic for the people. Just something I've noticed.

[Comrade Nasser]

I have heard from some sources that it is no more than about 15,000. The person that told me this says you can get an accurate number simply by either taking the parties that exist at their word about their size (party members are usually honest if you're nice to them and they think they could potentially recruit you) and adding up the numbers, or if you want to be critical, only taking the number of people who show up to their Congresses (as these are the most serious and committed cadre of the organization).

The largest Left group seems to be the ISO at 2,000 or so (so they claim, and which seems reasonable, judging by the attendance numbers at their yearly Socialism 20XX gatherings). People say that the ISO is several times larger than even the next largest group, but that the next largest groups are all roughly the same size (200-500).

There are also probably quite a large number of Left-wing Radicals who are not affiliated with any well known groups, but for accounting purposes, their size is inherently unknownable.

Sometimes people will cite mass surveys and claim "11%" of people think communism is good or whatever, but these surveys seem basically meaningless to me. There was an article in The New Yorker that came out in 2004, which makes me believe only about 10% of the population even properly understands bourgeois politics as presented by the mainstream corporate media, much less the world of Radical Leftism. So I just dismiss all that out of hand.

In Lenin's pamphlet Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, written on the verge of the October Revolution, Lenin claims the size of the Bolsheviks was 240,000 members in a country with a population of about 150,000,000.



The ratio here is 1 to 625. For every one Bolshevik, there were 625 people in Russia. That is roughly 0.16% of the population, or roughly two tenths of 1 percent. Assuming any Revolutionary Party needed a similar ratio in the United States, we would need a party with about 500,800 people in it.

If this is the magic number needed for a communist revolution, it seems to indicate to me that society should start seeing the effects of communist agitation long before this is ever reached. Even though the entirety of the organized Radical Left in America is much smaller, does that mean it is irrelevant?

I don't think so. I would think, as the number of committed communist cadres increased, the Labor Aristocracy would need a corresponding increase in size, in order for the bourgeoisie to maintain control over the working class and mislead them. How large the Labor Aristocracy is, is another question entirely, though I would assume there is probably a rough formula that someone could come up with by studying the history of past revolutions and especially past failed revolutions in Europe.

So, anyone have any information on this matter?

I would say there is about 20,000 of us. That's just an estimated guess. I'd like to think we outnumber fascists, racists, and capitalists, but sadly we do not :crying:

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Quick answer: not enough.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The largest Left group seems to be the ISO at 2,000 or soUnfortunately it's about half that. I guess if "fellow travelers" counted, then maybe 2000 would be about right.

But regardless there are far too few radicals in the US in general. We've been through a long drought - some of the left is a bit damaged from it - but I think Occupy and international events show - and just some of the new pressures of this economic shift means - that we can begin to rebuild. Things are at least a little more contested now even if action and organization is lacking, and ongoing instability and austerity means some people will be looking for some way to push back.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I don't think the peasants can simply be ignored. The Bolsheviks did a lot to win them over. Nor could they have retained State power by simply ignoring them. Lenin specifically doesn't ignore them when talking about retaining power in Russia, and tried to appeal to them on the basis of land reform. "Peace, Land, Bread!" and all that, remember?...

And how many peasants do you think there are in the USA?

I think Broody's point was this:

Russia; Bolsheviks = 250,000: workers = 10,000,000, therefore ratio of revolutionaries to workers = 1:40 (this ignores the other revolutionary groups in Russia of course, but the Bolsheviks were the biggest to be sure)

USA; all 'revolutionaries & socialists' = 20,000: workers = 200,000,000 therefore ratio of revolutionaries to workers = 1:10,000

So if the 'magic number' is 1 in 40, 'the Left' in the US would have to be 250x bigger than it is now to reach that number.

If the point is numbers anyway.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Because the American working class hasn't gotten to the point where it has decided to organize itself against capitalism.

What does that even mean? How do groups of people "organize" themselves in anything but organizations, like political parties?


Also, why is "workers" in quotations?

Because a certain percentage of American workers are bribed with imperialist super-profits to go along with the system. Many, many Americans support the system because it provides a better standard of living than socialism would provide them.


They operate the means of production, therefore they can stop capital's function.

