What's the reason for our failure?

[benhur]

Comrades,

We've seen so many posts on why we've failed, and also why even the word 'socialism' evokes negative reactions. I believe part of the reason is because we reject bourgeois democracy (which is correct), which makes us look like irresponsible people to a majority of people.

Another reason is the obsession we have with certain issues to the exclusion of others. Consider antifa, for one thing. It seems to be a one-point agenda, namely attacking BNP and such racist orgs. OTOH, BNP is gaining ground, because they're able to present a comprehensive plan (it may be bull, agreed) to the people.

So people look at us, and conclude that we have no agenda other than a purely negative approach. They wonder: these guys attack BNP, but what do they have as an alternative? I think this is where we've failed. Instead of adopting an integral approach, we've reduced ourselves to dealing with every issue in isolation. Therefore, we come across as people with no plan of our own, other than attacking the existing parties.

Put simply, an average guy looks at BNP, and falling for their propaganda, concludes that they're for the common man. They also look at us, and conclude that #1 these people don't even believe in democracy, so why bother with them? or #2 these people have nothing to offer, except a series of attacks on racists, homophobes (which are no doubt good), but with no comprehensive agenda.

I hope we can discuss this. I feel the main problem is the lack of an integral, professional, politically correct approach. We're just not reaching the common man with our ideas which appear too far fetched for him to work out in the real world.

[redguard2009]

I feel the main problem is the lack of an integral, professional, politically correct approach.

The "professional, politically correct approach" has been tried and has failed equally as often.

[benhur]

The "professional, politically correct approach" has been tried and has failed equally as often.

The BNP is succeeding, because they come across as professional, even though their ideology is crap. OTOH, our presentation revolves around attacking fascism, without actually providing an alternative in simple, layman's terms, something the worker can relate to.

I'll give you one instance. BNP appeals to the workers with the following line of reasoning: immigrants take away your jobs, so we can protect you by controlling immigration.

The above, however silly, will appeal to the masses, to the average Joe who's looking for a quick fix. He will be deceived into thinking that the BNP is here to protect them from the 'enemy.' As you can see, BNP cleverly exploits workers' resentment with their racist ideology.

Whereas socialists present their ideology in such a way it confuses workers.

[zimmerwald1915]

So "you're not being paid for all that you produce" is a complex concept now?

[KC]

The OP might be interested in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lefts-non-response-t93192/index.html) thread.

[Rascolnikova]

So "you're not being paid for all that you produce" is a complex concept now?

It actually is--especially posited against "economic growth," which takes some small level of literacy and numeracy to debunk.

[ckaihatsu]

So "you're not being paid for all that you produce" is a complex concept now?



It actually is


Actually it's not. I dug up a passage from Jack London's _Iron Heel_ and made a graphic out of it. Obviously the bourgeoisie doesn't talk about the labor theory of value -- discussed at another RevLeft thread -- but it's easy to figure out. It's the difference between the wholesale selling price and the cost of capital. (Because the only other value is then labor.)


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va



--especially posited against "economic growth," which takes some small level of literacy and numeracy to debunk.


I have no problem with the definition of [the economic growth in] GDP.


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

The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is one of the measures of national income and output for a given country's economy. GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). It is also considered the sum of a value added at every stage of production (the intermediate stages) of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time, and it is given a money value.

The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M).


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Poison]

My opinion:

-lack of comradeship. Here and everywhere, even people of the same ideologies treat eachother badly. But look at the Paris Commune and Catalonia--people of vastly different ideologies and nationalities and religions and genders treated eachothers as comrades!
-lack of willingness to criticize and evolve classical ideology, too much religious clinging to the old theories will mean the ideology cannot adapt and perfect itself
-public opinion ruined thanks to Stalin and China
-a fairly good economy in the US, preoccupation with consumerism in more of the world which staves off thoughts of more important things and keeps people content
-now that Communism is legal, a lack of public awareness of it, most Communists are cloested I think and we have no claim in the public square (as far as I know)

Etc.

Just my two cents.

[Organic Revolution]

It seems like a major issue that folks have with organizing is that they attempt to use intellectualized language when talking to common folks, thusly making those folks seem lesser, or like you are coming from a more privileged educated class. Intellectualized language puts folks out of touch with the common goals of people.

