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

[FrancoAgo]

None of these descriptors describe the Old Left

neither the New Left or it's just a different point of view
the New Left for me it's a 60s born left and here was fulfill of maoist and stalinist, also if this are not the alone on the new left

[YE]

New Left, because I'm not a racist class reductionist.

Didn't the Old Left support the Civil Rights movement?

Yes and the descriptions of the OP are oversimplified and not accurate whatsoever.

[Big Abraham]

New Left, because I'm not a racist class reductionist.

Didn't the Old Left support the Civil Rights movement?

Yes and the descriptions of the OP are oversimplified and not accurate whatsoever.

All he said was that the Old Left was "more class reductionist," vis-a-vis the New Left which is presumably "more intersectional." Ignoring the fact that "class reductionist" has become something of a slur, one can still acknowledge the class-based reality of the Civil Rights Movements (as many of the Civil Rights leaders themselves did) and support it on that basis, as all credible leftists of the time did.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

This thread feels like another not-so-secret referendum on identity politics.

[YE]

New Left, because I'm not a racist class reductionist.

Didn't the Old Left support the Civil Rights movement?

Yes and the descriptions of the OP are oversimplified and not accurate whatsoever.

All he said was that the Old Left was "more class reductionist," vis-a-vis the New Left which is presumably "more intersectional." Ignoring the fact that "class reductionist" has become something of a slur, one can still acknowledge the class-based reality of the Civil Rights Movements (as many of the Civil Rights leaders themselves did) and support it on that basis, as all credible leftists of the time did.

Not really. Let’s break this down further.

What are the differences between the two? Some of these are subjective, but some high-level observations…

Industries: Old Left more trades, New Left more services
Immigration: Old Left more skeptical of immigration
Environment: New Left more hawkish on climate
Internationalism: Old Left was more isolationist
Identity: Old Left was more class reductionist

In general it seems the power base has shifted from Northeast and Midwest to Acela and I5.

The Old Left also viewed employers as adversaries. The New Left is a lot more corporate-friendly.

Immigration was a less mainstream issue when the “Old Left” was in power to a large extent compared to today but given “they” inacted the 1965 immigration act and the seeds to the Old Left voted against the 1923 immigration act. Industries really depended on the time and region but Harry Truman in his 1948 DNC speech said Democrats would tear down “trade barriers”. Climate change was a niche issue until the 80s and 90s but in the northeast at least pro-environment has been a constant among Democrats for a century. Considering the New Left emerged in part due to opposition to the Vietnam War, the foreign policy point is very difficult to reason with. The rest of the post I agree with decently but is still probably an oversimplification.

[Big Abraham]

New Left, because I'm not a racist class reductionist.

Didn't the Old Left support the Civil Rights movement?

Yes and the descriptions of the OP are oversimplified and not accurate whatsoever.

All he said was that the Old Left was "more class reductionist," vis-a-vis the New Left which is presumably "more intersectional." Ignoring the fact that "class reductionist" has become something of a slur, one can still acknowledge the class-based reality of the Civil Rights Movements (as many of the Civil Rights leaders themselves did) and support it on that basis, as all credible leftists of the time did.

Not really. Let’s break this down further.

What are the differences between the two? Some of these are subjective, but some high-level observations…

Industries: Old Left more trades, New Left more services
Immigration: Old Left more skeptical of immigration
Environment: New Left more hawkish on climate
Internationalism: Old Left was more isolationist
Identity: Old Left was more class reductionist

In general it seems the power base has shifted from Northeast and Midwest to Acela and I5.

The Old Left also viewed employers as adversaries. The New Left is a lot more corporate-friendly.

Immigration was a less mainstream issue when the “Old Left” was in power to a large extent compared to today but given “they” inacted the 1965 immigration act and the seeds to the Old Left voted against the 1923 immigration act. Industries really depended on the time and region but Harry Truman in his 1948 DNC speech said Democrats would tear down “trade barriers”. Climate change was a niche issue until the 80s and 90s but in the northeast at least pro-environment has been a constant among Democrats for a century. Considering the New Left emerged in part due to opposition to the Vietnam War, the foreign policy point is very difficult to reason with. The rest of the post I agree with decently but is still probably an oversimplification.

But what part of that has to deal with the Civil Rights movement? Even if OP was accurate in his definition of Old Left, the VRA has little to do with environmentalism, feminism, immigration, foreign policy, trade policy, or whatever other pet issue there is. So there's nothing about OP's definition, however faulty it may be, that would indicate the Old Left would not support Civil Rights.