This doesn't mean anything. Yes, abstractly, workers can take power because they "operate the means of production." But how do they organize themselves as a class to do that?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

And how many peasants do you think there are in the USA?

Essentially none. Southern sharecroppers seem to be the last segment of US society that could be treated like peasants, but that doesn't really exist anymore.

However, I don't think you can ignore them. A revolution without the peasants on board in a mostly peasant-based society isn't going to be much of a revolution.

The question isn't "What ratio of communist cadre do we need to workers."

If you lived in a hypothetical underdeveloped country with 100,000,000 people, which had only 1 million workers, could you hold State power by simply appealing to that group? I would think not.

This is why I object to that sort of reasoning.

[Drosophila]

What does that even mean? How do groups of people "organize" themselves in anything but organizations, like political parties?

An organization is not necessarily a political party. A party is something with a specific ideology that usually involves itself in the political theater of a given nation. The IWW is not a party, but it is an organization. See where I'm going?



Because a certain percentage of American workers are bribed with imperialist super-profits to go along with the system. Many, many Americans support the system because it provides a better standard of living than socialism would provide them.


Yup. Doesn't mean they aren't workers.


This doesn't mean anything. Yes, abstractly, workers can take power because they "operate the means of production." But how do they organize themselves as a class to do that?

"Abstractly?" What the hell are you talking about? Like I said before, a group can organize itself without forming into an ideological sect.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

An organization is not necessarily a political party. A party is something with a specific ideology that usually involves itself in the political theater of a given nation. The IWW is not a party, but it is an organization. See where I'm going?

What sort of organization do you think can capture State power then? The IWW never did, though it was probably the best labor organization America ever had. Today it is just a shadow of its former self.


Yup. Doesn't mean they aren't workers.It means they are paid servants of the imperialist bourgeoisie, whose job it is to lie to the working class of their country, in order to rob the wealth of workers from other nations.

Which means they deserve to go to the firing squad.


"Abstractly?" What the hell are you talking about?It's a polite way of saying you're spouting meaningless drivel.


Like I said before, a group can organize itself without forming into an ideological sect.What binds an organization besides a set of commonly held beliefs and goals?

[Drosophila]

What sort of organization do you think can capture State power then? The IWW never did, though it was probably the best labor organization America ever had. Today it is just a shadow of its former self.

*sigh* I was only using the IWW as an example of something that is an organization but not a party. I don't care about the group at all.

The U.S. has never been in a revolutionary situation. Never in its history has the American working class revolted against capitalism. This isn't because there aren't enough left-wing radicals, or because there is too much sectarianism within the left, or because all the workers are mindless drones drenched in a sea of false consciousness. It just hasn't happened, and it isn't the business of angst-ridden leftist intellectuals to figure out why.


It means they are paid servants of the imperialist bourgeoisie, whose job it is to lie to the working class of their country, in order to rob the wealth of workers from other nations.Ah yes, all those dreadful minimum wage workers being financed by the Illuminati to brainwash their fellow workers! I wonder if the American "workers" have mind-control chips implanted in their brains.


Which means they deserve to go to the firing squad.lol



It's a polite way of saying you're spouting meaningless drivel.Fuck off. You're the one spouting elitist, anti-worker garbage.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

*sigh* I was only using the IWW as an example of something that is an organization but not a party. I don't care about the group at all.Why not care? I presume we all claim to want a revolution in America, so we should be concerned about how to bring it about, and what sort of organizations are capable of doing this.

That you don't seem to care about such questions makes me wonder.


The U.S. has never been in a revolutionary situation. Never in its history has the American working class revolted against capitalism. This isn't because there aren't enough left-wing radicals, or because there is too much sectarianism within the left, or because all the workers are mindless drones drenched in a sea of false consciousness.I completely agree. I think it is because the imperialist bourgeoisie pays off professional liars to keep the workers under the political control of the bourgeoisie.



It just hasn't happened, and it isn't the business of angst-ridden leftist intellectuals to figure out why. Except we already have an explanation for why it hasn't happened. The workers are being systematically mislead and lied to by a certain segment of the leadership of the Labor Aristocracy.

I suppose a better question is, why hasn't the Labor Aristocracy been exposed and fought against by people who claim to want proletarian revolution in America?


