Why I don't call myself a leftist any more

[Wolter]

That's the exact crux of the problem. The problem is that because the left has allowed itself to be painted as elitist and out of touch with the common man, the right has ALREADY filled the vacuum of populism. Until activists actually talk TO the working class, instead of ABOUT them to other activists, the Left is effectively dead in the water.

But how much of that is purely the fault of academics and how much blame resides in a media and establishment that actively works to maintain a disconnect between the two groups?

Obviously, the answer is both, but I wonder how much of the traits in the academic left are at least partly a response to being actively shut out of any meaningful national dialog.

I think, to an extent, the academic left allowed themself to be shut out of the discourse by getting complacent post-watergate. Also, the insularity and fragmentation into specialties that is the hallmark of the academic setting has become the norm. In the 19th century, the populist left tried to unite (even if it ultimately failed). It seems now that the idea of unity is anethema. EDIT: The right has largely presented a unified front over the previous generation, with the corporate, libertarian, and social conservative wings lockstepping on most issues.

But yeah, ultimately, there is a whole melange of reasons.

[Dr. Medulla]

That's the exact crux of the problem. The problem is that because the left has allowed itself to be painted as elitist and out of touch with the common man, the right has ALREADY filled the vacuum of populism. Until activists actually talk TO the working class, instead of ABOUT them to other activists, the Left is effectively dead in the water.

I agree, but would suggest that you're only citing an early stage of the problem. What I want to know is why are the so-called activists coming from or being informed by the academic left? I mean, it comes off as some kind of monolith, where the buffoonish academics dictate the contours of discussion and end up fucking it up for the marginalized. Why is there no significant grassroots movements that reject both the jingoism of the right and jargon and navel-gazing of the academic left? Why continue take the cues from academia?

I fully admit to having read very little labour or protest history, and of that it's a good decade in the past. But one book that made a considerable impression was Rainbow at Midnight by George Lipsitz (he was the supervisor of my own grad supervisor), a kick-ass cultural and labour historian. I'm certain that I'm improperly regurgitating his argument, but he argued that the labour movement was bought off both in dollars and ideas. Wages were raised in the 1940s and 50s at the expense of weaker workplace autonomy, while the promise of suburbia broke up the notion of community, of neighbourhood, in favour of glorious atomization. By the 1960s, even the lower ranks had bought into the notion of stability and progress, but had abandoned the foundation for preserving any success—class/ethnic unity and workplace solidarity. So, as real wages have been stagnant for some forty years, there has been no effort to recover the base. Academia hasn't helped, with its obsession on aesthetics and a multitude of other battles, but the battle was lost some fifty years ago. (Again, I'm almost certainly misrepresenting the more nuanced aspects of Lipsitz' argument, but I think I recall the gist.)

[Wolter]

That's the exact crux of the problem. The problem is that because the left has allowed itself to be painted as elitist and out of touch with the common man, the right has ALREADY filled the vacuum of populism. Until activists actually talk TO the working class, instead of ABOUT them to other activists, the Left is effectively dead in the water.

I agree, but would suggest that you're only citing an early stage of the problem. What I want to know is why are the so-called activists coming from or being informed by the academic left? I mean, it comes off as some kind of monolith, where the buffoonish academics dictate the contours of discussion and end up fucking it up for the marginalized. Why is there no significant grassroots movements that reject both the jingoism of the right and jargon and navel-gazing of the academic left? Why continue take the cues from academia?

I fully admit to having read very little labour or protest history, and of that it's a good decade in the past. But one book that made a considerable impression was Rainbow at Midnight by George Lipsitz (he was the supervisor of my own grad supervisor), a kick-ass cultural and labour historian. I'm certain that I'm improperly regurgitating his argument, but he argued that the labour movement was bought off both in dollars and ideas. Wages were raised in the 1940s and 50s at the expense of weaker workplace autonomy, while the promise of suburbia broke up the notion of community, of neighbourhood, in favour of glorious atomization. By the 1960s, even the lower ranks had bought into the notion of stability and progress, but had abandoned the foundation for preserving any success—class/ethnic unity and workplace solidarity. So, as real wages have been stagnant for some forty years, there has been no effort to recover the base. Academia hasn't helped, with its obsession on aesthetics and a multitude of other battles, but the battle was lost some fifty years ago. (Again, I'm almost certainly misrepresenting the more nuanced aspects of Lipsitz' argument, but I think I recall the gist.)

That argument may well be true. Ultimately, my whole point is that academia being in the vangaurd is one of many factors that are killing the left. The whys and wherefores of that are secondary.

[Dr. Medulla]

That's the exact crux of the problem. The problem is that because the left has allowed itself to be painted as elitist and out of touch with the common man, the right has ALREADY filled the vacuum of populism. Until activists actually talk TO the working class, instead of ABOUT them to other activists, the Left is effectively dead in the water.

