The Left/Right Distinction is Bourgeois

[synthesis]

I don't mean in the sense of "the left wing of capital" or something which "merely" divides the working class or even advocating any notion of "post-leftism," which seems to be directed more at leftists than it does at leftism.

What I mean is that the concept of a "left/right" distinction itself directly originated in one of the first major bourgeois revolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics#History_of_the_terms) and intrinsically carries as many such class-based associations as you can imagine. It is a thoroughly bourgeois concept and is useless to us as Marxists. Instead of simply looking at things as abstractly "pro-progress" or "pro-establishment," the distinction needs to be completely supplanted by class analysis - not just by Marxists, but in popular political discourse.

The implementation of this system needs to be universal and unequivocal. One example that comes to mind is the consideration of the differences between bourgeois feminism and Marxist feminism; it's not as though bourgeois feminism is inherently a bad thing, similar to the way in which bourgeois revolutions themselves are a necessary historical development, and bourgeois feminism shouldn't be opposed any more than the extent to which it does, in fact, divide the working class.

But more than just dividing the working class, at a certain point all political positions which do not place class analysis at the forefront will eventually lose their usefulness to the working class, and "leftist" issues of special oppression are no exception. "Leftism" itself has nothing to do with class politics. This of course does not mean that we need to shed all political positions that would be regarded as "leftist," in a fit of vulgar materialism - as class politics are under that umbrella - it means that we have to regard the left/right distinction itself as bourgeois and adjust our analysis accordingly. Bourgeois feminism fought for and won universal suffrage - but at a certain point, does it not lose its relevance to working class women? And when it has lost its relevance, is it not then needlessly divisive of the working class in a way that is not true of Marxist feminism? Is this divisiveness not a symptom and result of its class character or lack thereof?

The reason "the left" is in a rut is because "the left" is still by its very nature stuck with notions of class collaboration. We implicitly believe that class collaboration - with the vested interests of bourgeois democracy and/or the "left wing of capital" - is necessary to achieve "leftist" goals; we oppose bourgeois electoral politics in a broad sense, on the basis that it detracts and distracts from real class struggle, but we don't think twice about collaborating with bourgeois activists to achieve our short-term political goals.

There will be those who say that participating in collaborationist "leftist politics" still has short term benefits, and that we would be reactionaries not to participate; I ask you, how is this different from reformism? Is it not our role as communists, if nothing else, to push things farther? To at least shift mainstream political discourse to the point where bourgeois leftism seems like the moderate option?

How can communists claim to be working towards a working class revolution if we do not support the primacy of the working class - not only over "the right," but also over the bourgeois "left"?

[Tim Cornelis]

You argue that because it is a bourgeois concept that therefore it is useless to Marxists, but you omit one fundamental thing: we live in bourgeois society, and hence it is 'useful'. Once socialist society has been established the left-right distinction will die, but since we live in capitalist society this distinction is proper. Moreover, the left-right distinction does not have any practical implications. I don't see how class collaboration bears any relation at all to calling oneself 'leftist'.
You also imply as if the left-wing of the political spectrum has the same goals ('the reason the left is in a rut'), as if "the left" as a whole considers class collaboration wrong -- most don't.
Your continued use of 'leftism' and 'rightism' (though with quotation marks) also suggests they are useful terms.

[synthesis]

Moreover, the left-right distinction does not have any practical implications.

Are you sure about that? If so, why?

[Tim Cornelis]

Are you sure about that? If so, why?

What does it matter if you call yourself leftist or not? If a social-capitalist/social-democrat stops calling himself leftist will he stop class collaboration or change his paradigm?

