There are leftists, but there is no left

[Nederland]

Salon interview with James Weinstein.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/10/30/weinstein/index.html

<snip>

Look, I wrote this book to make clear that, as you say, there was an American left, an American socialism, and through the first 20 years of the 20th century, it was growing and important. Much of what it advocated for we take for granted today. Especially after the New Deal -- Social Security, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, the eight-hour workday, the 40-hour week, minimum-wage laws -- the ideas of the left became mainstream ideas. But they started out as totally marginal. You also have to understand, the left was in every aspect of American society back then: Two-thirds of the original members of the NAACP were socialists. The first people who got arrested for advocating birth control -- Margaret Sanger, etc. -- were socialists. Many trade unionists were socialists. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, the children of the ruling class, was a vigorous organization. It had become an important aspect of every part of American life, and its programs addressed the problems of the emerging gigantic corporations -- it was an attempt to stabilize the system, which meant to humanize it.

So as time went on, and especially in the New Deal, the ideas that had originally been totally marginal became the property of the mainstream of American political discourse, and meanwhile socialists had nothing new to say, because the Russian Revolution had thrown the whole movement backward. What came to mean "socialism" after the Russian Revolution was this incredibly backward, pre-capitalist, pre-industrial society whose main goal was to catch up with the west. I mean, in my book I show how the Russian city of Magnitogorsk became the model of a socialist city, but it replicated Gary, Ind. -- everything radiated out from the steel mill! -- which was probably the worst failed American city. I mean, they had no idea what socialism was. It was a terrible throwback, the use of slave labor, the absence of any kind of political democracy. And yet the communists, who really were at the time the most vital force in the American left, were defending it.

<snip>

But the problem with the Green Party is that it doesn't tend to run in Republican districts or challenge Republicans. It looks for places where it's got some strength -- which tend to be places that elect Democrats. So they go up against Democrats.

And they split the left.

But supporting Kucinich is a step in the right direction.

Yes. I mean, Kucinich isn't going anywhere. That's not the point. The point is that Kucinich is doing in the Democratic Party something that's analogous to what Nader did -- he's getting some large crowds, he got 10,000 people in Minneapolis, and they're hearing his ideas and they're getting excited. I think he's bringing people into the process. And then when he's forced out, they have the option of hooking up with someone else because he's doing it within the Democratic Party framework.

<snip>

[QC]

1. Excellent article!

Everyone needs to read this one. Also well worth reading is Richard Rorty's short book Achieving Our Country, which also explores America's native Left.

[La_Serpiente]

2. He recently discussed his book

on CSpan 2 this past weekend.

[BlueHeron]

3. I thought he sounded (in the article) like an arrogant, "know it all."

More involved with his own ideas and trying to selectively give examples supporting his point of view about the origins of the Left in America than really adding anthing to a dialog about the current New Left evolving from the anger over the "2000 Selection" and the Bush support of the policies of the "Project for the New American Century"

He sounded like someone who was "past him prime" in being able to control the direction of the Left and so was somewhat bitter.

[QC]

5. Well, he does know quite a lot.

So I can overlook a bit of arrogance. And he's quite right that America had a vital Left of its own long before Lenin came along.

He's also right that we need to recover that heritage which was thrown away twice, first by the "Old Left" that followed Lenin and Stalin, and again by the 60s "New Left" that decided that class was no longer relevant and that the real vanguard was rich college kids. Both of those events were disasters and have much to do with the American Left's sorry condition today.

[Rich Hunt]

6. I don't think so

...maybe you missed the part about "optimism".

The fact that he's older isn't relevant. In These Times is a good magazine and I wish more people would check it out. It's not as if some new progressives have come along to "replace" the old ones - many have been around for a long time.

[Nederland]

7. Exactly

Here's the optimistic part:

I was just reading an obituary for Edward Said in the London Review of Books, and it talked about how he was always optimistic, but realistic, and it quoted Gramsci, you know, about needing a "pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will." I mean, look at what we had in this country in the 1950s, and look at what we have now. Look at the status of women, blacks, gays. And we achieved this in decades when, except for the period of the New Left in the '60s, the nation was mostly controlled by conservatives. You hear people in different movements saying how bad things are, "We haven't won anything," but that's crazy. Look at gays -- look at television, where you have shows like "Will and Grace," or the gay guys who make over the straight guys. Come on, look, it's a different world, it's a better world, despite the fact that the Christian right is built on opposition to this stuff. So that's what makes me an optimist. It's a different country, and a much better country. I'm not a historical determinist, but on the other hand, the older I get, I'm close to it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

4. Yes, Lenin was the worst thing to happen to the left around the world

I'm still amazed how so many socialists could have been suckered by the "vanguardists" - think about how much further along we would be if leftists here hadn't have closed their eyes to what was happening in Russia. By the time Stalin took over, Lenin had already destroyed the revolution and turned the USSR into a state-capitalist enterprise, complete with contracts with the capitalists powers of Europe.

[Nederland]

8. True enough

And many of those that would still defend Lenin post on this board...