Left politics is a mess

[trivas7]

Reading over this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-leninism-vs-t96803/index.html) re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place. Thus the proliferation of parties w/ various "tendencies" and the squabbling among themselves historically. Whatever voice of conscience the Left has becomes diluted to the point of nullity and so capitalism goes on its merry way, unencumbered by any need for ideology.

[danyboy27]

Reading over this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-leninism-vs-t96803/index.html) re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place. Thus the proliferation of parties w/ various "tendencies" and the squabbling among themselves historically. Whatever voice of conscience the Left has becomes diluted to the point of nullity and so capitalism goes on its merry way, unencumbered by any need for ideology.

the probleme is not about the moderate left, its about how the moderate left get their shit together to do something out of it.

radical leftism is not something popular, unlike left communism or the moderate left.

[benhur]

Reading over this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-leninism-vs-t96803/index.html) re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place. Thus the proliferation of parties w/ various "tendencies" and the squabbling among themselves historically. Whatever voice of conscience the Left has becomes diluted to the point of nullity and so capitalism goes on its merry way, unencumbered by any need for ideology.

There's some truth to what you say. Leftists today have become more sectarian than religious people.:( There are leftists today who ridicule people like Castro, Che for the smallest mistake, all the while showing great admiration for reactionary groups like taliban/hamas. And if someone like Christopher Hitchens questions this attitude, he's abused and insulted as a drunk, racist, traitor, neocon, and what else not.

No wonder we are not taken seriously.

[Kassad]

You're completely off base. The reason we can't gain ground is because the industrialized world is owned by the bourgeoisie and the corporat elite. They use their corporate-controlled media to influence the population and they keep a tight grip because people are raised from birth to accept their governments, their religious leaders and so on.

The bourgeoisie manage to impose small reforms consistently so it seems like they are helping the working class. The system has to fail for people to realize it. It takes time for things like this.

[Pogue]

You're completely off base. The reason we can't gain ground is because the industrialized world is owned by the bourgeoisie and the corporat elite. They use their corporate-controlled media to influence the population and they keep a tight grip because people are raised from birth to accept their governments, their religious leaders and so on.

The bourgeoisie manage to impose small reforms consistently so it seems like they are helping the working class. The system has to fail for people to realize it. It takes time for things like this.

This is true but if we were better organised it'd help alot.

[LSD]

Reading over this thread re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place.

That's one theory, and a rather popular one at that.

Personally I suspect that's because it's a rather comforting explanation for the left's failures. The clear implication of the "disunity" paradigm, is that if only leftists would "fall into line", things would turn around.

The thing is, though, that historically leftists haven't really been all that "disunited". I mean, sure, there've been fights and splinters and the occasional mass slaughter. But then the Nazis killed more right-wingers than anyone else in history.

And when the Soviet Union seemed to be taking off, a pretty comfortable majority of the "international left" was proudly marching in lock step. The fact is the "Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism" debate you so decry speaks more to the left's unity than it's discord. The fact that almost 20 years after the Soviet experiment crumbled into rusted ruins, there are still (some) people out there willing to fight in Lenin's name... well you don't get that kind of loyalty without real dedication.

And the truth is the left was really dedicated, it just turned out that it was wrong. The left didn't betray the revolution, the revolution betrayed them.

And that's a much bigger problem than disorganization. A movement can get over bad management, but it very rarely survives the death of its principles. And that's the dilemma facing the left today, a complete lack of anything to believe in, anything to "fall behind".

Communism isn't weak because it's "all over the place", it's "all over the place" because it's weak, because it's ideologically empty and desperate for renewal.


There's some truth to what you say. Leftists today have become more sectarian than religious people. There are leftists today who ridicule people like Castro, Che for the smallest mistake, all the while showing great admiration for reactionary groups like taliban/hamas. And if someone like Christopher Hitchens questions this attitude, he's abused and insulted as a drunk, racist, traitor, neocon, and what else not.

Yeah, it's a funny thing. So many "radicals" are willing to tolerate all manner of "reaction" or blatant brutality, so long as it's in the name of "revolution" or "natioanlism" or whatever the cause de jour is. But the moment a "comrade" exhibits the slightest ideolgical failing, they're set upon.

To be fair, web sites like this are an awful gauge of real world politics. Most of the less-than-enlightened behaviour you see speaks more to the nature of the medium than the politics of the message. I've never really frequented Storm Front, but I guarantee they're even worse.

