Do you prefer the Old Left or the New Left in America?

[FrancoAgo]

Reading through this couple pages has convinced me that these terms, especially the former, are largely meaningless, but I think it is fair to say I would be considered on the "Old Left" side, more so given that's how all my closest friends of similar politics here have answered earlier along the thread.

I would expected almost from one: the the author of the thread has no idea what is old and new left, and probably just left

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The basic problem here is that while 'New Left' refers to a particular political tradition with a fairly clear meaning and definition, 'Old Left' really doesn't except in a sense so broad as to be completely useless. You're basically lumping together all shades of Social Democrat and Communist together as one discrete category and while, yes, they share some ancestry, so do whales and dogs.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I have a great deal of sympathy for revolutionary socialism; and firmly believe we'd all be living in a much better world if the revolutions of the early 20th century had succeeded. That being said, as someone who views corporations and employers as clearly negative social actors and opposes open / lax immigration policies in pursuance of a generous welfare state, I am probably still 'Old Left' according to OP's definition.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Old Left (Social Democrat tendency)

[All Along The Watchtower]

the Old Left actually managed to participate in governing the country for a third of a century straight

1930s: Popular Front with New Deal Democrats joining literal Communists (whose leadership ultimately answered to Stalin lmao)

1940s: Transition from FDR to Truman and sharp anti-Soviet turn (sorry Henry Wallace) but still very populist center-left on domestic policy

1950s: Civil rights starts to fracture the Democratic Party (technically it started in 1948 but eh), but still most Democrats were devoted to the New Deal order even if only out of political survival (!). I mean, the Republican President accepted a lot of the New Deal order on a pragmatic basis.

1960s: Kennedy heralds the arrival of truly modern liberalism and cults of personality within the Democratic Party, but he was likewise committed to the New Deal order and his successor even more so. Unfortunately, Vietnam fractured the Party from the (New) Left and civil rights fractured the Party from the (Segregationist) Right. The center couldn't hold!

1970s onward: The long decline of the Democratic Party as generations of Americans knew it gets going.

[PSOL]

I should remind you all that the Old Left does not include the Democratic Party and the scabs in the AFL, with the controversial exception of Union leader Reuther. The New Left throughout its history was mostly outside Democratic electoral politics and the establishment, yet certain Rightist elements were bankrolled by the CIA and other intelligence outfits to write against the Soviet Union.

If we were to exclude the New Communist Movement from the New Left due to their anti-revisionism, and exclude CLR James’ and Frantz Fanons’ theoretical studies on capitalism’s effect on inhabitants of colonies, then the definition that the “New Left” was divorced from the working class falls apart pretty badly and I say this as someone who views the New Left with disdain. The Third Campists of the majority of the Peace and Freedom Party, the Independent Socialist Club, quite literally aided factory workers in their strikes and mobilized braqiero—temporary migrant—agricultural workers in unionizing and struggling against the plantation owners.

Bull•••• on “class reductionism” or whatever on propping up proto-neolibs who endorsed pedophilia is a very revisionist recollection of history. Compared to the past, the “Old Left” was pretty woke in demanding for Land Back from settlers out west and an independent Black State. Z Foster’s revisionism thus is irrelevant on the work of the African Blood Brotherhood and the Crusader which would merge and move close to the Communist Party respectively. Outside of the weirdness of the Stalin Period, the Socialist and Communist Parties were the heterocritical of the time, and when Stalin took over the reigns the LGBTQ crowd just moved to the SWP for a while until the New Communist Movement reclaimed gay liberation for the ML camp. This ignores the woke anarchists of course.

This also applies internationally.

[Alcibiades]

Plenty of people here have already thoroughly dissected the ridiculousness of the OP’s classification of these two terms, but I think that even the definitions that many of the more reasonable posters in this thread have been working with are questionable. As Al points out, it’s pretty unclear what is meant by the ‘Old Left’, especially in an American context.

For instance, take the whole cadre of intellectuals such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith who surrounded the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (and many of whom - like quintessential New Left figure George McGovern* - first got involved with Democratic Party politics through Adlai Stevenson’s campaigns). The Great Society, which many would probably consider the high watermark of the post-New Deal ‘Old Left’, coincided with the apex of public trust in, and involvement in politics by, policy experts, and was largely crafted by the kind of ‘ivory tower liberal elites’ who many decry as indicative of the New Left in opposition to the allegedly more worker-based Old Left. Where do these men fit into the Old-New Left dichotomy? In this instance, I find Nathan’s remark that “we all know what the general shape, contours, and ~vibes~ of this divide are” wholly inadequate in trying to classify them.

Ultimately, inasmuch as these two terms signify anything, it is that they are captives to their historical circumstances. The Old Left was situated in a largely industrial-based economy and a pre-Sexual Revolution and less tolerant society, and reflected that, while the opposite applies to the New Left. In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive. Ultimately, I really don’t think it’s particularly useful to compare across the decades which was better when they faced such different prevailing social and economic conditions over which each had less control than many might like to think they did.

_{*As has been pointed out, McGovern hardly had impeccable leftist credentials on economic policy, but, going back to Nathan’s comment, he is almost always regarded as having New Left ~vibes~.}

[Big Abraham]

In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive.

Would you claim that KKE and the CPRF are "new left"?

