The Failure of the Millennial Left

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
melovesproles
The Failure of the Millennial Left

I don't know if this article has been posted elsewhere but I think it's an interesting postmortem on the international left of the last 20-ish years. I don't agree with all of the author's conclusions but I think it identifies some of the issues that have led to the left's failures and what might be learned in building a strategy going forward. The points about organization and rupture I thought were especially pertinent. 

Omlets with Eggshells: On the Failure of the Millennial Left by Alex Hochuli

Meanwhile, though Cutrone underplays the specific problems of organization of our age—specifically the decline of associationism—his essays are useful for urging historical thinking. Millennials “blew their chance to relate to history in new ways that challenged and tasked them beyond post-60s doxa.” Instead, the millennial Left, in both protest and populist phases, evince a nostalgic quality, whether in pushing for a new New Deal or (much worse) replaying 1960s hippie protests or 1980s “resistance” to neoliberalism. These practices and beliefs “do not augur new possibilities but hold to old memories from a time when many if not most were not yet even alive. Its spectral—unreal—quality is evi­dent.”

We should be alert to a troubling fact: over the past one hundred years, the left has mostly arrived post-festum, certainly in the West. It plays a role in ushering in a new era, then attacks the new era, and finally finds itself nostalgic for it. So the Left attacked the stultifying welfare-warfare state in the 1960s in the name of individualism, actions which, despite their intentions, laid the ground for neoliberalism once the post­war order fell into crisis. The Left then set up its stall as the resistance against the reorganization of capitalism along neoliberal lines, accompanied by the most forceful, moralized rhetoric in defense of society against individualism. Finally, the Left finds itself neoliberalism’s last defenders in the face of so-called right-populism in the form of Trump, Le Pen, Brexit, Vox, Fratelli d’Italia, or what have you. The Left may not defend neoliberal policies, but it holds to neoliberal or neoliberalized organizations and institutions, be it the Democratic Party or the EU or the university or the NGO.

NDPP

Obviously germane. Thanks for posting.

epaulo13

..for as long as i can remember politically, the left structures, the leadership separated itself from the people. decided it knew better. so uprisings after uprisings occurred from the bottom up and this leadership not only offered little support but most of the  time  sabotaged them.

..i don't know how this fits in with the piece. how it is connected. and who exactly failed. 

epaulo13

..the powerful student rebellion in que. for example. the students didn't fail. they raised the level of struggle. they are the left.

NDPP

"In India we have people's movements, here you seem only to have activist movements."

Vandana Shiva at UVic, 2013

epaulo13

..we have what we have because of our historical development. it's what it is. :) 

melovesproles

epaulo13 wrote:

..for as long as i can remember politically, the left structures, the leadership separated itself from the people. decided it knew better. so uprisings after uprisings occurred from the bottom up and this leadership not only offered little support but most of the  time  sabotaged them.

..i don't know how this fits in with the piece. how it is connected. and who exactly failed. 

I think your point on leadership is a really good one. The piece is partly a review of three books and I haven't read them but I've heard some interviews with one of the authors, Vincent Bevins, a journalist who covered the street uprisings (Arab Spring, Occupy, Brazil, Ukraine etc.) of the 2010s and I believe he comes down kind of hard in his conclusions on horizontalism as one of the reasons why they seemed to result in failure for the left. I think the article linked above doesn't really buy into that conclusion and points to one of the other books looking at the left's subsequent pivot towards 'leaderism': Corbyn, Sanders, Boric etc. and how similar problems emerged. I think the conclusion that the article draws is that no purely horizontal or vertical model of leadership is going to be the magic formula and that probably the problem is a deeper one.

I think your observation about leadership not being responsive is something that needs to be tackled. In my opinion finding ways (not just in reaction either but thought out as part of strategy) to pressure leadership to do what the movement wants it to do is necessary. I think the noncommitted movement deserves some credit for trying to deal with that issue and there may be other and better strategies that can be developed but I think it is that type of thinking that needs to be done more.

As for who failed and whether we should be supporting a narrative of failure at all I don't think it's that important of a framing device. We could say missed opportunities for the left over the last 30 years and it would mean the same thing essentially. While I don't think it's important to pin failure on one generation or another, millennials are now the majority and as someone on the oldest side of the millennial cutoff line I do feel we are living in a moment following some significant failures and I don't think it's a bad thing to reflect on how we got there and if there is a way out.

epaulo13

..building a new world inside the old has been my go to solution. creating new structures inside the old. from the bottom up.

..there are also existing structures that have been around for a long time.  indigenous built structures that are much more democratic that we can learn from...for example. learn from not copy. the occupy movement for another. there was an attempt to bottom up the struggle. we can learn from that too.

..the information is out there. and there are thousands of smaller groups that understand this. the battle for seattle is an example. many many groups came together. teamsters and turtles coming together. we don't know how to maintain that unity in the face of the resistance by, but not only, union leaders to prolonged and aggressive engagement. imho.    

epaulo13

..this thinking didn't begin with me. this came out of the indignado movements in spain and greece. the square occupations back around 2011. a most fruitful time that exploded with new thinking on where and how to go from here. we documented that here on babble.  

