The Collapse of the Left

[SnakeBoy]

The source of the angry angst rippling through the Democratic Party’s progressive camp is not President Trump–it’s the complete collapse of the Left globally. To understand this collapse, we turn (once again) to Marx’s profound understanding of the state and capitalism.

We turn not to the cultural Marxism that is passingly familiar to Americans, but to Marx’s core economic analysis, which as Sartre noted, is only taught to discredit it.

Cultural Marxism draws as much from Engels as Marx. In today’s use, cultural Marxism describes the overt erosion of traditional values–the family, community, religious faith, property rights and limited central government–in favor of rootless Cosmopolitanism and an expansive, all-powerful central state that replaces community, faith and property rights with statist control mechanisms that enforce dependence on the state and a mindset that the individual is guilty of anti-state thinking until proven innocent by the state’s own rules.

Marx’s critique of capitalism is economic: capital and labor are in eternal conflict. In Marx’s analysis, capital has the upper hand until the internal contradictions of capitalism consume capital’s control from the inside.

Capital not only dominates labor, it also dominates the state. Thus the state-cartel version of capitalism that is dominant globally is not a coincidence or an outlier–it is the the only possible outcome of a system in which capital is the dominant force.

To counter this dominance of capital, social democratic political movements arose to wrest some measure of control out of the hands of capital in favor of labor. Social democratic movements were greatly aided by the near-collapse of the first version of cartel-capitalism in The Great Depression, when writing down the bad debt would have brought down the entire banking system and crippled capitalism’s core function of growing capital via expansion of debt.

The decimated owners of capital realized that they faced a bleak choice: either resist and be toppled by anarchism or Communism, or cede some of their wealth and power to the social democratic parties in exchange for social, political and economic stability.

Broadly speaking, the Left favored labor (whose rights were protected by the state) and the Right favored capital (also protected by the state).

But over the past 25 years of globalized neoliberalism, social democratic movements have abandoned labor to embrace the self-serving wealth and power offered by capital. The essence of globalization is: labor is commoditized as mobile capital is free to roam the globe for the lowest cost labor. In contrast, labor is far less mobile, and unable to shift as fluidly and frictionlessly as capital to exploit scarcities and opportunities.

Neoliberalism–the opening of markets and borders–enables capital to effortlessly crush labor. The social democrats, in embracing open borders, have institutionalized an open immigration that shreds the scarcity value of domestic labor in favor of lower cost immigrant labor that serves capital’s desire for lower costs.

Globalization and neoliberal financial / immigration policies signify the collapse of the Left and the victory of capital. Now capital completely dominates the state and its cronyist structures–political parties, lobbying, campaign contributions, charitable foundations operating as pay-for-play cash vacuums, and all the other features of cartel-state capitalism.

To mask the collapse of the Left’s economic defense of labor, the Left’s apologists and PR machine have substituted social justice movements for economic opportunities to acquire economic security and capital. This has succeeded brilliantly, as tens of millions of self-described “progressives” completely bought the left’s Great Con that “social justice” campaigns on behalf of marginalized social groups were the defining feature of Progressive Social Democratic movements.

This diversionary sleight-of-hand embrace of economically neutered “social justice” campaigns masked the fact that social democratic parties everywhere have thrown labor into the churning propellers of globalization, open immigration and neoliberal financial policies–all of which benefit mobile capital, which has engorged itself on the abandonment of labor by the Left.

Meanwhile, the fat-cats of the Left have engorged themselves on capital’s largesse in exchange for their treachery. Bill and Hillary Clinton’s $200 million in “earnings” come to mind, as do countless other examples of personal aggrandizement by self-proclaimed “defenders” of labor.

Please examine this chart, which depicts labor’s share of GDP (economic output), and tell me the Left hasn’t abandoned labor in favor of personal wealth and power.

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2016/wages-GDP5-16a.png

The Left is not just in disarray–it is in complete collapse because the working class has awakened to the Left’s betrayal and abandonment of the working class in favor of building personal wealth and power. Anyone who denies this is still in the fatal grip of the Left’s Great Con.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/the-collapse-of-the-left.html

[Clipper Nation]

While I agree that the left is collapsing, any article that starts with "we turn (once again) to Marx's profound understanding of the state and capitalism" probably isn't worth reading.