As you mention there is no perfect definition of the "Old Left" or "New Left" position, because like anything else, it varies from time to place. However, the Old and New Left are just that: Left. So any iteration of the Democratic Party would not count because the Democrats were at no point ever trying to overcome capitalism and replace it with socialism. The most left-wing Democratic president, Franklin Roosevelt, went no further than Keynesianism. You could call Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson representatives of "old guard liberalism," but they were not leftists of any kind.

[MATTROSE94]

Probably with the old left on everything except immigration and environmental policies. I am basically an FDR style Democrat at heart and don’t really support a lot of the new left ideas by politicians such as AOC, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, etc.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think this might be a good thread where we can separate the Democratic Party from broader left currents. It would be foolish to divorce them entirely - the democratic party is the de facto party of the "left" and therefore have large crossovers with the left milieu.

There was in fact, a broad shift in the democratic party after the crisis ridden Johnson administration and the disastrous 1968 election. Effectively the postwar model that was the corporatist Democratic Party, based a steadfast alliance with the AFL and big business, public spending on prestige projects, a vague appeal to multiculturalism while trying to juggle very seperate blocs  and idealist anti-communism started to collapse in on itself, its contradictions exposed. The reformers which had been chomping at the bit for decades (see: the career of Estes Kefauver) grabbed the ball, destroying the smoke filled rooms of the old crony system and implementing the modern primary system of McGovern-Fraser. I would struggle to call a lot of this bad. We tend to overglamorise the past, but it wasn't like the reformers were ... wrong to call out the corruption and blindness of the old machine party (I would imagine most of this forum would be far more likely to be McGovernites than Humphreyites or, lmao, the AFl's favourite candidate Scoop Jackson).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Environment: New Left more hawkish on climate

I like how a post can just have a singular sentence that encapsulates the flaws in the underlying argument.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Old Left and these descriptions are terrible.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(I would imagine most of this forum would be far more likely to be McGovernites than Humphreyites or, lmao, the AFl's favourite candidate Scoop Jackson).

If we're running some kind of block vote I count for at least thirty though.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Environment: New Left more hawkish on climate

I'm really curious to know how an ideological movement about 70 years old is innately more hawkish on climate. Interesting take. The greenhouse effect was first seriously discussed in the 70s and 80s.

[7,052,770]

Industries: Old Left more trades, New Left more services

I love both. True Neutral.

Immigration: Old Left more skeptical of immigration

I love immigration. I would love to see a population of 500M by 2030 and 1B by 2050 in order to really go toe-to-toe with China and India. This would be in combination of immigration (the right kind of immigrants, families who really believe in America and want us to be the best), more support for families so that they can realistically have the number of children they want, and voluntarily annexation of whichever nearby countries want to join us, perhaps places like Haiti and Cuba that we share a common heritage with us and make strategic sense, or Pacific islands.

Environment: New Left more hawkish on climate

Obviously New Left on this one. Can't ignore this crisis.

Internationalism: Old Left was more isolationist

New Left. Isolationism isn't living in the real world.

Identity: Old Left was more class reductionist

All of the above? I like uniting peoples, not dividing them.

The Old Left also viewed employers as adversaries. The New Left is a lot more corporate-friendly.

I definitely don't see employers as "adversaries." I would be a neutral on this one.

[fhtagn]

New Left, because I'm not a racist class reductionist.

The new left is arguably more racist, just against a different race.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

I reject the premise of the question on account of Atlas thinking Old Left vs New Left means New Dealers vs the Squad (with no mention of the fact that the socdem left had essentially no representation in electoral politics from 1980-2016, and today is only a handful of congresspeople), when Old Left vs New Left has always meant Marxists vs Students for a Democratic Society and Black Panthers. The Wikipedia article for 'Old Left' literally has a picture of Marx and Engels at the top.