I agree, but would suggest that you're only citing an early stage of the problem. What I want to know is why are the so-called activists coming from or being informed by the academic left? I mean, it comes off as some kind of monolith, where the buffoonish academics dictate the contours of discussion and end up fucking it up for the marginalized. Why is there no significant grassroots movements that reject both the jingoism of the right and jargon and navel-gazing of the academic left? Why continue take the cues from academia?

I fully admit to having read very little labour or protest history, and of that it's a good decade in the past. But one book that made a considerable impression was Rainbow at Midnight by George Lipsitz (he was the supervisor of my own grad supervisor), a kick-ass cultural and labour historian. I'm certain that I'm improperly regurgitating his argument, but he argued that the labour movement was bought off both in dollars and ideas. Wages were raised in the 1940s and 50s at the expense of weaker workplace autonomy, while the promise of suburbia broke up the notion of community, of neighbourhood, in favour of glorious atomization. By the 1960s, even the lower ranks had bought into the notion of stability and progress, but had abandoned the foundation for preserving any success—class/ethnic unity and workplace solidarity. So, as real wages have been stagnant for some forty years, there has been no effort to recover the base. Academia hasn't helped, with its obsession on aesthetics and a multitude of other battles, but the battle was lost some fifty years ago. (Again, I'm almost certainly misrepresenting the more nuanced aspects of Lipsitz' argument, but I think I recall the gist.)

That argument may well be true. Ultimately, my whole point is that academia being in the vangaurd is one of many factors that are killing the left. The whys and wherefores of that are secondary.

And I place (or at least I think I do) the emphasis differently. Academia doesn't help matters, but it's not a primary problem. The primary problem is what happened when labour accepted a bribe several generations ago. The problems since then are reactive errors.

[eumaas]

That's the exact crux of the problem. The problem is that because the left has allowed itself to be painted as elitist and out of touch with the common man, the right has ALREADY filled the vacuum of populism. Until activists actually talk TO the working class, instead of ABOUT them to other activists, the Left is effectively dead in the water.

I agree, but would suggest that you're only citing an early stage of the problem. What I want to know is why are the so-called activists coming from or being informed by the academic left? I mean, it comes off as some kind of monolith, where the buffoonish academics dictate the contours of discussion and end up fucking it up for the marginalized. Why is there no significant grassroots movements that reject both the jingoism of the right and jargon and navel-gazing of the academic left? Why continue take the cues from academia?

I fully admit to having read very little labour or protest history, and of that it's a good decade in the past. But one book that made a considerable impression was Rainbow at Midnight by George Lipsitz (he was the supervisor of my own grad supervisor), a kick-ass cultural and labour historian. I'm certain that I'm improperly regurgitating his argument, but he argued that the labour movement was bought off both in dollars and ideas. Wages were raised in the 1940s and 50s at the expense of weaker workplace autonomy, while the promise of suburbia broke up the notion of community, of neighbourhood, in favour of glorious atomization. By the 1960s, even the lower ranks had bought into the notion of stability and progress, but had abandoned the foundation for preserving any success—class/ethnic unity and workplace solidarity. So, as real wages have been stagnant for some forty years, there has been no effort to recover the base. Academia hasn't helped, with its obsession on aesthetics and a multitude of other battles, but the battle was lost some fifty years ago. (Again, I'm almost certainly misrepresenting the more nuanced aspects of Lipsitz' argument, but I think I recall the gist.)

That argument may well be true. Ultimately, my whole point is that academia being in the vangaurd is one of many factors that are killing the left. The whys and wherefores of that are secondary.

And I place (or at least I think I do) the emphasis differently. Academia doesn't help matters, but it's not a primary problem. The primary problem is what happened when labour accepted a bribe several generations ago. The problems since then are reactive errors.

I still think your emphasis is misplaced. What KEEPS the left weak and is actively making it weaker is academic leftism.

[Flex]

That argument may well be true. Ultimately, my whole point is that academia being in the vangaurd is one of many factors that are killing the left. The whys and wherefores of that are secondary.

I dunno about that. I think one of the important lessons to be learned could be that the 19th century model of a unified left isn't feasible anymore. Why the academic left has become the vanguard is important if we're looking for alternatives. If one is positing the argument that Academia is in the driver's seat because earlier labor oriented movement were essentially bought out, then it makes a difference in terms of what direction we may want "the left" to take.

If the lesson drawn from history is that the old movements of the 19th and early 20th century can't happen again, and Academia has filled the void because there is no better alternative at the moment, then the whys and wherefores matter. If we're positing that Academia controls the left even thought viable alternative movements readily exist, that's another matter entirely.


