Who does the Left represent?

[ComradeAllende]

For the past few decades, an interesting belief has gone mainstream within American culture. The Left, it is argued, does not represent the interests of the working class; rather, it represents the interests of posh elitists and bohemians, along with "culturally sensitive" activists and the more progressive members of the "chattering classes"; if one wants to represent working people, you'll have to look to the Right (fascist or conservative) and the Center (realists and technocrats) for that. And I find that interesting not only because it belies the entire history of political struggles and movements since the Enlightenment, but because of how plausible it all seems.

I mean, think about it; if you're from a working-class neighborhood in "Middle America" or the South, you get almost no attention from the Left. If you're white, you get thrown under the "redneck-hillbilly" umbrella, and if you're black or colored you're basically touted as a "progressive" talking point and ignored until election time comes. If you look at the social and media focus on campus politics, you see that most of the so-called "members" of the Left are rather privileged (in terms of educational attainment, at least). When people think of the Left, they don't think of the worker carrying the banner of socialism, feminism, etc; they think of a youngish college student with an annoying personality and a condescending tone.

What I'm wondering is how did this change occur? What were the historical roots of this? And how can we get out of this funk, if we even can?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The problem, really, is that liberals are being confused with the Left.

[Atsumari]

The problem, really, is that liberals are being confused with the Left.
I dunno, we can preach to the choir how much we hate those fucking liberals and keep that permanent circle jerk going, but whenever I see college kids and people with an interest in left-wing politics these days, I can see where Allende is coming from.

[Verneinung]

Default Who does the Left represent?

First of all, screw the workers. The Left represents the Left.


What I'm wondering is how did this change occur? What were the historical roots of this?

Well, bourgeois liberals/socialists/social democrats, along with the bourgeois state and bourgeoisie generally, won pretty much every major political battle against socialism in the 20th century, especially in the USA. And the winners also write history, so the analysis of it from people not too deeply into providing a critical, leftist analysis, is going to follow that liberal bias.

You can just look at Woodrow Wilson and the Red Scare; FDR and the New Deal; the Cold War and anti-communism; the Civil Rights/Anti-War, etc., movement/s in 60s and 70s that were totally crushed at the time by COINTELPRO, War on Drugs, etc., the FBI, state, local and federal governments, generally, and the history was destroyed with propaganda and a shift from the left (like in those movements) standing for true justice and real anti-capitalism and anti-imperialism to representing social issues and tolerance and perpetuating the illusion of a divide between the two parties, etc.; neoliberalism and the destruction of the working class, democracy and concentration of political economic power; and so on.

The big thing for me lately has been what happened in the 60s and 70s, because I think that is really when things went way down hill. You had, at the time, the rise of multiple movements that could be easily connected (and really were to an extent) with important leaders and tons of enthusiasm, and you had basically all of the major political, social, religious, etc., leaders either get murdered, imprisoned, discredited, marginalized, exiled, etc., the movements were totally undermined and destroyed, and the people from that era (a lot of them, at least) became pretty cynical, lost a lot of hope, went on with normal lives, etc., and historically that era was stolen from the left with propaganda that has made the average person think of it as a liberal win in terms of tolerance and rights for minority, social groups, but a failure from all of the drug addict hippies and extremist blacks who carried out acts of violence, etc. And that period, and the right-wing triumph over that period, was the start of all of the policy and infrastructural deterrents that were implemented to thwart the left, which I mentioned as part of the neoliberalism, rise of finance capital, concentration of wealth and power, War on Drugs, stripping of social programs and regulation, deterioration of the working class, taking away victories of workers movements (work hours, wages, etc.), and then you had 9/11, the Patriot Act, NSA spying, NDAA, Drones, militarization of police, counter-terrorism, etc.



And how can we get out of this funk, if we even can?

Well, there are the main talking points, if you will, e.g., how the left is opposed to liberalism, the true "people's" history, what socialism and communism really are, how capitalism is the problem (basically Das Kapital 101), etc.

