A small part of it is that many people seem to ‘want’ to be deceived. Or, at least, they want to just carry on with their lives, which for the most part are unnecessarily difficult. Like, living with the constant fear of eviction, interest rate increases, unemployment, minor emergencies like the fridge or toaster breaking…
When I bring up politics I’m often told to lighten the mood. And a small part of that seems to come from having been deceived into thinking the only critique of the status quo will be a depressing liberal/bigoted complaint that cannot fix anything, anyway – the type of framing that’s pushed by news media and comedians.
The bourgeoisie, to the extent that it has unified thoughts, appears to think that by keeping people oppressed and distracted in this way, leaves those people with no time to think about changing the system. At least in the neoliberal era, the ruling class is dead-set against relieving the petty load of unnecessary difficulties.
Radicalism in the West seemed to drop off through the Keynesian era. Neoliberalism wouldn’t have been possible in most places between circa 1900 and 1970. The theorists were pushing for it for much of that time, but they failed. Organised workers had momentum. Then the organised workers appear to have become complacent and were unprepared for organised neoliberalism.
Partly this is economic. Partly it’s as above, to overwhelm people with the simple task of staying alive and ahead of bills. It will backfire. The very act of crushing people like this does not give them much time to theorise. It does anger them so much that they become willing to fight for a better existence.
The bourgeoisie is right to think that such spontaneous action will be easily quelled. But it’s a big gamble that not one revolutionary vanguard party will spring up to organise and direct that anger.
Then the organised workers appear to have become complacent and were unprepared for organised neoliberalism.
Not sure I agree with this assessment. Surely the multiple operations of western intelligence organisations had something to do with it? Surely the change of direction of USSR had something to do with it?
Could it be a mixture of all four: complacency, organised neoliberalism, (counter) intelligence, and the fate of the USSR? (In no particular order.)
I’m still not sure ‘complacency’ is correct, now you’ve highlighted it, although the Western left did seem to have been caught off guard. Maybe they put too much faith in their own effectiveness (under-acknowledging the influence of the threat of USSR-style socialism on their own governments) on the one hand, and were not wary enough of intelligence operations on the other hand?
Do you think organised neoliberalism was a significant factor? Or would you say that it would not have been enough if the USSR had continued? I don’t like the idea that neoliberalism would have been implemented passively, all things being equal (I don’t think that’s what you were saying).
One thing I hear every so often is that western leftists abandoned Marxism-Leninism after Khrushchev’s Secret Speech. Following this logic, I would ask: is this the complacency, in the idea that Western leftists could abandon Marxism-Leninism and still hope to win?
But I’m not sure if this version of events is true. Did principled MLs really abandon their ML parties, etc, or did non-MLs use the opportunity to decry ‘Stalinism’ (which had been decried by many in the West for decades already)? And was there an intelligence campaign to use the Secret Speech to promote other forms of Marxism, critical theory, etc, at the expense of Marxism-Leninism (on the basis of a now-tarnished reputation)?
This leads me again to the same question: what happened within the Western left to leave it so unprepared to protect itself if (we now know: when) the USSR fell. I fully agree it was not simply complacency. That was too flippant of me.
Does this improve what I said, or am I still making an error somewhere?
It does improve a lot, although I think I should apologize for being perhaps too harsh. Perhaps you are correct to use complacency in the meaning that people have simply expected the contradictions to just resolve the conflict, for the capitalist countries to just gradually collapse and for communism to win.
In this sense, yes - I do believe they’ve underestimated the organized neoliberalism. Both in terms of its ability to artificially prolong the lifespan of capitalist countries (i.e. the petrodollar system) and it’s ability to influence superstructure (and thus - the economic basis).
Likewise with the ML and generally leftist groups in the west. Without the guidance of principled Marxists (and with USSR also deviating from it), it was easy for them to fall prey to infiltrators, opportunists and other tendencies.
I get a sense we are speaking of the same things, but in different terms, that’s all.
No need to apologize at all! You were polite and I appreciate the criticism. Please continue to challenge me if I say anything that does not sound right.