[PostAnarchy]

I think one must examine objective factors in determining the success or failure of revolutionary movements. Of course leftists could do a better job of communicating their views but I think the diaspora of issues and concerns of the progressive community: from anti war to LBGT rights to feminism movements to student rights campaigns and so on are the embryo of a budding anti-authoritarian, anti-Leninist movement that young people are increasingly leaning towards.

A centralized movement is one that can easily be crushed or one that is prone to corruption and degeneration. I don't think it's necessary to draw upon the historical examples from which this has manifested itself in praxis. The point is, as you say, to offer a better, superior alternative that working people can be attracted to. This IMO is another benefit to the libertarian socialism perspective since we do not have to explain away and apologize for the crimes of the Stalinist regimes but note how we were always opposed and often ruthlessly oppressed by them as well. This puts us in an advantageous position as the vast majority of workers, particularly in the advanced capitalist states view these regimes as highly repressive and not a quantatively superior alternative.

It is exactly to these workers who the messages of anarchism can be reached to, I think, with great success in the coming period.

[Elway]

I believe THE main reason for our failure is the success of Norway, and similar countries, which allow controlled capitalism, with a large social safety net.

Granted no one in western Europe wants to become an Amercia, because of the widescale poverty and greed built into the laws which allow serious class division.

While this of course exists in Norway, it is smoothed over by many services and government support made possible to all citizens.

We, as Marxists, have a real tough act to follow: previous sucky regimes in the former USSR and its control countries, a mess in "socialist" Africa, and a horrid life in China for the average people. Simply, there was no communist success. The best commie success was supposed to be East Germany, and that turned out to be a bust along with all of them.

Why should average citiznes support a Marxist Revolution, based on the past ones, whey they can aim for a Norway style government? That's probably the thought of a lot of people.

When you solve that puzzle you may have something.

[Comrade_Red]

I think the reasons racist movements have suceeded is the psychology of it all.

The people get from racist movemets a feeling of alliance (or something like that,) and the upmost 'Us vs. them' kind of feeling. I could say so much else about it.

[Comrade_Red]

But then again, our movement may not entirely be failing...i'm sure we're all aware of the Communist Party of Japan and the Sales of Das Kapital, Russians wanting the USSR back, etc. (whatever your views may be on the preceding.)

[ckaihatsu]

My opinion:

-lack of comradeship. Here and everywhere, even people of the same ideologies treat eachother badly. But look at the Paris Commune and Catalonia--people of vastly different ideologies and nationalities and religions and genders treated eachothers as comrades!
-lack of willingness to criticize and evolve classical ideology, too much religious clinging to the old theories will mean the ideology cannot adapt and perfect itself
-public opinion ruined thanks to Stalin and China
-a fairly good economy in the US, preoccupation with consumerism in more of the world which staves off thoughts of more important things and keeps people content
-now that Communism is legal, a lack of public awareness of it, most Communists are cloested I think and we have no claim in the public square (as far as I know)

Etc.

Just my two cents.


I'd say don't worry about it -- a crisis of the capitalist system brings everyone leftward, and the annoying little differences of revolutionary ideology we see today will resolve themselves in a period of revolutionary upswing. A decade or so ago the differences loomed larger as the political pressure from the mainstream on leftists was greater, causing more stress and in-fighting.

Note where things are now: McCain, a Republican, had no political ground remaining on which to maneuver and wound up making an argument *to the left* of the Democrat -- he characterized the $700 billion extortion ("bailout") as "socialism for the rich" and said it on national TV, too!



Why should average citiznes support a Marxist Revolution, based on the past ones, whey they can aim for a Norway style government? That's probably the thought of a lot of people.

When you solve that puzzle you may have something.


The U.S. capitalists are starting to pull an FDR move in advance and are really considering New Deal-type reforms to head off any possible mass unrest. Now the rich will have to settle for bread-and-circuses for awhile like the rest of us.

I maintain, though, that the economy is going to remain moribund indefinitely, and I would say the situation is comparable to the era of the '30s Great Depression, if not even more so, and especially in the months and years to come.

