Criticisms of the New Left
First and foremost, when I refer to “the left” as an abstract generalization, I’m not referring to the Democratic party. These individuals do not constitute lefti-wing radicalism, in fact, they barely occupy the political left. The most “left-wing” aspect of the Democratic party would essentially exist somewhere in what is known as “left of center.” Here lies the politics of reformism and class betrayal, and I shall not be bothered with their failures at this moment.
Indeed, when defining the “Left,” I’m referring to the once strong (within an imperialist nation) Communist movement that had indeed emphasized class consciousness, class warfare, and Marxism-Leninism. It should be noted that as an abstract, the left is composed of more than this mere element, but this shall be the focus. It’s at this point that I’d like to pose the question, “what has happened to the American Marxist-Leninist movement?”
The proper answer to this question lies in many facets of American life. First and foremost, we must examine the material conditions and that of which the state has utilized to marginalize the power of Marxist-Leninist rhetoric and action. The modern American left no longer involves itself with Marxist-Leninist doctrine, nor mention the class conflicts that exist within society. America has abandoned any sense of class consciousness; indeed, when asked what socio-economic class one belongs to the popular response is the “middle-class.”
But this should not be taken to indicate that Marxism-Leninism has failed, but rather the material conditions within America have created a society not yet accepting of such principles, unlike other parts of the world. Indeed, the American proletariat has most certainly been “bought off” by bourgeois interests. The American worker is not as oppressed nor exploited as he once was. These material conditions are not demonstrable of the success of capitalism, rather, the manipulative face of capitalism that attempts to sustain itself. Laissez-faire capitalism has failed itself already, welfare capitalism and Keynesian models have since been adopted. The material response to this phenomenon clearly lies in the fact that class consciousness becomes ever-so aware when material conditions represent such exhausting exploitation and divisions within society.
So, what has happened to the American left? The answer lies in the fact that they have no case or interest in economics – the sole foundation of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary politics. The average American lives far better off than the average third-world worker; this is due to a process known as super-exploitation. The average American (unbeknownst to him) reaps the rewards for the exploitation that takes place by imperialist entities in the Third World. Thus, the economic conditions in the United States and other imperialist nations are not suitable for revolutionary politics. Indeed, we see such revolutionaries marginalized into the very fringes of society.
In order to sustain its own existence, the American left (ever since the 1960’s) has adopted a predominantly bourgeois liberal attitude towards social revolution. Indeed, the cries of revolution have been overtaken by cries of legalization of marijuana, gay rights, and other liberal causes. The liberal tradition that is bourgeois politics in the 21st century has taken advantage of the material conditions that exist within first world nations and silenced revolutionary tendencies within the left-wing/progressive movement. Outcries of injustice on college campuses are disappointing at best; they lack any real sense of direction or ideological purpose. The left no longer espouses militant class warfare, but rather pacifism and working within the system to create a “better world.” These concepts are not only unrealistic, they are laughable at best.
Liberalism stands in complete contrast to creating a workers’ state, and of course this is to be expected by the petty-bourgeois liberas that constitute the new “American left.” It is in staunch contrast to their own class interest to perpetuate Marxist-Leninist revolution. Many of those on the left vocalize similar opinions to the Hollywood elite: Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Alec Baldwin. These people make liberal claims and take up liberal causes because they are at the top of the petty-bourgeois system. These people shouldn’t be looked up to as vessels of social progress, but rather as parasites that feed off society’s valuable resources.
The American left seems entirely pre-occupied with the war in Iraq (a good thing) but for all the wrong reasons. The few whom understand this to be an imperialist war don’t seem to grasp that this is just a byproduct of an unjust and illegitimate system. They want peace. Peace and capitalism are completely incompatible with each other, and indeed many facets of each rely dependently on the other. The American left has accepted (uncritically mind you) the “evils” of socialism. They are mere products of a liberal bourgeois democracy that offers no hope for justice or equality. The only possible solution is beyond the control of any individual, the left needs a spark to ignite socialism back into the movement.
How is this going to occur? There are many material transgressions that have historically sparked socialist/communist attitudes within any given movement. First-world communists understand that it is within the third-world that socialism must be expected to advance, and they must do whatever is necessary to stand in solidarity with such movements. The American left needs to stop criticizing strong nations as the Democratic People Republic of Korea (N. Korea) and stand in solidarity with a socialist government that seeks to protect its people from the devastation that is First-world imperialism. The American left is in dire need of revisiting its socialist/communist path. The spectre of communism, as Marx said, is most certainly not dead; it is still out there, and it is up to us to recognize its presence once again.
