Where in the West is the radical left strongest?

[IBleedRed]

Not sure if this belongs in learning.


Where in the West is the radical left strongest/most organized/most influential?

Is it the case that the growth of the radical left must accompany a growth in the reactionary right? I might say that Greece has one of the strongest left movements, but it also has a strong fascist movement. What about Spain, France, Portugal?

[Sasha]

"strongest/most organized/most influential"

These are really 3 completely different things which will give you very different answers, probably in Greece and Spain the MOST people in percentage of the population would self-describe as "radical left"
But in organisational efficiency it might be Scandinavia while to relative influence (as in most consesions given by the ruling class) it might be Germany for example.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Greece and Portugal have the biggest Communist parties with relatively good electoral scores. Cyprus and Moldavia have strong eurocommunist parties that both have won presidency at some point.

[Tim Cornelis]

In electoral terms, or rather opinion polls.

Portugal, the Democratic Unity Coalition (Communist) and Left Bloc poll between 15-20%.
Spain, United Left circa 15%.
Greece, Communist Party circa 6% and SYRIZA 28%.
Denmark, Unity list, 10%
Czech Republic, Communist Party 15-17%
Norway, Socialist Left Party 4.1%, Red 1.1%
Ireland (elections), United Left Alliance 2.7%
France, Left Front 11%, New Anti capitalist Party 1%, Workers' Struggle 1%
Italy, SEL 3.4%, Communist Refoundation Party 1%
Then Cyrpus as mentioned. The Moldova Communist Party has right-wing policies (similar to Chinese and Indian Communist Parties).

I would consider all these far-left, but not revolutionary socialist per se.

In Spain the CNT and CGT have a combined membership of tens of thousands. The CGT is said to represent 2 million workers in collective bargaining (wikipedia). France traditionally has a militant labour movement, and still has (relatively). Greece has a lot of anarchist activity and PAME (Stalinist trade union) is a major player. In Portugal, the PCP has a lot of influence in the largest trade union.

In total (in terms of popularity and strength) I would say, Greece followed by Spain and France, then Portugal then maybe Italy (despite electorally not being very strong).

[Devrim]

I would say that the strength of the working class is much more important than the strength of the left.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

If working class strength is expressed through political struggle then I agree. A left without a social basis is worthless.

[TheEmancipator]

Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal now have a revived communist base to work with, although that is because of the crisis. TBH most of the West's communist parties were hammered after 1990 sop-stories of 'iberation' from 'the evil of communism' and had to reform themselves into social democratic parties with reformists platforms. I'm pretty sure you'll have more nostalgic MLs in Eastern Europe than communists in Europe.

I would say the most anti-fascist is Germany and Holland. For sure.

[tachosomoza]

Anywhere that's not the United States.

[Venas Abiertas]

In Latin America. Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua...

The left is very much active and alive there.

The United States has the most brainwashed, alienated people on the planet. It will some day simply have to be conquered by some invading force and its inhabitants re-educated. Some of them, like the Nazi hate radio and Fox news crews, will probably have to be taken out and shot, for inciting hatred and treason against humanity.

Most conservatives are born cowards and as soon as they sense the change in the winds they won't offer much resistance.

[tachosomoza]

Most of the people of color in the US are quite class conscious and trend heavily left. Definitely easier to talk to.

[Sabot Cat]

The United States has the most brainwashed, alienated people on the planet. It will some day simply have to be conquered by some invading force and its inhabitants re-educated. Some of them, like the Nazi hate radio and Fox news crews, will probably have to be taken out and shot, for inciting hatred and treason against humanity.

Most conservatives are born cowards and as soon as they sense the change in the winds they won't offer much resistance.

Why do you think them extensively brainwashed whilst being pragmatically beholden to changing political atmospheres? Why is it that you believe they should be shot, if they're likely to surrender en masse? Your analysis is contradictory and your prescriptive actions are as flawed as the imperialistic notion that one can somehow deliver liberation onto other nations through invading them.