But I think at some level, the tendency towards ideological rigidity, much like the "factioning", is a result of a movement in a serious identity crisis. In the 1930s you knew what it meant to be a communist; it meant joining the party, it meant joining the union; it meant "bashing" the "fash" while singing The Red Flag, all with absolute faith in the inevitablity of your cause, and the forward march of your ideas.

But the party's not around any more, neither are the "fash". And the unions are more concerned with recruiting members than they are "revolution" or radical politics. And as for that forward march, well, the PLA still march, but it's hardly to the left these days.

So what's left? No center, no energy, no credibility. Is it any wonder that people hold onto the ideology? That they desperately cling to the certitude of their ideas?

Even though everything else has fallen apart, at least you have the knowledge that you were right. It might not seem like much, and for most people it isn't. That's why your local "Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Hoxhaist) isn't exactly drowning in membership applications. But for those who truly believe that certainty is absolutely everything.

And you know what? Sometimes it pays off. Chavez went from dishonoured ex-paratroooper to "Bolivarain revolutionary" almost entrirely on the force of his certainty. That kind of achievement can only come from immovable unwaivering faith.

How that story will ultimately turn out for the people of Venezuela, of course, is another question. We know how it's turned out most other places. But who knows, maybe he's discovered the secret ingredient that 150 years of Marxist revolutionaries couldn't find.

In any case, the people areound him are sure convinced. And they are nothing if not united behind him. You can say all you want about the disunited left, but in Venezuela, they're nearly unianimous in their heel-steps.

Most social stats for Venezuela haven't actually improved by that much in the last ten years, mind you, and Chavez seems to spend more of his time worrying about how he looks on television than putting together a competent government. But still, you can't fault the man's popularity.

The people genuinely do like him. More importantly, they believe in him. And they believe because he believes.

It's not so easy to engender that kind of faith in the "north" these days. The first world left is too cynical, too educated, too comfortable to give themselves over to a "great man" and his plans. But underneath all that 21st century makeup, there's still that deep longing to believe.

You saw a tiny bit of that with Obama. Obama's not going to change the world, a fact I hardly need to tell you people! But then if you actually listen to the man, he never really claimed that he would. For all the Republican nonsense, his message was quite distinctly middle of the road.

But people weren't responding to the message, they were responding to the man. "Yes we can" doesn't actually mean anything... and so it means everything.

That's the power that communism once had, that's what moved starving Russian soldiers and illiterate Chinese peasants to stand against the collective might of the world; to stand against twenty armies and twenty kings, to march eight thousand miles of barren wasteland with nothing at the other end but further struggle. It's the power that in the heart of industrial capitalism, drove nearly a million red-blooded Americans down to the polls to vote for an convicted felon and his socialist mesage.

Eugene Debs wasn't going to change the world any more than Barrack Obama will. But it didn't matter, 'cause he touched people.

Communism doesn't touch people any more. It doesn't inspire them. I don't think it really even inspires communists any more. There's just been too much failure and dissapointment. Too much harsh reality contradicting beautiful ideas.

So people harden, they get rigid, they break off into tiny little cells, and proclaim their ultimate superiority for all the world to hear ...but no one hears them.

The tragedy of modern-day revolutionaries isn't that they argue, it's that they're quickly running out of things to argue about -- other than 80 year old naval battles. It's that they're quickly running out of common ground.

There's just so little to believe in anymore.

***

Oh, and Christopher Hitchens is a drunk.

[Bud Struggle]

There's just so little to believe in anymore.



...and this where you start posting about Jesus----:D:D:D

(Just kidding.:rolleyes:)

[Pogue]

That's one theory, and a rather popular one at that.

Personally I suspect that's because it's a rather comforting explanation for the left's failures. The clear implication of the "disunity" paradigm, is that if only leftists would "fall into line", things would turn around.

The thing is, though, that historically leftists haven't really been all that "disunited". I mean, sure, there've been fights and splinters and the occasional mass slaughter. But then the Nazis killed more right-wingers than anyone else in history.

And when the Soviet Union seemed to be taking off, a pretty comfortable majority of the "international left" was proudly marching in lock step. The fact is the "Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism" debate you so decry speaks more to the left's unity than it's discord. The fact that almost 20 years after the Soviet experiment crumbled into rusted ruins, there are still (some) people out there willing to fight in Lenin's name... well you don't get that kind of loyalty without real dedication.

And the truth is the left was really dedicated, it just turned out that it was wrong. The left didn't betray the revolution, the revolution betrayed them.

And that's a much bigger problem than disorganization. A movement can get over bad management, but it very rarely survives the death of its principles. And that's the dilemma facing the left today, a complete lack of anything to believe in, anything to "fall behind".