But, I don't think we can look at it as a "funk", because I think the "funk" we are already out of with the financial collapse of 2008, the failure of neoliberal/neoconservative policy and the rise of awareness and skepticism in people. Bernie Sanders, today, in politics, is huge. And leading up to that, the rise of social media, alternative media and the internet, along with people like Zizek, Chomsky, David Harvey, Richard Wolff, etc., over the last years, sort of getting asked a lot about how capitalism/the system is really the problem and the whole society really starting to question the fundamentals again, with even the average person (on all sides, parties, etc.) looking at the government, corporations and politicians and knowing that there is a problem with these institutions, and looking for an explanation.

So, really what we need to be worried about is the strategy moving forward. We need to look toward making sure we don't make the same mistakes and failures in this century that were made last century, because it looks like it is now or never. And bringing that back to workers, one of the major battles, in winning a revolution, as well as the minds of workers is convincing them of the plight of wage-slavery; because, one could imagine the Civil War if the Union fought all of those battles for the blacks to think they were better off on Southern plantations. The latter, i.e., the minds of the working class, is something I think we can win along the way, not something that needs to be prioritized.

[pastradamus]

The problem, really, is that liberals are being confused with the Left.
Well, that's mainly an american thing. Seriously that douche bag Bill Maher call's himself a leftist (is douche bag still allowed on here? Sorry I'm an 02 member).

[ComradeAllende]

The problem, really, is that liberals are being confused with the Left.

The problem is that liberals, in America at least, ARE the Left. There is no mass-based left organization in America, not even the watered-down revisionist ones like you see in Europe (Labour, Die Linke, SPD, etc.). In Europe, social democracy was achieved by those who abandoned revolutionary socialism; in America, it was sought after (and never achieved) by those who moved to the left of New Deal-style liberalism.

[Verneinung]

The problem is that liberals, in America at least, ARE the Left. There is no mass-based left organization in America, not even the watered-down revisionist ones like you see in Europe (Labour, Die Linke, SPD, etc.). In Europe, social democracy was achieved by those who abandoned revolutionary socialism; in America, it was sought after (and never achieved) by those who moved to the left of New Deal-style liberalism.

They are the left... of the mainstream political arena. They are the "left" manufactured by the bourgeoisie and propaganda.

I know the system in Europe is a lot more inviting to reformist opposition, but in the US, the system isn't just stacked against the left, they will kill you.

Like I mentioned, in the US, especially in the 60s, if you were on the left truly, or close, under J. Edgar Hoover, they would kill you, imprison you, force you into exile, marginalize you, etc.; they had FBI members in every group as provocateurs, informants, bodyguards, etc.; they knew more about people associated with left groups than the individuals knew about themselves and used every single illegal tactic to destroy the left; and being notoriously bad with education and propaganda, the US keeps the public brainwashed and propagandized.

Like the US public thinks that the Black Panthers compare to the KKK. Barely any of them know about Martin Luther King Jr.'s views on issues of capitalism, imperialism, critique of moderates and the black (petty) bourgeoisie; and few of them know about his Poor People's Campaign or his career and especially his campaign being strongly monitored by the FBI. Even less know about COINTELPRO, Fred Hampton or the Rainbow Coalition, etc. And there was a deliberate effort, which worked, to paint all of those who were fighting against racism, imperialism and capitalism in the 60s, who came from all backgrounds, as hippie drug addicts.

In a lot of ways the US is hardcore totalitarian, and there definitely has to be a line drawn between what is allowed in the mainstream, versus what is potential, possible or actually there in certain cases for the left.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all, screw the workers. The Left represents the Left.

Hm. That could go both ways. "Screw the left, we workers represent ourselves".

Evidently, there is a problem with the verb "to represent" here, but if the left doesn't have any kind of relation with the working class, and only stands into a narcissistic/masturbatory relation with itself, then the left is absoulutely useless and we should give it up immediately.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Depends what you mean by 'the Left'. Some of us think that, of course, you should give it up immediately, because it's the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus, and there's no way that your Labour, Die Linke, Podemos, SYRIZA parties are going to offer the working class any meaningful options.