[Venas Abiertas]

There's no contradiction. People's attitudes are largely the result of the material conditions they live with, in our case, capitalism. In a socialist economy, most people would gradually adapt their mentalities to the prevailing system, as Marx explained and as we have seen happen after several revolutions, such as the Soviet one, when the average very traditional and monarchical-leaning Russian transitioned in a few years into a faithful defender of "communism".

The ringleaders, however, such as the capitalist and individualist propagandists on hate TV and radio, would need to be put on public trial and if not executed, then be given lengthy sentences for their criminal lies and incitement to violence against the poor and the workers.

The "brainwashing" I was referring to are simply sets of beliefs and attitudes that most people share (even most poor, workers, women, and minorities) because those are what they have been exposed to on a daily basis. A changing reality towards socialism would cause a similar change in the "superstructure" and most people would go along with that as they always have.

As far as having a socialist revolution in the USA, if you have any better ideas that actually work, millions of leftists all over the world would love to hear them.

[Ritzy Cat]

I think that is a bit of a violent approach.

These people don't preach what they do because they want to completely root out all communism in the world. The historic tensions between the USA and the "Communist" world has simply given it a bad name, and after the Red Scare & people like McCarthy influencing the media and, while the media has its own purposes, they're simply among the populace that has been corrupted by their influence.

It's the same deal with religion... personally, I am a staunch anti-theist, and while I do not like that people follow their religion, they most likely grew up in an environment where that religion was a large part of their family life, almost forced upon the children, to a point they blindly follow it without thinking about the alternatives.

[Sabot Cat]

There's no contradiction. People's attitudes are largely the result of the material conditions they live with, in our case, capitalism. In a socialist economy, most people would gradually adapt their mentalities to the prevailing system, as Marx explained and as we have seen happen after several revolutions, such as the Soviet one, when the average very traditional and monarchical-leaning Russian transitioned in a few years into a faithful defender of "communism".

I suppose that seems sound, and I'll concede the point as there's no contradiction to be parsed if you're discussing the general attitudes of two different societal phases.


The ringleaders, however, such as the capitalist and individualist propagandists on hate TV and radio, would need to be put on public trial and if not executed, then be given lengthy sentences for their criminal lies and incitement to violence against the poor and the workers.


Lying in general is not a crime, and I don't support state-sponsored censorship. I recognize the need to address the problem of propaganda, but sentencing demagogues to prison or putting them to death only makes them martyrs or figures to rally around in decrying the injustice of the current regime. Besides, in a society where resources are allocated by the decisions of democratic assemblies of the proletariat, it's unlikely that much propaganda would be invested in for production and distribution.


The "brainwashing" I was referring to are simply sets of beliefs and attitudes that most people share (even most poor, workers, women, and minorities) because those are what they have been exposed to on a daily basis. A changing reality towards socialism would cause a similar change in the "superstructure" and most people would go along with that as they always have.

This makes sense, and I agree.


As far as having a socialist revolution in the USA, if you have any better ideas that actually work, millions of leftists all over the world would love to hear them.

If we're going to be militant, another nation could provide funding and arms for an American socialist dissidence group instead of invading; however, I believe this kind of revolution would succumb to the problems of the Bolsheviks or the Maoists. When a violent overthrow is enacted by an ideological minority who seeks to impose their will upon the majority, they will be tyrannical in their control of media, public discourse and political disagreement, so that they can stabilize the gains of their revolution and establish the legitimacy of the new regime. In accordance to the maxim that those who have power will not relinquish it until it is disadvantageous to keep it, and because a successful revolutionary group would have a near monopoly on the instruments of major warfare within the nation, it's unlikely that anyone can challenge their power. This is followed by a corollary to that maxim, which is that those in power will often use their privileged positions to enrich themselves as much as possible. Thus, the regime of a revolutionary ideological minority that seizes power in a coup d'etat will invariably err to a hierarchy where a bureaucratic elite exploits the labor of the working class.