After awhile, when people start getting cabin fever, what's going to stop the more militant labor elements from galloping in while the corporate executives find that they don't have enough charisma or nice suits to keep their followings around them anymore?


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Rascolnikova]

Actually it's not. I dug up a passage from Jack London's _Iron Heel_ and made a graphic out of it. Obviously the bourgeoisie doesn't talk about the labor theory of value -- discussed at another RevLeft thread -- but it's easy to figure out. It's the difference between the wholesale selling price and the cost of capital. (Because the only other value is then labor.)


Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

http://tinyurl.com/6bs6va

I have no problem with the definition of [the economic growth in] GDP.

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

The gross domestic product (GDP) or gross domestic income (GDI) is one of the measures of national income and output for a given country's economy. GDP is defined as the total market value of all final goods and services produced within the country in a given period of time (usually a calendar year). It is also considered the sum of a value added at every stage of production (the intermediate stages) of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time, and it is given a money value.

The most common approach to measuring and understanding GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,
GDP = C + I + G + (X-M).

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

I'm going to assume you didn't intend that to sound as incredibly condescending and assholeish as it did.

The first world proletariat at large does, true, also have access to wikipedia. Even on top of this, I do understand that it's not really that complicated; as my older brother likes to say, (and I so far agree) everything in economics is obvious or wrong.

However, that same older brother is presently teaching mathematics. The course he teaches is the terminal math course required for humanities degrees. He's spent the whole semester trying to figure out how he can make sure all his students have a grasp of basic arithmetic before they leave him.

I don't know how it is in the world at large, but numeracy in the US is fucking terrible.

I believe this is a contributing factor to the skewed male/female ratio among leftists; a lot of women here, owing to the horrible math education they've been given, are afraid of and/or deeply hate the subject. Unless they're completely stupid or have a deep fondness for going against norms, this makes them far less likely to become anti-capitalists; the usual defense of capitalism, after all, involves waving a lot of numbers around (or at least referencing their existence) and pretending they mean something they don't. If one is completely uncomfortable with quantitative analysis, that's incredibly hard to challenge.

People who present the simple equations as completely obvious, as you just did, do not help the situation. I wasn't questioning your ability to understand the GDP, or indicating a lack in mine. If I had to guess, presenting it like that would put off about 20% of the population in the US straight away.

myself, I take my economics with calculus.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Simply put my friends, communism hasn't failed (not actual communism). It has been defeated here and there, but it has not failed.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm going to assume you didn't intend that to sound as incredibly condescending and assholeish as it did.


All I can say, Rascolnikova, is that I pasted in the Wikipedia entry because it was relevant to the discussion. We all have to start somewhere -- at the beginning -- with knowledge of all types, whether it's in the humanities or the sciences. I don't presume to know where every single reader of this thread is at with their current knowledge.

[Pr0d1gy]

Simply put, because the rhetoric is too sectarian, and it immediately triggers an adverse reaction in the average indoctrinated worker, as it is staunchly different from what said worker was brought up to hold as "gospel" (literally and figueratively).

The actual left is gaining more acceptance globally however. The fact that the right wing's ability to defeat the "mainstream" left by accusing it of being the radical left is declining, is an excellent sign.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I think the true failure of the left consists in two main things. First, we're all living in bad faith. Second, we're all attempting to live amorally.

First, Marxists in general and leftists in particular always attempt to live ahistorically. Marxism and communism has a history and we can find it echoing from the Paris Commune, the USSR, China, and Cuba. We need to reclaim this history and accept the full implications of that. Rather then dismissing these things as "state capitalism" we should articulate their history HISTORICALLY. Russia at the turn of the century was arguably the worst country in Europe. In just fifty short years, the USSR was one of two world superpowers. This is simply one example. We must situate communism historically within these states and truly own this past and heritage. In 1915, every attempt at communism had been a failure or crushed. If you believe that's true now, how does that put us in a different situation? It seems that history works in our favor, and not in capitalism's favor. We need to avoid "you did it too" arguments with capitalists and proudly reclaim or "we did, we were proud and right to do it, and we'd do it again."