Communism isn't weak because it's "all over the place", it's "all over the place" because it's weak, because it's ideologically empty and desperate for renewal.



Yeah, it's a funny thing. So many "radicals" are willing to tolerate all manner of "reaction" or blatant brutality, so long as it's in the name of "revolution" or "natioanlism" or whatever the cause de jour is. But the moment a "comrade" exhibits the slightest ideolgical failing, they're set upon.

To be fair, web sites like this are an awful gauge of real world politics. Most of the less-than-enlightened behaviour you see speaks more to the nature of the medium than the politics of the message. I've never really frequented Storm Front, but I guarantee they're even worse.

But I think at some level, the tendency towards ideological rigidity, much like the "factioning", is a result of a movement in a serious identity crisis. In the 1930s you knew what it meant to be a communist; it meant joining the party, it meant joining the union; it meant "bashing" the "fash" while singing The Red Flag, all with absolute faith in the inevitablity of your cause, and the forward march of your ideas.

But the party's not around any more, neither are the "fash". And the unions are more concerned with recruiting members than they are "revolution" or radical politics. And as for that forward march, well, the PLA still march, but it's hardly to the left these days.

So what's left? No center, no energy, no credibility. Is it any wonder that people hold onto the ideology? That they desperately cling to the certitude of their ideas?

Even though everything else has fallen apart, at least you have the knowledge that you were right. It might not seem like much, and for most people it isn't. That's why your local "Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Hoxhaist) isn't exactly drowning in membership applications. But for those who truly believe that certainty is absolutely everything.

And you know what? Sometimes it pays off. Chavez went from dishonoured ex-paratroooper to "Bolivarain revolutionary" almost entrirely on the force of his certainty. That kind of achievement can only come from immovable unwaivering faith.

How that story will ultimately turn out for the people of Venezuela, of course, is another question. We know how it's turned out most other places. But who knows, maybe he's discovered the secret ingredient that 150 years of Marxist revolutionaries couldn't find.

In any case, the people areound him are sure convinced. And they are nothing if not united behind him. You can say all you want about the disunited left, but in Venezuela, they're nearly unianimous in their heel-steps.

Most social stats for Venezuela haven't actually improved by that much in the last ten years, mind you, and Chavez seems to spend more of his time worrying about how he looks on television than putting together a competent government. But still, you can't fault the man's popularity.

The people genuinely do like him. More importantly, they believe in him. And they believe because he believes.

It's not so easy to engender that kind of faith in the "north" these days. The first world left is too cynical, too educated, too comfortable to give themselves over to a "great man" and his plans. But underneath all that 21st century makeup, there's still that deep longing to believe.

You saw a tiny bit of that with Obama. Obama's not going to change the world, a fact I hardly need to tell you people! But then if you actually listen to the man, he never really claimed that he would. For all the Republican nonsense, his message was quite distinctly middle of the road.

But people weren't responding to the message, they were responding to the man. "Yes we can" doesn't actually mean anything... and so it means everything.

That's the power that communism once had, that's what moved starving Russian soldiers and illiterate Chinese peasants to stand against the collective might of the world; to stand against twenty armies and twenty kings, to march eight thousand miles of barren wasteland with nothing at the other end but further struggle. It's the power that in the heart of industrial capitalism, drove nearly a million red-blooded Americans down to the polls to vote for an convicted felon and his socialist mesage.

Eugene Debs wasn't going to change the world any more than Barrack Obama will. But it didn't matter, 'cause he touched people.

Communism doesn't touch people any more. It doesn't inspire them. I don't think it really even inspires communists any more. There's just been too much failure and dissapointment. Too much harsh reality contradicting beautiful ideas.

So people harden, they get rigid, they break off into tiny little cells, and proclaim their ultimate superiority for all the world to hear ...but no one hears them.

The tragedy of modern-day revolutionaries isn't that they argue, it's that they're quickly running out of things to argue about -- other than 80 year old naval battles. It's that they're quickly running out of common ground.

There's just so little to believe in anymore.

***

Oh, and Christopher Hitchens is a drunk.

Don't make the mistake of applying the fact that you gave up because its a struggle to some universal situation. Yes, you jumped ship because as you said, you can't see a reovlution coming soon. No, this does not mean you were right, just lazy.

So communism isn't popular. Ok, so we rebulid it then. It doesnt remove the fact its a system that works and is the only alternative to all the shit we see. I shouldn't have to explain these things to you, you know the arguments against reformism and anti-communism.