[edwad]

although i would agree that the left/right thing is a bad way of describing beliefs and is, in a lot of ways, weak in properly explaining positions, i think you're looking at this the wrong way. from what i understand, you're associating things that are made or have existed by/in bourgeois society with being useless to us as marxists, which i wouldn't say is true. to me, it almost sounds like a primitivist approach to things, saying technology = bad, and although those advancements might be bourgeois in nature, they aren't necessarily useless to us as promoters of our ideas. i hate to admit it, but if we get too far away from bourgeois language, we stop making sense to working class people that would otherwise be swayed to our side. for now i think the best/only way to promote our ideas is through the bourgeois internet, bourgeois newspapers, etc, and using the bourgeois language that the working class people know and understand. i'm not suggesting that the working class is stupid, but i'm saying that they won't all be walking around with a post-capitalist dictionary in their hand to help them understand what we're trying to say to them.

[Zulu]

the concept of a "left/right" distinction itself directly originated in one of the first major bourgeois revolutions and intrinsically carries as many such class-based associations as you can imagine. It is a thoroughly bourgeois concept and is useless to us as Marxists.


The reason "the left" is in a rut is because "the left" is still by its very nature stuck with notions of class collaboration.

Couldn't agree more.

Communism is supposed to be a science, therefore a completely different "plane" of thought from the left-wing/right-wing moral philosophy. "Left" and "right" in communism are petty bourgeois deviations and one quite worth the other.

But something tells me you'll be barking at the wall here.

[synthesis]

These posts of mine always seem to reflect some tendency towards miscommunication on my part. I'm not saying that the left/right distinction is useless because it doesn't accurately reflect most people's beliefs, which it does, or because it has no value whatsoever - it does, in a bourgeois sense, much in the same way that freedom of speech and separation between church and state reflect bourgeois progress from pre-capitalist ideology.

But those are still bourgeois ideas, born from history and floating on bourgeois idealism, that don't accurately reflect the true nature of class struggle today. That's why I felt it was necessary to use harsh words to describe the left/right distinction - not because it's bad in and of itself, of course, but because it is at best a distraction from the totality of Marxist class analysis, in much the same way that it is useless for us to talk about freedom of speech without understanding the superlative role that class and conditions play in the reality of it. At worst it is an advocacy of class collaboration: the worst and most destructive sin of 20th century Marxism.

[The Aesthete]

I do notice problems with using the left-right distinction, though. Because it does originate from contexts in which the relative positions are generally well known and understood, nowadays is it so vague, it is almost getting a bit useless. There are so many left and rights in every and any situation now. When using one or the other it has become necessary to elaborate further and state the more specific labels of what ever is right or left. So while it does reflect beliefs, it only is relative in its labelling and so it has become a tad pointless.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll beg to differ....


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)

[Lily Briscoe]

Been surfing the ICC website, eh? :ohmy:

At any rate, what are you actually saying here, content-wise? "What's of central importance is having a class analysis, and the left/right dichotomy isn't based on a class analysis". OK. I mean, it's not exactly a new observation--and vomit-inducing phrases like "the left wing of capital" don't really help get your point across--but I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. It seems a bit banal though.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll gratuitously post another graphic here, one I completed recently, to make the point that the left-right continuum is *relative* on an issue-by-issue basis.


The Meanings of Spatial Relationships

http://s6.postimg.org/rciywyagd/130927_Meanings_of_Spatial_Relationships_aoi_xcf.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/rciywyagd/)

[Brotto Rühle]

I think Marxists should consider themselves above the paradigm of left and right bourgeois politics. Leftism suggests we are of the left of capital, that we are aligned with social democrats, and so on.

[ckaihatsu]

I think Marxists should consider themselves above the paradigm of left and right bourgeois politics. Leftism suggests we are of the left of capital, that we are aligned with social democrats, and so on.


I'll take issue with this, and use the following as a 'case study' -- it's a nuanced interpretation of the ongoing U.S. federal shutdown that describes how the event is relatively more *reactionary* (rightist) than just coarsely 'bourgeois':





‘Starving the beast’ - Tea Party Republicans and the shutdown of government

Commentary by Masao Suzuki

San José, CA - At midnight on Oct. 1, the federal government began a partial shutdown. Later that morning, hundreds of thousands of federal workers showed up to wind up work - putting up closed signs at national parks and monuments across the country and updating web pages saying that many functions were no longer available. Then they went home for an indefinite furlough without pay.

