Where is the left ?

[Dominick]

Let me first say that when Soviet authoritarian communism fell, the general public herded by the mainstream media and ideologues made that in to the fall of communism tout court. Which is of course a severe error. If, in the following paragraphs, I'll use the word 'capitalism' let it be understood I mean by that the politico-financial mafiacracy of the last 25 years.

Now that -ahum- capitalism has also fallen, one would expect that the political left -on a global scale that is- would triumphantly be screaming 'Told you so' from every rooftop. After all, after the fall of the Wall, Perestrojka and Glasnost, and the mini revolutions in many Eastern European countries, the political right didn't hesitate one millisecond to do just that. And they went as far as claiming the end of history. I bet Mr. Fukuyama is in hiding today.

But none of that from the left today although they have every reason to do it. The green movement in its broadest meaning has been announcing the inevitable, indeed the necessary, collapse of an economy that only can survive on continuous exponential growth for some 35 years. Likewise, the unions and socialists have been indicating that unbridled capitalism will only benefit the very few and that the general public would ultimately be the big loser. Guess what, exactly what's happening today.

So where are they ? Why don't we hear from them ?


Okay, I admit, it's a rhetorical question. I see three reasons (next post).

[Dominick]

The first reason I see is that some of them have not been able to withstand the call of the immediate profit. They too, individually or as an organization have invested in the very financial products that have now turned out to be nothing but a pyramid scheme. They had their hands in the till and suffered possibly severe losses. It would be ironic, but altogether anything but unlikely, that they would have suffered relatively worse than average because they would have stepped in late.

The second and third reason are opposite sides of the same coin. I summary, the lefties, socialists and whatnot, that have access to the media are not really socialists and the real socialist shave no access to the media.

The end of socialism as a relevant political faction came IMO with the rebaptizing of Labour to New Labour in the UK. Since then all socialist parties, in Europe at least, have devolved into the same populist, marketing led and poll-driven PR machines as their liberal and christian-democrat brethren and sisters. The unions meanwhile have calcified into conservative forces that have only eyes for the status quo, and specifically of their own status quo, their power and financial interests.

There has been a reaction against that. Some of these organizations and parties have split into the above described side on the one hand an a faction that seeks to go back to basics on the other. The latter however is almost completely ignored by any mainstream media. The reason therefore is not a political bias or a vast conspiracy, but an aspect of the media that will be explained in another thread, and is based on the ideas of research journalist Nick Davies of the Guardian.

So, this is why we don't hear form the left today. Or is it ?

[Michael]

Let me first say that when Soviet authoritarian communism fell, the general public herded by the mainstream media and ideologues made that in to the fall of communism tout court. Which is of course a severe error. If, in the following paragraphs, I'll use the word 'capitalism' let it be understood I mean by that the politico-financial mafiacracy of the last 25 years.

I think you've made a more powerful point than you aimed for here.

You correctly point out that the fall of the USSR was not the actual 'fall' of socialism, but is it not obvious that the 'fall' of Wall Street is also not actually the fall of capitalism? Your assertion that the 'politico-financial-mafiacracy' is not really capitalism is indeed a key point here.

Soviet-style authoritarian government and central command style economic planning was shown to fail with the USSR. The fall of Wall Street has shown only the failure of speculative gambling (and faith) as a systematic method to generate wealth. Capitalism most certainly hasn't fallen here at all. Nothing capitalistic about that Wall Street 'securitization' game. If anything, what actually happened looks a lot more like 'crony capitalism' than an actual failure of capitalism. The 1930's was much more characteristic of a 'systemic failure' of capitalism (which was subsequently 'fixed' with the new 'Bretton Woods' financial rules regime).

I agree that neither example proves the death of socialism or capitalism. I will however assert that these debacles show the inherent weakness of both socialism and capitalism respectively. That is to say, socialism cannot rise and capitalism is past its prime. Both are failing, though the examples cited are symptiomatic or symbolic of those failures, not evidence or proof of them.

Now that -ahum- capitalism has also fallen, one would expect that the political left -on a global scale that is- would triumphantly be screaming 'Told you so' from every rooftop. After all, after the fall of the Wall, Perestrojka and Glasnost, and the mini revolutions in many Eastern European countries, the political right didn't hesitate one millisecond to do just that. And they went as far as claiming the end of history. I bet Mr. Fukuyama is in hiding today.

But none of that from the left today although they have every reason to do it. The green movement in its broadest meaning has been announcing the inevitable, indeed the necessary, collapse of an economy that only can survive on continuous exponential growth for some 35 years. Likewise, the unions and socialists have been indicating that unbridled capitalism will only benefit the very few and that the general public would ultimately be the big loser. Guess what, exactly what's happening today.

So where are they ? Why don't we hear from them ?


Okay, I admit, it's a rhetorical question. I see three reasons (next post).

First of all, the political rightwing has always depended upon lies, fear and propaganda, so this is nothing unusual at all - heck, the rightwing has been lying about Marx, communism and the USSR since 1917, so the 1989 lies are no more credible than the 1917 or 1950s lies on the same topic.

