elwoodblues

Oh, you're talking about the REAL left. In the course of everyday conversation, and even realistic political discussion in this country, the word then ceases to have utility.

I've always considered 'right' and 'left' to be pretty loose terms, defined as being more liberal or more conservative than the average american (or american voter). That means they have real meaning and utility, though what is 'left' one year may be 'middle' ten years later.

RED DAVE

It is amazing to me how the right, having captured the media and popular parlance, has corrupted the terms "left" and "right."

Let me give you a capsule history. The words, I believe, have their origin in the French Revolution, depicting the seating of the delegates to the National Assembly. Those who were furthest to the left, the Jacobins, sat on the left side of the delegates' gallery, and those who were more and more moderate, leading to the royalists, sat to the right.

For the next hundred years or so, this term could be applied in the same manner: that those who were for freedom: civil liberties, against slavery, for the rights of the poor, etc., were of the left, and those favoring monarchy, restrictions of liberty, slavery and the rich were of the right.

The issue of capitalism vs. socialism hadn't come in yet. However, by 1848, the proletariat had differentiated itself as a class from the bourgeolisie, but it still fought in concert with the left, liberal wing of the capitalist class. As the 19th century progressed, the bourgeoise became less and less liberal as a class, and the struggle between left and right took on more and more of a class character.

By 1914, the class lines were clear. There was no significant left bourgeoise that acted independently of the bourgeoisie as a whole, although its liberal wing was capable of social criticism of a more-or-less systematic nature. However, social democracy, the dominant force on the left, lost its authority as it was unable to effectively oppose World War I. With the Russian Revolution, the issue should have been settled once and for all: proletarian forces to the left; bourgeois forces to the right. It didn't happen that way.

With the rapid degeneration and counter-revolution, we get a form of capitalism, state capitalism, masquerading as socialism and speaking in its name. It became the most powerful force on the "left," and the Communist Parties became the most powerful left parties in many countries, i.e. France and Italy. However, they were always tainted with the fact that they were anchored in the Soviet Union, and the CPs (Communist Parties) never achieved the status of independent left parties. They could always be "sacrificed" to the interests of the USSR. Hence the term "stalinist."

Other left wing tendencies, such as social democracy, Trotskyism, anarchism and independent radicalism also existed. With the rise of fascism, the necessity of the left fighting this monstrosity as a unified force became imperative, but it didn't happen. Under the sway of Moscow, the CPs constantly waffled and, in the end, were ineffective. An independent, nonstalinist, revolutionary left, whether under the banner of Trpotskyism or as an independent force, never quite materialized.

After World War II, the left settled into a period of decline. Hampered by the USSR, having to deal with new formations: China, Cuba, etc., the left continued to be splintered. It birthed two new formations: Maoism, essentially a new form of stalinism and the New Left, which existed not only in the United States but also in Europe, Japan and other countries. This was an attempt to circumvent the fragmentation of the old left and deal with the problems of racism and Vietnam, while, more or less, carrying on a broad, left-wing program.

Maoism eventually went the way of Stalinism, although there are still Maoist parties as there are still CPs. The New Left eventually self-destructed, except in Germany, where it became the basis of the Green Party, with all its contradictions.

I would note that an independent left, either under the guise of Trotskyism, independent socialism (this is where I come in) or other forms has continued to exist up to the present day.

For brevity sakes, this "potted history" of the left omits many factors, including the questions of race, movements of the labor movement, sexism, identity politics, petit-bourgeois radicalism, etc. It would take three or four times this amount of space to even begin to do justice to them.

Which brings us back to the question of liberalism. Liberalism represents the attenuated remnant of the "left bourgeoisie." It has no independent existence. It is differentiated from the rest of the left as it is a capitalist formation. Social democracy, is, by now, a form of labor liberalism. Socialists, in general, and leftists, in general, do not support liberal candidates as they are capitalists (such as Dean). We may work with them in movements such as the antiwar movement, but we distinguish ourselves from them.

As a committed leftist for over 45 years, I think I can speak out of experience if not authority. An excellent, older pamphlet on these issues (somewhat dated but still good) is Hal Draper's "The Two Souls of Socialism. I apologize for necessary distortions to get this posted as soon as possible.

The Two Souls of Socialism

RED DAVE

dcwolf

I see. So when you talk about a revolution that won't happen in the forseeable future and the validity of communism, everybody has to sit up and notice. But when somebody brings up an issue that you don't care about, it's something to be chastised. Nice, krieger.

That post you're referring to was in response to Red Dave's quest for details on Dean's policy on scientific research. So that's why I brought up industrial hemp. And the post also deals with Dean on education and scientific research. I guess you're not interested in those issues.

I find it curious that you would laugh at an issue that's important to a lot of people (especially Greens!) in this country. And, yet, you probably take exception for being laughed at when you tout communism. You come off as a hypocrite for laughing at someone who alludes to an obscure issue. It does happen to be an important issue, even if you don't care about it. And you were whining about people in the thread being hostile to you last week??!
Oh, I see what you're saying! It's the krieger postulate! Never mind that Dean gained 6 points in the cnn poll, and Lieberman only gained 3 in the same poll. And to make this postulate work, you also have to ignore Lieberman's 9-point slide the week before in the Newsweek poll and Dean's 8-point gain in that same poll! The week before that, ABC's results showed a 16-point slide for Lieberman and a 5-point gain for Dean.

You are not "excited" about Dean because you hate politicians with the D next to their name. Your hope is simply that Bush will be given four more years worth of rope to hang himself and people in this country wake up and revolt. (By the way, what is this revolt? Burning cars? 60,000,000 people voting Green far into the future? What is it?) What it seems you haven't considered is that too many Americans could care less about politics. What is your plan for getting them involved? Howard Dean is getting people involved monetarily and in volunteer roles. He's doing this by presenting a clear alternative to Bush, and it's showing in the polls.

