Old Left/New Left

[Red Axis]

In the socialist/communist world you have the Old Left and the New Left.

en.wikipedia.org/Old_Left

en.wikipedia.org/New_Left

I know most of you are New Leftists, but I personally identify as part of the Old Left, which of course is the reason many of you disagree with my positions in posting. Let's take a poll. Are you Old Left or New Left?

[bolshevik butcher]

Well I'm part of a trotskyist tendancy. Does that make me 'old left'. I'm alsoa high schools tudnet though? I think this is a bit of a waste of time really and a fictional barrier.

[Wanted Man]

By those criteria, I'm part of the "old left", being an eeeeeeeevillll stalinist or whatever. :ph34r:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm most probably New Left, although I dislike certain tendencies within the New Left, such as lifestylism, moral vegetarianism, postmodernism, and the following of trendy Eastern religions.

[Jadan ja]

This division is confusing to me.

Is the difference simply that "new left" is not leninist and "old left" is leninist? (How can then Leninism be "old" and anarchism "new": anarchism develpoed before Leninsm???)

Or is the difference that "old left" reffers to movements before WW II and "new left" after WW II?


...following of trendy Eastern religions.

New leftists follow those religions???????????!!!!!!!!

[Wanted Man]

New Left appears to be those students' movements that arose during the 70s that were more busy with "social activism" than union work and the like. It doesn't necessarily have to be non-Leninist, the RCP was part of it too.

[Red Axis]

The Old Left is more focused on economic issues, while the New Left tends to be more into Women's rights, drug legalization, anti-war, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Jadan [email protected] 7 2006, 01:59 PM
New leftists follow those religions???????????!!!!!!!!
Some of them do. I said it was a tendency, not a cast iron rule.

[YSR]

Let's make the Newest Left.

[Red Axis]

The Newer the Left becomes, the more rank-and-file working people we isolate.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Proper links to wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Left

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left

The "New Left", as Matthijs pointed out, doesn't necessarily mean "anti-Leninist"....based on the pages I linked, British Trotskyism and American Maoism can be considered part of the "New Left".

Basically, I suppose the "Old Left" could be described as having the following characteristics:

1) Support for the Soviet Union....whether it's considered a "deformed" workers state or not doesn't really matter.

2) Adherence to "traditional" Leninist principles about the role of the Party.

3) Emphasis on Union work and/or running in Parliamentary elections.

4) In a sense, strictly "workerist" politics....in other words, the "Old Left" doesn't have that much of an interest in Gay Rights, Feminism and so on.

There's probably other stuff that I've missed....but generally speaking, I think that's about it. Indeed, in my opinion, the "flagships" of the "Old Left" are the old franchise CP's; and they certainly had the above characteristics.

Alternatively, the "New Left" is more of a "mixed bag". The wikipedia article on this, is much better than the one on the "Old Left"....and really, as that article mentions, the "New Left" covers everything from counterculture to Maoism.

I don't know if I'd place postmodernism and "the following of trendy Eastern religions" in the "New Left" paradigm....they seem to be things that arose after the "New Lefts" era.

In my opinion, the "New Left" was strongly influenced by the Feminist, Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam Movements; and therefore, it is fair to say that the "New Left" is concerned with issues other than those that are traditionally attributed with the labour movement.

If one wanted to make a slightly sarcy remark, then they could say the "Old Left" was predominantly "workerist" where as the "New Left" was/is predominantly "studentist".

As for myself, well....fuck knows which category I&#39;d fit into. Maybe I&#39;m "middle aged left". <_<

I&#39;m not "Old Left"; but I&#39;m probably not "New Left" either....maybe I&#39;m just "Ultra Ultra Left". :P


Originally posted by Red Axis
....but I personally identify as part of the Old Left, which of course is the reason many of you disagree with my positions in posting.

I wouldn&#39;t say you&#39;re "Old Left"....you&#39;re more like "Dinosaur Left". :lol:

Shit, you&#39;re virtually extinct&#33; :lol:

[bolshevik butcher]

But british trotskyism and union work are linked. That&#39;s a paradox. I think that this is a stupid thread. Noone can really say taht they are &#39;old left&#39; or &#39;new left&#39; caigorically.

[The Grey Blur]

Labels like these are counter-productive and a waste of time

[Red Axis]

Actually, they represent a real split in leftist principles.

[Brekisonphilous]

I guess I am probably New left because I don&#39;t think the USSR was that successful. And I have environmentalist tendencies, I&#39;m for equal rights, anti-war (no war but the class war), Drug legalization,..etc.