Secondly, I don't think the 'global left' has any basis to claim a triumph in this failure of Wall Street. Nothing in the present failure on Wall Street validates any traditional leftist critique of capitalism. The modern left doesn't seem to have any ideology at all anymore - they just oppose capitalism, praise utopianism, make theatrical protests and beg for government handouts. The Green movement has certainly been announcing the inevitable, but that hasn't actually happened here. This is not a crisis of pollution, nor a crisis of climate or environmental degradation or even related to limits on natural commodities (the arguments made by environmentalists) or even anything related to industrial agriculture or species depletion. This was stictly and purely a financial crisis - and those are quite common (and cyclical) things in the history of capitalism - they are rationally expected events.

Indeed, the only critique the left can use to claim a triumph here is with the same authoritarian Marxist ideology that has been thoroughly discredited and long since rejected by themselves. There is essentially nothing here for the left to triumph about. With the fall of the USSR, the rightwing at least had a plausible claim of victory there. It was a fallacy, but that rarely counts for much in politics. The left doesn't even have a figleaf or fallacy upon which to base a claim of ideological victory in this case (other than the spiteful pleasure of seeing their pro-capitalist enemies stumble).

Upon consideration of what actually occured, the ONLY ideology that appears to have a claim to be validated by the present failure on Wall Street is traditional liberalism - they are the ones who established the stable banking structures (with rational regulations) that served the western world so well for so long (Bretton Woods). It was the 1980s rise of the new rightwing (neo-Randian) 'deregulation' mantra that served to set aside all the traditional liberal rules of banking and financial regulation that set the stage for the current debacle.

[Michael]

The first reason I see is that some of them have not been able to withstand the call of the immediate profit. They too, individually or as an organization have invested in the very financial products that have now turned out to be nothing but a pyramid scheme. They had their hands in the till and suffered possibly severe losses. It would be ironic, but altogether anything but unlikely, that they would have suffered relatively worse than average because they would have stepped in late.

The second and third reason are opposite sides of the same coin. I summary, the lefties, socialists and whatnot, that have access to the media are not really socialists and the real socialist shave no access to the media.

The end of socialism as a relevant political faction came IMO with the rebaptizing of Labour to New Labour in the UK. Since then all socialist parties, in Europe at least, have devolved into the same populist, marketing led and poll-driven PR machines as their liberal and christian-democrat brethren and sisters. The unions meanwhile have calcified into conservative forces that have only eyes for the status quo, and specifically of their own status quo, their power and financial interests.

There has been a reaction against that. Some of these organizations and parties have split into the above described side on the one hand an a faction that seeks to go back to basics on the other. The latter however is almost completely ignored by any mainstream media. The reason therefore is not a political bias or a vast conspiracy, but an aspect of the media that will be explained in another thread, and is based on the ideas of research journalist Nick Davies of the Guardian.

So, this is why we don't hear form the left today. Or is it ?
Your noting of the shift of Labour to New Labour as a key marker of change in the social democratic movement (generally) is a very good one I think. :thumbsup:

It is also interesting to note that the reign of Margaret Thatcher serves a similar symbolic marker of change in the rise of the 'neo-Randian new right'.

Sidenote: Given that the British Parliament is the origin of our modern representative democratic system, the Brits have been (except for their mid-18th century stumble) on the leading edge of western political development for almost one thousand years running. Good to see they still got it! :D

That being said, I agree completely that the 'social democratic left' has been drifting towards conservativism (defending the status quo). That's what I was pointing out in my post above as a 'lack of ideology'.

Bottom line is that over the last twenty-five years, I think that we have just witnessed a significant 'shift' in the political landscape - the kind of shift that redefines our ideologies. Problem is, it is probably still too early for this shift to be understood or defined or directly observed. I'm reminded of the shift caused by the French Revolution where the right was 'eliminated' ideologically and replaced with a new 'right-left' dynamic that existed entirely within the old 'left'. I think the new shift occuring now is replacing our running 'right-left' (property-rights based) dynamic with a new one. I'm not quite sure what that is yet though... ;)

If my speculation is correct, that would account for the apparently hesitant left that seems so unsure of its own voice right now. The ideological landscape just doesn't make any sense anymore. Critiques without a vision of where you want to go instead come out sounding hollow.

The latter however is almost completely ignored by any mainstream media. The reason therefore is not a political bias or a vast conspiracy, but an aspect of the media that will be explained in another thread, and is based on the ideas of research journalist Nick Davies of the Guardian.
This sounds interesting. I don't know that name, but I'll look him up.

[phungus420]

The upcoming great depression will likely lead to the rise again of Fascism, at least that's what I see coming.

[Michael]

The upcoming great depression will likely lead to the rise again of Fascism, at least that's what I see coming.
Fact is, there have been MANY signs of rising fascism throughout the west over the last 10-20 years.

Certainly depression economics will accelerate that trend, but I think we are already sliding down the slope sufficiently that it won't matter one way or another.