Krieger

Haha, and now you're trying to compare advocating a minor issue, such as the use of industrial hemp, to my posts advocating a completely new democratic society (communism)!

"Let the ruling classes tremble at the coming Industrial Hemp revolution!" I bet they've already pissed their pants!


Bush is not "hanging" America, he is only doing whatever is necessary to maintain the capitalist economic system in this country, which benefits the ruling class that he is a part of. If maintaining the capitalist system means going to war, then the country goes to war. Despite what may seem so "obvious" to members of the Democratic Party, Bush is not an idiot. Bush (just like Clinton before him) is merely representing his economic class (the bourgeoisie) and it is in his best interest to do so.

Btw, I hate all ruling class politicians. It does not matter which letter they put beside their name ("D", "R", or maybe even an "I" or two)

elwoodblues

Okay, but I would have no occassion, ever, to even use the word 'left', if that's the definition. Those ideologies don't come up when talking to my family, to my friends, or for the most part, on this board. It just does. Not. Come. Up.

What DOES have utility in my vocabulary is the ability to refer to the 'left' half of the US voting population. i.e., the half of this country that is, if not absolutely up to snuff in your definition of 'left', is leaning more that way than 'right'. That's a word I can actually USE.

Radical socialists and communists are so rare in this country, and such a weak political force, that using a word like 'left' for them doesn't make any damned sense; it'd be parsing up the voting spectrum into 1% on one side and 99% on the other. That's virtually useless, and favors the thus labelled minority with an importance all out of proportion to reality.

It'd be like using 'wood-burning capacity' as a primary method to distinguish between different sorts of cooking grills EVEN THOUGH the vast majority use charcoal or natural gas. Suddenly wood-burning grills have this special category on-par with all other grills, even though they constitute a scant few percent of the total grills. It imparts an importance not reflected in number, and it's virtually useless for 95%+ of conversations and statements regarding grills.

Your definition of 'left' is utterly useless to me, other than as a footnote as to the history of the word. And if the definition of the word has changed in common use over the decades, you shouldn't be surprised. It's far from the first word to do so.

elwoodblues

But do you really hate them all equally? Even if you can't stomach voting FOR someone, you can at least vote AGAINST the guy you hate or fear the most.

Unless you think having a radical republican will somehow bring things to a crisis point and ignite the revolution. Then I'd think you'd be voting FOR the bastard.

dcwolf

No, krieger. I obviously need to recap for you. You accused me of focusing on only one issue. I've made many posts on different issues on this subject in this thread and others, and I directed you to two of them. Then you became fixated on one comment of one of the posts and decided to chastise me in reference.

As I stated before, that post dealt with Dean's policy and record on education and issues within scientific research. You are the one illuminating and focusing on my reference to industrial hemp. I realize it's a minor issue! That's not the point. The point that I was making was that Dean advocates scientific research in that area and other areas, in response to Red Dave's question. You're way off the mark for obsessing over that one allusion in that post.

In a post from earlier today, I said...
Then...
LOL, krieg! I did not say he was "hanging America". The logic goes... "...rope to hang himself" then "people... revolt."
I would ask you again to contribute what your solution is, but I've long since lost interest in what you have to say; I've come to realize all you're interested in is twisting whatever I say.

RED DAVE

From elwoodblues:

Maybe it's useless to you because you want to work in vague generalities as opposed to a rigorous, historicall-based definition. Your definition permits you to read the historic left out of history, leaving the current rumble between liberals and conservatives, which is of about thirty years' standing, as the main event of our time. It ain't.

The meanings of left and right have been systematically distorted by the right so that they could demonize the entire left and smear liberals with the reputation of socialism. If you want to engage in that kind of sloppy thinking, that's your business.

RED DAVE

Krieger

The posts you made in response to me were about how Dean would be better for the environment.


Actually that isn't true, in the same post which I laughed at your industrial hemp advocacy, I went on to also laugh at Howard Dean's right-wing views on education, the military etc. I was replying to your post on page 3. I did not just focus on your interest in industrial hemp.


You see, unlike you, I don't want the people to just revolt against Bush the politician. I want the people to revolt against the capitalist system itself. That is why I refuse to give support to ruling class political entities, such as the Democratic Party.


That is nice, I don't really care what you have to say either. But you just keep replying to my posts, and then I have to reply to yours.

elwoodblues

Making the primary means of political division draw a line separating 1% of the population from the other 99% is worthless; it has no practical utility, and communicates little or no information in the vast preponderance of discourse. It'd be useless, silly, and misleading. That may not have been the case in 1930 (by dint of the fact that it wouldn't be a 99-1 split), but it is today. I stand by that.

And pretending that the evolution of the terms 'right' and 'left' is special in our language and should be handled differently than any other evolving term is sloppy thinking in itself.

It's useless to me because I can't communicate anything to other people with it! I'm not worried about 'rigorous, historicall-based definition'. What I'm worried about is a 5-4 SCotUS, split the WRONG WAY. Unless you're counting on a revolution of some sort, railing on about abstract poltical history and extreme socialism isn't going to change that at all.

You go ahead and think the long thoughts for us, Red. Me, I think I'll deal with political realities, first and foremost of which is that the American socialist/communist 'movement' is without power, purpose, or even plurality. When talking about something like the 2004 presidential election, dividing the political spectrum up 1%/99% makes the kind of sense you'd find in Wonderland.

Say 'hi' to Alice for me.