This brings me to my second point. We must be willing to engage in moral actions. The consequences of the USSR, China, Cuba, and others has made the left scared to commit to any moral actions. No leftist wants to be the man or woman who starts the new Stalinist purges, the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution. Yet, these sorts of consequences are the danger that come with real revolution and real action. We must take the moral responsibility and realize there is a certain amount of moral luck involved in every action. If Stalin's purges would have resulted in world wide freedom and communism then they would have been justified. However, they didn't and we should hold those acts as immoral. We can't control the outcomes of our actions because the world is not always receptive to our intentions. Nevertheless, the left should not take the lesson of avoiding moral actions because they may have dangerous consequences. We need to re-assume a moral position and interact with the world no matter how morally dangerous it may be to us. It is not enough to simply criticize the immorality of capitalism.

Once we reclaim our history and morality we can begin speaking to the people.

[Rascolnikova]

All I can say, Rascolnikova, is that I pasted in the Wikipedia entry because it was relevant to the discussion. We all have to start somewhere -- at the beginning -- with knowledge of all types, whether it's in the humanities or the sciences. I don't presume to know where every single reader of this thread is at with their current knowledge.

So I was correct in assuming that you weren't trying to be an ass. :)

I was making the point that these concepts are genuinely difficult for some people to grasp. You refuted that point by saying that it wasn't, and posting a link to wikipedia. The comprehension of anyone on this thread is not at issue, as the question under discussion is the generalized failure of the left.

What system of morality do you prefer to reference here, RD?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

What system of morality do you prefer to reference here, RD?
I don't necessarily mean any particular system of morality. I just mean the general moral inclination of the Left to avoid getting its hands dirty by engaging in morally dangerous acts.

[Junius]

I believe this is a contributing factor to the skewed male/female ratio among leftists; a lot of women here, owing to the horrible math education they've been given, are afraid of and/or deeply hate the subject. Unless they're completely stupid or have a deep fondness for going against norms, this makes them far less likely to become anti-capitalists; the usual defense of capitalism, after all, involves waving a lot of numbers around (or at least referencing their existence) and pretending they mean something they don't. If one is completely uncomfortable with quantitative analysis, that's incredibly hard to challenge.

I don't think this site is a fair representation of leftists.

Even so, on mathematics forums I post on the ratio is more balanced than this site, at about 30% - 70%. This site is more about 10% - 90%. I disagree with you about it being the cause of a perceived gap; most leftists are liberal humanity students anyway, so the lack of mathematicians doesn't really play a role, at least in a gender-divide.

And of course...anyone with a basic understanding of how the GDP is calculated and the concept of an average will know its limits. In a class society where the divide of wealth is quite extreme, quite poor countries can have a relatively high GDP (I remember a Middle-Eastern country having a higher GDP than various Western countries - of course, it means little for a worker when he is paid pittance compared to the billions his boss makes - but extreme anomalies can distort the true picture. And the way capitalism is structured is nothing but extreme anomalies in wealth). So yes...a country's GDP covers more than it shows.

[Revy]

I think the crisis in the left can be explained by the fact the socialists aren't going over to the people enough and getting them interested. It all seems to be internalized, and focused into sectarian squabbling between parties.

The socialists ran their campaigns, but they barely made a blip on the radar. There was media appearances, especially with Brian Moore, but aside from that, there wasn't much activity to be expected. The Democrats, Republicans they have rallies, where were our rallies? Socialists (SPUSA, PSL , SWP) all got the worst percentage combined since 1888. Even Ron Paul, who wasn't even running and had endorsed another candidate, got more votes than any of the socialist tickets (though if we combine our votes, we beat him....)

[Plagueround]

I don't think this site is a fair representation of leftists.


While I'm probably in agreement with what you'll say, what do you feel are the problems with this site or the people on it? PM it if you would rather not bring it up here.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't think this site is a fair representation of leftists.

Even so, on mathematics forums I post on the ratio is more balanced than this site, at about 30% - 70%. This site is more about 10% - 90%. I disagree with you about it being the cause of a perceived gap; most leftists are liberal humanity students anyway, so the lack of mathematicians doesn't really play a role, at least in a gender-divide.

Taking that into account it sounds like you are right. It does so happen that in my personal experience, numeracy/math fear has been an issue trying to convince people.