Class society still exists and so communism still exists. Sure, we need abit of spring cleaning, some modernisation, but thats an image problem, not a problem with communism itself. Collective organisation remains the natural way for human society as it always has, you've just given up on it because you don't want to work towards it. Your loss, but oncemore, just because you've given up doesn't mean communism has failed.

[Pogue]

...and his where you start posting about Jesus----:D:D:D

(Just kidding.:rolleyes:)

Lol, that'd be the ultimate irony - Communism is old and dead and hasnt changed and people dont udnerstand it bla bla bla

....so believe that a man defied all the laws of science and nature, came back from the dead and will send us to a wonderful world in the sky if we defy logic and declare we believe him and love him.

Whatever next :lol:

[Robert]

The reason we can't gain ground is because the industrialized world is owned by the bourgeoisie and the corporat elite.

Yes, and they "stole" it.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority doesn't see it that way. Barack Obama was hardly Exxon-Mobil's first choice for president and he is not their puppet.

The proletariat has largely acquiesced in the elite's assumption of power, in exchange for a certain amount of bread and circuses, just as it will soon acquiesce in the demise of Chrysler and, maybe, GM.

I'll grant you this much: they are unlikely to just walk away from their power. So if you want it "back," you're going to have to take it. What are you doing in this regard?

[trivas7]

Personally I suspect that's because it's a rather comforting explanation for the left's failures. The clear implication of the "disunity" paradigm, is that if only leftists would "fall into line", things would turn around.

No, I don't think that's the clear implication at all. Diversity of thought is healthy and normal, even among those who share the same goals.


The thing is, though, that historically leftists haven't really been all that "disunited". I mean, sure, there've been fights and splinters and the occasional mass slaughter.
IMO historically this is nonsense.


And the truth is the left was really dedicated, it just turned out that it was wrong. The left didn't betray the revolution, the revolution betrayed them.
[...]
Communism isn't weak because it's "all over the place", it's "all over the place" because it's weak, because it's ideologically empty and desperate for renewal.
I disagree. Wrong re what, exactly? Fighting against oppression and injustice will always occur under one form of ideology or another.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for our resident Blairite extraordinaire's recent comeback in strictly Idealist fashion (not you, trivas), I'd like to say that this current economic crisis and the impending immiseration has driven people to an interest in Karl Marx and even revolutionary theory that hasn't been seen since the 70s. :)

[The "strictly Idealist fashion" remark refers to a similarity with Paul Krugman's rather Idealist remarks on Soviet Communism ("because people stopped believing in it").]

It is the "social-democrats" like yourself who should be worried, because your "left" isn't cashing in (with the justifiable public cynicism towards your political correctness).


No, I don't think that's the clear implication at all. Diversity of thought is healthy and normal, even among those who share the same goals.

For someone who's become an Austrian, I'm surprised at your remark here. It depends on the extent of the diversity, and it depends on the "thought" in question.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Reading over this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-leninism-vs-t96803/index.html) re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place. Thus the proliferation of parties w/ various "tendencies" and the squabbling among themselves historically. Whatever voice of conscience the Left has becomes diluted to the point of nullity and so capitalism goes on its merry way, unencumbered by any need for ideology.

Substitute the Left for:

Christianity
the Right
Humanity
Liberals
Conservatives
Cowboy fans
....

Thanks for another enlightening post.

[redguard2009]

I agree with trivas. and LSD. To a degree.

Shit sucks, plain and simple. In 100 years we've taken two steps forward and five steps back. Been defeated materially or ideologically a dozen times over. And what's left of us are fractured, headless, aimless, plying off in all different directions trying to find the yellow brick road.

But I disagree that "there's just so little to believe in any more". Maybe for the internet revolutionary turned socialite there isn't, but that's a matter of not wanting to believe in anything. Believing is hard, it takes a lot of work, and it can affect every corner of your life with a never-ending raincloud of depression as you amble on through human reality knowing that everything around you is in an utterly horrible state. Much easier to just give up and try to live life and be normal and enjoy things without the immense baggage of being a "revolutionary". And that's all it is, LSD, and you know it.

[JimmyJazz]

It strikes me that this whole conversation (both sides) takes a pretty idealist view of things. No amount of unity and no degree of slick presentation can sell people on an ideology if the material conditions aren't ripe.

Most Americans and other Westerners think that sucking up to the bosses in order to climb the corporate ladder looks like a better/more likely opportunity for personal advancement than solidarity against the bosses. When this happens, capitalism wins. Of course capitalists do work to create an illusion of infinite advancement opportunities within capitalism, but there is a limit to how much they could do this if it wasn't partially true.

In other words, it's not enough that people perceive a class structure, but they must also feel stuck in their class. It is hard to get people to object to class society on principled grounds alone, when the permeability of the border between classes is or appears to be high.