I also have no idea who OP is trying to say constitutes his view of the evil 'New Left'. If it's idpol-heavy socdems like the Squad, then it makes no sense to call them warhawks or corpratists, no matter what you think of them. If it's neoliberals, then it makes no sense to include them under the banner of 'left', old or new.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pretty much every definition of these terms that's been advanced in this thread so far has been tendentious in one way or another but I think we all know what the general shape, contours, and ~vibes~ of this divide are. All I'll say is that there are certain issue areas on which the New Left is "more correct", sure, but the Old Left actually managed to participate in governing the country for a third of a century straight whereas the New Left has presided over setback after setback for leftist values on almost everything but LGBT rights and weed legalization, both of which are areas in which significant components of the Republican coalition are sympathetic to the leftist position anyway. It's hard to argue with results, here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pretty much every definition of these terms that's been advanced in this thread so far has been tendentious in one way or another but I think we all know what the general shape, contours, and ~vibes~ of this divide are. All I'll say is that there are certain issue areas on which the New Left is "more correct", sure, but the Old Left actually managed to participate in governing the country for a third of a century straight whereas the New Left has presided over setback after setback for leftist values on almost everything but LGBT rights and weed legalization, both of which are areas in which significant components of the Republican coalition are sympathetic to the leftist position anyway. It's hard to argue with results, here.

Indeed, I'd argue that the biggest distinction between the Old Left and the New Left has nothing to do with issue positions or even issue focus, as both labels encompass a wide variety of ideologies that are all over the spectrum in these respects. Rather, what strikes me as the biggest difference is that the Old Left was primarily concerned with taking control of the state apparatus and wielding its coercive and constructive powers to materially change society for the better, whereas the New Left has tended to be critical of state power (if any person is the New Left's ideological forefather, it's got to be Foucault) and as such has focused on bottom-up activism with the goal of effecting cultural change in society.

And as you point out, a comparison of the two's respective achievements makes it quite clear which strategy was sounder in hindsight.

[DaleCooper]

Old Left for sure, although I disagree with some of the descriptions here. Mainly, I strongly contest that the Old Left was isolationist.

[H. Ross Peron]

We tend to overglamorise the past, but it wasn't like the reformers were ... wrong to call out the corruption and blindness of the old machine party (I would imagine most of this forum would be far more likely to be McGovernites than Humphreyites or, lmao, the AFl's favourite candidate Scoop Jackson).

I think this would have been true say a decade ago on the forum, but Humphrey (and more broadly the midcentury New Deal labour liberal tradition) has gotten something of a rehabilitation on here in the past few years as members recognized Humphrey's strengths and perhaps equally importantly McGovern's flaws who was after all no proto-Bernie Sanders (late in his life McGovern opposed the Employee Free Choice Act for instance-https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/friendly-fire-labor-targets-mcgovern-022422). Even Scoop Jackson, who was far more of a sincere hawk than Humphrey ever was, looks much better in contrast to the ineptitude of the Carter Administration. After Vietnam was over, would it not have been better to have had an experienced Washington hand with the full confidence of labour in 1976 rather than Jimmy Carter?

[If my soul was made of stone]

I'm somewhat more sympathetic to some New Left ideas than many of my close friends and allies here, primarily from my queer radical impulses, but in the sphere of electoral politics in this country the transition into warmed-over postmaterialism has obviously been disastrous and degraded the nominal left to a crass alliance along cultural grievances. Even within the queer sphere, however, there is a divide along which I skew more "Old Left" insofar as that's a concern there; as savvy as it was for optics, the consolidation of queer activism around same-sex marriage really hoist us by our own petard when it became a done deal and tepid liberals went all end-of-history about it rather than caring to continue the fight against discrimination or for better material well-being for the lot of us.

[jojoju1998]

We tend to overglamorise the past, but it wasn't like the reformers were ... wrong to call out the corruption and blindness of the old machine party (I would imagine most of this forum would be far more likely to be McGovernites than Humphreyites or, lmao, the AFl's favourite candidate Scoop Jackson).

I think this would have been true say a decade ago on the forum, but Humphrey (and more broadly the midcentury New Deal labour liberal tradition) has gotten something of a rehabilitation on here in the past few years as members recognized Humphrey's strengths and perhaps equally importantly McGovern's flaws who was after all no proto-Bernie Sanders (late in his life McGovern opposed the Employee Free Choice Act for instance-https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/friendly-fire-labor-targets-mcgovern-022422). Even Scoop Jackson, who was far more of a sincere hawk than Humphrey ever was, looks much better in contrast to the ineptitude of the Carter Administration. After Vietnam was over, would it not have been better to have had an experienced Washington hand with the full confidence of labour in 1976 rather than Jimmy Carter?

Just a reminder to everyone, that much of the Labor unions were hesitant to endorse George McGovern.

