Gedachten
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Ten Theses on the Future of the Left
1. There are some points that need to be understood before any revival of true progressive leftism on the European continent or elsewhere is possible. As things are now, the threat, felt by labor union members and antiglobalist anarchists alike, of liberalism and its adherents is strong. Equally strong seems to be the re-legitimization of ideas such as nationalism, patriotism and conservatism of the 'old school' on the European continent. These are the main challenges to leftism at this moment, and they are serious challenges.
2. What is the problem? The problem is that leftist movements as they exist now are primarily based in the ethics of progressive thinking, that is, in concepts such as equality, solidarity, etc. This is the current basis, one that is the direct foundation of social-democracy in its most reformist incarnation, finding its ultimate production of meaningless leftist platitudes combined with actual liberal policy in Tony Blair and Gerhard Schröder's "Third Way". Historically, the masses, as they have become richer and better off due to the opportunities of capitalist accumulation, have abandoned revolutionary thought and practice for revolutionary thought and an increasingly reformist and liberal practice. The fruits of this, which we are now seeing, is the final rejection of the old revolutionary baggage, that is now cast aside on the road as having become irrelevant to the journey. Such is the context in which the lack of core support for the Labour parties and Tony Blair's removal of the last left-wing principles from the New Labour party programme must be understood.
3. This of itself is very understandable and a necessary symptom of capitalist development in history. As the masses feel the class struggle less acutely, their class consciousness fades and the old slogans are reduced to merely that - some relics, pieces to be sung at the appropriate moments, magic words to be occasionally invoked at meetings and speeches to hint at some old ideal, but nothing more. They are the leftists' equivalent of the Hail Marys of the Catholic Church.
4. Meanwhile, however, the rightist forces (both liberal and conservative) are not going to sit and wait until the left has regained its sense of direction. The supposed hegemony of liberalism, which has allied itself with the reactionaries using their dislike of practical policy aimed at redistribution and expropriation for its own ends, is not a hegemony based on mass power but one based on a superior understanding of the present reality. The leftist movement has, in the process of losing its revolutionary ardour, also lost its will and capacity to theorize, and in so doing the masses, who are dependent on it, have lost their knowledge of the present and the tools to analyze it.
5. The result of this simple ignorance is a myopia that results in the dominance of liberal ideology in the sphere of so-called 'political science', that is, in the sphere of the self-understanding of the politicians and their advisors. These ideologies are wrong and are unable to make any materialist, long-term analysis of the world. Nevertheless their capacity to understand the mystical form in which global capitalism appears, a form of whose mysticism they are the high priests and theologians themselves, appears to the masses as a superior capacity to grasp the workings of daily life. In other words, they now control, as they did before the great revolutions of 1848, the "common sense" of the masses.
6. This "common sense" is nothing but a poorly-conceived medley of liberal ideology and the wrong lessons from historical experience. In fact, its core components, such as the neoclassical theory of economics, is not even seriously defended in its "common sense" form at the academic level. But the separation between the academical theories of all stripes, whose proponents possess the analytical tools to craft the most developed and most knowledgeable versions of their ideologies, and the masses has again become so great that the academic version of liberal ideology need not at all be the same or even compatible with the "common sense" version for the latter to hold sway.
7. Leftist theory has fallen into the same trap, by (whether through accident, mistake or force of circumstance) severing the connection between theory and practice. In so doing it has created a very thin stratum of true revolutionary academics who still understand the real nature of the things and not just the "common sense" form in which they now seem to present themselves. On the other hand it has created a broad stratum of politicians and strategic thinkers, i.e. leaders, who have no grasp of what the actual truth is as the revolutionary can discern it, and who have to make do with the "common sense" version of things. Simply because they are inclined to speak in the language the masses understand, since they know that any practice that is to be effective has to be rooted in the experience of the masses, they fall into the trap of thinking in "common sense" terms themselves. This way, the educators are wrongly educated.
8. The result is that the appeals to "equality", "solidarity", "different globalization", "the environment" and so on lack any basis in scientific knowledge or theory to lend them weight. The liberals and now even the conservatives are increasingly beginning to understand this, and are discovering that their enemy has, during the duel, walked into quicksand. But friendly as they are, they are reaching their enemy a helping hand: he needs but accept the "common sense", liberal, scientific theories and he will have a basis to work with. And the masses have accepted this hand, and they have been pulled into the liberals' camp without knowing it. The leaders, now, who cannot but come forth from the same ranks, have by and large done the same. And who can blame them? They have at least the virtue of Socratian Apollo: they know that they do not know. Who would not accept an offer of knowledge under such circumstances?
9. However, here lies the true danger for the very continued existence of the left as a structural power in the international world and as a hope for mankind: the astounding ignorance of many people who start out in the leftist camp, and the complete failure of the revolutionary academicians to properly educate their educators. Only if the real scientific knowledge the left possesses, the actual understanding of crucial subjects like economics, the natural sciences and history, can be conveyed in an intelligible way to the leaders and politicians of the left does the revolutionary practice have any chance of surviving. If we on the other hand, and as so many young leftist people on whom the practice depends have done, leave the scientific understanding of these subjects to the liberals and we try to fight from the quicksand of mere ethics and morality without further basis but our own emotions, we will be utterly destroyed both in the academic battle and in the polls.
10. The courage of our convictions will not be enough to convince anyone or to fight effectively if our convictions themselves are not, in our minds, well-founded. Such a foundaton can only be one in knowledge of the material world and understanding of the processes and interactions of society. No longer can we depend on our formerly well-deserved reputation as guides of the masses only. We must again show that we are worthy of this reputation, and we can only do this if we can prove to the masses that what we say is not merely good, but that it is also true. And that cannot be done as long as all those who wish our cause well are fundamentally ignorant of what is true and what is false in economics, the natural sciences, and history. These subjects will be the battlefield for the coming century's wars: and may the best win.
