November 20, 2004
NO ONE TO FIGHT, NO ONE LEFT:
The only show in town: The left, as history knew it, is dead - and it will not be reborn (Martin Jacques, The Guardian, 11/20/2004)
The spectacle of a Labour prime minister becoming the water-carrier, mouthpiece, bed-fellow and intimate of the most rightwing president of the United States in the last half-century is hard to believe ...[T]here is no serious, ideologically based opposition to Blair within the party. The left ... has disintegrated....
The reason for the collapse of the left could not be clearer - or more fundamental. Its parameters, its confidence, its mode of organisation, its narrative, its very being, depended on the existence of the labour movement. And it is the latter that has effectively disappeared.
This is a very insightful piece, but Mr. Jacques is a little too narrow in his explanation. We are evolving from a relatively combative world to a more cooperative one, as technologies like the Internet reduce the cost of cooperation.
The decline of the labor movement is just one example of that change. In a time when communication was difficult, workers relied on delegation of their authority to union leaders, creating a combative environment with only two sides. In modern times, it is possible to understand and address individual needs. Labor declined because it no longer makes economic sense for workers to delegate authority to unions.
The Left has always been the party of conflict. They are proud to be "fighters," and they are always fighting against someone. The left is declining everywhere because people don't want to fight their neighbors anymore. The calls for warfare against big corporations, against the wealthy, against "racists" from the other race, don't resonate like they used to. When your supposed enemies are cooperating with you, why fight?
This is also why moral values are significant in elections now. It is not about gay marriage. It is a general attitude of kindness, mercy, generosity, willingness to forgive, and eagerness to cooperate that are the moral values voters want to reward. And these qualities are found in greater abundance on the right than the left. Figures like Tony Blair who have them are winners for the left. Bill Clinton, though he had many flaws, yet was willing to cooperate with conservatives on many issues -- and he was rewarded for it by the voters.
Anti-Americanism is the strongest theme of the global left. America possesses the most cooperative society on earth and is the leading edge of the 21st century "new economy" or, to coin a more descriptive phrase, "cooperative economy"; and they hate us as everyone hates a messenger of doom. But these next few decades will be leftism's last gasp. Will they go out with a whimper or a bang?
UPDATE: Orrin also comments.
The left has piously told us, for longer than I can remember, that better communication would have all these good effects. If we could all just talk to each other, it would be the end of misunderstanding, distrust, conflict!
But now that it's happening, they're oblivious. Well, the old saying is "The Devil can quote scripture." Not "The Devil can understand scripture."
The labor movement has detroyed itself through anti-competetiveness. The laws of economics were unaffected by the adoption of Marxism throughout the west. When the 1960's economics professor was asked, "What's so special about labor?" His reply was , "There's more laborers than capitalists." The Marxist version of the labor theory of value makes sense only to those who have never labored or invested capital. Much more of Marx's program which remains within the tax system needs to be reformed. A good starting place would be anything which remotely resembles a plank in his "10 point program".
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 20, 2004 10:53 AMTom - Competitiveness doesn't require the destruction of unions, it only constrains their greed. Unions can extract a share of the profits as long as they don't eliminate everyone else's profits, thereby removing their incentive to keep the business going.
What's destroying the unions is that they mis-represent and damage workers' interests nearly as much they help workers; and they waste a lot of members' income, mainly on political activities.
Posted by: pj at November 20, 2004 10:58 AMBlair and Bush work together because they both believe in the same goals, not because Blair is cowed or bought by Bush.
Even domestically, the US and UK are working on parallel but independent programmes designed to improve education, reduce medical costs, increase home ownership, and save gov't run pension programmes.
This is just a very synchronistic phase in both countries' histories.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 20, 2004 10:58 AMpj-
I didn't say that unions don't have a role, however, traditional manufacturing unions are in sharp decline since many can't and won't compete. They have dug their own graves. Intimidation and corruption was there last hope in a global economy, even that no longer works. I believ that public employee unions are the only ones growing today. How long, honestly, do you think that's going to last?
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at November 20, 2004 11:14 AMTom - Ah, I see. I agree, unions are rapidly losing their reason for being.
Posted by: pj at November 20, 2004 11:37 AM"... the most rightwing president of the United States in the last half-century ..."
This is one of the problems with today's left. It doesn't even know anymore what conservatism is. Bush, "the most right-wing?" Good Lord. How I wish. The idea that Bush is more "conservative" than Reagan -- or even Ford or Nixon -- is ridiculous.
But one thing hasn't changed: The left still has a way with hyperbole, and believing the worst. Drama queens, the whole lot of 'em.
Fascinating. As the economic rationale for what was called the "left" fades out of existence, what is it that remains? Is it not merely resentment and resistance? You can't win elections with that.
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 20, 2004 5:43 PMThe reason for the death of the extreme Left is reality. The Soviet Union collapsed, any nation that engaged in the kind of state-controlled central planning, the Left worships, has failed. Once the Berlin Wall collapsed, the Left was reduced to mere nihilism.
Just try asking these clowns what they are for. Is there any coherence in their program or is it merely a grab bag of special-interest grievances, a series of issues where 10-20% of the people support their position on that single issue? The hope of left-wing parties all across the globe is to cobble enough of these single issue weirdos together to somehow get to 50% +1.
The closest thing to a unifying issue is anti-Americanism. Thus, one is forced to ask how they can ever get support here. Where does anti-Americanism win votes except the Upper West Side of Manhattan, San Francisco, Hollywood and a couple of college faculty lounges?
And how far does anti-Americanism really go? Chavez may rant and rave, but he needs to sell his oil to us, doesn't he? Anti-Americanism has experienced a resurgence all across Latin America, because those nations failed to change their grotesquely corrupt political cultures, while 'liberalizing' thus creating a 'crony capitalism' without a big enough bankroll to satisfy everyone as is the case in Thailand or South Korea. Once they get a few years of their preening Socialists like Alan Garcia or Lula da Silva or the Uruguayan Tupamaros, they'll relearn the truth that socialism is an abject failure.
Posted by: Bart at November 20, 2004 6:48 PM