[Oh, Gee!!]

There's always going to be a "Left" and a "Right." Each will go up and down in popularity until the sun explodes.

[CosmicCowboy]

While I agree that the left is collapsing, any article that starts with "we turn (once again) to Marx's profound understanding of the state and capitalism" probably isn't worth reading.

It can be condensed into Capital is mobile and labor isn't.

Globalism fucks the average worker in developed nations.

[SnakeBoy]

While I agree that the left is collapsing, any article that starts with "we turn (once again) to Marx's profound understanding of the state and capitalism" probably isn't worth reading.

lol even a short article is tldr these days...millennials are fucked

[SnakeBoy]

There's always going to be a "Left" and a "Right." Each will go up and down in popularity until the sun explodes.

Not remotely the point of the article

[Spurminator]

I think it can be said that labor is no longer a priority for the Left. Where the writer loses me is his hyperbole over their motivations and the insinuation that a commitment to social causes is some big distraction.

But, yes, the Left has seemed to transform from a populist labor movement to a progressive social movement with a global economic philosophy that, at times, stems from the desire for global social progress.

[Thread]

But, yes, the Left has seemed to transform from a populist labor movement to a progressive social movement with a global economic philosophy that, at times, stems from the desire for global social progress.

Spurm

[Clipper Nation]

lol even a short article is tldr these days...millennials are fucked
It's not "too long, didn't read." It's "too Communist, didn't read."

The author seems to think the left's collapsing because it's not socialist enough. In reality, it's collapsing because it's already way too radical.

[SnakeBoy]

It's not "too long, didn't read." It's "too Communist, didn't read."

The author seems to think the left's collapsing because it's not socialist enough. In reality, it's collapsing because it's already way too radical.

What's communist about it?

[Clipper Nation]

What's communist about it?

The whole article is written from a pro-Marxist and anti-capitalist perspective.

[Mal]

There's always going to be a "Left" and a "Right." Each will go up and down in popularity until the sun explodes.

Only matters who have power. Left had one, at least in US, failed, hope never comeback.

[Thread]

It's not "too long, didn't read." It's "too Communist, didn't read."

The author seems to think the left's collapsing because it's not socialist enough. In reality, it's collapsing because it's already way too radical.

CN

[SnakeBoy]

The whole article is written from a pro-Marxist and anti-capitalist perspective.

Okay. So what are your views the mobility of capital vs the mobility of labor?

[RandomGuy]

What's communist about it?

You really don't read the shit you post, do you?

:lmao

"this headline is something I agee with, the rest of it is TLDR" :lol

[SnakeBoy]

You really don't read the shit you post, do you?

:lmao

"this headline is something I agee with, the rest of it is TLDR" :lol

Explain what's communist about the article. You're the self proclaimed economist/insurance salesman on the board.

Also what are your views on the mobility of capital vs the mobility of labor?

[vy65]

It's Marxist, not communist.

[Thread]

It's Marxist, not communist.

Same difference. People who have nothing and want to share it.

[vy65]

No, not the same difference. One can be an anarcho-Marxist and not a commie.

I disagree with both, for the record, btw

[SnakeBoy]

Same difference. People who have nothing and want to share it.

The article isn't about marxism or communism. I bolded the point of the article for fuck's sake.

Congrat's to CC and Spurminator on their reading comprehension

[vy65]

The article isn't about marxism or communism. I bolded the point of the article for fuck's sake.

Congrat's to CC and Spurminator on their reading comprehension

It's incredibly Marxist. The idea that traditional leftist/progressive movements fail because they don't address underlying class antagonism -- which is the whole point of the article -- has been repeated by Marxists for over a 100 years.

[SnakeBoy]

It's incredibly Marxist. The idea that traditional leftist/progressive movements fail because they don't address underlying class antagonism -- which is the whole point of the article -- has been repeated by Marxists for over a 100 years.

The article isn't about marxism


We turn not to the cultural Marxism that is passingly familiar to Americans, but to Marx’s core economic analysis, which as Sartre noted, is only taught to discredit it.

