History of the Right

[Comrade #138672]

Has the Left ever been so weak in history as it is now? Have there been other periods when the Right was dominating the Left? How did the Left manage to reverse this then?

Surely this situation is not that unique.

[Questionable]

The Left has gone through periods of high and low strength throughout history. The policy of neoliberalism was specifically a response to powerful organized labor. Austrian Economics and Keynesianism were similar responses to the popularity of Marxism and successful revolutions, respectively.

[TheEmancipator]

French Revolution and the bourgeois revolution (back when they and the proletariat were united) that followed (and that was sadly hijacked by reactionaries instead of sticking to the french revolutionary principles) was a victory for the progressives.

"The Left" has only existed since, and its actually a term that I tend to reject, so its quite hard to put your finger on what could be categorised as leftist movements. We've definitely been weaker though. The late stages of the Roman Empire was hardly fun and games for humanist emancipators (they generally were fed for fun and games). In modern history, the Industrial Revolution, which is when Marx developed his thought, was a total dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under the false guise of democracy with census suffrage (pay to vote).

[Doflamingo]

I feel that one of the reasons the right-wing is so strong right now is because of politicians such as Ron Paul. They're relaying a new message to kids that they can have "REAL FREEDUMS" by strengthening capitalism and privatizing everything. Of course, gullible people will believe anything, and refuse to see the faults in their own way of thinking.

[Luís Henrique]

I feel that one of the reasons the right-wing is so strong right now is because of politicians such as Ron Paul. They're relaying a new message to kids that they can have "REAL FREEDUMS" by strengthening capitalism and privatizing everything. Of course, gullible people will believe anything, and refuse to see the faults in their own way of thinking.

What about the Real World? Paul isn't that popular in Finland, Kenya, Japan, Argentina, or Nepal.

Luís Henrique

[Slippers]

I feel that one of the reasons the right-wing is so strong right now is because of politicians such as Ron Paul. They're relaying a new message to kids that they can have "REAL FREEDUMS" by strengthening capitalism and privatizing everything. Of course, gullible people will believe anything, and refuse to see the faults in their own way of thinking.

Basically this.

I think Right-wing, Capitalist reactionaries are basically appropriating the "anti-establishment" angle the left has traditionally had.

[Red Nightmare]

During the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age, workers had hardly any rights at all, unions were suppressed, and bourgeois ideology was dominant. Also in the 1920s there was capitalism and repression of labor and communist movements. Of course this capitalism in the 1920s was what would lead to the Great Depression.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

The left was once strong, very strong, and that's why Thatcher appeared to discipline them. The way to beat the right now is to play them at their own game.

[Tim Cornelis]

I feel that one of the reasons the right-wing is so strong right now is because of politicians such as Ron Paul. They're relaying a new message to kids that they can have "REAL FREEDUMS" by strengthening capitalism and privatizing everything. Of course, gullible people will believe anything, and refuse to see the faults in their own way of thinking.

Don't be so Americancentric. Ron Paul is but a small insignificant smudge in the world. The right is strong worldwide. Even so-called "radical" and "far-left" parties (SYRIZA, Dutch Socialist Party, United Left Spain) today would have passed for "social-democratic" and "left-wing" in the 1960s. Every major communist party in Latin America is part of a centrist electoral coalition. We're pathetic.

[Asmo]

We've definitely been weaker in individual regions, possibly overall but my historic knowledge is not sufficient enough to say for sure. A hundred and fifty plus years of propaganda from all non-Leftist sides takes its toll on our numbers. :/

[Durruti's friend]

Don't make me start about the Balkans. The right dominates here since the late 1980's. Brainwashing is so well done that people think that liberals are communists because they have 'social-democratic' in their name...

[Old Bolshie]

The left had a really good opportunity to revert the current neo-liberal dominance (which comes from the 80's) when the 2008 crisis broke out pretty much like it did when the 1929 crisis broke out and the Great Depression followed.

The dominant speech in 2009 was that "the markets had gone too far".

However, in that same year as a consequence of the 2008 crisis it emerged the debt crisis and what was an opportunity for the left to end the neo-liberal prominence turned out to be an opportunity for the right to take their neo-liberal agenda to the extreme and austerity came in.

The dominant speech went from "the markets had gone too far" to "the state had gone too far" in less than a year.

Overall, the left have been too weak to confront the current crisis with a strong political response and it still didn't recovered from the neo-liberal punch from the 80's. It also lacks strong leaders like it had in the past and François Hollande proves it.

[Starship Stormtrooper]

Basically this.

I think Right-wing, Capitalist reactionaries are basically appropriating the "anti-establishment" angle the left has traditionally had.

They've been doing or trying to do that for a while now though in order to make themselves seem cutting edge or relevant again. Whether in the form of the Nazis, "An"caps, or Libertarians, the right has been hard at work appropriating and recuperating various words or aspects of our struggle.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The left has nothing to offer, it's all farce at this point and the rest of the population has responded accordingly. Everyone else is just about out of ideas as well, so its nothing to take personally. Its as if the world continues its slow march for no reason other than spite.