[Venas Abiertas]

I do agree that the workers of the United States need to lead their own revolution. I would prefer not to see any country invade another. The problem is that the USA, being the "enforcer" so to speak, of the capitalist system, does so much harm to the rest of the world that some times I just have to care more about the other 95% of the planet than I do about the 5% who live there. I know that capital is global and that it would not magically disappear with the downfall of the US. If you look around the world, though, you will notice that almost anywhere people are being exploited and tyrranized the US or one of its European lackeys has a hand in it. I can't help but wonder how many revolutions could succeed in the world today if the US was not there intervening with its troops, its arms, its money, and its propaganda machine. I just have to wonder if the world wouldn't be a better place without the US in it.

As far as curtailing free speech, I appeal to the old argument that no one has the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. I don't know if you're in the US or not, but that's exactly what the conservative hate media does. They incite people to violence through their constant message of racism, hatred of the poor and people from anywhere except thge US and Israel, and selfishness. This message causes death and suffering all the time, both on the micro and the macro levels. Just in the past few weeks several black people have been shot and killed only for going up to a white Republican's house to ask directions or to use the telephone. I won't begin to discuss all of the dead, missing, tortured, starving, and unemployed in the Global South. Certainly at some point some kind of responsibility has to be assigned for inciting these things?

[Ritzy Cat]

Not to mention - the American military is so god-awful huge, it would take a hell of a lot of foreign countries to even take a stab at stepping foot on American soil.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

The only existing mainstream left is the bourgeois liberal left. But I think it's better to see the liberals as the lesser evil against the fascist and capitalists. The liberals will indirectly give muscle to the communists (us). With that being said I think the left is strong in Canada and somewhat strong in the Northern part of the United States (definitely not in the Bible belt).

[Remus Bleys]

The only existing mainstream left is the bourgeois liberal left. But I think it's better to see the liberals as the lesser evil against the fascist and capitalists.
Liberals are capitalists.

SHOW ME THE FASCISTS THAT AMERICANS HAVE TO FIGHT

The liberals will indirectly give muscle to the communists (us).
How?

With that being said I think the left is strong in Canada and somewhat strong in the Northern part of the United States (definitely not in the Bible belt).
Because the south is just so reactionary. Yeah man, what a bunch of hicks they are, unlike the cultured north. :rolleyes:

[Sabot Cat]

I do agree that the workers of the United States need to lead their own revolution. I would prefer not to see any country invade another. The problem is that the USA, being the "enforcer" so to speak, of the capitalist system, does so much harm to the rest of the world that some times I just have to care more about the other 95% of the planet than I do about the 5% who live there.

I sympathize with this sentiment, as the United States is the largest, wealthiest and most militant reactionary nation of the capitalist powers. Unfortunately, that very strength is what makes it so difficult to directly confront. Mounting a mainland conquest would be a nightmare because the majority of the populace support the current government or at least believe in its theoretic legitimacy. There are no numerically significant internal factions that could collaborate with an invading force, and invaders would be met with heavy opposition in the countryside by armed civilians and the well-entrenched system of military with its attendant redundancies and possible operational decentralization. This is not even getting into its nuclear weapons policy, which has no specific prohibition of first use in a military conflict, and a mainland invasion would be surely seen as an occasion for it, in addition to its direct military alliance with most of the superlatively well-armed European countries, as well as the fiscal support from capitalist Southeastern Asian nations like Japan, South Korea, etc. I'm not saying you don't realize all of these factors already, but this is why the United States needs an internal revolution; if it were logistically sound to invade, the Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Union would have done so at the earliest available opportunity during the Cold War.



I know that capital is global and that it would not magically disappear with the downfall of the US. If you look around the world, though, you will notice that almost anywhere people are being exploited and tyrranized the US or one of its European lackeys has a hand in it. I can't help but wonder how many revolutions could succeed in the world today if the US was not there intervening with its troops, its arms, its money, and its propaganda machine. I just have to wonder if the world wouldn't be a better place without the US in it.