I’m now wondering whether an ML critique of the Western left since the 1970s is crucial to rebuilding it effectively. Nowadays I mostly hear arguments in favour of rebuilding the unions, as if the West’s problems are solely due low Union membership. That is important, but it’s only one part of the puzzle.
There are lots of folk tales about militant Trotskyists in the 80s and the May 1968 movement up to Mitterrand in France, etc. These stories were built into a new narrative around Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn that the ‘left’ was on the rise again.
Still, I fear the western left will keep failing and keep falling to chauvinism unless it fully understands what happened in the last 40 years: (i) by failing to see that Marxism-Leninism is needed; and (ii) in failing to see how the ‘left’ became fragmented and weak.
I agree with you. I’d say that a resurgence of effective Western leftwing movements can only follow an analysis of
neoliberalism. Both in terms of its ability to artificially prolong the lifespan of capitalist countries (i.e. the petrodollar system) and it’s ability to influence superstructure (and thus - the economic basis)
And of how
ML and generally leftist groups in the west[, w]ithout the guidance of principled Marxists (and with USSR also deviating from it), it was easy for them to fall prey to infiltrators, opportunists and other tendencies.
Do you (or others) know of any good texts that synthesise these issues?
I think Stuart Hall may have written about this. The blurb for his Road to Renewal sounds relevant:
…these essays show how Thatcher has exploited discontent with Labour’s record in office and with aspects of the welfare state to devise a potent authoritarian, populist ideology. Hall’s critical approach is elaborated here in essays on the formation of the SDP, inner city riots, the Falklands War and the signficance of Antonio Gramsci. He suggests that Thatcherism is skillfully employing the restless and individualistic dynamic of consumer capitalism to promote a swingeing programme of ‘regressive modernization’.
The Hard Road to Renewal is as concerned with elaborating a new politics for the Left as it is with the project of the Right. Hall insists that the Left can no longer trade on inherited politics and tradition. Socialists today must be as radical as modernity itself. Valuable pointers to a new politics are identified in the experience of feminism, the campaigns of the GLC and the world-wide response to Band Aid.
This could be focused on the British Labour party. Many other books do that and suffer because they then argue that reforming Labour will solve the problem. (I doubt Hall makes that argument.) I might give it a read.
Alex Callinicos might also discuss politics in the same decades in Against the Third Way (but I think it’s more of a critique of Blairism).
It will happen as it always did. They quell every change like in the cooking pot and untill lid stays on, everything is “fine”, they just add more and stronger clamps. Then entire thing explodes.
It doesn’t seem possible, does it?
A small part of it is that many people seem to ‘want’ to be deceived. Or, at least, they want to just carry on with their lives, which for the most part are unnecessarily difficult. Like, living with the constant fear of eviction, interest rate increases, unemployment, minor emergencies like the fridge or toaster breaking…
When I bring up politics I’m often told to lighten the mood. And a small part of that seems to come from having been deceived into thinking the only critique of the status quo will be a depressing liberal/bigoted complaint that cannot fix anything, anyway – the type of framing that’s pushed by news media and comedians.
The bourgeoisie, to the extent that it has unified thoughts, appears to think that by keeping people oppressed and distracted in this way, leaves those people with no time to think about changing the system. At least in the neoliberal era, the ruling class is dead-set against relieving the petty load of unnecessary difficulties.
Radicalism in the West seemed to drop off through the Keynesian era. Neoliberalism wouldn’t have been possible in most places between circa 1900 and 1970. The theorists were pushing for it for much of that time, but they failed. Organised workers had momentum. Then the organised workers appear to have become complacent and were unprepared for organised neoliberalism.
Partly this is economic. Partly it’s as above, to overwhelm people with the simple task of staying alive and ahead of bills. It will backfire. The very act of crushing people like this does not give them much time to theorise. It does anger them so much that they become willing to fight for a better existence.
The bourgeoisie is right to think that such spontaneous action will be easily quelled. But it’s a big gamble that not one revolutionary vanguard party will spring up to organise and direct that anger.