[Multiplum]

The upcoming great depression will likely lead to the rise again of Fascism, at least that's what I see coming.

Italy, Poland, GB...
These are the countries I associate with a new rise of fascism, or acceptance of ideas I think of as bordering on fascist.

Since I'm not that interested in international politics (I know that everyone should be), what signs of this rise in fascism do you guys pick up on, specifically?

[Dominick]

I think you've made a more powerful point than you aimed for here.

You correctly point out that the fall of the USSR was not the actual 'fall' of socialism, but is it not obvious that the 'fall' of Wall Street is also not actually the fall of capitalism? Your assertion that the 'politico-financial-mafiacracy' is not really capitalism is indeed a key point here.

Soviet-style authoritarian government and central command style economic planning was shown to fail with the USSR. The fall of Wall Street has shown only the failure of speculative gambling (and faith) as a systematic method to generate wealth. Capitalism most certainly hasn't fallen here at all. Nothing capitalistic about that Wall Street 'securitization' game. If anything, what actually happened looks a lot more like 'crony capitalism' than an actual failure of capitalism. The 1930's was much more characteristic of a 'systemic failure' of capitalism (which was subsequently 'fixed' with the new 'Bretton Woods' financial rules regime).

I agree that neither example proves the death of socialism or capitalism. I will however assert that these debacles show the inherent weakness of both socialism and capitalism respectively. That is to say, socialism cannot rise and capitalism is past its prime. Both are failing, though the examples cited are symptiomatic or symbolic of those failures, not evidence or proof of them.
Although that was indeed what I pointed out myself, I now add that the case for capitalism in its true meaning remains to be seen. If the economical paralysis that is now occuring would affect even basic necessities, then we would have to reconsider the case. But that in due time, if at all.

Secondly, I don't think the 'global left' has any basis to claim a triumph in this failure of Wall Street. Nothing in the present failure on Wall Street validates any traditional leftist critique of capitalism. The modern left doesn't seem to have any ideology at all anymore - they just oppose capitalism, praise utopianism, make theatrical protests and beg for government handouts. The Green movement has certainly been announcing the inevitable, but that hasn't actually happened here. This is not a crisis of pollution, nor a crisis of climate or environmental degradation or even related to limits on natural commodities (the arguments made by environmentalists) or even anything related to industrial agriculture or species depletion. This was stictly and purely a financial crisis - and those are quite common (and cyclical) things in the history of capitalism - they are rationally expected events.
The Green movement has a more comprehensive outlook than that. It is no longer, at least not here, a one issue movement. They are just as outspoken on economics, defense and finance as on traditional ecological issues. This makes perfect sense, as all of these are interrelated from an ecological viewpoint.


Upon consideration of what actually occured, the ONLY ideology that appears to have a claim to be validated by the present failure on Wall Street is traditional liberalism - they are the ones who established the stable banking structures (with rational regulations) that served the western world so well for so long (Bretton Woods). It was the 1980s rise of the new rightwing (neo-Randian) 'deregulation' mantra that served to set aside all the traditional liberal rules of banking and financial regulation that set the stage for the current debacle.
I could start a thread then 'Where are the liberals ?'. It is within the very confines of that movement, those political parties and scholarly thinking that the neo-liberals (this is where the term originates) emerged. Shall we then conclude that all the classical 19- and 20th century ideologies have been compromised from within and have been hijacked by people with ulterior, or at least different, motives ? If so, my candidate terminology for these 'pirates' would be 'media-launched populists'.

[Dominick]

Bottom line is that over the last twenty-five years, I think that we have just witnessed a significant 'shift' in the political landscape - the kind of shift that redefines our ideologies. Problem is, it is probably still too early for this shift to be understood or defined or directly observed. I'm reminded of the shift caused by the French Revolution where the right was 'eliminated' ideologically and replaced with a new 'right-left' dynamic that existed entirely within the old 'left'. I think the new shift occuring now is replacing our running 'right-left' (property-rights based) dynamic with a new one. I'm not quite sure what that is yet though... ;)
See above. It is my claim that the media, and specifically television, and even more specifically, commercial television is the new number one power. It is only through that medium that people like Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Putin, even Bush could make it to the forefront.


If my speculation is correct, that would account for the apparently hesitant left that seems so unsure of its own voice right now. The ideological landscape just doesn't make any sense anymore. Critiques without a vision of where you want to go instead come out sounding hollow.
If my speculation is right, it accounts for the absence of the voice off all classical ideologies, including the classical liberal one. They are absent from the media, because an ideology based viewpoint is too complex and longwinded for the contemporary commercial media.


This sounds interesting. I don't know that name, but I'll look him up.
Leave it to me to have entirely forgotten to post that related thread. :rolleyes:


Sidenote: Given that the British Parliament is the origin of our modern representative democratic system, the Brits have been (except for their mid-18th century stumble) on the leading edge of western political development for almost one thousand years running. Good to see they still got it! :D
Except of course that they completely missed out on the social revolutions of 19th and 20th century continental Europe and that they remain essentially stuck in aristocratic structures and thinking, yes. :D