Oh, it definitely would be, at least without the CIA. Iraq and Iran would both be parliamentary republics and not a theocracy and a dictatorship/political oligarchy respectively, Guatemala would have been a stable democracy without the long civil war, the Indonesia White Terror would've been averted and Sukarno would have never been ousted, Mobutu would have never achieved power in the Congo, the military regime in Brazil would not have happened, Chile wouldn't have had its military junta government as Salvador Allende would have successfully led a Revolutionary Left democracy, Argentina's junta wouldn't have emerged and the Dirty War would have been averted. Furthermore, the People's Democratic Republic of Afghanistan would have prevailed over the reactionary theocrats being combated currently by the Western bourgeois nations. Without the direct Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the USSR would have been able to survive reform into a more Marxist and democratic nation, along with its satellite powers. In other words, the CIA is an evil organization and the United States is an evil empire that has caused more misery and curtailment of liberties than anything the Soviet Union could be accused of.



As far as curtailing free speech, I appeal to the old argument that no one has the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. I don't know if you're in the US or not, but that's exactly what the conservative hate media does. They incite people to violence through their constant message of racism, hatred of the poor and people from anywhere except thge US and Israel, and selfishness. This message causes death and suffering all the time, both on the micro and the macro levels. Just in the past few weeks several black people have been shot and killed only for going up to a white Republican's house to ask directions or to use the telephone. I won't begin to discuss all of the dead, missing, tortured, starving, and unemployed in the Global South. Certainly at some point some kind of responsibility has to be assigned for inciting these things?

Unfortunately, the conservative hate media (which is a good label for them) isn't directly culpable for any crimes conducted by those who share their ideology and use them to inform their worldview. It's necessary for someone to be convicted of a crime only if they're directly responsible because there's way too much potential for abuse when one can arrest another for being indirectly involved in a chain of causation which resulted in a crime. It would also be perhaps more dangerous to assign the power of determining the abstract hatefulness of any media personality or media in general to any group of individuals but the proletarian majority, who would use their ownership of the means of production to diminish the propaganda against them and the incidence of hate in their media without the need for censorship (of at least the internal productions).

[Bolshevik Sickle]

The only existing mainstream left is the bourgeois liberal left. But I think it's better to see the liberals as the lesser evil against the fascist and capitalists.
Liberals are capitalists.

SHOW ME THE FASCISTS THAT AMERICANS HAVE TO FIGHT


Not all of them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism)

And as for the fascists, they're f*cking everywhere.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Rl9b6-n2sKE/TA6p9PKLQ9I/AAAAAAAABYU/Sk6nPM_E4OA/s400/nsm-lv.JPG
SPLC - Hate Map (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map)



The liberals will indirectly give muscle to the communists (us).
How?
Because liberals and communist share the same social beliefs (Feminism, LGBT rights, Ethnic and Social egalitarianism). Just not the same economic beliefs or views on materialism. A communist will normally approve of someone getting a gender change, a liberal would want someone to get a gender change and parade through the street and show it off.




With that being said I think the left is strong in Canada and somewhat strong in the Northern part of the United States (definitely not in the Bible belt).
Because the south is just so reactionary. Yeah man, what a bunch of hicks they are, unlike the cultured north. :rolleyes:
Well, the north is just less reactionary than the north.

[Remus Bleys]

Not all of them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism)

And as for the fascists, they're f*cking everywhere.
I don't want to be downplaying fascism but not really. there is much more pressing matters than to fucking with some larping neo-nazi, but when they are near they should of course be dealt with. But they arent big enough to fight tbh.

liberal socialism is capitalism



Because liberals and communist share the same social beliefs (Feminism, LGBT rights, Ethnic and Social egalitarianism). Just not the same economic beliefs or views on materialism.
No, liberals really dont. At all.

A communist will normally approve of someone getting a gender change, a liberal would want someone to get a gender change and parade through the street and show it off.

This is some reactionary bull right here. What the fuck do you imply here?

[Sabot Cat]

Because liberals and communist share the same social beliefs (Feminism, LGBT rights, Ethnic and Social egalitarianism). Just not the same economic beliefs or views on materialism. A communist will normally approve of someone getting a gender change, a liberal would want someone to get a gender change and parade through the street and show it off.

No a liberal will make it so trans people can change their documents or get hormone replacement therapy or what have you, whenever it commands their easily diverted attention and satisfies their sense of sanctimonious paternalism, but they would do little to change the fundamental economic structure that condemns many of us around the world to poverty and death. A communist would fight to abolish the hierarchy of wealth and agitate for the liberation of the proletariat.

