Has the revolutionary left ever been so weak?

[ZenTaoist]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic, if there's any at all here.

It seems that the revolutionary left is incredibly weak today because the power of labor has essentially been decimated. You would think during tough economic times like now, the revolutionary left would play a huge role in getting people organized to fight the system or at least for better living standards. But it's almost like they don't exist anymore.

The best example of this is the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, the socialist and communist parties in the United States were very strong and influential. They had an alliance with the unions (wobblies, CIO), and they became so powerful that they scared the elite to the point of where Roosevelt gave the people the New Deal, Social Security, Unemployment compensation, TVA, etc. But then afterwards, the efforts were made to destroy the socialists and communists (McCarthyism), and then destroy labor unions (Reagan neoliberal era).

Now it seems that the spectrum is so far to the right, that to even mention you're a socialist or communist, you're just laughed out of any serious discussion. And that frightens me. We're in a really hard economic situation for most working people, and traditionally that's where communism has resonated with the most people. But they still hate it. In fact, more people are joining this right-wing extremist cult of Von Mises/Rothbardd free market capitalism.

So has the revolutionary left ever been this weak? It's really depressing. And what can we do to begin reintroducing people to leftist concepts and ideologies?

[Skyhilist]

It's because history class has done such a good job of portraying communism as a failed bureaucratic system led by terrible people like Pol Pot. How can people support communism when they don't understand what it is and when they're being told it's all sorts of terrible things like genocide? Most don't have the time/interest to do independent research unfortunately because thanks to economic forces like consumerism bourgeois power structures have become self-consolidating, making it easier to lull the public to sleep... Which in turn helps them consolidate their power even further. It's one big positive feedback loop of fucking depression and we're right in the middle of it...

[Akshay!]

You mean "Has the revolutionary left ever been so weak in the US?"

I think imperialism has a lot to do with that. Countries like US, and those in western Europe are extremely rich which has made it easier for their respective ruling classes to buy their populations.
"Reforms" also have something to do with this.
And, lastly, anti-communist propaganda plays a big role too.

[Einkarl]

Has it ever been any weaker? Maybe.

Depends if you consider Soviet imperialism revolutionary. The revolutionary left is in what I see as a period of growth, a rebirth of sorts, unchained to the Soviet Union and the comiterm.

Reintroducing these ideas isn't such an impossible thing so long as we stay commited, start taking action, and make a lot of noise. We have to become so loud, that not even the bourgeois propaganda machine can silence us. But( and this is important) we need to take action and participate in class struggle, help our fellow proletariat even if they aren't comrades and win them over.

It'll take time and there are a lot of comrades doing just that.

It's also important to work internally to eradicate secterianism even between marxists and anarchists.

Remember, every member on this site even, armchair revolutionaries are a sort of vanguard
it is our responsibility to do our part, the bourgeoisie ain't gonna overthrow its self.

[KarlLeft]

Capitalism has had a lot of experience in suppressing revolutionary feeling. I get the feeling that Marx and especially Lenin didn't think capitalism was going to last this long. Somehow it hung on though and, as time went by, the ruling class learned what worked in suppressing rebellion and what didn't work. Capitalists may be a lot of things but they're not stupid.

Today, after a century of anti-communist indoctrination, nationalist propaganda, ignorance of the leftist tradition of the past and the present deluge of consumer goods and bourgeois comforts available to most Americans (on credit, of course!), there's a long way to go in growing a strong leftist movement in the U.S.

I think we may have to wait for capitalism to become a lot more dysfunctional than it is already. It's getting there. The crises are becoming more frequent and lasting longer and the recoveries are less robust. The collapse is inevitable and when it comes, things are going to move fast.