Behind the partial shutdown of the federal government was the leadership of the House Republicans, who followed the lead of their right-wing Tea Party congress people. They needed to pass a bill to continue funding the government, since no budget for the 2014 Fiscal Year, which began Oct. 1, had passed. Instead, the House Republicans insisted on using the threat of a government shutdown to get what they wanted, which was to derail the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, even though the Senate, the president and the Supreme Court were against them.

The House Republicans’ willingness to seemingly burn down their own house to rid it of what they saw as vermin (Obamacare), is not only extremism, but also comes from their right-wing view of the government. It was under the Reagan presidency in the 1980s that the term “Starving the beast” arose, as right-wingers targeted the federal government as a “beast” for its social-welfare functions, wanting to pare down the role of the government to basically prisons to protect property rights of the rich and the military to maintain the empire.

Looking at a list of how agencies are being hit by the partial government shutdown, it is clear that many of the programs that the right wing hates will be hardest hit. Among the departments with the highest percentage of furloughed workers are the Department of Education (95%), Housing and Urban Development or HUD (95%), the Environmental Protection Agency or EPA (90%), and the Department of Labor (80%).

On the other hand, the Department of Homeland Security, which includes the Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE, has only 15% furloughs, so one can expect the record deportations to continue. The Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, also has only a 15% furlough, so no let-up in spying and harassments of Muslim Americans, Arab Americans and anti-war and international solidarity activists is in sight.

While the House Republicans say that they are targeting Obamacare, by and large the rollout of the Affordable Care Act set for October 1 was unaffected. While there were long waits for web sites to load and phones to get answered, this was largely because nearly 3 million people flocked to the U.S. government web site www.healthcare.gov and more went to state web sites such as www.coverca.gov in California.

In contrast, Senate Democrats and the Obama administration value the role of the government, both to subsidize big corporations (as Obamacare does with big health insurance companies) and to maintain social peace through social welfare programs such as Social Security and Medicare. But they also support the military and policing functions of the government, as seen in the Obama administration’s attempt to unleash a military attack on Syria and the FBI coordination of local police efforts to smash the Occupy movements.

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]






This email was sent to [email protected]
why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences
Fight Back! News · P.O. Box 582564 · Minneapolis, MN 55440 · USA

[synthesis]

Been surfing the ICC website, eh? :ohmy:

Well, no. If you have links to essays or articles that expand on the historical materialist aspects of the essay, I'd actually like to see them, just so I know what I missed.


At any rate, what are you actually saying here, content-wise? "What's of central importance is having a class analysis, and the left/right dichotomy isn't based on a class analysis". OK. I mean, it's not exactly a new observation--and vomit-inducing phrases like "the left wing of capital" don't really help get your point across--but I agree with the thrust of what you're saying. It seems a bit banal though.

I notice that 1. you don't specify your problems with that phrase and 2. you didn't seem to notice the context that it was used in the OP. Is it unreasonable to assume that you follow a Trotskyist tradition? That's not a loaded question; I just want to see if there's a reason for the defensive tone of your post.

The central point of interest, to me, was the historical origins of the left/right distinction. Given that it directly originated in one of the first major bourgeois revolutions, I find it interesting that I don't see it being grouped in with other bourgeois Enlightenment ideals and challenged as such.

I mean, if you look at it simply in terms of the left-right distinction, and don't place the primary significance on the working class, then by nature if your organization is "leftist" then it implies that you hold a monopoly on progress. Wouldn't you say this plays a role in why every organization on "the left" sees pretty much every other "leftist" group as being to the right of them?

[Lily Briscoe]

Sorry, I just saw this.



I notice that 1. you don't specify your problems with that phrase and 2. you didn't seem to notice the context that it was used in the OP.