[redflag32]

Im neither,im a "nowleft"

[Morpheus]

These terms can be very useful when discussing history, at least US history, but aren&#39;t really useful if your&#39;e trying to apply them to contemporary political theory. In the US, and some other parts of the world, the 20th century saw two major upswings in leftist rebellion. The first was in the &#39;30s, the next in the &#39;60s. There were significant differences between both periods in ideology, tactics, organizing & other areas. That difference justifies refering to them by different names, like &#39;old left&#39; (&#39;30s) and &#39;new left&#39; (&#39;60s). It&#39;s no longer a difference of "which left are you in" but of different historical movements. If you joined the left after the &#39;70s you aren&#39;t really part either left, and even if you joined during one of the two upswings it&#39;s probably not applicable to apply either label to you. Because there&#39;s no similar upswing of leftist rebellion right now, none of us are really part of a &#39;new left&#39; or an &#39;old left.&#39; If there were such a rebellion, then it would imply the need for a new name to differentiate it from the 2 previous rebellions.

[Red Axis]

I still think the terms can be used when discussing ideology. I am not from the thirties, but I am Old Left as far as ideology is concerned.

[MurderInc]

New School; New Clothes; New Left.

Leninist Schemes = Capitalist Dreams.

NO LENINISM.

Direct democracy at the local level; VERY LITTLE STATE ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE REVOLUTION FROM EXTERNAAL FORCES&#33;&#33;&#33;

Leave the individual soviets THE FUCK ALONE&#33;

All workers equal in recognition.

All leaders rotate their positions.

HOWEVER, a TOTAL MEATEATER. LONG LIVE IN-N-OUT&#33; (Sorry NoXion.)

[The Grey Blur]

Leninist Schemes = Capitalist Dreams.

NO LENINISM.

Direct democracy at the local level; VERY LITTLE STATE ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE REVOLUTION FROM EXTERNAAL FORCES&#33;&#33;&#33;
:lol: You brightened up my night. How drunk are you anyway?

[More Fire for the People]

New Lefitst of sorts. Bits of Marcuse and Hoffman here and there.

[PRC-UTE]

As far as I&#39;ve always understood the term, it has nothing to do with Leninism. In fact, there were probably far more Leninists in the New Left as I can&#39;t think of any New Left anarchist or left communist movements.

The Old Left = early 20th century, especially 1930&#39;s left, working class predominantly

New Left = 1960&#39;s/70&#39;s radical students, Paris 68 rebellion, identity politics, SDS, largely middle class

[MurderInc]

Hi Permanent Revolution:

We&#39;re having a paty here. Geing ready for the Sharks game. I&#39;m alredy ahea d of the game.

Living off Stoli martinis.

What i lack in therory i make up for in common snse. somethism that appears to be lacking here.

hee hee

[JimFar]

I think that Morpheus got it right in terms of the basis for the distinction between the Old Left and the New Left. The Old Left, coming out of the leftwing upsurge of the 1930s while the New Left emerged from the upsurge of the 1960s. In fact in the twentieth century, there had been an earlier leftist upsurge back in the 1900&#39;s and 1910&#39;s period too, but I don&#39;t think that anybody refers to that as the Old Old Left. Some writers have, however, referred to that earlier upsurge as the Lyrical Left.

In any case, it should be pointed out that both the Old Left and the New Left were very much divided. For the Old Left, the main point of contention was the Soviet Union, so the Old Left became divided between Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. Originally, both sides saw themselves as Leninists, but later on, many of the anti-Stalinists became full-fledged anti-communists. It was out of those folk, that the cold war liberals of the 1950s emerged. And many of those people later became neo-conservatives.

The New Left emerged out of the social movements of the 1960s. In Britain, the term was already in use in the 1950s in reference to dissident Marxist intellectuals who left the CPGB after 1956, for example, the historian, E.P. Thompson. By the end of that decade there was a journal, the New Left Review, which continues to this day. In the US, the New Left arose out of movements like the civil rights movement and the "ban the bomb" movement of the early 1960s, and it rose to great strength with the antiwar movement and the student movement. It too was divided, but whereas the Old Left had originally been almost entirely Leninist, the New Left included both Leninists and anti-Leninists. In fact initially, the anti-Leninists seemed to be the stronger part of the New Left, drawing variously from populism, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, pacifism, and so forth. The Leninists didn&#39;t really grow in strength until the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the rise of the new communist movements like the Progressive Labor Party, the Revolutionary Youth movements, the Black Panthers etc. In the American New Left, it was the Maoists who were for a while the predominant force, although certain Trotskyists groups did reasonably well during this period too. The American SWP, for instance, played an important role within the antiwar movement, sometimes in direct collaboration with the CPUSA. Something which would have been unimaginable a couple of decades earlier.