The revolutionary groups, of course, also have no relationship to the working class, and are therefore also useless, but for different reasons. Swimming lessons are useless most of the time too. If the working class isn't struggling on any great scale, why does it need revolutionary organisations?

[Shinyos]

The revolutionary left in general is nothing more but an academically privileged ivory tower with no realistic basis in the suffering of billions of people worldwide. The working class is struggling, and to a great degree, but time and time again, the left shows it's uncaring incompetence in the plight of the working class with several dozens of failed attempts and tongue-in-cheek posturing. An actual revolution starts with the combined efforts of a unified working class who are ready and passionate of the struggle to a better world, not by random small groups of individuals who idolize dead and irrelevant philosophers.

[Heretek]

The revolutionary left in general is nothing more but an academically privileged ivory tower with no realistic basis in the suffering of billions of people worldwide. The working class is struggling, and to a great degree, but time and time again, the left shows it's uncaring incompetence in the plight of the working class with several dozens of failed attempts and tongue-in-cheek posturing. An actual revolution starts with the combined efforts of a unified working class who are ready and passionate of the struggle to a better world, not by random small groups of individuals who idolize dead and irrelevant philosophers.

And all of this is spontaneous? The working class will suddenly unite and revolt? Why would they do this? What would trigger it? Some superstitious 'awakening?' This is idealistic and nonsensical. If they are ignorant of the alternatives how would they utilize said alternatives? What makes you so sure a fascist opportunist does not go to the barbarism half of socialism or barbarism first? We should just leave such action unopposed? You may, and you may sit on the pathetic excuse of 'its a historical inevitability,' but I think I shall not. Passive behavior has crushed leftists movements before, I'd advise no more

[TheIrrationalist]

The revolutionary left in general is nothing more but an academically privileged ivory tower with no realistic basis in the suffering of billions of people worldwide. The working class is struggling, and to a great degree, but time and time again, the left shows it's uncaring incompetence in the plight of the working class with several dozens of failed attempts and tongue-in-cheek posturing. An actual revolution starts with the combined efforts of a unified working class who are ready and passionate of the struggle to a better world, not by random small groups of individuals who idolize dead and irrelevant philosophers.

you have very narrow perception of the revolutionary left. communism is certainly in retreat in the west, but what you are missing are the mass movements in other parts of the world, like India for example. say what you want about their ideological purity, or whatever, but there is no doubt that these groups do indeed have basis 'in the suffering of people'.

I sense you are justifying some form of spontaneism. obviously that is not happening and it is not going to produce anything but the kind of liberal disasters we have seen without any presence of an effective revolutionary group. what is needed is organization, not just blind activism or the dreams of 'sit back and watch' spontaneity (let's leave that to the monks, shall we). there exists many people and movements who are trying to do something and are trying to connect with that base, rather than just moaning about it and falling in to pessimism and defeatism.

[Heretek]

Depends what you mean by 'the Left'. Some of us think that, of course, you should give it up immediately, because it's the left wing of the bourgeois political apparatus, and there's no way that your Labour, Die Linke, Podemos, SYRIZA parties are going to offer the working class any meaningful options.

The revolutionary groups, of course, also have no relationship to the working class, and are therefore also useless, but for different reasons. Swimming lessons are useless most of the time too. If the working class isn't struggling on any great scale, why does it need revolutionary organisations?

But like swimming lessons, invaluable in a life or death situation relying on it, no? Of course leftist organizations are out of touch, its painfully obvious looking around. Can the be blamed? Sometimes. Some have had ample time to gather support in the face of capital, and have not done so. Others have been so marginalized and repressed as to have been non-existant until recently. And therefore they are going through their learning blunders. Will they learn is another question.

What do you suggest the left does?

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

a boot, stamping on a human face, forever

[Shinyos]

I like how both of you are running under the assumption that I'm endorsing spontaneist struggles just because your supposed 'revolution' doesn't follow any traditional communist doctrine.

