The Return of Class Politics?

[Laika]

I wanted to get your opinion on something. I've heard many members criticise "the left" (however you wish to define it) for an excessive focus on the social or "identity politics" such as discrimination of the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, disability, etc. These are all concerns that developed out of the "New Left" period of the 1960's and 1970's and have become much more mianstream in the present day.

However, others have gone as far as to assert that left wing politics has lost its way and actually needs to go back to focusing on economic problems and the political, social and economic implications of class. There could be some very good reasons for this such as the economic crisis, growth of income inequality, the power of the wealthy to influence the state and the media, job security and unemployment, reduced social mobility, etc.

I was wondering how widespread this sentiment is and if people have strong views on it?

 

[Rival]

In the U.K., class is much more of a problem than race. Because we live in the class system we think it's normal.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most of the things they perceive as social issues/disadvantages/privileges are primarily economic issues/disadvantages/privileges, so it would be more rational and effective to focus on socio-economics than on an arbitrary handful of less meaningful attributes. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm of the strong opinion that the Left needs to focus more on socio-economic issues. I think so because socio-economic issues are quite often either the root cause of other social issues, or are so wrapped up in and involved in those other issues that no real progress on them can be made without addressing socio-economic issues. This does not mean I am opposed to addressing other issues -- issues like racism, sexism, ableism, and so forth are extremely important -- but only that I would not make them the focus of leftist politics.

For instance, sexism is not entirely reducible to socio-economic issues, but sexism will never become truly ameliorated so long as certain socio-economic problems remain unresolved.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most people on the left should probably consider user Columbus approach. Pro-choice has cost the left many battles, maybe too many battles. Maybe consider focusing upon education and economics for all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wanted to get your opinion on something. I've heard many members criticise "the left" (however you wish to define it) for an excessive focus on the social or "identity politics" such as discrimination of the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, disability, etc. These are all concerns that developed out of the "New Left" period of the 1960's and 1970's and have become much more mianstream in the present day.

However, others have gone as far as to assert that left wing politics has lost its way and actually needs to go back to focusing on economic problems and the political, social and economic implications of class. There could be some very good reasons for this such as the economic crisis, growth of income inequality, the power of the wealthy to influence the state and the media, job security and unemployment, reduced social mobility, etc.

I was wondering how widespread this sentiment is and if people have strong views on it?

I have found, even among the older working class, you can go on at length about "true old fashioned" Leftist economic polices, and as long as you avoid the words socialist or communist and don't go further than "7 or 8 /10 on the Left scale," people tend to support those ideas with a passion. You can quote Marx with every topic and subject, and as long as you don't say his name people will eat up what you have to say. It's also how Trump gained some support among the Left, because he focused on the economy rather than social issues.
If the Democrats can get on board with a more Socialist Democrat platform, they should be able to do well in 2020 if they "do it like Bernie." It would probably better their chances if they give minimal attention to social issues, as that is not what the moderate voter really wants to hear about. Unfortunately we live in an economically driven culture, making it all about the economy for a politician, much like Bill Clinton's campaign motto claimed.

 

[Underhill]

I wanted to get your opinion on something. I've heard many members criticise "the left" (however you wish to define it) for an excessive focus on the social or "identity politics" such as discrimination of the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, disability, etc. These are all concerns that developed out of the "New Left" period of the 1960's and 1970's and have become much more mianstream in the present day.

However, others have gone as far as to assert that left wing politics has lost its way and actually needs to go back to focusing on economic problems and the political, social and economic implications of class. There could be some very good reasons for this such as the economic crisis, growth of income inequality, the power of the wealthy to influence the state and the media, job security and unemployment, reduced social mobility, etc.

I was wondering how widespread this sentiment is and if people have strong views on it?

I would agree that the left needs to focus more on economics than on social issues. Not because social issues aren't important but because we have largely won the war on that front. I know Trump will reverse that to some extent, but when I look at the young I realize the battle is largely won and this is just the last gasp of aging demographics.

 

[Kirran]

I think we have massive work still to do on social issues, and that ultimately the two are closely interrelated. I wouldn't say the left needs to focus more on economic and class issues than other issues of identity and prejudice, but that it does need to focus more than currently on economic issues. Sometimes that's harder. But as we go deeper into identity politics, it'll come naturally anyway.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think we have massive work still to do on social issues, and that ultimately the two are closely interrelated. I wouldn't say the left needs to focus more on economic and class issues than other issues of identity and prejudice, but that it does need to focus more than currently on economic issues. Sometimes that's harder. But as we go deeper into identity politics, it'll come naturally anyway.

The thing is though we know the Democrats are not a threat to minority rights. They don't need to campaign on these issues because it's a given that blacks, LBGT, college students, immigrants, and the others who care about such issues are going to at least not sign an executive order stripping them of their rights. The Moderates and Centrists, on the other hand, a demograph that can sway elections much more powerfully than either fan club voters can, don't really want to hear about it. If anything, a nod in the direction of such issues to assure the moderate voters (whose life most likely has absolutely nothing at stake over social issues) the issues aren't going to be an issue because generally they don't care if gays get married or people smoke pot or whatever bathroom a transgender person uses. Those aren't issues to the moderate voters. The Moderate voters are, however, getting fed up with whining and crying over political correctness, which is why the Dems need to really not campaign on social issues in 2020, stand the high ground and sling mud (because Trump's campaign will make last campaigns look like a firecracker going off next to a nuclear bomb as he will only have one clear opponent to focus on), and tap into the energy that Bernie showed is there by focusing on the economy and working class Americans. And by all means, if an old Jewish outsider is kicking ***, they need to let him have the spot this time.