[Venas Abiertas]

Two points:

First, I realize that any talk about an invasion of the USA is just wishful thinking on my part. The US will either have to sink under its own weight or undergo a socialist transformation on its own, only God knows how.

Second, my thinking about trying conservative media figures in court and hanging them (or at least sending them to a re-education camp to hoe turnips for the next thirty years) has probably been conditioned by the movie Sometimes in April, about the massacres in Rwanda in 1996. That movie did a good job of pointing out the criminal complicity of a hate radio station in inciting and coordinating the massacres. The International Criminal Tribunal found several of the station's managers and announcers guilty of genocide and sentenced them to life in prison. I would love to see Sean Hannity and Glen Beck wedged into a 6' by 6' cell with Rush Limbaugh.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

The only existing mainstream left is the bourgeois liberal left. But I think it's better to see the liberals as the lesser evil against the fascist and capitalists.Liberals are capitalists.Not all of them. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism)liberal socialism is capitalism


In what way? :confused:


Liberal socialism is a political philosophy that is a variant of socialism that includes liberal principles within it. Liberal socialism does not have the goal of abolishing capitalism in favor of a socialist economy; instead, it supports a mixed economy that includes both public and private property in capital goods.
Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a free-market economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism and thus opposes entirely unregulated laissez-faire economic liberalism.
Liberal Socialism - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism)

[Remus Bleys]

why dont you read the manifesto?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In Latin America. Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Nicaragua...

The left is very much active and alive there.

The United States has the most brainwashed, alienated people on the planet. It will some day simply have to be conquered by some invading force and its inhabitants re-educated. Some of them, like the Nazi hate radio and Fox news crews, will probably have to be taken out and shot, for inciting hatred and treason against humanity.

Most conservatives are born cowards and as soon as they sense the change in the winds they won't offer much resistance.


There's no contradiction. People's attitudes are largely the result of the material conditions they live with, in our case, capitalism. In a socialist economy, most people would gradually adapt their mentalities to the prevailing system, as Marx explained and as we have seen happen after several revolutions, such as the Soviet one, when the average very traditional and monarchical-leaning Russian transitioned in a few years into a faithful defender of "communism".

The ringleaders, however, such as the capitalist and individualist propagandists on hate TV and radio, would need to be put on public trial and if not executed, then be given lengthy sentences for their criminal lies and incitement to violence against the poor and the workers.

The "brainwashing" I was referring to are simply sets of beliefs and attitudes that most people share (even most poor, workers, women, and minorities) because those are what they have been exposed to on a daily basis. A changing reality towards socialism would cause a similar change in the "superstructure" and most people would go along with that as they always have.

As far as having a socialist revolution in the USA, if you have any better ideas that actually work, millions of leftists all over the world would love to hear them.



As someone who grew up in the southern US and, well, never left - most people I've encountered are open to radical left politics if you speak to them as equals rather than condescendingly refer to everyone as hicks (or, even if you don't use the 'h' word, most people either not from here or who are urban fetishists convey such an attitude during conversation). You have to draw someone in.

The resistance people express here is a resistance to a perceived condescension from others. They see liberals (and, like it or not, they're going to assume anything left is 'liberal' at first) as being condescending and separated from their lives. Because, well, for the most part they are. The people here have grown up with their only real experience with the "left" (quotes because, ya know, liberals aren't left, but they'll be associated with us at first here) as people up north saying in so many words, for example, "Hey you dumb inbreds, guns are bad! Stop acquiring food for yourself in an extremely inexpensive way and go buy it at the store like a Civilized American (tm)". Communist rhetoric must be adapted to the south. I'm not saying abandon anti-racist positions or anything, not at all, it just has to be packaged in a non-condescending way. You have to befriend someone here, and earn their respect, for them to take you seriously. The people here are not fucking stupid. I have done this countless times. You'd be surprised how many of the people you disregard as hopeless reactionaries will sympathize with the revolutionary left if you would quit acting like such fucking assholes. And you know what happens after that? They talk to their friends about the same thing you talked to them about.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

why dont you read the manifesto?

I'm on the second chapter, I'll get to that.