Results 1 to 20 of 30
Well first of all, I don't think Counterpunch is a reliable source since I heard some rather questionable things about it.
It's hard for the left to die in America when there really was never any real left movement of any significance to begin with in America.
Like what?
Do you dispute the information they have relayed in this article? It seemed spot-on to me.
Oh, there is definitely a Left here in America.
The problem is, we don't have a Left PARTY. We are shackled with the two party system of center-right Democrats and right-wing Republicans.
Because we don't have any possible way of getting a Left Wing party involved in Congress, leftism has become stale in the U.S.
(Yeah, I know that reformism and politics don't neccessarily help further the revolution, but it would AT LEAST give the American Left some confidence, if not some visibility).
This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End...d_the_Last_Man was all the rage for a few months.
About the only people who take the idea seriously these days are demagogues![]()
See also: http://reddit.com/r/socialism http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchistnews http://reddit.com/r/anarchism
The only slaves who are happy, are the crazy ones.
True special thanks for the Red Scare/McCarthyism/Cold War propaganda and moral panics till the point that even terms "socialism"/"communism" have become loaded language and now post-Soviet Union "End of History" mindset and hardcore liberalism ("Communism sounds nice on paper but in practice it failed because of human nature" and such).
I think I remember reading somewhere that Counterpunch is owned by conspiracy theorists/reactionaries/"progressives" Green party/etc people or whatever but I don't remember where (sort of like "Common Dreams" which all they post is doom & gloom and such).
I fear that the Left has been so obfuscated by propaganda in America that many people are not even willing to learn more about leftism due to the negative association even though they might find that they actually agree with the underlying principles of communism if they only knew what it truly was. I basically blame cultural hegemony.
The breakdown happened rather early because of red hunting. Jessica Mitford recounts in "A Fine Old Conflict" that at a certain point in the late fifties, the members of various local Parties and their central committees who were FBI infiltrators began outnumbering genuine socialists. The sixties brought about alternatives, but they suffered in similar fashion.
The call for the people to give up the illusions about their condition is a call for them to give up a condition that requires illusions.
The Narco-Socialist Manifesto
maybe "the left" is dead because the material conditions that produced it no and facilitated its existence longer exist?
Until now, the left has only managed capital in various ways; the point, however, is to destroy it.
Historically, 'the Left' has failed monumentally. What war, depression or ecocide did it ever prevent? The Left now exists mainly as a fading protest vehicle or annoying lifestylism. It hasn't been a source of inspiration in many decades. It is, in fact, silently dying out.
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
I would think that the current capitalist crisis would create the material conditions that would encourage people to seek an alternative.
You have to understand that no one gives a shit about many of the things listed in that article. Well, not no one, but the average American really doesn't care that much about kids dying in Pakistan, sad but true. Nor do they care about the spotted owl 'still going extinct' or a whole slew of other things that The Left cares about and obsesses over.
That's not even to say that such issues shouldn't be issues of concern...I too am disgusted over what this country does overseas on pretty much a daily basis. But the opposition to the war in Afghanistan...yes, if you go up to Americans and say, "should we be at war in Afghanistan?" most will probably say "no". But are they actually willing to do anything about that other than give their opinion? Are they ready for "mass demonstrations", "nationwide strikes", "systematic efforts to obstruct military recruiting", etc, all presumably led by a non-impotent Left? No. The war simply doesn't affect a large enough percentage of the American population, not even close. People may not like the wars but they'll tolerate them.
And forget it when we talk about things like privacy and civil liberties. The lack of fucks given over those issues by Americans is awe-inspiring.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
Basically the article makes it sound like there's a large discontented political opposition out there just waiting to be had, and I'm skeptical of this notion. Then there's a whole poor pitiful pearl, let-me-play-a-song-on-the-world's-tiniest-violin lament about how the Left isn't whipping this latent political opposition into shape.
"Win, lose or draw...long as you squabble and you get down, that's gangsta."
One would expect an article on the "death of" the American Left to actually talk about the American Left. But after reading the article, you wonder if the author even acknowledges an existing Left that can die in the first place.
The whole article is essentially talking about the disappointment in the failure for a major Left resurgence rather than any analysis of an existing Left "silently dying out."
It probably has to do with the fact that sites like Counterpunch tend to not want to discuss the "sectarian" groups for fear of looking biased or getting caught up in old battles. Although I could be wrong on this last point.
Well the fSUs collapse like it's creation kind of corresponded with the decay of the established marxist movements worldwide.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
I think you need to read up on your history comrade. While at this time the left is miniscule, that has not always been the case -- it has been rather large at times within the past hundred years. There has always been an ebb and flow. Sadly, we are in the midst of a major ebb.
Richard Wolff talks repeatedly about a powerful union movement in the 1930s that forced Roosevelt to institute the New Deal. Contrast those historical events to the sound of crickets we hear today.
Eh, as Henry Ford always said, consumerism is the key to peace. People just aren't as restless anymore. This is, in my opinion, because they are either enjoying a higher standard of living, or being told that they are. Probably more so, but not completely the ladder.
The left, the radicals, are being made to feel irrelevant. I know nobody wants to hear it, but I think the collapse of the USSR changed a lot of peoples' mindsets. Even though it was grossly misinterpreted and so very flawed, the USSR was always seen as a viable alternative, even in America. Even the centre left; the moderates, reformers and social democrats. They knew that "socialism" existed out there, and some parts of it even worked.
And then it collapsed. Suddenly, the "socialism" they were so familiar with didn't work anymore. Capitalism had won. Any alternative was wrong, and so, they heaved themselves back home and never said a word again.
I'm not saying all of the left were Soviet worshippers, and they certainly weren't, but I'm willing to bet there was a big decline in the early 90s. I can't say I'm really informed about American politics, but the left certainly took a massive hit in other parts of the world.
So, now, as far as the average American is concerned, there are no alternative ways of running the world. If times get bad, you try to fix the system, not change it. And if you have your McDonalds and new Ford Sedan, why really care anyway?
We are still in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet bloc, just as the era from 1919 to 1939 was the aftermath of the first world war, and then from 1929 on, capital's crisis as well. In 2013, the working class movement is still without direction and in disarray globally.
Up till now, conditions in the United States allowed the ruling class to maintain a fairly comfortable hegemony through ideological means and material means such as collaborationist unions, credit, and welfare, all backed up by the mightiest economic machine in the world where one generation on average got better paying employment than the last. (We still have a higher standard of living than people in the 50s and 60s, when capitalism was at its furthest from major crisis) That paradigm has already crumbled and the global economy is currently held together by the efforts of central banks.
Capital's crisis will deepen in the near future, and that's when the working class movement will rebuild itself.