 

[Stevicus]

I wanted to get your opinion on something. I've heard many members criticise "the left" (however you wish to define it) for an excessive focus on the social or "identity politics" such as discrimination of the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, race, disability, etc. These are all concerns that developed out of the "New Left" period of the 1960's and 1970's and have become much more mianstream in the present day.

However, others have gone as far as to assert that left wing politics has lost its way and actually needs to go back to focusing on economic problems and the political, social and economic implications of class. There could be some very good reasons for this such as the economic crisis, growth of income inequality, the power of the wealthy to influence the state and the media, job security and unemployment, reduced social mobility, etc.

I was wondering how widespread this sentiment is and if people have strong views on it?

I was mulling this topic over, also when it came up in the other thread.

I'm not saying the left has totally forgotten the working classes, but their emphasis has shifted away from that. There may be some conflict of interest, at least regarding upper-class liberals and progressives who may believe they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they addressed issues related to class and economics. A lot of them got rich under conservative economics. The coastal regions are far more affluent, yet they are also more liberal/progressive than the interior regions (or "flyover country," as the coastals call it).

In fact, it's terms like "flyover country" which has come into common usage among the so-called "in crowd" that I would cite as an example of the left's disdainful attitudes towards "lower class" people. I've seen this all too often among those who try to come off as "progressive" and "enlightened."

Even now, after the recent election, their attitude seems to be that Trump supporters are uneducated, unsophisticated, unenlightened. Even if that may be true, it still doesn't address the underlying causes. What they mostly address nowadays with their "social justice" narrative are the symptoms, but they seem unwilling or unable to examine the underlying problems.

The real tragedy of it all is that many of these underlying problems could have been (and should have been) addressed back in the 60s and 70s when the iron was still hot. It was the left which started veering in different directions, creating enough dissension and internal divisions that allowed the better-organized and more unified right-wing to enjoy a resurgence, at least in terms of "trickle down" economics and militaristic interventionism on the global scene.

The left was ostensibly satisfied with superficial imagery and symbolism that it made it appear that the civil rights movement and feminism had made huge advances and great progress in society. But the same issues continued to fester and remained a part of the public dialogue. All the while, the cities and neighborhoods continued to crumble - racked with crime and neglect. Factories shut down and jobs sent overseas. The infrastructure was neglected, education became less of a priority. Defense spending skyrocketed, as did the national debt.

To be sure, some voices from the left did make themselves heard about a lot of these issues, but a lot of people didn't really care. Or if they did, it wasn't something they would get very fired up about. It wasn't the 1960s anymore, and a lot of people had become somewhat jaded by political activism, while others were simply interested in personal advancement and individual fulfillment. The culture became dominated by a garish, ostentatious brand of materialism, along with unbridled consumerism, hedonism, cocaine (which had reached epidemic proportions).

I was never a big fan of Clinton; I was more of a Jerry Brown supporter. I thought of Clinton as more of a Republican in sheep's clothing, since he was pro-NAFTA and seemed to cozy up to big business interests, yet still pushing the social agenda in order to solidify the women and minority voting blocs. They were okay with a pro-corporate agenda provided that enough women and minorities can break through the glass ceiling and get their gold key to the executive washroom. This was a significant issue for Hillary's campaign as well, the whole "glass ceiling" thing - which is great for those at the top, but is only a far-away abstraction for those at the lower end.

Another major issue this past campaign was about immigration, centering around Trump's plan to build a border wall and to ban Muslims from immigrating. The left's refrain throughout all this is that it's bigoted, hateful, reckless, stupid, crazy - and a great deal of similar outrage and invective. They think Trump and his supporters are bunch of lunatics and idiots - which they might very well be, but that's beside the point.

What they're missing is that, at least from a working class point of view, many workers do have legitimate concerns about immigration and what a large influx could do to the labor market and wages. The other side of that is that many of these immigrants (particularly the undocumented ones) are targets for exploitation which benefit the wealthy classes. (And with globalism/free trade, we have a wide variety of products made by sweatshop labor world-wide, with the left being somewhat wishy-washy about that as well.)

A lot of people are just plain scared, and it's so very easy for these pampered celebrities and limousine liberals to scoff at them and ridicule them for being scared. Frankly, a lot of Americans are scared of the left. Leftists might argue that they're dupes of the corporate media and propaganda from the right. They harp on Fox News a lot, but again, they're attacking the symptom rather than the underlying problem.

To some degree, the left has grown somewhat fossilized, rehashing the same stale ideas and not really coming up with anything new or updated for the 21st century. It's like Hollywood keeps doing remakes and not coming up with much that's original anymore.

What does the left really want nowadays? Where is the left going? Do we want a unified, globalist, one-world society? Or is it still preferable to have sovereign, independent nations? Can the entire world be elevated and equalized in terms of living standards, education, economic/material comfort, etc.? Does the world have enough resources so that the entire world population can live equally? Do we still want world peace? Can we still "Imagine"?

Or is it all just a pipe dream, as the right-wing would argue? Are we going to have to turn ourselves into "Fortress America" and carry a big stick in order to safeguard America's interests?

The left needs to step back and take account of the world situation as it is now and try to put forth a more coherent message. It's not the 1960s anymore, and trying to relive past glories isn't really going to win any elections.

Even if it was the 1960s, most of the left nowadays has become so jaded that they forgot that they once used to preach the ideals of "peace" and "love." Maybe that's something they need to work on.