[PSOL]

In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive.

Would you claim that KKE and the CPRF are "new left"?

The KKE is to the left of Syriza now and AOC ever on border control, wanting refugees and asylum seekers free access to a right to live without being put in concentration camps and a right to sustain themselves in Greece. Makes sense given the KKE is mainly made up of refugees from Turkey.

George McGovern and Adlai Stevenson may have gotten support from the far rightist bloc of the New Left, but they are not New Left as the rightist bloc didn’t make the switch to the mainstream until the 1980s and 90s at the height of Derrida’s career.

[Alcibiades]

In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive.

Would you claim that KKE and the CPRF are "new left"?

Well, my post was largely dealing with America. Anyway, the number of such people entirely unaffected by New Left sensibilities is vanishingly small, and they are largely irrelevant because they base their politics off an imagined and idealised version of midcentury society entirely incongruent with present political realities.

[Big Abraham]

In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive.

Would you claim that KKE and the CPRF are "new left"?

The KKE is to the left of Syriza now and AOC ever on border control, wanting refugees and asylum seekers free access to a right to live without being put in concentration camps and a right to sustain themselves in Greece. Makes sense given the KKE is mainly made up of refugees from Turkey.

Admittedly, their policy on same-sex unions and drug reform is at odds with what the New Left believes.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive.

Would you claim that KKE and the CPRF are "new left"?

How can the extinct be new?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The basic problem here is that while 'New Left' refers to a particular political tradition with a fairly clear meaning and definition, 'Old Left' really doesn't except in a sense so broad as to be completely useless. You're basically lumping together all shades of Social Democrat and Communist together as one discrete category and while, yes, they share some ancestry, so do whales and dogs.

You're right, of course, but these days I might actually play the devil's advocate and argue that the commonalities between old-school Social Democrats and Communists are actually underrated, and that they do share a lot in common that distinguishes them from newer currents of leftist thought. There is the common strategic focus on controlling the state apparatus, as I mentioned, and a lot that goes with it such as the organization into parties (with, whenever possible, organic ties with labor). There's the Marxist lineage, as you mention, which even with all the revisions and innovations and reneging, remained clearly present in both. And there is, and I hate to be reductive here but that's honestly the only way I know how to phrase this, a certain seriousness about political power and what it takes to seize it and wield it effectively that is completely lacking among "new left" types.

[PSOL]

In a sense then, anyone on the left in the 21st century is automatically a member of the New Left by virtue of when they are alive.

Would you claim that KKE and the CPRF are "new left"?

The KKE is to the left of Syriza now and AOC ever on border control, wanting refugees and asylum seekers free access to a right to live without being put in concentration camps and a right to sustain themselves in Greece. Makes sense given the KKE is mainly made up of refugees from Turkey.

Admittedly, their policy on same-sex unions and drug reform is at odds with what the New Left believes.

Who says just the New Left supports drug legalization and same-sex unions. A good chunk of the “Old Left” and their political descendants ended up supporting those policies. Just because the gramps doesn’t support it means nothing.

The ossified core of the KKE gerontocratic politburo is lost on the youth league, who on account of being young Grecians support all those things.

The basic problem here is that while 'New Left' refers to a particular political tradition with a fairly clear meaning and definition, 'Old Left' really doesn't except in a sense so broad as to be completely useless. You're basically lumping together all shades of Social Democrat and Communist together as one discrete category and while, yes, they share some ancestry, so do whales and dogs.

You're right, of course, but these days I might actually play the devil's advocate and argue that the commonalities between old-school Social Democrats and Communists are actually underrated, and that they do share a lot in common that distinguishes them from newer currents of leftist thought. There is the common strategic focus on controlling the state apparatus, as I mentioned, and a lot that goes with it such as the organization into parties (with, whenever possible, organic ties with labor). There's the Marxist lineage, as you mention, which even with all the revisions and innovations and reneging, remained clearly present in both. And there is, and I hate to be reductive here but that's honestly the only way I know how to phrase this, a certain seriousness about political power and what it takes to seize it and wield it effectively that is completely lacking among "new left" types.

I dunno man, the Yippies and Situationalists were pretty serious when they were apart of two major protests of which the endgame was gaining political power. The latter of which was crucial in forming solidarity between students and workers.

A lot of this is how you define the “New Left”. If your definition rests on French pessimistic proto-Neolibs and (anti)postmodernists then you may have a point somewhere. If you extend “New Left” to the very mainstream-adjacent like Gore Vidal and Dennis Kucinich then I can see some of it, but then how does the definition not fall apart?

[S019]

Obviously the New Left

[H. Ross Peron]

Obviously the New Left

Ok entryist.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Snip

Excellent post, and I'd add that even the original New Deal was headed by a quasi-aristocrat with a Brain Trust dominated by policy experts and intellectuals. That's not to say I think criticism of the modern American left being too dominated at times by those sorts of people lacks merit, but there's always a risk of oversimplifying the other way.

[RINO Tom]

Assuming I even know what you mean, how was the "old left" more isolationist?  Like every war in the Twentieth Century was started* by a clearly liberal Democrat, haha.

* I'm not saying, for example, that FDR "started" WWII, I merely mean that Democratic Presidents have not been less willing to go to war when they feel it is justified than Republicans.