The New Left

[the fifth international]

Hey everyone. This is my first post here. I'm an Orthodox Marxist, in a sense of Classic Burgois Revolutionary.

I've had some issues with the so-called New Left. I've been discussing it with my friends and they seem pretty much not agreeable to my point of view. Therefore I brought it here and see what you guys think of it.

I've bee wondering where the ideas and movements of the New left today come from. They do not have their source in either Marx or Lenin, yet they are deemed by the left itself to be authentic, especially in the academy. There is some Marxism in the universities, but it is marginal and not very exact. If we take the credos of the left one by one and compare them with the ideas of Marx or Lenin,it is easy to see that they have drifted well and away from Marxist Dogma. Prove you ask, here is is ...


1. Cultural diversity. Neither Marx nor Lenin was interested in any kind of cultural diversity. Lenin supported the various nationalisms in Russia, but that was mainly a part of his revolutionary strategy for the atteinment of a greater goal. I'd also say 'yes' Marx and Lenin didn't want diversity for diversity's sake but that's something different entirely.


2. Gay liberation. Neither Marx nor Lenin had the slightest interest in homosexuality of any kind. As far as I know, neither referred to it in their writings. And certainly they had no notion of an "alternative lifestyle." I've not a homophobe, but I think it is just something the new left incorporated into its strategy just to get the shit going in its favor.I'm fairly sure the RFSR decriminalised homosexuality too.


3. Radical feminism. Neither Marx nor Lenin was especially concerned with feminism, though they did not directly oppose it. What they actually believed was that no questions concerning feminism could be adequately solved under capitalism, and that only under socialism would people be free of prejudice or bigotry. And women would be equal to men in all respects. Ofcourse, one can argue that this is the extension of the struggle in a broader sense.

4. Gender studies. Marx and Lenin, of course, never heard of what are called gender studies. But obviously they would not have had the slightest interest in them and would have thought of them as intellectual and political distractions.

5. Affirmative action. Marx and Lenin never heard of affirmative action. But they would have been against it, for they had a firm belief in merit and meritocracy.

6. Populism. Marx and Lenin did not care for populism in any form. It will be recalled that Marx went so far as to speak of "the idiocy of rural life."

7. Relativism. Marx and Lenin did not believe in any kind of relativism. Their thinking was founded on absolutes.

8. Elitism. As far as I can recall, neither Marx nor Lenin used the term "elite" or "elitism." But clearly they both supported the idea of intellectual quality and an intellectual vanguard.

9. Deconstruction. Marx and Lenin obviously never heard of deconstruction. But it goes without saying that they would have been opposed to it.

10. Tradition. Marx and Lenin had enormous respect for the achievements of the past, particularly in the arts, and they felt that the legacy of the past was to be built on. Neither was bothered by the fact that past achievements in philosophy and the arts were made by dead white males. Karl Marx was himself a dead white male. The new-left clearly follows a political line that traces 'identity-politics' as in the Black Movement in the United States and the Liberal Burgois type of middle class politics.

Thank you, please Discuss.

[Demogorgon]

I was born in the latter part of the twentieth century. neither Marx nor Lenin were. it is inevitable we will have slightly different priorities.

Yes I do count myself very much part of the new left and I do think there is a strong Marxist element to it. But we added to that.

[Whitten]

I agree people are getting to caught up in the affairs of these minority issues. All it does is distract people from the most important issue.
Also If your an Orthodox Marxist why is your forum name "the firth international"? isnt that a trot organisation?

[Sir Aunty Christ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:03 pm
I agree people are getting to caught up in the affairs of these minority issues. All it does is distract people from the most important issue.
:blink:

Has it not occured to you that these things are part of the system? It's about changing attitudes. What good is it changing the economic and political system (which I totally advocate doing) if there is still homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination?

Also, the fifth international, of course Marx and Lenin hadn't heard of these things. They wouldn't be thought about until the latter part of the 20th century by Marxists and Leninists in some cases.

EDIT: Double post. Can someone delete the first one please?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Whitten
All it does is distract people from the most important issue.

Yeah you're right, the exploitaiton of white male workers overrides ALL else!

