State of "the Left" Today

Just as social movements of the late 1960s and early 1970s emerged from a foundation laid by the radical politics of the 1930s, left-wing activists today continue to grapple with the actions of those would-be revolutionaries whose struggles culminated in the now iconic episodes of global rebellion that flared in 1968. Yet the history of this progression from an Old to a New Left (and now a post-New Left?) is by no means a straightforward or uncomplicated process that can be captured in the plethora of celebratory/nostalgic and generally simplistic accounts of “the sixties.” A critical (if also sympathetic) analysis of Left activism during this era therefore raises a number of questions and concerns of direct relevance to those still involved in “the movement” today. An understanding of the sixties as a period of “blocked cultural revolution” provides grounds for a much-needed discussion of the New Left’s goals and strategies or, as the case may be, its lack thereof.

By this account, the New Left emerged from a terrain shaped by the Marxist-Leninism of the 1930s, even as many of the “red diaper babies” who grew into this movement rejected what they saw as the old model of Communist-inspired organizing. Class analyses therefore gave way to a culturalist mentality whereby the revolutionary agenda entailed a reorganization of society into an egalitarian democratic community. Many on the New Left discarded the need to seize control of the state or liquidate capitalism, arguing instead for the creation of alternative and to some extent anarchist modes of life in which elected leaders and organized political parties had no role except as evils to be avoided. The question of violence intersected this split between those moving towards cultural revolution and those who remained committed to a class-based model of organizing; pacifism and the pre-figurative power of love guided the younger generation of activists, whereas those who still saw revolution as a matter of political-economy argued for the use of vanguardist violence in order to dismantle the global capitalist interstate system. The advent of powerful national liberation movements throughout the Third World bolstered the arguments of Marxist-Leninists against their (counter) culturalist opponents in the United States.

In seeking to understand the sixties historically and draw lessons for the Left today, it seems fair to identify both visions as having major flaws. For while the vanguardist approach modeled after the Bolsheviks was still partially applicable to revolutionary movements in the Third World, it was much less connected to the realities of social and political-economic life in the Unites States in the late 20th century. At the same time, the advocates of countercultural revolution operated in a somewhat sheltered sphere of activism that fostered creativity and individuality while failing to articulate a coherent revolutionary strategy. Thus as the early New Left gave way to a more “radical” approach characterized by the stunted actions of the Weather Underground, forexample, these attempts at violent revolution proved no more successful than the hippies’ efforts to cultivate a peaceful and loving society.

It is crucial that one not overlook the important gains made by the New Left, particularly in the realms of civil rights, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism. It is equally important to recognize the contributions of those who have maintained a dedication to class struggle throughout the post-1960s era. Whether violent or nonviolent, the spirit of militancy and urgency that persisted throughout the sixties has set the stage, perhaps, for a new (post-Reagan) left-wing upsurge that has been long envisioned yet so far unrealized. The key is to understand how potential Left coalitions turned into opposing, if not warring factions that tended to rehearse old divisions rather than work together to find new solutions. In this sense, the Left might be best served by pursuing something close to the Gramscian model of coalitional praxis that offers a revolutionary strategy combining political-economic and cultural agendas. In the end, however, social movements of the Left will find their most success not by following a certain theoretical model but rather through developing an organic struggle based in a common purpose around which broad coalitions of political and social actors can coalesce.

It is currently being argued by many on the Left that the need to protect the viability of life on earth provides perhaps the most hopeful basis for renewing progressivism in the twenty-first century. If this were to be the case, a pro-environment movement articulated as collective opposition to the global threat of catastrophic climate change would become in essence a “meta movement” uniting various sub struggles in much the same way that opposition to Jim Crow and the Vietnam War gave “the movement” its coherence during the sixties. Of course with the possibility of general antiwar sentiment resurging in opposition to America’s costly “war on terror,” and now a global economic crisis that no doubt will worsen before it can be resolved, a movement connecting these three strains (environment, war, and economy) is actually somewhat foreseeable. That is, if Obama is elected president and takes office in 2009 with a Democratic super-majority in Congress. At this point, social movements on the Left would have an institutional framework in Washington from which to develop grassroots modes of action—a “Green Revolution”—in concert with governmental reforms on the scale of the Neal Deal and Great Society programs (a “Green Deal”?). Progressive ideas might thus gain ascendency and become “common sense” throughout society in much the same manner that conservatism blossomed during the Reagan Revolution.

So while engaging in electoral politics through the Democratic Party does not hold all the answers for the Left, a new regime dedicated rhetorically (and at least somewhat practically) to providing “hope” for the masses and bringing “change” to Washington is at this point the only real place to begin. Should a new era of progressive hegemony dawn in America and perhaps across the globe, it will become manifest decades from now long after Obama has come and gone, when the world will be a very different place. The 2008 presidential election is therefore a test as to whether or not the Left in the US can overcome its fractious divides and begin establishing long-term coalitions designed to gain power and govern effectively while maintaining an ideological commitment to generating reformist and revolutionary strategies from below.

Given the complexities of this task, there is no guarantee that it could be accomplished even if Obama wins. Certainly, such a movement will not coalesce if a newly mobilized Left is not ready to immediately begin allying with or forcefully petitioning/pressuring the Obama administration from within and without. However, should McCain win in November, or should he lose but nonetheless permanently remobilize the reactionary (racist) right-wing fringe that his campaign has now activated, the prospects for Left organizing will be greatly diminished. A McCain-Palin administration would present most of the same obstacles that the Left has faced under the Bush-Cheney regime. Meanwhile, an Obama-Biden administration that lacks a strong base of dedicated progressive support could eventually succumb to the anger and frustration of working-class whites in rural America who will be easily convinced that their problems are the result of the foreigners, socialists, and terrorist sympathizers etc. that have infiltrated the Democratic Party through Obama. In short, conditions at the present crossroads are ripe for a concerted effort to push the country towards something like a European social democracy (partial nationalization of US banks has, for instance, just been announced). At the same time, some variant of a violent reaction—call it fascism or whatever else—is lurking just beneath the surface of an American populace, racked with panic and fear, recently shaped by George W. Bush’s Republicans yet poised to swing decisively leftwards into the arms of Barack Obama’s Democrats.