3rd fucking sentence

[vy65]

An article that turns to "Marx's core economic analysis" isn't about Marxism?

[spurraider21]

An article that turns to "Marx's core economic analysis" isn't about Marxism?
:lmao

[z0sa]

Marxist, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

" Left’s betrayal and abandonment of the working class in favor of building personal wealth and power. Anyone who denies this is still in the fatal grip of the Left’s Great Con."

and the right? how does, will Trash and the Repugs "save" the working class? :lol

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10410427_1659281397628941_2337718463549695005_n.jp g?oh=85d82355c1577bd858509675f98a5c4e&oe=5916299C

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni is citing a marxist to bash the left? Him and Darrin need to get a room and read what they post before posting it.

[ElNono]

The article isn't about marxism or communism. I bolded the point of the article for fuck's sake.

Congrat's to CC and Spurminator on their reading comprehension

Maybe you just read the bolded part only? I count 8 references to Marx in this alleged 'small' article.

Not a knock on you, thanks for sharing. I completely disagree with the construction of the analysis, though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And Marx's 19th century theories have been disproven time and again. The US is empirical proof that the rise of the proletariat is not inevitable. Most countries show this.

[ElNono]

I don't see the alleged 'collapse' either, tbh, at least not yet... social democracies are doing pretty well... you could argue Brexit and Trump as the 'shocking' events, which, in all honesty, are more populist than right wing/conservative.

In the overall though, they look more like outliers...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't see the alleged 'collapse' either, tbh, at least not yet... social democracies are doing pretty well... you could argue Brexit and Trump as the 'shocking' events, which, in all honesty, are more populist than right wing/conservative.

In the overall though, they look more like outliers...

Outliers are isolated incidents. I have no interest in pigeonholing into political categorization but the success of self described neo-fascists in several western democracies speaks more to a trend.

[Reck]

LOL Colllapse.

This was a wakeup call. If anyone thinks they will just go the way of the dodo, then you dont know politics.

[ElNono]

Outliers are isolated incidents. I have no interest in pigeonholing into political categorization but the success of self described neo-fascists in several western democracies speaks more to a trend.

Fair enough. I personally think it's too early to speak of 'collapse'. Time will tell if this is just the usual pendulum swing, or if there's more to it. The Democratic party in the US certainly has a lot of cleanup to do, that much is certain.

But "collapse of the left"? I don't buy it. Not right now.

[z0sa]

LOL Colllapse.

This was a wakeup call. If anyone thinks they will just go the way of the dodo, then you dont know politics.

Wow a solid post I'm surprised

[boutons_deux]

more populist than right wing/conservative.

no, Trash and BREXIT were both primarily right wing emotional revolts by white male nationalists (they exist in EVERY country), xenophobes, racists, misogynists, and by 100% lying, as we saw from Trash and as admitted by LaFarge, who said he modeled the Brexit campaign on Trash's, emotions and lies.

Other countries have intense, but minority right wing racists, activated by the influx of USA's refugee crisis for BigOil.

USA policy is "We create the shit for BigOil, we can't finish the shit, so other countries eat our shit".

"Why Do They Hate Us?"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fair enough. I personally think it's too early to speak of 'collapse'. Time will tell if this is just the usual pendulum swing, or if there's more to it. The Democratic party in the US certainly has a lot of cleanup to do, that much is certain.

But "collapse of the left"? I don't buy it. Not right now.

Oh I agree with you about a collapse particularly from the OP's reasoning. I was just speaking more to the rise of the far right being an outlier. And that has not been a part of the pendulum swing in the US since before WW2. In that sense I guess it is an outlier.

I'm just trying to figure out where it is coming from. I don't see it coming from millennials. Were there just a lot of closet fascists amongst X and Boomers?

[DarrinS]

no, Trash and BREXIT were both primarily right wing emotional revolts by white mate nationalists, xenophobes, racists, misogynists

You forgot homophobes and Islamophobes. Perhaps a rejection of this boutons view of America (which is pretty mainstream on the left these days) is why Trump won?

[ElNono]

Oh I agree with you about a collapse particularly from the OP's reasoning. I was just speaking more to the rise of the far right being an outlier. And that has not been a part of the pendulum swing in the US since before WW2. In that sense I guess it is an outlier.

