The "New Left"

[victim77]

What are your guys opinions on the "New Left" movement? I was reading about it on wikipedia and it seems pretty interesting. Are there any "new Left" philosophy or is it still based on old writings?

[Thíazì]

By "New Left" do you mean the organisations such as SDS, YIP, etc. in the 60s?

I think there really is no new material regarding that movement (hippies, yippies, etc.) and most serious leftists consider the "New Left" not to be 'true' leftists.

If the American economy and society in general continue to get shittier, the same kind of thing could hopefully happen again. They brought about a shitload of changes, from support civil rights to free love, feminism, freedom of association (since this was right after the Red Scare), and effectively ended the policy of drafting men 18 - 40 to war, though registration is still required; just in case! :rolleyes:

[nbolek71]

The New Left, especially in the United States, was fueled by the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War, reaching its peak in 1968, which nearly broke out into an all out uprising. Massive protests in various universities, the 1968 Democratic Convention ending in riots, the death of two prominent and influential figures of that era (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy), the world at that time was changing.

The New Left embraced other schools of thought other than the traditional Marxist-Leninist way of thinking, towards a more anti-authoritarian stance in it's place, and put the focus away from the Soviet Union as the ideal society for a communist nation.

That is the only time in our history, it seems, that we could've had a populist uprising to bring down the establishment and moved the pendulum towards the radical left, yet once Vietnam has ended, and the SDS (Students for Democratic Society) schismed into the Weather Underground, the New Left lost its appeal and strength during the mid to late 70's and early 80's. It serves as a nostalgic inspiration for today's youth to stand up against the imperialist neo-cons in office today to fight the war.

[Comrade Krell]

'New Left': Bunch of naive pseudo-leftists who got embarrassed by the bourgeois cultural hegemony and it's lies about comrade Stalin and real socialism. They capitulate to lines like 'Stalin was a fascist' and other petty buzzwords like 'freedom' in order to fit in with their pro-bourgeois friends.

To be a Communist requires that you stand up past such bourgeois propaganda for the working people, and not put be hammered into taking up revisionist, deviationist and anti-Marxist views to satiate the bourgeois politico-cultural norms and standards.

[gla22]

'New Left': Bunch of naive pseudo-leftists who got embarrassed by the bourgeois cultural hegemony and it's lies about comrade Stalin and real socialism. They capitulate to lines like 'Stalin was a fascist' and other petty buzzwords like 'freedom' in order to fit in with their pro-bourgeois friends.

To be a Communist requires that you stand up past such bourgeois propaganda for the working people, and not put be hammered into taking up revisionist, deviationist and anti-Marxist views to satiate the bourgeois politico-cultural norms and standards.

Are you saying unless you aren't a traditional Marxist you are a fraud? I think it is important to recognize the faults in his theory and the expansions Lenin made to make it more applicable to modern times. I view myself as a socialist not a Marxist, an don't see myself as the "new left"

[Os Cangaceiros]

Are you saying unless you aren't a traditional Marxist you are a fraud? I think it is important to recognize the faults in his theory and the expansions Lenin made to make it more applicable to modern times. I view myself as a socialist not a Marxist, an don't see myself as the "new left"

Ignore him. He's a Stalinist troll.

EDIT: It's interesting to see a geolibertarian around these parts. I find Georgism interesting, personally.

[mikelepore]

The Port Huron Statement, the founding manifesto of the SDS in 1962, gives clues about what they were thinking:

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Manifestos/SDS_Port_Huron.html

[gla22]

Ignore him. He's a Stalinist troll.

EDIT: It's interesting to see a geolibertarian around these parts. I find Georgism interesting, personally.


well I believe in cooperatives working within markets. I am still very socialist however.

[victim77]

Would you consider the "new" SDS to be New Left? I know they are not as the SDS in the 60's but are there views the same?

[gla22]

The SDS seems to be nothing more than activist Democrats. The new left in America, at least, seems to be proponents of the Nordic system. Free healthcare ect. not really that socialist at all. Reformers not revolutionaries. I think the SDS would fall under this.

[Dros]

The SDS seems to be nothing more than activist Democrats. The new left in America, at least, seems to be proponents of the Nordic system. Free healthcare ect. not really that socialist at all. Reformers not revolutionaries. I think the SDS would fall under this.

They are that way now. It used to be a broad organization of everyone from social democrats to hardcore communists. The Weathermen broke away from that organization.