So I don't really think that a united left would get much further than a disunited left, given the same material conditions. It's just as conceivable that a disunited left attracts people by offering them options under the broad umbrella of anti-capitalism (this is sort of how I felt about it when I was first moving toward socialism). But I don't think it has much effect either way. The only time it makes a decisive difference which leftist faction is most prominent is when socialists get close to the actual seizure of power. But we aren't there by a long shot.

What we really need to do is get down to the business of seriously analyzing the class structure in modern Western capitalist societies. It's not the same as the Victorian capitalism that Marx knew. It's still capitalism--a minority still controls access to the means of production--and therefore there are still classes. But I think we need to work on a message that doesn't emphasize oppression and immiseration so much as the fact that anything capitalism does, socialism can do as good or better. Most people in Western capitalist countries live decent lives, but any concessions we get from the capitalists in terms of living standards, still fall short of what should be our goal, which is everything--absolute equality with regard to the MoP. Hopefully, that's a message for which the material conditions are already ripe.

[Bilan]

Reading over this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxist-leninism-vs-t96803/index.html) re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place.

So I suppose the countless revolutions and revolts - these are products of the dominant free market movement? :lol:
If you actually read the thread - and some how I wonder - you would note that alot of it is back-and-forth accusations of one or the other not holding any influence.
Left communists not holding influence is bullshit - Germany was a bloody good example of that.
Leninists not holding any influence is bullshit - Do I need to point out why?
Anarchists not holding any influence is bullshit - You think what happened in Spain, or in Paris, or in Oaxaca, had nothing to do with it?

You're frustratingly dim on this.



Thus the proliferation of parties w/ various "tendencies" and the squabbling among themselves historically. Whatever voice of conscience the Left has becomes diluted to the point of nullity and so capitalism goes on its merry way, unencumbered by any need for ideology.Capitalism is absent of ideology? Are you serious?

[JimmyJazz]

Capitalism is absent of ideology? Are you serious?

I don't think he means that the ideology of liberalism doesn't exist, just that it isn't needed in the way it was when some people still sought to overthrow feudalism and replace it with capitalism.

In the same way as feudalism was, capitalism is now the dominant system and, absent all ideology of any kind (liberal, socialist, or other), it would continue out of pure inertia. He's just failing to acknowledge the Marxist concept that capitalism creates material conditions leading to its own demise.

[trivas7]

In the same way as feudalism was, capitalism is now the dominant system and, absent all ideology of any kind (liberal, socialist, or other), it would continue out of pure inertia. He's just failing to acknowledge the Marxist concept that capitalism creates material conditions leading to its own demise.
If capitalism "creates material conditions leading to its own demise" how is it that it "would continue out of pure inertia"? Isn't this a contradiction?

[JimmyJazz]

Yeah, it is. Everything but that last sentence is what I thought your position to be. The last sentence is the Marxist view.

There is most definitely a contradiction.

[Melbourne Lefty]

The reason in my view for the left being screwed up is that we got into indentity politics and forgot about class.

Does it really matter if a middle class black guy or a middle class white guy gets the next promotion when there are poor white people and poor black people both suffering?

Class is all that matters, everything else is a distraction, ans that distraction has led to where we are now.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The reason in my view for the left being screwed up is that we got into identity politics and forgot about class.

Does it really matter if a middle class black guy or a middle class white guy gets the next promotion when there are poor white people and poor black people both suffering?

Class is all that matters, everything else is a distraction, ans that distraction has led to where we are now.

This thread should be closed. What was said in this profoundly true and important post above is indeed the definitive last word. :thumbup1:

[Hiero]

Reading over this thread re Left Communism vs. Marxist-Leninism leaves me w/ the impression (again) that the real reason the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide is that theoretically it is all over that place.

World Wide? I bet you live in the US. To Americans the world is USA, Canada, Mexico and Iraq.

But you are absoutley wrong. At one point the majority of the world's population was living under some form of a militant Leftist regime. A large portion of the world's population lived under the Soviet sphere of influence. That means that millions of people lived the some of the core aspects of leftist ideology, nationalised industry, collectivisation, full employment, free healthcare and free education.

[JimmyJazz]

This thread should be closed. What was said in this profoundly true and important post above is indeed the definitive last word. :thumbup1:

Except that lots of African Americans/women/etc do not agree with it, so it's basically pointless.

But I do think we could make some limited headway by strenuously pointing out that while gender, "race" and ethnicity will always be sticky issues in some sense, class is the one social division that can be totally eliminated. There's no such thing as a genderless or ethnicityless world; there could be such a thing as a classless world.