[Pirate Utopian]

huh are you both a populist and an elitist?

[commiecrusader]

Extreme leftist politics nowadays tend to be an amalgamation of many different theories to come up with the best realistic policies and goals. There are Marxist influences, but in different parties and organisations also socialist and anarchist ones. There are also purely Marxist groups in existence. When Marx was writing, he probably didn't get exposed to much homosexuality or radical feminism, and considering Marxism means, in many senses, equality, of course he would advocate equal rights for all minority groups.

EDIT: Plus they're both dead, so they can't account for all the changes that haven't really taken place in our society. Their ideas are bound to require adaptation to apply to the present. You try and come up with an ideological prediction of the future, accounting for all changes in society that will never, ever need changing.

[KC]

Has it not occured to you that these things are part of the system? It's about changing attitudes. What good is it changing the economic and political system (which I totally advocate doing) if there is still homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination?

You can't get rid of homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination until you change the economic and political system.


Yeah you're right, the exploitaiton of white male workers overrides ALL else!

<_<
He was talking about the struggle of workers in general.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What good is it changing the economic and political system (which I totally advocate doing) if there is still homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination?

You "have the thing backwards". These are symptoms of capitalism and its heritage. You can&#39;t get rid of the symptoms without getting rid of the root cause.

[LSD]

I&#39;ve bee wondering where the ideas and movements of the New left today come from.

They come from a wide variety of sources, just like in every other living sociopolitical movement. Restricting oneself to "following" only one author or one theorist is the roadmap to stagnation and irrelevency. Not to mention that it borders on the cultish.

You like what Marx wrote? Great, but to assert that he&#39;s the only relevent political writer of the past 150 years is insane, especially considering the numerous changes that have occured in that time.

Politics is the study of human social policy and as such it needs to be reflective of the nature of that policy. It needs to be current and informed and uptodate.

And while Marx&#39;s writings contain a lot of useful materials, they are nonetheless a century and a half out of date. And that matters.


They do not have their source in either Marx or Lenin, yet they are deemed by the left itself to be authentic

So in your mind the only "authentic" leftist writings are those by Marx and Lenin? That&#39;s an awfully limited cannon you&#39;ve got to work with there. :rolleyes:


Neither Marx nor Lenin had the slightest interest in homosexuality of any kind.

And we should care because...?

Marx and, to a lesser extent, Lenin were living in the nineteenth century with all the reactionary values that go with that. It&#39;s hardly surprising that their opinions on the issue of gay rights was somewhat warped.

But even so, there were attempts in the early Soviet Union to decriminalize homosexuality; and although those attempts were rather limited in effect, it was still one of the first countries to even try.

So to say that Lenin had "no interest" in homosexuality is patently false. Obviously he didn&#39;t see it as the fundamental rights issue that the modern left recognizes it to be, but again he was living 80 years ago.

Times change&#33;


I&#39;ve not a homophobe, but I think it is just something the new left incorporated into its strategy just to get the shit going in its favor.

And what "shit" would that be? The world is still overwhelmingly homophobic, so if we were just trying to garner support, we would oppose gay rights.

I&#39;m curious, you say that you&#39;re "not a homophobe", but you seem quite distressed by the left&#39;s embracing of the gay rights movement. I must ask then, what would you have us do on this issue?

Should we be "neutral" on questions of prejudice and discrimination? Should we support gay-bashers and bigots so long as they tow the economic line?

If so, how is your position any different from that of the infamous South African Communist Party? Or of men like Victor Berger?


What they actually believed was that no questions concerning feminism could be adequately solved under capitalism,

Really? "No questions"?

I guess we&#39;d better give up then. No point in supporting a right to abortion, no point in opposing pay discrimination. And women suffering from domestic abuse? No problem, you can just explain that their problems will go away once the "great socialist revolution" takes hold.

I&#39;m sure it&#39;ll make them feel better. <_<


and that only under socialism would people be free of prejudice or bigotry.

And how did that work out again? Oh right...