Ah yes, all those dreadful minimum wage workers being financed by the Illuminati to brainwash their fellow workers! I wonder if the American "workers" have mind-control chips implanted in their brains.It's called the television.


Fuck off. You're the one spouting elitist, anti-worker garbage.My! What's the matter, you don't like talking about the Labor Aristocracy? :laugh:

[Red Commissar]

It'd be hard to say honestly. There are probably many people who have our views but would not identify as such either because they're misinformed into thinking socialism is an elitist thing or seem fine calling themselves liberals.

And then there's the additional problem that many of us might look at their views and think they aren't really socialists, either because of some godawful political positions (ex homophobic) or misconceptions (again), even if they think themselves as such.

[Blake's Baby]

The title of this thread is "How many Left-wing Radicals exist in America?"

You then go on to draaw a comparison between Russia in 1917 and the USA.


...

In Lenin's pamphlet Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?, written on the verge of the October Revolution, Lenin claims the size of the Bolsheviks was 240,000 members in a country with a population of about 150,000,000.



The ratio here is 1 to 625. For every one Bolshevik, there were 625 people in Russia. That is roughly 0.16% of the population, or roughly two tenths of 1 percent. Assuming any Revolutionary Party needed a similar ratio in the United States, we would need a party with about 500,800 people in it...

However, you then go on to say


... A revolution without the peasants on board in a mostly peasant-based society isn't going to be much of a revolution.

The question isn't "What ratio of communist cadre do we need to workers."

If you lived in a hypothetical underdeveloped country with 100,000,000 people, which had only 1 million workers, could you hold State power by simply appealing to that group? I would think not.

This is why I object to that sort of reasoning.

So: are you talking about the USA or are you talking about a hypothetical underdeveloped country with 100,000,000 people, which had only 1 million workers (and presumably 98 million peasants)?

If you decide what you're asking questions about, we can start to answer them. Or, you can continue flailing about, disagereing with the paramenters of the questions that you have posed.

[Per Levy]

The U.S. has never been in a revolutionary situation. Never in its history has the American working class revolted against capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

wouldnt that count as revolt against capitalism? i know its a long time gone but hey, it happend.


Which means they deserve to go to the firing squad.

oh boy, thankfully people like you will never have power and more importently no power to force your views on others. and if you have fantasys about being an allpowerfull tyrant who can send people to firing squads, play a video game or something, there is probally one that will fit you fantasys.


If you lived in a hypothetical underdeveloped country with 100,000,000 people, which had only 1 million workers, could you hold State power by simply appealing to that group? I would think not.

are there even countries that have such a low worker ratio? i kinda doubt it, i mean its 2013 and not 1900.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think it's possible that about 1% of the American public more or less falls into the radical left camp in terms of their personal views, many are potentially just soviet tankies and some are quite serious, and I'd be surprised if 10% or more of that 1% is organized into anything (I'm including occupy). I'd say maybe another 5% or so is quite sympathetic but don't quite put their critique in terms of the "radical left", and a large fraction of that is marginalized (e.g., in jail, pre-tertiary education students, immigrants particularly from poor peasant communities in the global south, and some off the grid types). I'd say that there would be another core of about 10-20% or so of the population that would be "persuadable" and are in fact socialists in all but name but do not admit it, at least not now. These are the people that routinely answer pollsters that they would favor socialism/communism in America etc...

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

So: are you talking about the USA or are you talking about a hypothetical underdeveloped country with 100,000,000 people, which had only 1 million workers (and presumably 98 million peasants)?It's pretty obvious I am talking about two different things. One thing you quote me is from the beginning of the post, talking about the ratio of Bolsheviks to the Russian population. The other thing you quote is response to why you shouldn't leave out peasants from the equation. Which I didn't in the first place.

Why that is difficult for you, I can't quite understand...


If you decide what you're asking questions about, we can start to answer them.I asked how many Radical Leftists exists in America. Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at it?

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

oh boy, thankfully people like you will never have powerI think it's obvious, that when/if there is a revolution in America, all the people who call themselves socialists, but act as servants of the bourgeoisie, will be dealt with like the vermin they are. In fact, I would assume most of them would join in open counter-revolution with the bourgeoisie and fascists, just like they always do.


are there even countries that have such a low worker ratio?It's called a thought experiment.