[Tower of Bebel]

On the surface the problem is (petty) sectarianism. Underneath it lies, in my opinion, the rape of democratic centralism as both a principle and practice. What makes things much worse is the simple fact that capitalism is now in control of much of the working class.

[Robert]

What makes thing much worse is the simple fact that capitalism is now in control of much of the working class.

I am flabbergasted by your candor and I salute you for it.

Why can't or won't your comrades understand this "simple fact"?

[ls]

the Left has never held substantial influence among workers world-wide

Untrue for starters, let's not even fire the starting pistol here. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I am flabbergasted by your candor and I salute you for it.

Why can't or won't your comrades understand this "simple fact"?

Perhaps because they aren't familiar with one Antonio Gramsci and his theory of cultural hegemony? :glare:

This recent crisis won't trigger much politically (conscious action), but it will serve nicely as a delegitimization (passive consciousness). :)

[Tower of Bebel]

This recent crisis won't trigger much politically (conscious action), but it will serve nicely as a delegitimization (passive consciousness). :)
Yes. It will affect the current hierarchy of the capitalist state system and it will delegitimize much of the capitalist "cultural hegemony". It offers opportunities to the left, but when the left is unable to act (and that's still a huge possibility) nothing will change fundamentally :(. Btw, what do you think of Gramsci's alternative to the capitalist hegemony?

[Plagueround]

I am flabbergasted by your candor and I salute you for it.

Why can't or won't your comrades understand this "simple fact"?

Just about everyone around here recognizes that. It doesn't make the relationship behind it inherently good though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes. It will affect the current hierarchy of the capitalist state system and it will delegitimize much of the capitalist "cultural hegemony". It offers opportunities to the left, but when the left is unable to act (and that's still a huge possibility) nothing will change fundamentally :(. Btw, what do you think of Gramsci's alternative to the capitalist hegemony?

Comrade, because he was too "cultural" and wrote linguistic gibberish (albeit under prison circumstances), I too don't have much of an informed opinion on "counter hegemony." :(

I also don't know the extent of his own philosophical infection resulting from the ultra-dialectical works of Lukacs and Korsch.

As for our common agreement with David Harvey and Mike Macnair on the "delegitimization" question, the biggest casualty in all of this is LSD's precious "social democracy" (all those articles on "the left" failing to cash in). They can't think of reviving the "post-WWII consensus" entirely, let alone get past it in an albeit reformist manner ("sliding scale of wages" and co-op assistance, for example), thus figuring out a way to counter the inevitable right-wing accusations of "populist demagogery."

[Kassad]

It's a simple concept, really. There is a very broad and wide-ranging leftist movement. The problem is that the ruling elite have such a tight grip on the proletariat and the lower classes that they are able to fabricate the past, the present and the future to manipulate society for their own gains. For example, the United States media (CNN, ABC, NBC and FOX) are owned by American corporations. If the corporations are in control of the media, why would they attempt to promote an idea that would contradict their agenda? Would they not, instead, brainwash the malleable public to convince it of off-base stereotypes and falsifications such as ideas that communism means fascism, socialism means that lazy people get the money of hard workers and so on. I guarantee you right now that if the Democratic Party leadership somehow managed to break the leash of the corporate oligarchy over them and began questioning and attacking the corporate elite, they would fall faster than we can imagine.

It's a matter of education and class consciousness and it's hard to establish firm gains in either when the bourgeoisie elite manage to control education, media and every necessity fathomable. They manage to keep the world satisfied with petty reforms and mass-media brainwashing.

[Robert]

if the Democratic Party leadership somehow managed to break the leash of the corporate oligarchy over them

I suppose the Dems could try to nationalize Exxon-Mobil. Would that be good? They don't want to do that because they know they know nothing about extracting and refining petroleum.

If you're talking about money in politics, corporate contributions to political campaigns have been outlawed since '07 (1907), and no individual, fat cat or country mouse, can give more than $2,300 to any single candidate. Barack really did get his money from the grassroot fundraising.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hell yeah he did. The record breaking donations to his campaign highlight how much people want to believe in him.

[Kassad]

I suppose the Dems could try to nationalize Exxon-Mobil. Would that be good? They don't want to do that because they know they know nothing about extracting and refining petroleum.

If you're talking about money in politics, corporate contributions to political campaigns have been outlawed since '07 (1907), and no individual, fat cat or country mouse, can give more than $2,300 to any single candidate. Barack really did get his money from the grassroot fundraising.