Lenin thought that all social problems could be legislated away with the right state action and economic control. He was wrong. Within a few years of his death, homosexuality was illegal again and even the marginal gains that women had made were being reversed.

A society still rooted in deeply patriarchal values cannot be "reformed" overnight no matter how well meaning it&#39;s "benevolent rulers" might be.

Social discrimination cannot be fought on one front alone. Yes, women need to be more economically empowered and yes, capitalism itself is a barrier to true emancipation. But that doesn&#39;t mean that we can&#39;t make significant gains right now.

Politics and economics can&#39;t be as neatly separated as you seem to imagine. One intimately influences the other and vice versa. The social front alone won&#39;t "end" sexism, but it sure can help accelerate the process of de-patriarchization.

And while economic liberation will help eliminate discrimination, the reverse is also equally true: the less divided the working class is, the less influence that reactionary social ideas have, the more powerful the proletariat becomes.

So to abandon the feminist struggle would not only be a betrayal of the millions of enslaved women around the world, it would also be a grave disservice to our movement in general.


Marx and Lenin never heard of affirmative action.

They also never heard of the internal combustion engine or the integrated circuit.

I suppose "authentic" leftists should reject those too? :rolleyes:


But they would have been against it, for they had a firm belief in merit and meritocracy.

:blink: So Marx was a capitalist now?&#39;

Please cite one instance in which Marx indicated that he supported a meritocratic model for postrevolutionary society. Because, as I read it, "to each according to his need" is the antithesis of the meritocratic paradigm.


Marx and Lenin did not care for populism in any form.

Well I agree with you about Lenin. Clearly the man was not a fan of democracy or popular involvement. The kind of hiearchical autocratic state he set up certainly demonstrates that.

But Marx&#39;s writings are full of references to populism and democracy. This is the man who coined "workers of the world unite"; not "obey", not "follow me", but "unite". Marx called upon the disenfranchised masses to come together and as a class strike down the elites that were oppressing them.

It really doesn&#39;t get more populist than that.

Besides, is it your contention that if two old dead Europeans didn&#39;t support democracy, we shouldn&#39;t either? What kind of nonsensical anachronistic reactionary bullshit is that?


Marx and Lenin had enormous respect for the achievements of the past, particularly in the arts, and they felt that the legacy of the past was to be built on. Neither was bothered by the fact that past achievements in philosophy and the arts were made by dead white males.

That&#39;s because they were white males.

Materialism doesn&#39;t just apply to the people Marx wrote about, it also applies to him. As a product of the nineteenth century bourgeois class, Karl Marx was socialized with all sorts of reactionary prejudices and convictions.

He managed to expunge many of them, but no man is perfect and no one can ever fully transcend their era.

Again, that&#39;s why we need to look beyond Marx and Lenin.

[apathy maybe]

I&#39;ve bee wondering where the ideas and movements of the New left today come from. They do not have their source in either Marx or Lenin, yet they are deemed by the left itself to be authentic, especially in the academy. There is some Marxism in the universities, but it is marginal and not very exact. If we take the credos of the left one by one and compare them with the ideas of Marx or Lenin,it is easy to see that they have drifted well and away from Marxist Dogma. Prove you ask, here is is ...As pointed out by LSD, not everything comes from Marx or Lenin. Many of the Left are anarchists and don&#39;t agree with a lot of what, especially Lenin said, but also Marx. Personally I don&#39;t give two shits about Marxist Dogma, and it is interesting that you use the word &#39;dogma&#39; to describe that thought. Is it a religious belief for you? Is Marx the only true prophet (or Marx and Lenin if you prefer).

Cultural Diversity: Marx and Lenin may not have wanted diversity for diversities sake, but personally I think that so long as the culture is not "problematic", i.e. supporting homophobia, racism, sexism and other "nasty" things I support it existing. Diversity is important, if only to show people that their way of thinking is not the only way.

Gay Liberation: This is own area (along with the fight against racism and sexism and other forms of discrimination based on unchanging outward aspects of a person) that is very important. Even if we do get rid of capitalism, we will not abolish homophobia and so on in one fell swoop as well. It is a societal problem, and while it may be fuelled by capitalism, it was not started and will not end with capitalism.