[The New Left]

I free required to comment, since well, it is my name. I feel the term "New Left" refers to social change over labour change. The general feeling I get is that stereotypes are just ridiculous, I myself believe to be more of a Marxist than many other leftists I know. BTW I still think labour changes must be made, just social changes are more important.

[Comrade Rage]

I disagree, I feel that economic/labor changes need to be made first. They will positively impact social changes anyway.

I also happen to think that the New Left endeavor was a negative one; it created the activist ghetto which we are still trying to recover from.

[The New Left]

I respectfully disagree with CRUM. I feel we are still trying to recover the the former Soviet Union, it may have been the first of its kind, but it now has created another barrier to our future goals. I am not going deny that "hippies" have also given a bad name to leftist, but not near as much as the USSR.

[turquino]

I have a positive view of the new left. I think they reinvigorated leftist theory, broke with trade union reformism. Conservatives like to point to the new left as a force that alienated the old working class and lead them to embrace conservative politics, but in reality it wasn't student activism that push the workers away from leftism. The workers had already abandoned the left for their own reasons.

[Illus]

'left' and 'right' are both bourgeois concepts, they are both propertied ideologies made for the 'pluralistic multi-party' bourgeois republic. The only real fight is between Marxism-Leninism and ALL OTHER propertied ideologies.

[The New Left]

'left' and 'right' are both bourgeois concepts, they are both propertied ideologies made for the 'pluralistic multi-party' bourgeois republic. The only real fight is between Marxism-Leninism and ALL OTHER propertied ideologies.

Marxism-Leninism? You have got to be kidding me. Leninism leads to an elite, that statement is ridiculous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism) and the "Leninism" (revolutionary Marxism) of Lenin (http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-lenin.shtml) are NOT identical:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-marxist-primer-t78769/index.html

[Illus]

Marxism-Leninism? You have got to be kidding me. Leninism leads to an elite, that statement is ridiculous.
Leninism is the political organization of the ruling working class, the 'new left' as you call it does NOT appeal to the working class, it appeals 'to the people as a whole', a dangerous and fascist concept.

According to Marxism-Leninism, a state is essentially a machinery of force by which one social class rules over the rest of the people:
"The state is an organ of class rule....
A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power ".
(V.I. Lenin: "The State and Revolution", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 9, 11).
The Soviet state established in Russia by means of the revolution of November 1917, was officially described as a machinery of force in the hands of the working class, as "the dictatorship of the proletariat":
"The Soviets are the Russian form of the proletarian dictatorship".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in; "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 145).
In 1961, however the leaders of the CPSU declared that the Soviet state was no longer a machinery of force by which the working class ruled over the rest of the people, was no longer the dictatorship of the proletariat, but had become an organ representing the interests of the "entire people":
"In our country, for the first time in history, a State has taken shape which is not a dictatorship of any one class, but an instrument of society as a whole, of the entire people...
The dictatorship of the proletariat is no longer necessary ".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 22nd. Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p. 57, 58).
But, according to Marxism-Leninism, in a society which contains classes which antagonistic interests -- and, as has been demonstrated, the contemporary Soviet Union is such a society -- the state can only be the machinery of rule of the dominant social class, and any claim that, in such circumstances, the state represents the interests of the "entire people", must be dismissed as mere demagogy:
"We cannot speak of 'pure democracy' so long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy".
(V.I. Lenin: "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky", in: "Selected Works", Volume 7; London; 1946; p. 129).
"The bourgeoisie finds it advantageous and necessary to conceal the bourgeois character of modern democracy from the people and to depict it as democracy in general, or as 'pure democracy'...
The bourgeoisie is obliged to be hypocritical and to describe the (bourgeois) democratic government as 'popular government', or democracy in general or pure democracy, when as a matter of fact it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the exploiters over the mass of the toilers".
(V.I. Lenin: "Democracy' and Dictatorship", in: ibid.; p. 219, 220).

[Illus]

snip
facepalms

go away please, I have no time for theoretical crackpot loons like you

[Red October]

That is the only time in our history, it seems, that we could've had a populist uprising to bring down the establishment and moved the pendulum towards the radical left

This is definitely not true. The New Left was heavily dependent on and based among the youth and students, not rank and file workers. They had no set theory or plan of action, there's no way the New Left could have led a revolution of any sort.Their limited base and appeal among the general population would have prevented any "populist uprising".