That's what I think anyway...:grin:

[Flying Purple People Eater]

It's nowhere near as weak as it was a few decades ago. And that's saying something.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

During the 90's the post-Soviet collapse basically gave capitalists the free reign to say 'look, communism is a failure! there's nothing except capitalism!' and the organised left withered away. Good riddence to it. If revolutionaries relied on an imperialist state to organise around then that missed the entire point of communism, in my opinion. Ever since the financial collapse of 2008 the radical left is once again blooming and this time without the ever looming presence of state capitalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

You mean "Has the revolutionary left ever been so weak in the US?"

Not necessarily, the question applies globally and I'd say an affirmative answer applies globally. As has been said already, the far-left in the 1990s marginalised to its lowest level since the emergence of socialism. This applies to Asia, as well as the Americas, Africa, and Europe.


I think imperialism has a lot to do with that. Countries like US, and those in western Europe are extremely rich which has made it easier for their respective ruling classes to buy their populations.
"Reforms" also have something to do with this.

I don't know how true this is, judging by electoral performance far-left parties in Europe are far stronger than those in the much poorer Latin America. Moreover, the far-left was much larger in 1970s Europe when the welfare state had not been neoliberalised. One could even argue that with neoliberalism the whole of the political spectrum moved rightward and consequently made pre-neoliberal welfare states seem 'unrealistic' and thus ideologies to the left of anti-neoliberal social-democracy ("old Labour" of sorts) even more unrealistic.


And, lastly, anti-communist propaganda plays a big role too.

There has always been anti-communist propaganda and much much stronger, harsher, and consistent ones than now. The Soviet Union represented a conscious as well as subconscious notion that "there is, at least, an alternative", one may not like this alternative but at least it's possible. With the collapse of the USSR, 'there is no alternative' became much stronger.

[tuwix]

IMHO the far-left is in a phase of restoration. Indeed in 90's there was dominant opinion that Marx's has bankrupted. But now more and more people are referring Marx's books. Some tiem ago at London Stansted Airport I've found a free journal that was very much pro-EU. It was in fact quite boring. But in editorial its author refferred to Marx...

Besides from the begining of the new centuries in Latin America started to emerge governments describing themselves as socialist. Abd there is new Latin 'East Block". To be honest, it is South Block called ALBA. But it is not as dangarous to the USA and classic capitalism as Soviet Union was due to lack of militar power. Nonetheless the idea of socialism is being restored. And the ongoing crisis supports it.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I think that it's weak and fractured at the moment, but as people really become aware of the sheer scale of the inequalities that face them and become more politicised I think we'll see a resurgence in this type of movement - especially once people of my generation realise that merely campaigning against further cuts isn't going to change the minds of our rulers

[Djoko]

Communists are weak because in developed capitalist countries people have highest sallaries, and very few people from that countries want to destroy that.

[Akshay!]

Not necessarily, the question applies globally and I'd say an affirmative answer applies globally.


I agree, but everything in his post is about the US.



I think imperialism has a lot to do with that. Countries like US, and those in western Europe are extremely rich which has made it easier for their respective ruling classes to buy their populations.
"Reforms" also have something to do with this.


far-left parties in Europe are far stronger than those in the much poorer Latin America

LOL :laugh::laugh:

There are so many funny parts* in this sentence that I'll just leave it there.

(*i.e. apart from the fact that it is totally unrelated to my main points on imperialism and reforms.)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Communists are weak because in developed capitalist countries people have highest sallaries, and very few people from that countries want to destroy that.
I'm from the UK and I've comparitively got a higher salary to someone living in Uraguay or Ukraine but that means shit all compared to the cost of living and I can barely afford rent half the time. Personally I think there's an illusion of prosperity in 'Western' countries coupled with a relatively high standard of living brought about thanks to the welfare state. People are constantly being bombarded with shit in the press telling us how high the GDP is or that the economy is 'recovering' or whatever which means shit all to the average person but there's no alternative voice in the media so people lap that shit up.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know how true this is, judging by electoral performance far-left parties in Europe are far stronger than those in the much poorer Latin America. Moreover, the far-left was much larger in 1970s Europe when the welfare state had not been neoliberalised.