Radical Feminism: It is perfectly possible to have equal rights for men and women in a capitalist society. In fact it is perfectly possible to have unequal rights (do men need maternity leave?) and still be fair. Well as fair as you can get in capitalism. Like homophobia and racism, sexism is not a product of the capitalist system. We can get rid of it now, or we can keep it and get rid of capitalism first. Or we can fight both at the same time.

Gender Studies: Interesting to know that you think that both Marx and Lenin would not have the slightest interest in such things. You talked to the personally? Yes it is possible that if we brought them forward from their time to ours, they would have other things to think about (such as the lynch mobs), but once they settled down I am sure that Marx at least would be quite interested in Gender Studies.

Affirmative Action: I guess this is one of those areas where I don&#39;t give a shit what they would have thought. Mind you LSD pointed out some flaws with your thinking in this area.

Populism: Lenin might not have cared about populism, but Marx did. He supported the industrial proletariat, which he thought would be the majority of the population in a capitalist society. It seems to me that he was correct (for his definitions at least). His comment on rural life is to some extent true, but not really true in this day and age of machinery and industrialisation. It should have been pretty obvious that with the industrialisation of the cities the industrialisation of the farms would not be far behind. The farm workers now are as proletariat as their comrades in the cities (though they might not think of them as comrades).

Relativism: Shows that their thinking was flawed then. There are no absolutes, there is an objective reality, but no human can see it. We interpret have subjective opinions. Science is an attempt to create an approximation of the objective reality, but Marx was working on his own.

Elitism: Well I don&#39;t support the idea of an elite that rules, such that idea can fuck off.

Deconstruction: Again it is interesting to see that you know exactly what people, who you have never talked to, would think about something they have never heard of.

Tradition: Conservatives support tradition and oppose change that is fast or disrespectful of tradition. I think the conservatives should be rounded up and given an ice cream then kicked in the nuts (if they have any). I don&#39;t think that most tradition has anything going for it, after all it was created by those in power, it is shaped to hold down those who are not in power.



Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
You can&#39;t get rid of homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination until you change the economic and political system.Sure you can, well not all discrimination but homophobia, sexism, racism yes. The economic and political system we have now did not create these irrational beliefs. Yes (at least some parts of) the present system supports sexism etc. but not all parts. We can get rid of these and still have capitalism.

Or we can keep them and just get rid of capitalism. Simply moving towards a more "communistic" system will not eliminate irrationality, I can easily see a communistic system with Proudhornian family structures.

[Messiah]

Marx and Lenin...

There&#39;s your problem. Marx and Lenin lived and died a long time ago. Their ideas remain vital, but at same time history has moved and we must react to it accordingly. Just because Marx said something, or didn&#39;t say something, or said something doesn&#39;t we have to agree with or not have an opinion or be hostile to it. Frankly, I can&#39;t believe I&#39;m even having to say these things.

Suffice to say, if your thought process entials you thinking "What did Marx and Lenin think of this?" as any sort or priority you need to help; help reasserting your individuality. Put the kool-aid down boy&#33;

[the fifth international]

If your an Orthodox Marxist why is your forum name "the firth international"? isnt that a trot organisation?

It is , and it is just my username. I have no attachment to such deluded organizations of Trotskites.



the fifth international, of course Marx and Lenin hadn&#39;t heard of these things. They wouldn&#39;t be thought about until the latter part of the 20th century by Marxists and Leninists in some cases.


Exactly my point&#33;

What you just said just illustrates how Dogma has become much entangled with modern political thoughts like identity politics.



You can&#39;t get rid of homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination until you change the economic and political system.


Sounds exactly like the Stalinist rhetoric that goes as " you can&#39;t really make an omellete without breaking few eggs."



You like what Marx wrote? Great, but to assert that he&#39;s the only relevent political writer of the past 150 years is insane, especially considering the numerous changes that have occured in that time.


I was specifically talking ablout Marxism. IN which no one is supposed to be as authoritative as Marx. I&#39;m only talking about the dogma, the credo in which what Communism is based on, period.


