THE CABAL
| Is It Still Possible to Be a Leftie? (Part Three) | |
 by Jimmy Bradshaw, December 3, 2007
|
|
Why we need a left
In my first two posts of this series, I tried to defend opponents of violent jihadism and supporters of the
I promised that my next post would look at the broader issue of why a left is still necessary. Clearly this is a topic more suited for a lengthy polemical book than a blog post (Yes, I am open to offers….) so what follows is a brief and simplified attempt to make the case that in the modern world, the values of the left remain absolutely essential if the combination of chaos and dynamism that prevails is to meet with a progressive response.
The first thing that has to be said in any attempt to state the case for the left in 2007 is – forget the far left. Leninism is dead, Trotskyism is dead, Stalinism is dead, Maoism is dead, the concept of ‘socialist revolution’ is dead and the idea of a planned socialist economy is dead. And to that one should add a long overdue – thankfully.
Millions of people were murdered, perished or were incarcerated as a result of ‘socialist experiments’ in the last century. Millions more had their lives and their family’s lives wrecked by communist dictatorships and in countries now described as ‘formerly communist states’ the impact of over four decades of totalitarianism are still felt.
That tiny minority of oddballs who continue to believe in the ‘dictatorship of the proleteriat’ and other euphemisms for state terror should be as unacceptable to democrats as far right-wing opponents of liberal democracy – what is amazing is that they are still regarded as acceptable leaders for ‘peace movements’ and labour movement organisations.
But, of course, while Marxist inspired revolutionary socialism was a horrendous catastrophe, social democracy (or democratic socialism if you prefer) came out of the last century with a pretty good balance sheet. Western European welfare states were inspired by and largely created by the social-democratic parties of the labour movement. The health care systems, the universal education systems, the progressive housing solutions, the victories in terms of wages and work conditions for millions of European workers are a credit to the social democratic project. It was never plain-sailing of course and there were times when the tide turned against social democracy (the era of Kohl-Reagan-Thatcher) and there were times when one wondered if anything would remain of the core aims of social-democracy (the era of the third-way).
But on the whole, social-democrats can be justly proud of the achievements of their parties in the past century. In countries where social democracy took root, real acute poverty is a thing of the past even though great inequalities of wealth remain. Likewise the values of social liberalism also can look back on great progress – great steps forward have been made in gender equality, gay rights, racial equality and religious freedom.
Together social-democracy and social-liberalism have improved the lot of millions of people and won real and lasting victories – if one steps away from the disasters of revolutionary socialism, reject it utterly, then the left has actually enjoyed enormous success – successes which of course need to be defended, expanded and improved upon. But while social democracy in Europe has been able to make headway in the main goal of taking the benefits of a capitalist economy and using the state to more broadly distribute the resources available and has, through regulation and intervention, been able to force capitalists to pay better wages and offer better working conditions, on a global scale poverty remains at an intolerable level with millions living in starvation conditions.
And while liberal democracy reigns across the continent of
Yet at the same time, when one reads the debates over the past decade, a lack of confidence in the core values of both liberalism and social democracy emerges which hinders the ability of the democratic left to take on the tasks facing it. Cynicism about the value of democracy as opposed to an enthusiasm to spread it globally and cultural relativism rather than international solidarity risk making the left into a club of parochial critics. An unwillingness to tackle economic questions and a Luddite anti-globalisation stance rather than a concerted effort to create a social-democratic world, leave the left looking like a snooty western elite who wash their hands with some charity rather than address the need to shift globalisation in a progressive direction aimed at eliminating poverty.
The democratic left has much to be proud of (including its opposition to the anti-democratic left) but it must leave behind the cynicism and nihilism that has infected it in the past decade or so and confidently take on a new role as champions of a progressive globalisation and the internationalisation of democracy. In my final part of this series I will sketch out some rough ideas for how that might start to take shape.
 |
Jimmy Bradshaw is a pseudonym for a prominent social democrat. More... |
We're now three and a half years into the first genocide of the...
New psychedelics are transforming the future of spirituality
Brooke Goldstein's exploration of child martyrs
Redemption is for the lazy and evil is anything but banal.
A new movie hits identity issues on the nose
| Dev Blog | Privacy | Submissions | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | FAQ | Masthead |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Anonymous
Just curious
Are you denying the existence of class conflict? Is liberal democracy The End Of History, the best socio-economic arrangement possible?
Thanks.
Jimmy Bradshaw
Liberal democracy isn't a
Liberal democracy isn't a 'socio-economic arrangement' - it is a political system.
Is it the best political system possible - well, has a better one been found yet?
Anonymous
It's not a political
It's not a political system, it's a socio-economic system.
Representative democracy is a political system, like in Iran for example. <i>Liberal</i> democracy requires a capitalist economy with all its consequences. In fact, capitalist economy is way more important for a 'liberal democracy' than democracy. Singapore is a liberal democracy for chrissake, Japan is a liberal democracy. Both are one-party system oligarchies.