"And of course...anyone with a basic understanding of how the GDP is calculated and the concept of an average will know its limits. . . . a country's GDP covers more than it shows."

This I'm not sure of. The people I know who study economics--and also most cappies--still defend GDP as a reasonable measure of economic growth, and economic growth as a/the key indicator of a healthy economy.

[Junius]

While I'm probably in agreement with what you'll say, what do you feel are the problems with this site or the people on it? PM it if you would rather not bring it up here.

I don't have any problems with this site or the people on it.

Obviously I disagree with the politics of the majority on this site, but that's to be expected.


Taking that into account it sounds like you are right. It does so happen that in my personal experience, numeracy/math fear has been an issue trying to convince people.

In what manner?


This I'm not sure of. The people I know who study economics--and also most cappies--still defend GDP as a reasonable measure of economic growth, and economic growth as a/the key indicator of a healthy economy.

Well yeah, its a nice figure to show growth rates and yada yada. But as something to use to examine social relations...? Personally I don't think economists have a good grasp of mathematics at all. As some heterodox economists have pointed out...

[ckaihatsu]

I think the true failure of the left consists in two main things. First, we're all living in bad faith. Second, we're all attempting to live amorally.


RD,

I would welcome an elaboration on the two terms you're using here: "bad faith" and "living amorally" -- beyond your explanation below, which I'll be responding to on its own.



First, Marxists in general and leftists in particular always attempt to live ahistorically.


If you mean that Marxists and leftists may tend to favor polemics instead of using references to the lessons of history, I would say that it varies depending on the person.

As a preface, I'd like to make a clarification / distinction between 'living' and 'politics' (especially Marxism / leftism). In engaging in politics we are engaging in struggle on behalf of issues that affect millions of people. Political activity has more in common with work, and is not an activity of 'living' in the sense that we live when we have clear-and-free leisure time at our disposal.

Whether Marxists / leftists engage in politics use structural arguments (polemics), the lessons of history, or a combination of both will vary on the person. I tend to favor structural arguments sprinkled with relevant examples from history, and I think it's because of my initial reaction to socialism when I first came around it.

I found socialism to be 'right-on', accurate, and insightful. It strengthened my studies of history at the time and spoke well to current events. Of course I had, and still have, sympathies for the destination of struggle, but overwhelmingly I am more impressed with Marxism's validity than anything else.

I don't think we should nit-pick as to what means fellow leftists employ in struggle, except to provide objective analysis, as we would for anything else.



Marxism and communism has a history and we can find it echoing from the Paris Commune, the USSR, China, and Cuba. We need to reclaim this history and accept the full implications of that. Rather then dismissing these things as "state capitalism" we should articulate their history HISTORICALLY. Russia at the turn of the century was arguably the worst country in Europe. In just fifty short years, the USSR was one of two world superpowers. This is simply one example. We must situate communism historically within these states and truly own this past and heritage. In 1915, every attempt at communism had been a failure or crushed. If you believe that's true now, how does that put us in a different situation? It seems that history works in our favor, and not in capitalism's favor. We need to avoid "you did it too" arguments with capitalists and proudly reclaim or "we did, we were proud and right to do it, and we'd do it again."


This is a crucial point, and I agree with this direction entirely. We are currently in a period where capitalism is breaking down and more and more layers of people are going to be turning to look at the left in a new light. We *do* need to present the complexities of failed revolutionary attempts in clear language so that newer people can come to terms those histories free from the distortions of bourgeois and Stalinist propaganda.



This brings me to my second point. We must be willing to engage in moral actions. The consequences of the USSR, China, Cuba, and others has made the left scared to commit to any moral actions.


The issue of morals has entered another thread of discussion I'm involved in, "The workings of a planned economy."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/workings-planned-economy-t94505/index.html

The very concept of *morals* is problematic when placed side-by-side with the reality of objective class interests. One's material sustenance in relation to the ownership of the means of mass production is the *only* point of relevance in politics.

Any raising of an imaginative realm of "morals" just weakens your position and moves you rightward.