Most "far left" parties in Europe are, and have always been, radical-liberal or social-democratic outfits with some "communistic" rhetoric. In Latin America, the situation is, as far as I can tell, much the same.

The present period is certainly a period of revolutionary downswing and triumphant reaction, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union - how do the people who think the Soviet Union was state-capitalist, social-imperialist or bureaucrat-collectivist explain that, by the way? Surely, as many parties who adhered to this sort of analysis argued in the nineties, the collapse of the "evil" Soviet Union should have cleared the way for socialism? But I digress. The left has been through worse - consider the period of the Stolypin terror in Russia, for example.

Actually, I think many present deformations in the labour movement are similar if not identical to the deformations of that period - "official" communism instead of liquidationism, "post-structuralist" idealism instead of empiriocriticism, "focoism" instead of boyevism, "liberation theology" instead of bogostroitelstvo etc. etc.

[Ele'ill]

I agree, but everything in his post is about the US.



LOL :laugh::laugh:

There are so many funny parts* in this sentence that I'll just leave it there.

(*i.e. apart from the fact that it is totally unrelated to my main points on imperialism and reforms.)

can you please stop doing this and add more to your posts before you waste more space in future threads thanks

[Tim Cornelis]

I agree, but everything in his post is about the US.

LOL :laugh::laugh:

There are so many funny parts* in this sentence that I'll just leave it there.

(*i.e. apart from the fact that it is totally unrelated to my main points on imperialism and reforms.)

You know, your idiotic laughing only shows you have no clue what you're talking about. Also, i.e. is that is, e.g. is for example.

It is entirely related to what you said, you claimed because of the West's imperialism, which makes for a wealthier working class, the far-left in the West is marginal and small. I point out that European communist and far-left parties are much larger than most in the so-called third world, now granted this is only true for some or most, not all, countries.

Compare the electoral performance, virtually every Communist Party in Latin America garners three percent of the votes and is part of a centre-left electoral block.
In Europe, the Portuguese Communist Party and Left Bloc poll at over 20% of the votes.
The Czech Communist Party gained 20% of the votes.
The Danish far-left alliance of (former and present) Maoists, reformists, and Trotskyists polls at 11-13%.
The United Left in Spain polls at 16%.
The Greek Communist Party at 7%.

So how come these far-left parties are so much bigger than their Latin American counterparts if you're right about social reforms?
And again, the European far-left was much larger in the 1970s, before neoliberalism when these social reforms and the welfare state is much stronger, which contradicts your notion.

If you're right, we should expect the far-left in Latin America (or Africa, Asia) to be much larger than the European far-left, which it is not.


M

The present period is certainly a period of revolutionary downswing and triumphant reaction, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union - how do the people who think the Soviet Union was state-capitalist, social-imperialist or bureaucrat-collectivist explain that, by the way? Surely, as many parties who adhered to this sort of analysis argued in the nineties, the collapse of the "evil" Soviet Union should have cleared the way for socialism? But I digress. The left has been through worse - consider the period of the Stolypin terror in Russia, for example..

Saying socialism should have had a clear way does not follow from the premise that the USSR was state-capitalist, and I've already explained why the collapse of the USSR contributed to the mental consolidation of "there's no alternative".

[Djoko]

I'm from the UK and I've comparitively got a higher salary to someone living in Uraguay or Ukraine but that means shit all compared to the cost of living and I can barely afford rent half the time. Personally I think there's an illusion of prosperity in 'Western' countries coupled with a relatively high standard of living brought about thanks to the welfare state. People are constantly being bombarded with shit in the press telling us how high the GDP is or that the economy is 'recovering' or whatever which means shit all to the average person but there's no alternative voice in the media so people lap that shit up.
Biggest obstacle in people's heads because they don't want even to try to understand what communism really is, is stereotype that capitalism brings rich society like in USA, UK, Germany, Swicherland, France, Japan, Singapore etc, and the on the other side communism as a poverty, dictatorship, state teror, gulags. I think that that stereotype is currently problem number one for world communist movement.