You're looking at this narrowly.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Obama took massive contributions from the corporate sector. Yes, a significant amount of his monetary fundraising was grassroots, but that is irrelevant. Without the support of the corporate media, a politician is going nowhere fast.

[Robert]

Without the support of the corporate media, a politician is going nowhere fast.

If the bottom line is all that matters to the media, why wouldn't they support a Republican every time?

[Kassad]

If the bottom line is all that matters to the media, why wouldn't they support a Republican every time?

Because the capitalist enterprise system consistently runs into problems that are innate in the system. If one of these problems occurs during a Republican's tenure in office, he will be blamed, and the people will want change. Four years later, a problem might arise with the newly elected Democrat. The people will seek change and Mr. Republican is back. It's a cycle of manipulation and the media consistently hammers into us that there are only two choices in each election, so the people always pick one of the two corporate candidates.

[Robert]

I concede your point, but it doesn't help much. PACs originated in the 40's as a means to permit organized labor (your guys) to vote for Roosevelt:

In 1944, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the CIO part of what is today the AFL-CIO (http://www.aflcio.org/), wanted to help President Franklin Roosevelt get re-elected. Standing in their way was the Smith Connally Act of 1943, which made it illegal for labor unions to contribute funds to federal candidates. The CIO went around Smith Connally by urging individual union members to voluntarily contribute money directly to the Roosevelt campaign. It worked very well and PACs, or political action committees were born.

So PAC money really is raised from workers, as well as executives, and the same limits apply to both. Absent coercion by a corporation to have employees support a PAC, no problem.

Finally, note the makeup of the top 10 PACs in 2004:



EMILY's List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMILY%27s_List) $22,767,521
Service Employees International Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union) $12,899,352
American Federation of Teachers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_Teachers) $12,789,296
American Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association) $11,901,542
National Rifle Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association) $11,173,358
Teamsters Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamsters_Union) $11,128,729
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brotherhood_of_Electrical_Workers) $10,819,724
National Education Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Education_Association) $10,521,538
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Federation_of_State,_County_and_Municipal _Employees) $9,882,022
Laborers' International Union of North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laborers%27_International_Union_of_North_America) $9,523,837

The picture in 2007-08 is was little different:

PAC Name Total Amount Dem Pct Repub Pct National Assn of Realtors (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=National+Assn+of+Realtors) $3,872,400 57% 43% Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Intl+Brotherhood+of+Electrical+W orkers) $2,985,850 98% 2% AT&T Inc (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=AT%26T+Inc) $2,965,700 45% 55% National Beer Wholesalers Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=National+Beer+Wholesalers+Assn) $2,845,000 53% 47% National Auto Dealers Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=National+Auto+Dealers+Assn) $2,725,500 34% 66% American Bankers Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=American+Bankers+Assn) $2,671,893 41% 59% Operating Engineers Union (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Operating+Engineers+Union) $2,660,320 87% 13% International Assn of Fire Fighters (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=International+Assn+of+Fire+Fight ers) $2,651,900 77% 23% American Assn for Justice (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=American+Assn+for+Justice) $2,576,000 95% 5% Honeywell International (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Honeywell+International) $2,494,116 53% 47% Laborers Union (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Laborers+Union) $2,462,850 92% 8% Air Line Pilots Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Air+Line+Pilots+Assn) $2,352,000 85% 15% Credit Union National Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Credit+Union+National+Assn) $2,216,049 54% 46% Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Machinists%2FAerospace+Workers+U nion) $2,193,300 97% 3% Plumbers/Pipefitters Union (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Plumbers%2FPipefitters+Union) $2,187,889 95% 5% American Federation of Teachers (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=American+Federation+of+Teachers) $2,181,250 99% 1% Service Employees International Union (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Service+Employees+International+ Union) $2,143,250 94% 5% National Air Traffic Controllers Assn (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=National+Air+Traffic+Controllers +Assn) $2,139,975 79% 20% National Assn of Home Builders (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=National+Assn+of+Home+Builders) $2,139,000 44% 56% Teamsters Union (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/ultlookup.php?txt=Teamsters+Union) $2,018,500 97% 3%


Nobody's any dirtier than anyone else.

[Kassad]

Of course they are dirty. Do you see honest candidates who actually promote the issues getting any sorts of contributions? No, because those candidates are usually bad for the elite's agenda, so they don't give them any media coverage. As we know, if it isn't on the TV in American, it isn't true.

[Robert]

There are two things I can't reconcile from your OpenSecrets.org, and I sincerely appreciate your posting it.

Here's the one you linked
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2008, showing about $13M to Obama coming from PACS, which include not only Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan (bad guys), but also Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford. Oddly, the "US Government" appears on the list.