[Buck]

Well, the problem seems to be that there are less workers in each country, as the populace ages, so the left (which is not socialist, but a name for a series of policies that govern the capitalist state(superstructure), dating to the french estates general) historically has been for things like the welfare state, now has to change as more workers leave the work force(Europe,Japan), thus meaning that there is less money and production in each country then was previously. Therefore less money is circulating and less money is going to welfare. Although this is just an excuse to gather more profits by expending on workers less, while the fascist(gd) seem to offer answers that the left, which has gone neoliberal, as they are taken over by capitalist, doesn't have, since they have been governing during this time of recession, and had to cut and take the blame along with other governing parties. Also fascist groups, like the UKIP, which has similar policies to left groups like keeping and expanding the welfare system. This one of the many problems with the capitalist system But despite this, what is meant by the left, is doing well, with the "socialist" international parties governing many countries like France, Brazil, Australia, Norway, Finland, South Africa, Mozambique, Angola, Pakistan etc... not to mention strides in gay, women and worker rights etc... that would have been radical say 100 years ago, that are on the "left". Any way, the left and the right switch policies on reforms to the superstructure. All this left/right parties do is divide the working class. Socialism has nothing to do with the left or the right(governing policies of the capitalist superstructure), as it the abolishment of the capitalist base and therefore, superstructure.

[Crabbensmasher]

Well, the 80s were pretty shitty. So were the 90s and early 2000s.
Overall, I like to think that the right and left have both softened their views at this point in history. Whether you think that's a good thing, well that's up to you, but I know for fact that the conservative party in my country considers gay marriage and other "progressive" social policies a dead issue. They understand the importance of them, and move on. On the other hand, our social democratic party recently accused the conservatives of not adhering to free market principals, so there's two sides to the coin. Also, if you can guess the name of my county then I'll give you a high five.

The way I see it, the left isn't gaining popularity, but progressive policies are. That being said, the revolutionary left is a completely different question. I'm just talking about the left in respect to current political trends etc.

Anyway, I think it will be interesting to see where the left goes within the next 20 or 30 years. It'll be interesting, that's all.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Has the Left ever been so weak in history as it is now? Have there been other periods when the Right was dominating the Left? How did the Left manage to reverse this then?

Surely this situation is not that unique.Well revolutionary sentiment tends to usually be a minority sentiment aside from times of intense struggle and confidence among the rebelling population. So the left goes up and down and there are always new challenges and new debates because while capitalism at its fundamental level doesn't change much, part of it's fundamental character is constant motion and adaptation in the search for more capital to invest and more profits to gain. So generally working class fights for more power through economic and social reforms is eventually outpaced and outmanuvered by capital's need to overcome barriers to increasing wealth through exploitation and if workers are unprepared for this, demoralization or confusion can set in and lead to a decline in the left - pasivity, cynacism and reaction in the vaccume.

I would say that the neoliberal era has seen a particularly long period of decreased working class struggle and organization in responce to ruling class offensives, and it's somewhat unique in that for parts of the capitalist world, but in general these periods are pretty common. Capitalism hides its exploitation and so it can be difficult for people to really wrap their head around a bigger picture outside of times where either workers are fighting back or ruling class moves are particularly blatant. Like it says in the communist manifesto, class struggle is constant but it's often obscured and is only emerges clearly periodically.

Just taking the US as an example (only because I'm most familiar with this history), I would take the long ruling class attack of our era over McCarthyism, for example. The post-civil war period was one struggle between former-slaves, former-masters, and the northern capitalists and the radical reconstruction period and initiatives taken by ex-slaves themselves were pretty amazing and progressive, but then when the north made peace with the old southern rulers and blacks were repressed, there was a horrible period of reaction that lasted decades. The 1920s were another period of passivity for workers and the oppressed and clamp-downs on struggle and immigrants.

[The Idler]

Why The Left Needs A Thatcher | The Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/turn-right-eighties/why-left-needs-thatcher)

[Astarte]

Really, there have been many epochs of history where "the Left" which I am taking to mean the forces which represent a steady progress of humanity towards better living standards for ever expanding segments and layers of the population have been weaker than they are today - this is why capitalism is considered "more progressive" than feudalism or the slave-mode. We shouldn't lose heart and over exaggerate the blows the left has received in the past few decades - we have been winning ever since the French Revolution, and perhaps even the Renaissance if we want to, (and I think we should) think of the history of the left from the broadest of all possible historical perspectives - when else in history has a doctrine such as Marxism (the child of the Enlightenment and the grandchild of the Renaissance) even existed which states as its explicit aim to put the entirety of society completely in the hands of those who actually do the work of building, increasing and proliferating society (the working class) ever even existed before the modern era?

[Geiseric]

Why The Left Needs A Thatcher | The Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialism-or-your-money-back/turn-right-eighties/why-left-needs-thatcher)

I'm sorry but what the fuck kind of analogy is that? The left needs a backstabbing, ruthless, murdering tyrant?