I'm just trying to figure out where it is coming from. I don't see it coming from millennials. Were there just a lot of closet fascists amongst X and Boomers?

I don't think it's just far right. There's a strong anti-globalism undercurrent too, and at least Trump effectively worked the protectionist angle in areas like the rust belt. Those kind of positions are popular, but fairly distant from the typical right wing/conservatism/neocon. That's why I think it's premature to frame this into a left/right argument.

[Thread]

I don't think it's just far right. There's a strong anti-globalism undercurrent too, and at least Trump effectively worked the protectionist angle in areas like the rust belt. Those kind of positions are popular, but fairly distant from the typical right wing/conservatism/neocon. That's why I think it's premature to frame this into a left/right argument.

I'll just bet you do.

[ElNono]

It's a fact that all the typical, 'model' conservatives (Cruz, Rubio, etc) lost when faced against populism/outsider. Just like Shillary was a terrible candidate that was a well known globalist, neocon warhawk that guys like boutons secretly abhor.

It was a shitshow, and Trump won. I think boxing it into left, right, facism, is a incomplete, premature read.

[DarrinS]

It's a fact that all the typical, 'model' conservatives (Cruz, Rubio, etc) lost when faced against populism/outsider. Just like Shillary was a terrible candidate that was a well known globalist, neocon warhawk that guys like boutons secretly abhor.

It was a shitshow, and Trump won. I think boxing it into left, right, facism, is a incomplete, premature read.


Yep

[Clipper Nation]

Oh I agree with you about a collapse particularly from the OP's reasoning. I was just speaking more to the rise of the far right being an outlier. And that has not been a part of the pendulum swing in the US since before WW2. In that sense I guess it is an outlier.

I'm just trying to figure out where it is coming from. I don't see it coming from millennials. Were there just a lot of closet fascists amongst X and Boomers?

Or - and here's a crazy idea - globalism has been the extreme position all along, and people who disagree with you aren't actually "far-right" "fascists."

[boutons_deux]

neocon warhawk that guys like boutons secretly abhor.


My major objection to Hillary was her neocon-itude, her pro-war/pro-regime change which produced, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

The other was that she was totally owned by, subscribed to the New Democrat/Third Way bullshit, which is nothing by corruption by BigFinance/BigDonor.

That said, she was STILL tons preferable to Trash and the sociopathic, disastrous establishment Repug platform coming down the pike full-speed.

(which includes ALSO neocons, "real men" who want to attack Iran, either for the oil, or as revenge for the Tehran embassy, or why not both?).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Or - and here's a crazy idea - globalism has been the extreme position all along, and people who disagree with you aren't actually "far-right" "fascists."

Here's a hint, dim: I never said all people that disagree with me were. Have fun with your typical strawman though.

[FromWayDowntown]

Perhaps a rejection of this boutons view of America (which is pretty mainstream on the left these days) is why Trump won?

Trump won, and I'm not here to re-litigate that issue. But talk about Trump's win in broad strokes as though it is a manifestation of some huge social movements that signal widespread desire to change to our political and social infrastructure seems a stretch. In reality, Trump's win (for all of his bluster) was still a pretty narrow one. Had .1% of the Michigan electorate, .3% of the Pennsylvania electorate, and .5% of the Florida electorate -- barely 80,000 total voters in the 3 states combined -- voted for someone other than Trump, we're not talking about the demise of the Left at all.

To be clear, he won, and that's that. The point, though, is that his win - while clear - was pretty far from decisive.

The test of the Left's vitality isn't the 2016 election in which it's flawed candidate and strategy cost it (all things considered, and it's at least plausible that someone who had said everything that Hillary Clinton said in the last campaign but had a different name might have won, even against Trump). It will be whether it can muster enough energy and show enough strength in 2018 and 2020 to erode the GOP's majorities.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think it's just far right. There's a strong anti-globalism undercurrent too, and at least Trump effectively worked the protectionist angle in areas like the rust belt. Those kind of positions are popular, but fairly distant from the typical right wing/conservatism/neocon. That's why I think it's premature to frame this into a left/right argument.