Repoman is correct that the social bases of the Old and New Lefts were different. The Old Left&#39;s base was within the labor movement. It certainly succeeded for a while in drawing in students and middle class intellectuals in the 1930s, but they were never its driving force. The social base of the New Left was mainly among students and intellectuals, with some portions of the New Left, like the Maoists, attempting to reach out to the traditional working class. But its real base and driving force was with the new social movements of the 1960s.

[Andy Bowden]

The old left IMO are good in that they focused on workers and unions. The new left are good in that they focused on feminism, and on other oppressed groups under capitalism that aren&#39;t neccessarily in the workplace.

Socialists should take the good points and keep out the bad from every tradition IMO.

Both workers and groups that arent in the workplace should work together to destroy capitalism.

[The Beat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:10 PM
New School; New Clothes; New Left.

Leninist Schemes = Capitalist Dreams.

NO LENINISM.

Direct democracy at the local level; VERY LITTLE STATE ORGANIZATION, FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE REVOLUTION FROM EXTERNAAL FORCES&#33;&#33;&#33;

Leave the individual soviets THE FUCK ALONE&#33;

All workers equal in recognition.

All leaders rotate their positions.

HOWEVER, a TOTAL MEATEATER. LONG LIVE IN-N-OUT&#33; (Sorry NoXion.)
Murder Inc.

You have shown yourself to be a true American, all the way to naming an American fast food place in your rhetoric.

Old school left was much more union oriented. At the time, they had the Soviet Union to use as an example, and in the 30s and 40s, the Soviet Union was a pretty good example ................... at least from far away. If you don&#39;t believe so, just ask Arlo Guthrie. His father, Woody Guthrie, wrote ballads extoling the US in the same light as the Soviet Union. "This Land is Your Land," etc were ballads to bring the proletariat into the popular front. Woody is one of the best folk singers ever.

Democracy is wrong. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that Democracy is where 51% of the people can rule over the other 49%. A Republic is what&#39;s needed. We need checks and balances all over the place to keep one branch from ruling roughshod over all other branches.

A healthy dose of Socialism would be welcomed indeed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 10:10 PM
HOWEVER, a TOTAL MEATEATER. LONG LIVE IN-N-OUT&#33; (Sorry NoXion.)
You got me the wrong way round, mate. I disapprove of such post-new left trends as postmodernism, lifestylism and moral vegetarianism.

[chuq]

OLD LEFT NEW LEFT--too much time spent on semantics. I am a COMMUNIST-period. If you want to read into that be my guest.

[Janus]

If you joined the left after the &#39;70s you aren&#39;t really part either left, and even if you joined during one of the two upswings it&#39;s probably not applicable to apply either label to you. Because there&#39;s no similar upswing of leftist rebellion right now, none of us are really part of a &#39;new left&#39; or an &#39;old left.&#39; If there were such a rebellion, then it would imply the need for a new name to differentiate it from the 2 previous rebellions.
Well said, Morpheus. I agree that most of us can&#39;&#39;t really be strictly categorized into one or the other. I think that most of us incorporate ideas from both of the tendencies.

[Guerrilla22]

Are we talking about the new lwft from the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s in the US, that Avakian claims he started or something else. I&#39;ve noticed some scholars have started labeling the recent left leaders in Latin America "the new left" as well.

[The Beat]

G22,

Chavez is hosting a total new revolution in Venezuela. The Bolivarian Revolution. Morales in Bolivia is sitting on the second largest oil reserves in all of South America and he just nationalized said industry. Guess who were the first and secon most oil extractors in his country.,.....

Yes, both Brazil and Argentina have held a one-day summit with the newly elected president to go over his plans to nationalize billions of dollars of foreign investment. From what I&#39;ve heard, both heads of state from Brazil and Argentina pledge their support to Bolivia.

[piet11111]

i use what makes sense so what am i ?
a sensible-leftist ? :lol:

[Bored77]

I identify more with the New Left because I like that it covers a much wider range of people. If you want to get into what movement is more likely to succeed then forget about it. New Left all the way. And I say we start with that. Lets free the people and then ask them what they want afterwards.