No leftist wants to be the man or woman who starts the new Stalinist purges, the Great Leap Forward, or the Cultural Revolution. Yet, these sorts of consequences are the danger that come with real revolution and real action. We must take the moral responsibility and realize there is a certain amount of moral luck involved in every action.


I'm sorry that you feel so disempowered, but there really is no "moral luck" involved at all. Russia and China had terrific, pivotal national-based revolutionary movements that kept the Western imperialists at bay, but that was the extent of the progressivism of those movements. They hit the ceiling of their capabilities and turned inward and became Stalinist instead of reaching out to the proletariat of the world.



If Stalin's purges would have resulted in world wide freedom and communism then they would have been justified.


This is absolutely disgusting. Stalin committed purges as part of his ongoing practice of consolidating and retaining political power in a manner akin to palace intrigues. It was nowhere near the trajectory of worldwide freedom and communism.



However, they didn't and we should hold those acts as immoral. We can't control the outcomes of our actions because the world is not always receptive to our intentions. Nevertheless, the left should not take the lesson of avoiding moral actions because they may have dangerous consequences. We need to re-assume a moral position and interact with the world no matter how morally dangerous it may be to us. It is not enough to simply criticize the immorality of capitalism.

Once we reclaim our history and morality we can begin speaking to the people.


With *this* kind of language -- using vague terms and high-sounding rhetoric -- you are well on your way to becoming a bourgeois political hack.

Even if there is a basis for agreeing that capitalism is "immoral" we could not build a revolutionary socialist movement on the basis of "morality" -- it would have to be on the basis of collectivizing the means of mass production.



I don't necessarily mean any particular system of morality. I just mean the general moral inclination of the Left to avoid getting its hands dirty by engaging in morally dangerous acts.


This, too, is vague. This is what I consider to be > marketing <, in which people talk *about* talking about something. If you can gather a following around you on this basis then you're well on your way to a position of corporate or (bourgeois) political power.



In a class society where the divide of wealth is quite extreme, quite poor countries can have a relatively high GDP (I remember a Middle-Eastern country having a higher GDP than various Western countries - of course, it means little for a worker when he is paid pittance compared to the billions his boss makes - but extreme anomalies can distort the true picture. And the way capitalism is structured is nothing but extreme anomalies in wealth). So yes...a country's GDP covers more than it shows.


GDP doesn't take into account unrelenting indebted servitude to the Western nations (IMF).



I think the crisis in the left can be explained by the fact the socialists aren't going over to the people enough and getting them interested. It all seems to be internalized, and focused into sectarian squabbling between parties.

The socialists ran their campaigns, but they barely made a blip on the radar. There was media appearances, especially with Brian Moore, but aside from that, there wasn't much activity to be expected. The Democrats, Republicans they have rallies, where were our rallies? Socialists (SPUSA, PSL , SWP) all got the worst percentage combined since 1888. Even Ron Paul, who wasn't even running and had endorsed another candidate, got more votes than any of the socialist tickets (though if we combine our votes, we beat him....)


Where the various stripes of the bourgeoisie may have more (quantitative) numbers, the Marxist revolutionary left has valid, superior *qualitative* analysis on the workings of the real world. While a newcomer may be startled by the apparent sectarianism and organizational divisiveness on the left, together the groups speak from the same platform, worlds away in accuracy and relevance from anything to the right of them.

[ckaihatsu]

So I was correct in assuming that you weren't trying to be an ass. :)


Nope, not *trying* to be, anyway -- can't control people's perceptions, though -- messy, messy, messy! :)

[Mindtoaster]

The BNP is hardly "winning"

That party is a joke and always will be. You're just kidding yourself if you think a party that fervently nationalistic and racist will get anywhere in modern England.

They're regarded as a bunch of loons by the entire population of the country.

[oujiQualm]

I think there has been too little attention payed to the history of communications and also too little attention paid to epitomology--how people come to question the dominant ideology.

[Melbourne Lefty]

So people look at us, and conclude that we have no agenda other than a purely negative approach. They wonder: these guys attack BNP, but what do they have as an alternative? I think this is where we've failed. Instead of adopting an integral approach, we've reduced ourselves to dealing with every issue in isolation. Therefore, we come across as people with no plan of our own, other than attacking the existing parties.