No where in my post did I say that the working class need to form any mass revolt. I was simply stating that without a core goal, a working class uprising wouldn't happen. I was intentionally being vague to avoid the knee-jerk tendency stupidity, and yet it still happened. People really need to learn to read.


you have very narrow perception of the revolutionary left. communism is certainly in retreat in the west, but what you are missing are the mass movements in other parts of the world, like India for example.

So what is the correct perception of the left, despite it being a catastrophic failure for more than 100 years? What does it mean to have a wide and open 'perception of the revolutionary left'? Humor me.


And all of this is spontaneous? The working class will suddenly unite and revolt? Why would they do this? What would trigger it? Some superstitious 'awakening?' This is idealistic and nonsensical.

Again, nowhere in my post am I suggesting spontaneist movements. And I am certainly not advocating any of this enlightening garbage that is often so commonplace in politics. You're attacking a straw man.

[TheIrrationalist]

So what is the correct perception of the left, despite it being a catastrophic failure for more than 100 years?

I wouldn't be so readily dismissing everything that has been achieved by the revolutionary left in the 20th century. you are taking an extreme defeatist position, but remember that many countries were indeed controlled by communists. I don't consider that a small feat by any stretch, and the fact that they even lasted as long as they did, in a world surrounded by a hostile enemy, is a miracle. you must understand the revolutionary left existed in constant onslaught from the west. failures of the 20th century weren't completely born out of the incompetence of the revolutionary left itself, but in many cases those movements failed because of the combined efforts of the imperialist forces of the US and their allies. also the pressure exerted to the west from the socialist world contributed greatly to development of the social services and better working conditions in the west. you can see it now how, decades after the fall of the soviet bloc, all these gains are being derided and cut.

by that attitude only neoliberalism seem to not have been a catastrophic failure.



Again, nowhere my post am I suggesting spontaneist movements. And I am certainly not advocating any of this enlightening garbage that is often so commonplace in politics. You're attacking a straw man.

maybe I misinterpreted what you were intending.

[Heretek]

I like how both of you are running under the assumption that I'm endorsing spontaneist struggles just because your supposed 'revolution' doesn't follow any traditional communist doctrine.

No where in my post did I say that the working class need to form any mass revolt. I was simply stating that without a core goal, a working class uprising wouldn't happen. I was intentionally being vague to avoid the knee-jerk tendency stupidity, and yet it still happened. People really need to learn to read.



So what is the correct perception of the left, despite it being a catastrophic failure for more than 100 years? What does it mean to have a wide and open 'perception of the revolutionary left'? Humor me.



Again, nowhere in my post am I suggesting spontaneist movements. And I am certainly not advocating any of this enlightening garbage that is often so commonplace in politics. You're attacking a straw man.

You offer zero alternatives, and by deduction that leaves only spontaneous struggles. You throw out both anarchist and communist revolutionary movements by referencing their complete and 'total failure.' Simply because something was not violent, or did not succeed in its entirety does not dismiss the validity of such movements.

The Paris Commune; founded with the goal of a society of equals and the precursor to most modern movements and creating the original framework of what to do in revolutionary situations, was crushed. Russian revolution; the masses (ie workers) revolted against the tzar with the goal of toppling him, ending the war, and getting their food back. Ultimately led to the largest experiment in one tendency of communism until the fall of Stalin, even if doomed to failure by the lack of revolt elsewhere. Spanish Civil War; fought by anarchists and communists to preserve a democracy (dominated by leftists) against regression to fascism. Betrayed by many sides, ultimately crushed. Workers rights movements in the US; fought for the few concessions workers have today like a minimum wage and shorter workdays, breaks, and healthcare. Crushed by government repeatedly until the red scare finally killed it. There are others.

All of these had workers organizations, namely revolutionary ones, at the forefront of their movement. Even if they fail, they have still contributed to what we know today, and have shown what to be weary of so past mistakes do not occur. If a group does nat abide these warnings, woe upon them. Almost all of these groups had been organizing and agitating for years before open revolt occurred, if it did at all. Ivory tower intellectuals? Please, tell that to the dead in the streets.