[Ravachol]

Biggest obstacle in people's heads because they don't want even to try to understand what communism really is, is stereotype that capitalism brings rich society like in USA, UK, Germany, Swicherland, France, Japan, Singapore etc, and the on the other side communism as a poverty, dictatorship, state teror, gulags. I think that that stereotype is currently problem number one for world communist movement.

That would be the case if you were an idealist, yes..

[Point Blank]

The 80s and 90s were much worse, with rampant neoliberalism / political conservatism in Europe and America. Speaking about the area I'm most familiar with - Southern Europe - I'd say there's a growing disillusionment in the existing system due to the financial collapse, the recession and the harsh austerity measures: growing unemployment, housing crisis, cuts to welfare, education and other public services, eroding labour rights and few real perspectives for the future (especially for the youth) are undermining confidence in capitalism and in its ideological pillars (such as "merit" or work ethic). The utter incompetence of the political class isn't helping confidence in reformism or mainstream parties or institutions (e.g. the Spanish monarchy) either.

I'm not sure we've been this poor since the end of the WWII and projections leave little hope to the future (apparently, without radical policy changes, real wages of Italian workers will never be the same of the pre-crisis era, and it will take sixty-three years to reach again the same employment rate of 2007).

With the mounting disillusionment, despair, anger, people will start looking for alternatives (neoliberals caused this mess, Keynesian economics have been demolished in the 70s, government cannot even implement reforms so why thinking reforms could solve anything?). However, I doubt this will happen through traditional political parties, unions or other the other usual institutions, because so far they have only showed their inability to change the present conditions.


how do the people who think the Soviet Union was state-capitalist, social-imperialist or bureaucrat-collectivist explain that, by the way? Surely, as many parties who adhered to this sort of analysis argued in the nineties, the collapse of the "evil" Soviet Union should have cleared the way for socialism?

Independently from its true nature, the USSR was universally portrayed as "communism" in Western media. The Soviet collapse was an enormous propaganda victory for free market capitalism: it was presented as the "proof" that communism could not work and that any alternatives to the existing system were doomed to fail (and people believed it). Many political movements abandoned Marxism and moved towards social democracy, and official "Left" parties embraced neo-liberalism as the way to prosperity.


Communists are weak because in developed capitalist countries people have highest sallaries, and very few people from that countries want to destroy that.

The proletariat in developed countries is not doing that well, as I said, but I wanted to point out that insurrectionary moments have happened even in better times.
You cannot "buy" workers (commodification much, huh?). In 1968, people were comparatively better off than they are now in Western Europe, yet France saw the biggest general strike ever (two-thirds of the national workforce took part), factory occupations and President De Gaulle had to flee the country fearing a revolution. Something similar (lower intensity, but lasting longer) happened in Italy and Portugal in the following decade too.

Higher wages and consumerism did not make workers satisfied. Actually, it meant capitalism occupied even more time in the life of workers: instead of spending only eight hours producing goods, now they had to spend eight hours producing goods and eight hours buying them.

[cyu]

Depends what you're comparing it against. I would actually say it's never been stronger in the 2 decades or so I've been involved in politics. Then again, 2 decades isn't a whole lot of time to make comparisons over :D

[A Revolutionary Tool]

People keep referencing the "buying off" of the workers in America when we have some of the largest levels of economic inequality in the developed world. 1/4 kids are in poverty, most families live paycheck to paycheck and are one personal crisis(like a broken arm, a broken down car) away from poverty. Using that logic the communist movement would be a lot stronger in America then say it is in France, Sweden, Germany, etc. So I don't think it's really all about that, there are plenty of poor folk in America.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I think it is fair to say that the Left is still going through a period of reconstitution. The Soviet Union collapsed, and the political parties and organisations that used the Moscow-oriented 20th century model have generally collapsed along with it. But that doesn't necessarily mean "the Left" is weak.