..shortly after the que students revolted. and the indigenous struggles around pipelines where just beginning in bc. these are all grassroots led struggles. also well documented on babble.

..and it was covid that interfered with the indigenous struggles that were happening in canada. coming out of bc. a cross border struggle. covid saved the govs is my thinking. both provincial and fed. 

..saved not from being overthrown but from being forced into concessions. forced into recognition of indigenous rights and land. imho.

JKR

I think differentiating between the successes and failures of the left can help discern in what ways the left can be more successful. The left has had many successes especially when and where social democratic ideas have been established. I think social democrats have been successful when they don't adhere to some Marxist concepts that have been shown to be flawed. I think some of these Marxist ideas that have been problematic include social conflict theory, historical or dialectical materialism, and the concept that society is based on a modes of production. I've moved away from these ideas because I think society supersedes modes of production instead of the other way around. I also think conflict theory is flawed because I think social cohesion is required for there to be progress.  I think social democracy has been successful because it doesn't adhere to these kind of Marxist concepts and many leftist movements have been unsuccessful because they have adhered too strongly to these kind of ideas too strongly. I think these ideas have unfortunately supported tribalism which has led to failures for the left.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
 

NDPP

You need to drop your obvious Zionism and appalling support for Israel's genocide before anything you say here means anything at all.

JKR

NDPP, you're a good example of how adherents to conflict theory have discredited and failed the left. Supporting conflicts like you do around the world only leads to more conflicts everywhere. I think your pro conflict tribalism is the main cause of the left’s failures and downfalls. I oppose genocide. I don't consider myself a Zionist but I do think it's wrong to dehumanize Zionists like you do as you support the military destruction of Israel. Unlike you I think peace doesn't require the elimination of Israel. Unlike you I think peace between Palestinians and Israelis requires Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate with each other in good faith.

NDPP

'And the farmer hauled another load away...'

JKR

NDPP,  your pro violence tribalism is getting old and going nowhere.

JKR

NDPP wrote:

You need to drop your obvious Zionism and appalling support for Israel's genocide before anything you say here means anything at all.

You need to drop your obvious antisemitism and appalling desire for Israel and Israelis to be destroyed and your desire for Russia to violently and illegally annex Ukraine before you can say here you support peace in any way, shape, or form.

Paladin1

JKR wrote:

NDPP,  your pro violence tribalism is getting old and going nowhere.

It's funny how quickly violence becomes an acceptable route when it suits someones political beliefs.

NDPP

 Resisting and repelling a genocidal, illegal occupation is not 'violence' - the occupation and genocide is.

Paladin1

Violence is violence.

JKR

The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively before 1968. Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs had no problem with that occupation. Jordan and Egypt lost the War of '68 against Israel which led to Israel taking over those areas. Unfortunately a final peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians has not yet been established because Palestinians won't sign a permanent peace agreement with Israel that establishes a permanent final peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead Palestinians through their leaders like Hamas and through their allies like Iran have violently opposed Israel's existence instead of signing a permanent peace treaty. NDPP, you obviously know all this as you fully support Iran and Hamas in their violent efforts to destroy Israel.

melovesproles

When people are more interested in talking about the violence committed by a population resisting a genocide than in discussion about stopping the genocide, it's safe to assume they support the genocide.

melovesproles

JKR wrote:

I think differentiating between the successes and failures of the left can help discern in what ways the left can be more successful. The left has had many successes especially when and where social democratic ideas have been established. I think social democrats have been successful when they don't adhere to some Marxist concepts that have been shown to be flawed. I think some of these Marxist ideas that have been problematic include social conflict theory, historical or dialectical materialism, and the concept that society is based on a modes of production. I've moved away from these ideas because I think society supersedes modes of production instead of the other way around. I also think conflict theory is flawed because I think social cohesion is required for there to be progress.  I think social democracy has been successful because it doesn't adhere to these kind of Marxist concepts and many leftist movements have been unsuccessful because they have adhered too strongly to these kind of ideas too strongly. I think these ideas have unfortunately supported tribalism which has led to failures for the left.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conflict_theory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
 

It's pretty rich blaming socialism for tribalism when you support an ethnonationalist state.
It's also extremely ahistorical to say Marxist socialism has never achieved anything whereas capitalist social democratic countries have. It's hard not to notice that as Communism became less of a threat to Capitalism, social democratic parties became increasingly weaker to the point that now they are almost as neoliberal as everyone else. Falling and rising inequality over the last hundred years maps pretty closely to how threatened Capitalism felt by revolutionary socialism.

I also think the move away from a focus on production towards cultural battles is pretty convenient for those in the West who benefit from production being shipped overseas but rely on 'cultural' power like intellectual property to prop up global inequalities.

JKR

melovesproles wrote:

When people are more interested in talking about the violence committed by a population resisting a genocide than in discussion about stopping the genocide, it's safe to assume they support the genocide.

When people are not interested in talking about how the violence can end it’s safe to say they support the violence. I have repeatedly said that the violence should end through negotiations that establish a permanent peace agreement.

How do you think the century old violence should end?