1. It seemed pretty off-topic, so no, I didn't go into detail beyond noting that I find it vomit-inducing. Luckily it isn't a phrase I've heard in person yet (though I've heard some phrases that come nauseatingly close, and they always seem to come from the mouths of people who never miss an opportunity to use a French loanword), but if I ever do hear it spoken, I swear to god I will vomit right then and there.
2. I noticed the context.


Is it unreasonable to assume that you follow a Trotskyist tradition? That's not a loaded question; I just want to see if there's a reason for the defensive tone of your post.Yes, it is unreasonable; I'm not a Trotskyist. Granted I'm not a left communist either, but my views are far closer to those of left communists than they are to those of Trotskyists (and on the level of core political 'positions', I am generally in agreement with left communists, even if I think that some of their 'secondary' political views, and a lot of their actual analysis, tends to be pretty bad). Also I didn't think I was being defensive. 'Tone' is evidently hard to judge on the internet.


The central point of interest, to me, was the historical origins of the left/right distinction. Given that it directly originated in one of the first major bourgeois revolutions, I find it interesting that I don't see it being grouped in with other bourgeois Enlightenment ideals and challenged as such.

I mean, if you look at it simply in terms of the left-right distinction, and don't place the primary significance on the working class, then by nature if your organization is "leftist" then it implies that you hold a monopoly on progress. Wouldn't you say this plays a role in why every organization on "the left" sees pretty much every other "leftist" group as being to the right of them?I understand what you mean by the "monopoly on progress" thing, but just on the (obviously fairly limited) level of my own experience, the whole thing of 'every leftist group thinking it's to the left of every other leftist group' isn't really something I've encountered. I used to be in a social-democratic organization, and there was certainly an understanding of which groups were to the left of us, as well as an internal understanding of which of our more prominent members tended more to the left or to the right of the organization as a whole. Also, the youth section was somewhat to the left of the 'parent' organization; no one would have disputed this. To use a different example, Trotskyists generally understand on a basic level that anarchists are to the left of them. Granted, there is the whole concept of "ultra-leftism" that Trotskyists have, which they regard as the use of 'ultra-revolutionary' phrases to conceal a practical political approach which ultimately serves the status quo (and is therefore effectively 'right-wing'), and maybe this is what you are referring to. But on a basic level, I think it is still accepted--however begrudgingly and with whatever qualifiers tacked on--that other political groups are to the left of them.

I get the point that the difference between a communist political organization and e.g. a social democratic one, isn't just that the former is farther left than the latter, but that the two represent different class interests entirely. I agree with this (I just think, like I said before, that it's a pretty banal observation...though I guess I can see the point of emphasizing it on the forum like this). Still, I think in some limited circumstances, the whole left/right thing is useful and basically just serves as a shorthand for 'more conservative versus less conservative', and it is quite often self-evident which is which (I'm thinking particularly in the case of factions--or even differing views on something 'secondary'--within an organization, though I think it can sometimes make sense more broadly).

Anyway, rereading the OP (now that I've written a novel), it occurs to me that I'm not exactly sure what point your actually making (the intention of my first response was actually to try to clarify this), as it seems to be kind of all over the place and contradictory. Unless it was just meant to be like a stream-of-consciousness type thing to spur discussion/get people to think about things, which is fair enough.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]rotskyists generally understand on a basic level that anarchists are to the left of them.


I'll take exception to this since anarchists are known for their advocacy of decentralization (see diagram at post #9). In the process of anti-capitalist struggle decentralism is a revolutionary *weakness* and puts anarchists to the *right* of Trotskyists and any other vanguardists:





A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism





Granted, there is the whole concept of "ultra-leftism" that Trotskyists have, which they regard as the use of 'ultra-revolutionary' phrases to conceal a practical political approach which ultimately serves the status quo (and is therefore effectively 'right-wing'),


Agreed -- if somebody's position is unrealistic then it's simply posing, whether that's conscious or not on the part of those being ultraleft. Their positing of an infeasible politics is therefore deleterious and counterproductive to the greater struggle.