It isn't as if there is a complete, fully formed thing called "the Left", having all the answers, and the problem is just that it can't recruit people to turn up on the day. Rather it is that the Left is reforming - incorporating the anti-globalisation, green, and post-1991 democracy movements - and all the while changing itself in the process.

In actual fact we have seen protest movements and mobilizations over recent years, yet these are discounted because they are not seen as properly Leftist. But if the Left has changed and these movements can be admitted as Leftist, then the future prospectus suddenly becomes much more optimistic.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I do think I agree with something someone else said earlier in this thread though. One thing that's holding revolutionary movements back is that a lot of people still see communism and socialism through the lens of what happened in the 20th century. Not only were people told for decades and decades that communism was an evil, oppressive system, but the actions of nominally communist states over the years have apparently validated peoples' misconcieved notions about what communism actually is.

That said, the ongoing crisis and increasing awareness that capitalism really doesn't serve the interests of anyone but a small global elite have provided an excellent opportunity to change peoples' minds, and frankly it would be a crime not to capitalise on that. I suspect people are more open to alternatives now, and WE can provide them with the ultimate alternative.

[Hit The North]

The answer also depends on who is included under the heading "revolutionary left". In the UK, the revolutionary left has always been weak and marginal. In Europe, the official Communist Parties after the 1940s could not be called revolutionary as they were tied to Stalinism and left-reformism. The majority of the Second International could not be called revolutionary either, and the revolutionary elements that did exist were soon confounded by events and the inherent reformism of parliamentary politics. Between the two great imperialist wars of the Twentieth Century is probably the only time that the revolutionary left was a formidable force in many capitalist countries and the social-democratic/welfare-state settlement in many of these nations after the second imperialist war and the political magnetic-field of the Cold War saw a blunting of the threat from the left.

What has crucially changed in the UK in the last thirty years is not that the revolutionary left has shrunk, but that a self-confident labour movement has fallen away. The British working class is currently experiencing an historic low in terms of trade union membership density. It is fragmented and alienated from itself. It does not act as a class on the political stage of the nation, even as a force for reform. Obviously, this low level of class consciousness and class struggle means that there is a real limit on the ability of revolutionary parties to recruit. So the revolutionary left in the UK is likely to remain weak and marginal until something changes.

[cyu]

Poll: 42% Say Capitalism Not Working For US

http://www.popularresistance.org/poll-42-say-capitalism-not-working-for-us/

According to a Brookings Institution’s July survey (http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2013/07/18%20economic%20values%20survey%20capitalism%20gov ernment%20prri%20dionne%20galston/2013%20Economic%20Values%20Report.pdf), more than a quarter of Americans say capitalism is working “not too well” while 16% say capitalism is working “not at all well.”

“There is no democracy in Capitalism.”

These numbers are shocking, frankly. You may recall a time way back before 2007 when such things were simply not said in polite company.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, this time was called the 90's.

[Zalor]

I really do think America is one crisis away from people finally acknowledging and accepting the fact that capitalism isn't for them (unless they are of the 1%).

The 08 crisis played a crucial role in getting many people to at least realize they are being exploited. At the very least the 08 crisis paved the path for the popularization of the phrases 1% and 99%. Many people aren't doing so well, but they are doing okay enough to delude themselves into thinking that things will get better for them. Once another crisis hits, particularity if hits soon enough, then people may be ready to do something.

I also happen to believe that a fossil fuel crisis is inevitable. Because when fuel becomes scarce the prices will increase, and with inevitable rising prices the wealthy will see it as a safe and profitable investment. Therefore they will end up hoarding most of the fossil fuels and that would at the very least fuel the spirits for a revolution. I wrote a whole paper about that for high school. Although, I'm not sure how long it will take until fossil fuels become a serious concern for the west.