JKR

melovesproles wrote:

It's pretty rich blaming socialism for tribalism when you support an ethnonationalist state.
It's also extremely ahistorical to say Marxist socialism has never achieved anything whereas capitalist social democratic countries have. It's hard not to notice that as Communism became less of a threat to Capitalism, social democratic parties became increasingly weaker to the point that now they are almost as neoliberal as everyone else. Falling and rising inequality over the last hundred years maps pretty closely to how threatened Capitalism felt by revolutionary socialism.

I also think the move away from a focus on production towards cultural battles is pretty convenient for those in the West who benefit from production being shipped overseas but rely on 'cultural' power like intellectual property to prop up global inequalities.

I didn’t say Marxist socialist states have not achieved anything. China obviously has achieved great things. The USSR did too. I was commenting on what has held the left back. I think tribalism and conflict theory has had negative impacts.

I don’t support the ethnocentric aspects of Israel. I support reducing them. As a sovereign country, like all other states, I think the State of Israel has the right to exist, the right to security, the right of self defence, and the right to sovereignty. I think a Palestinian state should be established and have these rights too. I support both Palestinians and Israelis both living in peace. Not just one or the other.

NDPP

One thing that holds the left back in Canada is abject, willful ignorance and a studied indifference to critical current affairs in favour of msm propaganda narratives instead, eg 'Russiagate'.

NDPP

 

The people divided will always be defeated.

JKR

NDPP wrote:

One thing that holds the left back in Canada is abject, willful ignorance and a studied indifference to critical current affairs in favour of msm propaganda narratives instead, eg 'Russiagate'.

One thing that holds the extremist left back in Canada is that they think Canadians are ignorant when in reality the extremist left is ignorant of some basic facts and the general public is aware of this ignorance.

JKR

NDPP wrote:

 

The people divided will always be defeated.

The left loses when they try to divide the people. The people know better than to fall for this false dichotomy.

Ken Burch

JKR wrote:

The West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively before 1968. Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs had no problem with that occupation. Jordan and Egypt lost the War of '68 against Israel which led to Israel taking over those areas. Unfortunately a final peace agreement between Israel and Palestinians has not yet been established because Palestinians won't sign a permanent peace agreement with Israel that establishes a permanent final peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Instead Palestinians through their leaders like Hamas and through their allies like Iran have violently opposed Israel's existence instead of signing a permanent peace treaty. NDPP, you obviously know all this as you fully support Iran and Hamas in their violent efforts to destroy Israel.

The PLO was founded in 1964, when the West Bank was under illegal Jordanian occupation and Gaza was under illegal Egyptian occupation. In 1971, the PLO tried to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty. So no, it's not as simple as saying it's just Palestinians and Arabs hating Jews. It never has been- as evidenced by the fact that, in the 1933-45 era, it was far safer to be Jewish in an Arab or Muslim country or in the Mandate than it was to be Jewish in Europe, and that at the end of that period the Jewish communities in Arab and Muslim countries and in the Mandate were essentially unscathed.

Palestinians and Arabs have never been saints- and Hamas is a reactionary organization with no capacity of creating anything remotely like liberation for anybody0, but it's always been silly to treat them as the successors in infamy to the dispersing empires(the Romans and Persians), the Inquisition, the Tsars and the capitalist-backed Third Reich.

Ken Burch

And the Six Day War was in 1967, not 1968.

epaulo13

..hello ken burch!

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

The PLO was founded in 1964, when the West Bank was under illegal Jordanian occupation and Gaza was under illegal Egyptian occupation. In 1971, the PLO tried to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty. So no, it's not as simple as saying it's just Palestinians and Arabs hating Jews. It never has been- as evidenced by the fact that, in the 1933-45 era, it was far safer to be Jewish in an Arab or Muslim country or in the Mandate than it was to be Jewish in Europe, and that at the end of that period the Jewish communities in Arab and Muslim countries and in the Mandate were essentially unscathed.

Palestinians and Arabs have never been saints- and Hamas is a reactionary organization with no capacity of creating anything remotely like liberation for anybody0, but it's always been silly to treat them as the successors in infamy to the dispersing empires(the Romans and Persians), the Inquisition, the Tsars and the capitalist-backed Third Reich.

I agree.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

And the Six Day War was in 1967, not 1968.

I wrote “before 1968” before that and then mistakenly wrote “1968” once after that. I should have wrote 1967 after that too since 1967 is obviously before 1968.

Paladin1

The left eats it's own.

JKR

"Solidarity forever" no longer matters on the left as tribalism has taken over politics. The same is true of the right. Authoritarianism is on the rise everywhere as the centre isn’t holding. It feels like we’ve gone back a century to 1932.

NDPP

Millions around the world, including Canada, continue marching in 'solidarity forever' with Palestinian resistance to Apartheid Israel's genocide.

This includes significant numbers of millennials. There are very few marching for Israeli apartheid and genocide.

As was the case with apartheid South Africa, the people united can never be defeated.

Why Direct Action is Becoming Common in the Fight For the Palestinian Cause

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjEufPh1JU

"Direct action - the use of economic and physical power to achieve specific goals - has come to define the tactics of a new generation of advocates for the Palestinian cause..."