[jojoju1998]

To repeat myself, I am a Labor Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Humphrey, Bernie Sanders, and Sherrod Brown. I believe in worker rights. Unions. Paid Leave. Bread and Butter.

BUT, I also believe in multiculturalism as well. You can't have an effective working class coalition at least in America, without advocating for Social Justice as well, Social Justice is ECONOMIC JUSTICE, and vice versa.
African Americans are more likely to be hurt by predatory cheap crap loans for example. That is a economic issue that connects to Social Justice.

The problem with the American Left, in my view is not that it's not the " old left " anymore. It's the fact  the left in America are split into two different worlds.

1. The Bread and Butter Left. Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders. People who focus on the needs of the working class from paid leave to cheaper prescription costs. And they talk about fair trade. Manufacturing. Unions. The whole deal.

Sherrod Brown by the way is my favorite progressive politician even more so than Bernie Sanders because he ties the bread and butter with social justice, you got to have both. You can't have one without the other.
2. The Urban Left. People like AOC, Illhan Omar. They seem to focus less on trade, manufacturing, the " HELL YEAH " stuff, that people in the Midwest love. And focus more on the needs of their urban consistuency. AOC supports Medicare for All like Bernie does, but her pivot is not towards the Midwest, but towards the urban minority groups who have also been hurt by globalization and uncontrolled capitalism.

Two different worlds. They're both " Leftists " on the American scale at least. How do democrats bring these two sides together ?

[Benjamin Frank]

I reject the premise of the question on account of Atlas thinking Old Left vs New Left means New Dealers vs the Squad (with no mention of the fact that the socdem left had essentially no representation in electoral politics from 1980-2016, and today is only a handful of congresspeople), when Old Left vs New Left has always meant Marxists vs Students for a Democratic Society and Black Panthers. The Wikipedia article for 'Old Left' literally has a picture of Marx and Engels at the top.

I also have no idea who OP is trying to say constitutes his view of the evil 'New Left'. If it's idpol-heavy socdems like the Squad, then it makes no sense to call them warhawks or corpratists, no matter what you think of them. If it's neoliberals, then it makes no sense to include them under the banner of 'left', old or new.

I assumed, and maybe because I assumed it was directed at people like me, that the 'new left' are the woke neoliberals.

[Benjamin Frank]

To repeat myself, I am a Labor Democrat in the tradition of FDR, Humphrey, Bernie Sanders, and Sherrod Brown. I believe in worker rights. Unions. Paid Leave. Bread and Butter.

BUT, I also believe in multiculturalism as well. You can't have an effective working class coalition at least in America, without advocating for Social Justice as well, Social Justice is ECONOMIC JUSTICE, and vice versa.
African Americans are more likely to be hurt by predatory cheap crap loans for example. That is a economic issue that connects to Social Justice.

The problem with the American Left, in my view is not that it's not the " old left " anymore. It's the fact  the left in America are split into two different worlds.

1. The Bread and Butter Left. Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders. People who focus on the needs of the working class from paid leave to cheaper prescription costs. And they talk about fair trade. Manufacturing. Unions. The whole deal.

Sherrod Brown by the way is my favorite progressive politician even more so than Bernie Sanders because he ties the bread and butter with social justice, you got to have both. You can't have one without the other.
2. The Urban Left. People like AOC, Illhan Omar. They seem to focus less on trade, manufacturing, the " HELL YEAH " stuff, that people in the Midwest love. And focus more on the needs of their urban consistuency. AOC supports Medicare for All like Bernie does, but her pivot is not towards the Midwest, but towards the urban minority groups who have also been hurt by globalization and uncontrolled capitalism.

Two different worlds. They're both " Leftists " on the American scale at least. How do democrats bring these two sides together ?

1.I'm certainly not going to defend uncontrolled capitalism, but in regards to globalization, we've seen from the global supply chain breakdowns resulting in rising inflation that urban minority groups and, indeed everybody else, is also helped by globalization.

2.AOC did once say something like that in most countries she and the presently dominant establishment liberal Democrats like Nancy Pelosi would be in different parties.  Looking at Europe I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, but certainly in Canada, AOC would be a member of the New Democratic Party while Nancy Pelosi would be members of the Liberal Party.

This makes sense to me as, whether they realize it or not,  their economic views are derived from different schools.  Nancy Pelosi et al adheres to Neo Classicism while AOC et al adheres to Post Keynesianism, if not MMT.

[Battista Minola 1616]

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.