[Rafiq]

It hasn't. Chomsky was damned fool to say that the collapse of the left was good as it provides us a clean slate. Well, good for him, the bastard's conscience is clean, meanwhile the international proletariat is less class conscious than it has ever been. Woe to the scum who say the collapse of Communism was revolutionary. As if proletarian dictatorship followed their collapse, it didn't (not to say it preceded it). It's just so fucking abstract it pisses me off. You don't take into account things like women's rights, racism, etc. When you spout such dribble. You're being a shitty version of a hipster when you say that, you're being a bullshit contrarian.

[Blake's Baby]

At the time I thought the collapse of the Stalinist regimes was revolutionary - I expected that after Budapest and Prague and Berlin, Bonn and Rome and Paris and London would be next, followed by Washington, Moscow, Tokyo and Beijing. Shows what I know.

It obviously wasn't revolutionary. I think it has allowed a space for the ideologues of the USA and the other bourgeois democracies to say 'proletarain revolution leads to the horror of Stalinism, and then it collapses anyway'. This was the central thesis of Fukayama's 'End of History' (and Bush Snr's 'New World Order'). The 'death of Communism' (even though it wasn't communism) has I think been a massive ideological blow to the working class. If it had actually been the working class (in an organised way, rather than participating as atomised liberal 'citizens') that brought down the Stalinist regimes that might have different - but it wasn't (though I repeat at the time I thought it was).

Capitalism has won an ideological battle, but obviously over the last few years as the economic crisis has reverberated around the globe, as the 'war on terror' has continued for more than a decade, as the ecological catastrophe that is capitalism has continued to ravage the planet, as people see every day the tension between what is possible and what actually happens, the workjing class is inspired to resist. Again - not in an organised fashion very often, not in a self-conscious way, but resistance is there. The failure of communist minorites is the failure to connect that resistance to an understanding of historical dynamics and a wider class consciousness.

[Blake's Baby]

There is nothing 'historically progressive' about the Stalinist states. The fact that the Western bourgeoisie tells lies about them ('these were communist!') and the Stalinists agree ('these were actually-existing socialism!') and their Trotskyist allies agree ('these were historically progressive!') makes it hard for those of us who see them as state capitalist to argue against the chorus of shit. Why wouldn't the working class believe that this is what 'communism' is? The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class; the longer you parrot them, the harder it is for the wider working class to work out the truth.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's inaccurate to say that the collapse of the USSR system was the start of the period of reaction that in the US and UK at any rate were well underway for 10 years at least. I think the collapse of State capitalism is best understood in relation to the end of Keynsianism in the other big powers. The USSR was unable to keep up with other powers and trying similar techniques like speed-ups or reducing social spending would have been politically explosive whereas induvidual firms can do these things and workers don't know really who to turn to or who to blame. So if the USSR system was no longer able to compete or overtake "the West" then it was not as useful to the rulers and so there was space for a faction of beurocrats could turn against this and fight for an alternative way to organize the economy (i.e. neoliberalism).

Really I think if there was a negative impact outside of the USSR and allied regions, it was less due to some direct ideological victory for the West and more due to a connected subjective problem of demoralizing and disorganizing the Left who had supported the USSR and had significant political organizations or union influence. In the US, the "End of History" was an open question in the early 90s and it wasn't until the mid-90s that there was a real confidence in "Market Triumphalism" because the collapse of the USSR was quickly followed by Apartheid exploding, the LA riots, the Zapatistas, a recession in the US. So it's not as though struggle died away - but many of the Left groups that grew some influence during WWII and the cold war did.

[Blake's Baby]

No, it's not like struggle died away, and I completely agree that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc was linked to an inability to economically restructure - which had been going on in the Western Bloc since Pinochet began introducing Freidmanomics in the early 1970s (when the 'reaction' you talk about began, I'd argue).

But to say that there was no ideological effect... I think that's bizarre. Thatcher used to proclaim 'there is no alternative' - after 1989, that looked like it was actually true. But I don't think that was a problem of/for 'the Left'. It was an attack on working class consciousness. It allowed the bourgeoisie to say 'this is your communism, it doesn't work' and there was practically no-one to gainsay them.

In Britain, 'the Left' was completely irrelevant long before 1989 - the (old) CPGB was completely moribund, the SPEW (Militant) was busy being expelled from the Labour Party and was derided as the 'Loony Left', the WRP was... the WRP, with all its idiocies, only the SWP (AKA 'Rent-A-Mob') had any traction with young people (and then only as a sausage-machine, and almost entirely due to its anti-racist campaigning).

[Jimmie Higgins]

That makes sense, and I don't think it had "no effect" but I think people have a tendency to overstate the impact of the end of the USSR. It's definately signigicant - and as you said seemed to back up the "free-market" arguments - but I don't think it's a catalyst itself outside of larger trends.

I wasn't a socialist or active or even able to drive at the time, but from what I've heard from people who were organizing in the 1980s that - in the US at least - it was pretty difficult ideological ground (like lots of red-baiting by union members) after the collapse of the New Left and the defeats of labor years before 89.


But to say that there was no ideological effect... I think that's bizarre. Thatcher used to proclaim 'there is no alternative' - after 1989, that looked like it was actually true. But I don't think that was a problem of/for 'the Left'. It was an attack on working class consciousness. It allowed the bourgeoisie to say 'this is your communism, it doesn't work' and there was practically no-one to gainsay them.

In Britain, 'the Left' was completely irrelevant long before 1989 Yes, but these things had begun long before 89 and I guess my point was that I don't think one responce was automatic (interpretations can be subjective based on what else is going on). Had there not already been a surging capitalist assault towards the end of the 70s, I don't know if the effect would have seemed as severe outside the USSR or countries where M-L organizations had support or labor influence.

[Sasha]

it really depends what you consider weak, The organized/official "left" of tradeunions and political parties never been weaker, making revolutionary strategies like Leninism and Trotskyism and anarchosyndicalism irrelevant. One could argue on the other hand that the removal of the loyal opposition that even in revolutionary situations eventually always functioned as an pressure valve for capital puts an bomb under the whole system which seen from an insurrectionary, autonomist or even say a neo-sponti-maoist outlook is promising. The contradictions of capital remain. Either capital evolves and reforms itself out of existence or it will eventually collaps. Undirected, unlead revolts from everything from the london riots to occupy to the Arab spring etc etc can be seen as the embryonic stage of an new revolutionary phase freed from baggage of the past. It's up to us to prevent this movements from walking into the traps of yesterday (instead of steering them into them) and for that the "left" needs to look critically at itself and evolve.

[Blake's Baby]

EDIT: Damn, ninja'd by psycho. This is for Jimmie:

Right, I think we have some sort of convergence of understanding going on.

Perhaps, if there had been a strong 'left' (of whatever kind) not so tied to the USSR, then the twin failures (of crappy state-capitlist regimes + crappy social-democratic practice with revolutionary rhetoric) - linked to a general assault on the working class's conditions - wouldn't have seemed so significant. If that's what you're saying, I'd agree.

The defeats the working class suffered in the 1980s were also pretty important I think. The subordination of the strike movement in Poland by the Catholic Church and Polish nationalism, assisted by the CIA, and the defeat of the miners in the UK in 1985, were hugely significant, I'd argue.

[TruProl]

It's been weak for decades any other view is delusional. When the left refuses to unite and continues to prop up people Mao as examples of how great our viewpoint is, it doesn't exactly make people want to sign up. My personal view is that there has never been an even remotely Communist State. As soon as Lenin, Trotsky and the rest of the Bolsheviks granted themselves special privileges, decided to slaughter the Proletariat's and then claim it was for the revolution and manage to convince the left to go along with it, we lost any strength.

As long as Communists continue to mistake State Capitalism as Communism then it will never work and as long as the left continue to be dogmatic rather than saying, "whatever can create equality is good" than we won't be signing anybody on soon. We're Communists because we believe that the end result will be better than any other result not for the sake of being Communist but people seem to have missed that. If a free market could guarantee everybody would have every need filled and live happily regardless of class than we would support it (but it can't). It's about achieving the best for humanity not ideology but as long as people think ideology comes above achieving the best for all members of society, we will remain weak and a small minority.

[Lokomotive293]

When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, the Communist League had about 300 members. Worldwide. So, yes, it has ;)

Now, as a more serious answer: You can't really deny that things used to be a lot better and that we've suffered a great defeat. However, it seems like we passed the low-point some time in the '90s, and now it's going upwards again.

[Blake's Baby]

When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, the Communist League had about 300 members. Worldwide. So, yes, it has ;)...

Depending on how you define the 'Revolutionary Left' now of course...

But I have to say that 300 worldwide is not massively less than the number of people I'd regard as being in genuinely revolutionary organisations.

But in 1848, the proletariat was comparatively tiny and world population was 1.2 billion.

So taking the 300/1,200,000,000, we should now have at least 1,800 in revolutionary organisations (I think that's quite high as an estimate) but taking 300/30,000,000 proletarians we should now have 200,000/2,000,000,000. I think 200,000 in revolutionary organisations is a wild over-estimate.


...Now, as a more serious answer: You can't really deny that things used to be a lot better and that we've suffered a great defeat. However, it seems like we passed the low-point some time in the '90s, and now it's going upwards again.

That may be true.

[Lokomotive293]

I think 200,000 in revolutionary organisations is a wild over-estimate.

That, as you say, depends on how you define the "Revolutionary Left".

The Portuguese Communist Party, for example, has 60,000 members alone, I didn't find numbers for the KKE, but they are huge as well. You should easily find more than 200,000 members of revolutionary organizations only in Europe. And the Communist Party of Cuba has 800,000 members ;)

Membership, of course, is only a very bad measurement for the actual strength of a movement, but it gives you a hint.

[Blake's Baby]

As I don't see any of those organisations as being 'revolutionary' you may as well say 'there are 200 million Boy Scouts and a billion Catholics, things have never been better'.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And the Communist Party of Cuba has 800,000 members ;)
The Communist Party of China claims 80 million members (not that it's anything but a bourgeois party).

[Art Vandelay]

Membership size is not in any way an accurate barometer for revolutionary consciousness; that's honestly so elementary that I'm surprised that it even has to be said. Were the Bolsheviks more or less representative of proletarian class interests before, or after, the split with the Mensheviks?

[Blake's Baby]

Was the organisation (the RSDLP) 'revolutionary' either before or after the split with the Mensheviks, is more what we're getting at.

If the RSDLP was revolutionary... why split? If a small revolutionary organisation came out of a larger non-revolutionary one, that's still a net gain for the working class. I was pretty careful to frame my answers earlier in terms of membership of revolutionary organisations (as that what was originally dealt with by mentioning the Communist League), not random revolutionary individuals that may or may not be in organisations, revolutionary or not.

So yeah, I think 'membership' (not readership of the paper or coming to demos or being in unions or vaguely supporting or whatever) of genuinely 'revolutionary' organisations (not reactionary organisations or even formally revolutionary, but actually hidebound or sclerotic, organisations) is all we have to go on here (at least if we want to compare like with like).

[Aleister Granger]

Face it= the Revolutionary Left is wheezing. When automation grows in scope, I can see some Left rivalism, but probably more on the Right.

[Blake's Baby]

The 'counter-revolution in the USSR' was complete by 1927, comrade.

As for Lenin and Trotsky slaughtering the working class "and then claim it was for the revolution" (not "and then claim it was good", don't know where you got that moralist nonsense, the worst we're saying is that they claimed it was necessary) then obviously Kronstadt comes to mind somewhat forcibly.