Not sure I agree with this assessment. Surely the multiple operations of western intelligence organisations had something to do with it? Surely the change of direction of USSR had something to do with it?
Hmm… Yes, you’re right to push back on that.
Could it be a mixture of all four: complacency, organised neoliberalism, (counter) intelligence, and the fate of the USSR? (In no particular order.)
I’m still not sure ‘complacency’ is correct, now you’ve highlighted it, although the Western left did seem to have been caught off guard. Maybe they put too much faith in their own effectiveness (under-acknowledging the influence of the threat of USSR-style socialism on their own governments) on the one hand, and were not wary enough of intelligence operations on the other hand?
Do you think organised neoliberalism was a significant factor? Or would you say that it would not have been enough if the USSR had continued? I don’t like the idea that neoliberalism would have been implemented passively, all things being equal (I don’t think that’s what you were saying).
One thing I hear every so often is that western leftists abandoned Marxism-Leninism after Khrushchev’s Secret Speech. Following this logic, I would ask: is this the complacency, in the idea that Western leftists could abandon Marxism-Leninism and still hope to win?
But I’m not sure if this version of events is true. Did principled MLs really abandon their ML parties, etc, or did non-MLs use the opportunity to decry ‘Stalinism’ (which had been decried by many in the West for decades already)? And was there an intelligence campaign to use the Secret Speech to promote other forms of Marxism, critical theory, etc, at the expense of Marxism-Leninism (on the basis of a now-tarnished reputation)?
This leads me again to the same question: what happened within the Western left to leave it so unprepared to protect itself if (we now know: when) the USSR fell. I fully agree it was not simply complacency. That was too flippant of me.
Does this improve what I said, or am I still making an error somewhere?
It does improve a lot, although I think I should apologize for being perhaps too harsh. Perhaps you are correct to use complacency in the meaning that people have simply expected the contradictions to just resolve the conflict, for the capitalist countries to just gradually collapse and for communism to win.
In this sense, yes - I do believe they’ve underestimated the organized neoliberalism. Both in terms of its ability to artificially prolong the lifespan of capitalist countries (i.e. the petrodollar system) and it’s ability to influence superstructure (and thus - the economic basis).
Likewise with the ML and generally leftist groups in the west. Without the guidance of principled Marxists (and with USSR also deviating from it), it was easy for them to fall prey to infiltrators, opportunists and other tendencies.
I get a sense we are speaking of the same things, but in different terms, that’s all.
No need to apologize at all! You were polite and I appreciate the criticism. Please continue to challenge me if I say anything that does not sound right.
I’m now wondering whether an ML critique of the Western left since the 1970s is crucial to rebuilding it effectively. Nowadays I mostly hear arguments in favour of rebuilding the unions, as if the West’s problems are solely due low Union membership. That is important, but it’s only one part of the puzzle.
There are lots of folk tales about militant Trotskyists in the 80s and the May 1968 movement up to Mitterrand in France, etc. These stories were built into a new narrative around Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn that the ‘left’ was on the rise again.
Still, I fear the western left will keep failing and keep falling to chauvinism unless it fully understands what happened in the last 40 years: (i) by failing to see that Marxism-Leninism is needed; and (ii) in failing to see how the ‘left’ became fragmented and weak.
I agree with you. I’d say that a resurgence of effective Western leftwing movements can only follow an analysis of
And of how
Do you (or others) know of any good texts that synthesise these issues?
I think Stuart Hall may have written about this. The blurb for his Road to Renewal sounds relevant:
This could be focused on the British Labour party. Many other books do that and suffer because they then argue that reforming Labour will solve the problem. (I doubt Hall makes that argument.) I might give it a read.
Alex Callinicos might also discuss politics in the same decades in Against the Third Way (but I think it’s more of a critique of Blairism).
It will happen as it always did. They quell every change like in the cooking pot and untill lid stays on, everything is “fine”, they just add more and stronger clamps. Then entire thing explodes.
Exactly that. And those in the pot don’t always notice the heat rising, but they know when it’s boiling.