On a side note, this is about the only place where I can actually feel ashamed that I think I learned new, cool things in college.

[Dr. Medulla]

I still think your emphasis is misplaced. What KEEPS the left weak and is actively making it weaker is academic leftism.

Then why hasn't a movement arisen that cuts out academia? Why keep taking cues from the bozos? It's too simple to just say, "Academics have led us astray." Even if true—and I don't disagree—no one is forced to accept their input.

[eumaas]

I still think your emphasis is misplaced. What KEEPS the left weak and is actively making it weaker is academic leftism.

Then why hasn't a movement arisen that cuts out academia? Why keep taking cues from the bozos? It's too simple to just say, "Academics have led us astray." Even if true—and I don't disagree—no one is forced to accept their input.

Because the right wing (I include Dems and Republicans in this) has won the battle for the working class. Any decent movement that would avoid the errors of the academy would need to come from such a group--but the Sorelian myth of socialism just doesn't exist in the working class's collective consciousness any more. The motivating myths are American dream, religious stuff, etc. Most activist leftists are (upper) middle class or higher.

[Dr. Medulla]

I still think your emphasis is misplaced. What KEEPS the left weak and is actively making it weaker is academic leftism.

Then why hasn't a movement arisen that cuts out academia? Why keep taking cues from the bozos? It's too simple to just say, "Academics have led us astray." Even if true—and I don't disagree—no one is forced to accept their input.

Because the right wing (I include Dems and Republicans in this) has won the battle for the working class. Any decent movement that would avoid the errors of the academy would need to come from such a group--but the Sorelian myth of socialism just doesn't exist in the working class's collective consciousness any more. The motivating myths are American dream, religious stuff, etc. Most activist leftists are (upper) middle class or higher.

Alright, but is saying that the right won the battle necessarily the same as blaming academia for the loss? I don't want to promote however indirectly a slippery slope of wholly or mostly blaming the working class for their own predicament, but it still seems overly convenient to single out the well-to-do academics for the lion's share of any collapse. Is it not possible that the right has done such a damn good job of saturating the discourse that they just out and out won it, and that any worker's movement needs to look to itself to find new means of generating success? I'm just not convinced that leftist academics deserve as much of the blame as is being suggested. I'm not letting them off the hook, just that globalization and consumerist ideologies have been flat out more appealing and marketed better, and may have always been better suited for winning in the long haul.

[Marky Dread]

I no longer give a flying fuck about politics here in the UK we've been fed so much bullshit so many lies for so long that even when you think your voting for a good candidate you know that as soon as he reaches parliment all the ideals go out the window and they will let you down change tact and start singing a different tune.

One day the people here will wake up out of their pathetic apathy and rise up and realise that there is strength in numbers overthrow the goverment and go home and play "Cut The Crap" 'til the Ravens finally leave the tower.

[classof77]

This thread is a good example of why the left is losing the "working class".

Why does the average guy hate the left? Because they outlaw smoking in bars; because of sin taxes; because of "political correctness" (abusing someones rights is one thing--insensitivity another)...and that pretty much sums it up. Sure it is much, much more complex but the average Joe wants to have a drink and a smoke and 'tell it like it is" after work. Do-gooders associated with the Left are taking this from him---and then are shocked when he doesn't want to talk about issues. These are his issues!

[Flex]

This thread is a good example of why the left is losing the "working class".

Why does the average guy hate the left? Because they outlaw smoking in bars; because of sin taxes; because of "political correctness" (abusing someones rights is one thing--insensitivity another)...and that pretty much sums it up. Sure it is much, much more complex but the average Joe wants to have a drink and a smoke and 'tell it like it is" after work. Do-gooders associated with the Left are taking this from him---and then are shocked when he doesn't want to talk about issues. These are his issues!

Wait, when did we talk about doing all these things in this thread?

I at least generally agree with all your points, although I don't think they're necessarily the primary causes of why people have defected from the left. As for political correctness, my views have been well documented (actually, not anymore! haha suckas, no one can prove anything)...

[Marky Dread]

Right wing, left wing
I want something.

[eumaas]

This thread is a good example of why the left is losing the "working class".

Why does the average guy hate the left? Because they outlaw smoking in bars; because of sin taxes; because of "political correctness" (abusing someones rights is one thing--insensitivity another)...and that pretty much sums it up. Sure it is much, much more complex but the average Joe wants to have a drink and a smoke and 'tell it like it is" after work. Do-gooders associated with the Left are taking this from him---and then are shocked when he doesn't want to talk about issues. These are his issues!

Wait, when did we talk about doing all these things in this thread?

I at least generally agree with all your points, although I don't think they're necessarily the primary causes of why people have defected from the left. As for political correctness, my views have been well documented (actually, not anymore! haha suckas, no one can prove anything)...

Dittodittoditto