But here's another one, from the same source http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638 ,

showing Obama got $656M from individuals and only $1,580 from PACs, which they show as "zero" percent. Maybe the ee-vil corporate PACS gave only to his senate campaign, or to his primary campaigns, and then he refused additional PAC money once he got rolling on the net to make himself look pure compared to Hillary?

But to your question, yes, I honestly think Obama "actually promotes the issues" and raised big money, from ordinary people, with that message. They aren't perhaps the issues the hard left wants raised (he's not an idiot), but, yes, he talked incessantly about the issues important to your middle class neighbors, and plenty of upper class neighbors: expanding health care, more access to higher education, and ending the war.

As to this:
Of course they are dirty.


I was actually referring to everybody, including labor and the voters.

Hey Abe, check me out; I've become a pretty good spokesman for Obama, and I didn't even vote for him! :laugh:

[AtteroDominatus]

Hmm. the problem I see is that different branches of communism can't put aside their differences for the greater good. Marxists and Stalinists argue about everything. Those who follow Che argue with those who see flaws. Those who promote the destruction of all laws argue agaisnt those who think there needs to be some guidelines.

And then, if one does not fit into the status quo leftist, they are bashed and called a capitalist etc. I've seen it more than once on this forum. Everyone results to insults and bashing one another. I understand debate is good, but when people are sileneces for just believing abortion (like I was) you put aside all the things we have in common and just point out all the differences. Perhaps we shoudl all work together, and once we start to get the proletarians to overthrow the burgeoise we should worry about details. Carefully laid out plans never leave chance for flexibility. Why worry about the smallest details now? We should worry about a revolution and banning together first and foremost instead of fighting one another. but then again, that's just what i think. A group is always more imposing and stronger than a bunch of individuals that are mostly the same but refuse to acknowledge they have common ground.

[Plagueround]

Hmm. the problem I see is that different branches of communism can't put aside their differences for the greater good. Marxists and Stalinists argue about everything. Those who follow Che argue with those who see flaws. Those who promote the destruction of all laws argue agaisnt those who think there needs to be some guidelines.

And then, if one does not fit into the status quo leftist, they are bashed and called a capitalist etc. I've seen it more than once on this forum. Everyone results to insults and bashing one another. I understand debate is good, but when people are sileneces for just believing abortion (like I was) you put aside all the things we have in common and just point out all the differences. Perhaps we shoudl all work together, and once we start to get the proletarians to overthrow the burgeoise we should worry about details. Carefully laid out plans never leave chance for flexibility. Why worry about the smallest details now? We should worry about a revolution and banning together first and foremost instead of fighting one another. but then again, that's just what i think. A group is always more imposing and stronger than a bunch of individuals that are mostly the same but refuse to acknowledge they have common ground.

I would hope this is not the case, however, if your judgment of the left is largely based on this forum, you really have not experienced enough to even have an opinion on the matter. There is a very obvious reason why people debate and argue over theory so much on an internet discussion forum. This site cannot and should not be a replacement for real life organizing. You must understand that by the very nature of the site, it is not wise to discuss any and all actions carried out by its members or their organizations. There is a need for a security culture of some sort, even online.*

*As a side note, this is why I always laugh at people claiming everyone here is an armchair revolutionary, but I suppose such thoughts would not occur to the "Do My Research For Me While I Scoff" mentality that makes up most of the OI.

As for your proposal of banding together and sorting out differences later, it sounds nice and all, but what if the majority decides later on that my views are worth of jailtime or execution? What if later on it's decided that you should be shot for being anti-abortion? Perhaps you could see why people would be a bit hesitant about hanging out with anyone who flies a red flag. I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly don't intend on simply repeating the same mistakes of the past.

And, before anyone takes an attempt at me on this one, this is all entirely different from an internet discussion site that aims to focus it's discussion and keep things on topic.

[AtteroDominatus]

Yeah, I can see what you mean. There does come some issue in what happens later. =/

And I'm not old enough to join a political group in my outside the internet life. So a lot of what i see is from here. Plus, I've never seen a communist group here in the US, i rarely ever hear of them. maybe i'm not looking hard enough.

[DaughterJones]

If the left were more unified (even if in action but not ideology) that could be overcome. There are still outlets of expression other than television. Not to seem cliche but the internet is extremely powerful tool and with programs like democracy now information gets out there. Alot of the time people become curious about political organizations and go to hear people's ideas and feel like they can do something but are extremely turned off when they listen to the same ideological debates over and over nothing gets done that way.:blink: