Old Left v. New Left

[Redalgo]

New Left - especially if we're talking about the Vietnam War era movement.

How do you oppose populism and count yourself as a member of the Left?

I can't answer for him but for me populism is an often simplistic, conspiracist, and intellectually lazy way to politically gain from fostering an "us versus them" mentality amongst the masses targeting a few people to blame for what ails society. I favour elitism. An educated few know what to do better than most, who in ignorance are too often devoted to conventional or "common sense" ideas. The Left is in conflict against - not in defense of - the past and present ways of doing things.

And I am also egalitarian. I contend that even the most privileged of the current system deserve goodwill and treatment equal to that extended to the subjected and downtrodden. A rich man is no less a comrade of mine than a poor one, and to oppress the former for the latter's benefit would scarcely be any better than if I were to do the opposite. I believe in society being run and resources allocated for the benefit of all - for 100% of the People instead of 99% or proles only.

[Peter the Lefty]

This campaign brochure for McGovern is actually really interesting to read. Contrary to popular myth, bread and butter are quite prominent.  Besides Vietnam and military spending, every single other section is social justice related.

[Peter the Lefty]

Also, Willy Brandt, Olof Palme, and Gough Whitlam are good examples of New Left folks AU admire.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I think there's a disconnect between perceptions of the New Left. Are we talking '60s New Left or '90s New Left?

[Sol]

Old Left. I appreciate socially conservative views being tolerated.

Social Conservatism is an evil and oppressive ideology.

[Sol]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

[DC Al Fine]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

[LastVoter]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

Old Left was not socially conservative.

[Sol]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

Old Left was not socially conservative.

I know. It was more just me criticizing Hifly.

[Sol]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

See, I think a preferable strategy for the left would be to convince a lot of these rural voters to vote on economics- if they do that, they shouldn't use social issues as they decisive voting factor.

[H. Ross Peron]

1) Old Left (of the New Deal Democratic and old Social Democratic variety)
2) New Left (of the Blairite and Clintonian variety)
3) New Left (of the luddite and identity politics variety)
4) Old Left (of the Stalinist variety)

[traininthedistance]

1) Old Left (of the New Deal Democratic and old Social Democratic variety)
2) New Left (of the Blairite and Clintonian variety)
3) New Left (of the luddite and identity politics variety)
4) Old Left (of the Stalinist variety)

You seem to have missed what is probably the closest to an "actual" New Left; that is to say (very crudely speaking) the academic and anti-war variety.

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

See, I think a preferable strategy for the left would be to convince a lot of these rural voters to vote on economics- if they do that, they shouldn't use social issues as they decisive voting factor.

Al can explain better than I, but for a quite large proportion of rural voters, their short-term economic interest is with the right wing.  "Better off suburbanites" are legitimately a more fertile ground for economic left policies than rural socons for a whole host of reasons, even if it doesn't seem that way looking solely at income level.

New Left - especially if we're talking about the Vietnam War era movement.

How do you oppose populism and count yourself as a member of the Left?

I can't answer for him but for me populism is an often simplistic, conspiracist, and intellectually lazy way to politically gain from fostering an "us versus them" mentality amongst the masses targeting a few people to blame for what ails society. I favour elitism. An educated few know what to do better than most, who in ignorance are too often devoted to conventional or "common sense" ideas. The Left is in conflict against - not in defense of - the past and present ways of doing things.

And I am also egalitarian. I contend that even the most privileged of the current system deserve goodwill and treatment equal to that extended to the subjected and downtrodden. A rich man is no less a comrade of mine than a poor one, and to oppress the former for the latter's benefit would scarcely be any better than if I were to do the opposite. I believe in society being run and resources allocated for the benefit of all - for 100% of the People instead of 99% or proles only.

This x1000.

The problem with populism is that, far too often, it goes hand in hand with hostility towards basically all the values I hold most dear: respect for the scientific method, its practitioners, and its findings; an interest in art (and a willingness to experiment in such), an embrace of pluralism and those who are unlike yourself or your in-group, willingness to break with tradition when necessary, etc etc etc.  I'm not saying that populism is necessarily anti-intellectual, reactionary, and xenophobic (when it avoids those characteristics I am obviously in favor); and obviously many anti-populist strains of thought throughout history (c.f. basically everything "Old Right") have those same pitfalls.  But populism seems to more often than accept not these unacceptable attitudes, or even just be a hollow shell to cover for them.  So I have every right to be wary, and not uncritically accept "populism" as some sort of unalloyed good.  The brand is just too tarnished.

[H. Ross Peron]

1) Old Left (of the New Deal Democratic and old Social Democratic variety)
2) New Left (of the Blairite and Clintonian variety)
3) New Left (of the luddite and identity politics variety)
4) Old Left (of the Stalinist variety)

You seem to have missed what is probably the closest to an "actual" New Left; that is to say (very crudely speaking) the academic and anti-war variety.

Much of which ended up falling under Category 3.

[TNF]

The Old Left (we're talking about this in the context of the United States I guess?) was horrible, ultra-white and run by hacks in smoke-filled backrooms. To summarise the question at hand, George McGovern > Hubert Humphrey.

New Left by a mile.

It's not really fair to compare the nadir of the Old Left to the best of the New Left. And McGovern became a right-wing libertarian by the time he died anyway.

No he didn't.  Are you thinking of Gene McCarthy?

nah, McGov became a huge mouthpiece for the national "right to work" committee in his old age

[Hifly]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

Old Left was not socially conservative.

Can you explain why, for example, most of the socially conservative members of the British Labour Party have traditionally been on either the left-wing of the party and/or part of the remaining "Old Labour" grouping?
Or are they fake leftists?

[Goldwater]

Using GMB's definitions:

[1] New Left (of the Blairite and Clintonian variety)
[2] Old Left (of the New Deal Democratic and old Social Democratic variety)
[3] New Left (of the luddite and identity politics variety)
[4] Old Left (of the Stalinist variety)

[Peter the Lefty]

The Old Left (we're talking about this in the context of the United States I guess?) was horrible, ultra-white and run by hacks in smoke-filled backrooms. To summarise the question at hand, George McGovern > Hubert Humphrey.

New Left by a mile.

It's not really fair to compare the nadir of the Old Left to the best of the New Left. And McGovern became a right-wing libertarian by the time he died anyway.

No he didn't.  Are you thinking of Gene McCarthy?

nah, McGov became a huge mouthpiece for the national "right to work" committee in his old age

Just found it.  And that was rather heartbreaking for me, I'd never known that.  I'll cut him some slack and assume he was senile.

Anyways, the McGovern of 72 was better than the Humphrey of 72.  Just as Brandt, Whitlam, and Palme were far better than Helmut Schmidt, Francois Mitterrand, and Arthur Calwell.

[© tweed]

Clinton/Blair would do anything not to be associated with the 'left'.  hence the Third Way.

[DC Al Fine]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

See, I think a preferable strategy for the left would be to convince a lot of these rural voters to vote on economics- if they do that, they shouldn't use social issues as they decisive voting factor.

Al can explain better than I, but for a quite large proportion of rural voters, their short-term economic interest is with the right wing.  "Better off suburbanites" are legitimately a more fertile ground for economic left policies than rural socons for a whole host of reasons, even if it doesn't seem that way looking solely at income level.

Could someone elaborate on this?

[traininthedistance]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

I've noticed lefties expressing frustration at poor rural folks not voting with them. Social issues is a big part of that. If you want to have a totally social liberal left, you'll have to be prepared to abandon those voters.

That's not to pick on you Sol, it's just a general comment to the left.

On another note, I think social liberalism might have something to do with Democrats failure to embrace lefty policies. Since the rural socons aren't part of the coalition, the Democrats have had to find better off suburbanites to round out their coalition and those voters are loathe to embrace left wing economics.

See, I think a preferable strategy for the left would be to convince a lot of these rural voters to vote on economics- if they do that, they shouldn't use social issues as they decisive voting factor.

Al can explain better than I, but for a quite large proportion of rural voters, their short-term economic interest is with the right wing.  "Better off suburbanites" are legitimately a more fertile ground for economic left policies than rural socons for a whole host of reasons, even if it doesn't seem that way looking solely at income level.

Could someone elaborate on this?

There are several reasons:

1) the tendency for rural areas to gravitate towards oppressive and exploitative economic development strategies such as mining and casinos, understandable due to a seeming lack of other options (and, relatedly, that regulations which put a damper on resource extraction, while they do clearly improve the long-term welfare of everyone, also can lead to short-term pain)
2) the fact that in metro areas, it is harder to pretend that government spending does not have a necessary role to play in providing and regulating infrastructure such as water, sewer, transportation, parkland, etc.
3) the "fractional inequality" that occurs in wealthier areas, where say people who are in the top 5 percent of income feel relatively poorer and are more susceptible to class-based appeals than someone in more sparsely-settled areas because they come in regular contact with those in the top 0.5, or 0.05, (or 0.005...) percent.  Recall that Bill de Blasio was from freaking Park Slope, not exactly a working-class bastion.  I mean, okay that's urban rather than suburban, but many/most suburban areas have more in common with the cities than the countryside.

[morgieb]

If we're talking about the 70's New Left, then the New Left.

If we're talking about the 90's New Left, then the Old Left.

[LastVoter]

But seriously, though, I don't think Social Conservatism has any real place in a left-wing ideology, so New Left.

Old Left was not socially conservative.

Can you explain why, for example, most of the socially conservative members of the British Labour Party have traditionally been on either the left-wing of the party and/or part of the remaining "Old Labour" grouping?
Or are they fake leftists?

That's just a coincidence, try non Anglophone nations.

[Leftbehind]

Most of those socon relics from Old Labour never mention socialism any more. It's more that they've since renounced their earlier views, and taken a decidedly more reactionary turn, than they best embody Old Labour (so similar case with McGovern).

[Cory]

To be clear, what are your definitions of each?  While I think we can all agree on what the old left is, I think the New Left might be a foreign concept to some people.  The New Left certainly isn't centrist or at all involved in politics today.

To me, the New Left was a political movement in the 60s and 70s.  It was about moving away from actual political organizing and labor organizing and into social movements like anti-Colonialism, feminism, anarchism, gay rights, radical environmentalism and various forms of critical theory.  I think the legacy of the New Left is feminism and gay rights acceptance in the US, which is good.  But, legacy of the New Left is mostly negative because it moved left-wing activism into this insular university niche of focus on academia and the personal lives of a few intellectuals.  That basically guaranteed that the left would fade from any influence because politics is about power, not sitting around at Berkeley writing poems about how terrible anyone with power is.

This.

[LastVoter]

http://rosswolfe.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/identity-the-bane-of-the-contemporary-left/