[Blake's Baby]

But like swimming lessons, invaluable in a life or death situation relying on it, no? Of course leftist organizations are out of touch, its painfully obvious looking around. Can the be blamed? Sometimes. Some have had ample time to gather support in the face of capital, and have not done so. Others have been so marginalized and repressed as to have been non-existant until recently. And therefore they are going through their learning blunders. Will they learn is another question.

What do you suggest the left does?

Depends which 'left' you mean. I want 'the left' of capital to discredit itself and disappear. I want the revolutionary groups to be able to take part in the historic movement of the working class.

For that to happen, the working class needs to be doing something.

[ComradeAllende]

I wouldn't be so readily dismissing everything that has been achieved by the revolutionary left in the 20th century. you are taking an extreme defeatist position, but remember that many countries were indeed controlled by communists. I don't consider that a small feat by any stretch, and the fact that they even lasted as long as they did, in a world surrounded by a hostile enemy, is a miracle. you must understand the revolutionary left existed in constant onslaught from the west. failures of the 20th century weren't completely born out of the incompetence of the revolutionary left itself, but in many cases those movements failed because of the combined efforts of the imperialist forces of the US and their allies. also the pressure exerted to the west from the socialist world contributed greatly to development of the social services and better working conditions in the west. you can see it now how, decades after the fall of the soviet bloc, all these gains are being derided and cut.

While it is impressive that the revolutionary left seized control in so many countries in so little time, I don't think that's a very effective standard for judging the efficacy of the revolutionary left; the revolutionary left used to argue for the creation of a new world, for the self-emancipation of the working class and the humanization and democratization of major social institutions, from parliaments and trade unions to the workplace itself The fact that we failed to create such a world in the 20th century, while by no means a reason to give up, are indeed reason enough for self-reflection on the tactics used to encourage world revolution, particularly (at least in my opinion) the primacy of a vanguard organization or party within the broader revolutionary movement.

[d3crypt]

Depends on what you mean by "The Left". If you are talking about it in an American sense, then it represents the petty bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. If you are talking about the "Radical Left", then i would say that we represent the "Radical Left". The Radical Left doesn't have a common class that I can sense.

[lanadelarosa]

I haven't read the rest of the thread so I don't know what everyone else said but I agree with this. If you look at social media where it seems the sort of leftists you're talking about are the most vocal, you'll notice that while they do hold some progressive/leftist views, that a lot of their other beliefs line up with liberal or neoliberalism. Can we blame postmodernism? Because I feel like this is a huge contributing factor to why language has become so convoluted and obfuscated that no one knows what anyone stands for anymore.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I haven't read the rest of the thread so I don't know what everyone else said but I agree with this. If you look at social media where it seems the sort of leftists you're talking about are the most vocal, you'll notice that while they do hold some progressive/leftist views, that a lot of their other beliefs line up with liberal or neoliberalism. Can we blame postmodernism? Because I feel like this is a huge contributing factor to why language has become so convoluted and obfuscated that no one knows what anyone stands for anymore.

I think that is just making postmodernism into a boogeyman. Postmodernists aren't at fault, the issue is that people with a liberal ideological framework merely notice some of the same problems we do. The issue is the ideological hegemony of mainstream liberalism, not "postmodernism". Some postmodernists are closer to our politics than they are to mainstream liberals anyhow.

[lanadelarosa]

I think that is just making postmodernism into a boogeyman. Postmodernists aren't at fault, the issue is that people with a liberal ideological framework merely notice some of the same problems we do. The issue is the ideological hegemony of mainstream liberalism, not "postmodernism". Some postmodernists are closer to our politics than they are to mainstream liberals anyhow.

Idk, in my perspective as a woman within the left, it kind of is a bogeyman. To say they're not at fault when they've been watering down radical movements for decades is weird to me, but okay.