You have a point here.

But who is doing anything about it?

[Melbourne Lefty]

The BNP is hardly "winning"

That party is a joke and always will be. You're just kidding yourself if you think a party that fervently nationalistic and racist will get anywhere in modern England.

They're regarded as a bunch of loons by the entire population of the country.

And yet they still have more influence on policy than the entire radical left.

How many dog whistles about immigration have the main parties used?

The BNP is a distant, yet real nightmare to the British establishment [and us]. We are barely noticed.

And it pisses me off.

If the BNP and other euro fash groups make gains in the european elections will you still have the same attitude? Shit is hitting fans and I see revolutionary left groups doing nothing or even shrinking across the 'west'.

[audiored]

If Stalin's purges would have resulted in world wide freedom and communism then they would have been justified. However, they didn't and we should hold those acts as immoral.

There was nothing revolutionary or progressive about the Stalinist purges. They were the nightmarish realizations of a mad man's pathologies when a failed and authoritarian revolutionary strategy produced sick and twisted outcome.

It is a simple and possibly cliche idea, but the means are the ends. You do not produce just and equitable ends with authoritarian insanity and chaos. You do not justify horrific actions by arguing they were in the service of equality.

[Rascolnikova]

In what manner?

I've tutored people who don't understand the graphs, formulas, and figures of capitalist economics to understand what they don't mean. . . and so they default to mainstream interpretations for fear of looking stupid.



Well yeah, its a nice figure to show growth rates and yada yada. But as something to use to examine social relations...? Personally I don't think economists have a good grasp of mathematics at all. As some heterodox economists have pointed out...

I don't think econ takes all that much math, though I've not studied advanced econ at all, so I don't know. Regardless, I believe economists love to not notice the completeness of how their work is about social relations. . . at all. .

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

For anyone interested, I have a completely novel (partial) explanation for our long-term failure:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20010_01.htm

[Coggeh]

I believe THE main reason for our failure is the success of Norway, and similar countries, which allow controlled capitalism, with a large social safety net.

Granted no one in western Europe wants to become an Amercia, because of the widescale poverty and greed built into the laws which allow serious class division.

While this of course exists in Norway, it is smoothed over by many services and government support made possible to all citizens.

We, as Marxists, have a real tough act to follow: previous sucky regimes in the former USSR and its control countries, a mess in "socialist" Africa, and a horrid life in China for the average people. Simply, there was no communist success. The best commie success was supposed to be East Germany, and that turned out to be a bust along with all of them.

Why should average citiznes support a Marxist Revolution, based on the past ones, whey they can aim for a Norway style government? That's probably the thought of a lot of people.

When you solve that puzzle you may have something.
Excellent post ! hit the nail right on the head .

However i'm not sure of Norway being all that social democratic ? Sweden maybe? although maybe it is Norway anyway a large part is down to people think they can win in capitalism and the gains of reformism they think are always safe ans secure when at the first sign of trouble its the gains in public services which are always hit first .

[Rawthentic]

To any comrade seriously debating and wondering what is going on with the left today, I HIGHLY recommend reading the Kasama Project's Nine Letters To Our Comrades (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/9-letters/).

On the main site, there are always ongoing discussions and articles on the current state of the Left in its many dimensions.

[Revy]

I also believe that the problem is that there are still "socialist" groups that promote capitalist "progressive" alternatives to the two-party system rather than promoting socialist alternatives. This includes the Peace and Freedom Party and Socialist Alternative (US section of CWI) which both supported Nader, and a number of groups including Workers' International League (US section of IMT) and Solidarity which supported McKinney. The ISO did something better this time and didn't endorse either, though it was silent on any of the socialist campaigns.

When we didn't even have many groups of the "socialist left" supporting us, then I believe that was a factor in our "failure". It would have been a wonderful thing if all these groups endorsed a socialist candidate. And that's something I hope their members evaluate. Do they really want to keep doing the wrong thing?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rawthenic: I agree. The Kasama project is a breath of fresh air. Let's hope it begins to examine wider philosophical issues that far too many comrades treat as unquestioned dogma.

[Rawthentic]

Rosa:

yes, and that goes for ALL of us.