Gender Studies: Interesting to know that you think that both Marx and Lenin would not have the slightest interest in such things. You talked to the personally?

The LSD I have left 3 years back is as sarcastic as he was, only that he is showing his dyslexic tendencies. This is some funny shit to take from an Elitist Commie Club Advocate.

[KC]

Sure you can, well not all discrimination but homophobia, sexism, racism yes. The economic and political system we have now did not create these irrational beliefs. Yes (at least some parts of) the present system supports sexism etc. but not all parts. We can get rid of these and still have capitalism.


You can never eliminate these things in capitalist society because capitalist society exploits these things. These are ways to turn workers against each other and because of that they will never be done away with in capitalist society. Also, many of these have their grounding in economic status (such as racism in the US) and will not be elminated because of it.

[apathy maybe]

Gender Studies: Interesting to know that you think that both Marx and Lenin would not have the slightest interest in such things. You talked to the personally?The LSD I have left 3 years back is as sarcastic as he was, only that he is showing his dyslexic tendencies. This is some funny shit to take from an Elitist Commie Club Advocate.HaHa. LSD is not dyslexic, he is one of the better writers on this board. That was me you are quoting, and yes I missed an &#39;m&#39;. That is &#39;cause I think faster then what I type and thus sometimes don&#39;t type everything that I am thinking. Not only that, I am not in the CC. (And what was your old username?)

But you didn&#39;t answer the question, did you talk to Marx and Lenin personally to find out what they think about gender studies?

redstar2000 has written much interesting stuff on trying to interpret what Marx would have thought about conditions today. He thinks that Marx would not be a conservative, unlike yourself it seems.


Originally posted by Khayembii Communique
You can never eliminate these things in capitalist society because capitalist society exploits these things. These are ways to turn workers against each other and because of that they will never be done away with in capitalist society. Also, many of these have their grounding in economic status (such as racism in the US) and will not be elminated because of it.Well I guess I disagree. Yes capitalist society exploits these things, and yes many of them (such as racism) has at least a partial grounding in the economic system. However, we have seen society move forward towards eliminating these forms of discrimination, but still retaining the capitalist economic structure. I feel that it is possible to eliminate these irrational beliefs, but continue to have capitalism. Similarly I think that it is probable that even if we eliminate capitalism over night, that racism, sexism etc. will still exist. They are societal problems, they can be separated from the economic and political system that they exist in. But you are welcome to disagree.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Sir Aunty Christ+November 13, 2006 03:30 pm--> (Sir Aunty Christ @ November 13, 2006 03:30 pm)
Originally posted by Whitten+November 13, 2006 04:03 pm--> (Whitten &#064; November 13, 2006 04:03 pm)I agree people are getting to caught up in the affairs of these minority issues. All it does is distract people from the most important issue.[/b]
:blink:

Has it not occured to you that these things are part of the system? It&#39;s about changing attitudes. What good is it changing the economic and political system (which I totally advocate doing) if there is still homophobia, sexism, racism and other types of discrimination? [/b]
Ofcourse they&#39;re part of the system. All the more reason why we should concentrate on the destruction of capitalism, as these things will never go away under capitalism. Theres only so much reform of any kind can do. The sooner we learn to focus the better.


Black [email protected]

Whitten
All it does is distract people from the most important issue.

Yeah you&#39;re right, the exploitaiton of white male workers overrides ALL else&#33;

I didnt say that and you know it. The exploitation of all workers overides ALL else. Not whether someone finds a cultural stereotype about their sexuality to be insulting.

[cenv]

I couldn&#39;t be bothered to read all the above replies. However, the fact remains that just because our primary concern is the workers&#39; struggle we shouldn&#39;t necessarily disassociate ourselves from other important struggles. To do so would be admittedly closed minded. You can&#39;t trap yourself in a little box where the only thing you think about is the workers&#39; revolution as important as the workers may be. Moreoever, curbing sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. is a prerequisite task to any sort of workers&#39; revolution. Although there&#39;s no way to put a stop to such incorrect and dscriminating modes of though, they must be kept in check to some extent or the working class will be to divided to organize itself against the bourgeois.