Anonymous
Not that anything's wrong
Not that anything's wrong with it, mind you.
egrep
the left died in August 1914
The Left died in August 1914.
One hundred and twenty years ago being a Socialist was a synonym for being interested in science in general, and in the science of society in particular. Now the mourners of the Left forgot that Marx only acknowledged that resentment will drive the class struggle, and that he spent more time looking for good questions than formulating answers. The caretakers of the Left now embrace the resentment, and believe all the questions have been asked and that they have all the answers. The left used to be about finding the way: now it's about enforcing it.
Anonymous asked at 12/03/07 3:23 pm about "class conflict". I ask: what means class ? What means conflict ? Read the 18eme Brumaire and you'll find lots of classes and lots of conflicts expressed in lots of ways. The nowadays Left sticks to the manicheism of "poor vs. rich", "workers vs. owners", "feminism vs. patriarchat", "local vs. global" ... The contemporary left allied itself with the Malthusians, with the neognostic Greens, with Avangardists entrenched in the Academia and with almost every petty politruc that lacks enough confidence to grab his or her share of the State power but pretends to earn it by defending the "oppressed".
The Leftists are chasing "liberation" and "revolution" but abandoned the Economics to the "game theorists", the Social Sciences to the behaviorists and the Philosophy to a strange breed of psychoanalytical nominalists and to the editors of dictionaries.
<blockquote> social democracy (or democratic socialism if you prefer) came out of the last century with a pretty good balance sheet</blockquote>
Indeed it did: millions of Guestarbeiters without civil rights, "export compensated" products (read: dumping) crippling the economies of third world nations, ghettoes and expulsion for the citoyens of former départements d'outre-mer that chose to stay loyal to their "republic" etc. More Corradinian than Marxist, Social Democracy did good for some of the "proletariat", but lately it looks much more like the "iron heel" a American socialist wrote some one hundred years ago.
The "scar of global poverty" is a side effect of the successes of "Social Democracy", and the movement that calls itself "the Left/Social Democratic/Liberal" is still persisting in keeping it open: instead of helping the third world workers organize, it preaches for boycotts against the sweatshops that give the same workers a lift from utter misery to moderate poverty; instead of sending engineers to train them operate tractors, it sends deluded Greens to teach them how to make "sustainable fuel" out of cow dung; instead of letting them compete, it preaches for "slow food" and protectionism; instead of giving the youth of the "working class" they claim to protect a chance to learn a trade, it plays on them the cruel trick of "the minimum wage", condemning them to long years of unpaid "internships" or plain unemployment.
"Is It Still Possible to Be a Leftie?" It's very well possible, but a little unpleasant to look in a mirror.
Adam Shprintzen
In a way the real question
In a way the real question is if the Left (however loosely defined) has ever come to terms with its unfortunate, historic fascination with autocrats, utopianism and fascism, and the implications of that fascination. The current left love affair with fascism is, of course, nothing new. How can a movement have ever really evolved if it has never even faced its historic mistake of defending Leninism and/or Stalinism?
So the question isn't necessarily whether or not it is still possible to be a Leftie, the real question is whether one should be (which the article certainly touches upon). The options are not particularly pretty by any means. But maybe there is an opportunity to transcend the coalitions of the past to build a left that allows for self-analysis and criticism.
Anonymous
Could you explain your
Could you explain your "love affair with fascism" thing, please?
I got the impression that 'liberal democracy' kinda likes fascism: S.Korea and Taiwan until recently, Milton Friedman and Pinochet, etc. - fascism is fine as long as it protects capitalism, suppresses rebellions, destroys the unions.
I never noticed any "current left love affair with fascism". Are you talking about anti-colonial national liberation movements specifically in the middle east? Anti-colonialism has always been one of the favorite causes of the left, there's nothing new or fascist there.
Also, I don't think Leninism really was that terrible, his NEP reform worked quite well, considering.
I ask: what means class ? What means conflict ?
Hah-hah, I like that, it's funny. I should visit here more often.
Adam Shprintzen
On Lenin and Terror
Anti-colonialism in the sense of national liberation and self-determination have been a hallmark of modern leftism to be sure. However, support of thuggish, terroristic, theocracies certainly is not. Nor is the support of ethnic cleansers such as Milosevic, or people who starve his population to death such as Kim Jong-Il. All of whom are supported by many of the types of anti-global organizations that we are pointing towards in this article.
Really, Leninism wasn't so terrible? May want to give this a gander:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSterror.htm
Anonymous
I don't know anyone who
I don't know anyone who 'supports' (what does it mean, exactly?) Kim Jong-Il. With Milosevic it's usually not so much about Milosevic as about the bombings of Serbia by NATO that people on the left (along with many other people) do not 'support'.
Your link isn't about Leninism, it's about the Russian civil war 1917-22.
Post new comment