Sure but fascist parties are still getting the most play worldwide they have had since the 1940s. That doesn't preclude it being more than that. Just the worst.

[DarrinS]

Trump won, and I'm not here to re-litigate that issue. But talk about Trump's win in broad strokes as though it is a manifestation of some huge social movements that signal widespread desire to change to our political and social infrastructure seems a stretch. In reality, Trump's win (for all of his bluster) was still a pretty narrow one. Had .1% of the Michigan electorate, .3% of the Pennsylvania electorate, and .5% of the Florida electorate -- barely 80,000 total voters in the 3 states combined -- voted for someone other than Trump, we're not talking about the demise of the Left at all.

To be clear, he won, and that's that. The point, though, is that his win - while clear - was pretty far from decisive.

The test of the Left's vitality isn't the 2016 election in which it's flawed candidate and strategy cost it (all things considered, and it's at least plausible that someone who had said everything that Hillary Clinton said in the last campaign but had a different name might have won, even against Trump). It will be whether it can muster enough energy and show enough strength in 2018 and 2020 to erode the GOP's majorities.



Ok. Does a candidate further to the left, i.e. Bernie, beat Trump?

[FromWayDowntown]

Ok. Does a candidate further to the left, i.e. Bernie, beat Trump?

Who knows?

I do think that Bernoe's populism would have appealed to a significant part of the electorate that went for Trump.

[vy65]

My major objection to Hillary was her neocon-itude, her pro-war/pro-regime change which produced, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

The other was that she was totally owned by, subscribed to the New Democrat/Third Way bullshit, which is nothing by corruption by BigFinance/BigDonor.

That said, she was STILL tons preferable to Trash and the sociopathic, disastrous establishment Repug platform coming down the pike full-speed.

(which includes ALSO neocons, "real men" who want to attack Iran, either for the oil, or as revenge for the Tehran embassy, or why not both?).

Holy shit. It's capable of a reasonable take :downspin:

[baseline bum]

Ok. Does a candidate further to the left, i.e. Bernie, beat Trump?

Bernie would probably have taken Michigan and Wisconsin. Pennsylvania and Virginia would have probably been coin flips, and Sanders would probably have had an outside shot at Ohio and North Carolina. Sanders' biggest weakness was he would have no chance in Florida, but the bitch lost it anyways.

[SnakeBoy]

Maybe you just read the bolded part only? I count 8 references to Marx in this alleged 'small' article.

Not a knock on you, thanks for sharing. I completely disagree with the construction of the analysis, though.

I said the article wasn't about marxism/communism not that it didn't reference it.

I posted the article to try and get some discussion on current state of the Dem Party and it's future direction. It worked after the initial commie scare lol

[SnakeBoy]

Trump won, and I'm not here to re-litigate that issue. But talk about Trump's win in broad strokes as though it is a manifestation of some huge social movements that signal widespread desire to change to our political and social infrastructure seems a stretch. In reality, Trump's win (for all of his bluster) was still a pretty narrow one. Had .1% of the Michigan electorate, .3% of the Pennsylvania electorate, and .5% of the Florida electorate -- barely 80,000 total voters in the 3 states combined -- voted for someone other than Trump, we're not talking about the demise of the Left at all.

To be clear, he won, and that's that. The point, though, is that his win - while clear - was pretty far from decisive.

The test of the Left's vitality isn't the 2016 election in which it's flawed candidate and strategy cost it (all things considered, and it's at least plausible that someone who had said everything that Hillary Clinton said in the last campaign but had a different name might have won, even against Trump). It will be whether it can muster enough energy and show enough strength in 2018 and 2020 to erode the GOP's majorities.

This

Both in congress and at the state levels. They have a lot of work to do. I'm not sure if the attempt to create a liberal tea party type movement is going to work. "My Pussy Grabs Back" protest signs aren't going to win over voters in the places the party needs to regain ground.

[ElNono]

Sure but fascist parties are still getting the most play worldwide they have had since the 1940s. That doesn't preclude it being more than that. Just the worst.

Oh I agree with that. Certainly a phenomenon worth exploring in the current world's context. I think the the destabilization of the Middle East, and all it's consequences (refugees, terror, etc), play a role.