doug, you asked awhile ago about the 1960s and what may have ended it. the 1960s were a very idealistic decade for the "new left." it was more about possibility, transformation and etc, than any period i know. what changed it were several very real disappointments: 1. the murder of grass roots leaders king and malcom x; and the kennedys, with nothing being done to find the killers. 2. the brutality of the local cops. 3. the frustration of learning that all the peace and love one could muster did very little. 4. the ravages of drugs. 5. backlash the way thomas frank is now defining it. the list is endless.
i'd say the most crucial factor was learning that the power structure of the USA was dead set against anything changing. and would do anything to stop change. this disillusioned people and tended to wear them down. which meant either they gave up or expressed themselves with great negativity. a few held to their previous course of standing on principle, optimism, and trying to reach people. one can see how popular that is in today's USA by look at what linda rhonstadt dealt with in vegas.
part of the answer to your question lies in what you mean by the left. in today's US, the left is anything left of john kerry. if you mean by the left those who hold to the "old left" agenda of anti-capitalism in a world where capitalism is for the poor and corporate socialism is for the rich, i don't see any relevance -- which would make people who insist on holding this outmoded point of view gloomy indeed.
it's been said before that the traditional notions of left and right don't apply. as the US oozes into a banana republic, propelled by the working class compulsively shooting itself in the foot, the issue becomes one of education, and problems of how to break through "social value" prejudices nurtured by the power elite to its advantage.
as milton of the central banks reported yesterday, in his inimical ayn randian, round talking way, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. while, as thomas frank notes, the poor are all for it. so much for the womb of the old; the womb of the old is now the early 19th century.
much of the defeatism of the "left" comes from not being able to find a handle on the problems. the "left" is still looking backward at institutions like the dems, at its dead history, at irrelevant socioeconomic philosophies. if the "left" wants to find possibility and transformation, it must look to the needs of the "common folk." it must develop grass roots leaders that resonate, somewhat the way howard dean did, only with staying power like what malcolm X and MLK had -- until the US govt had them murdered -- and RFK was working at developing. finding a way to unite people in service of these needs in a country which every day finds more ways to outlaw compassion is a challenge. gloomsters and doomsters need not apply because they've given up before they start.
alan of the central banks did give us a little clue today when he allegedly almost said the US is in debt beyond its ability to pay and that congress can't manage money. perhaps when people realize they've mortaged their great grandchildren they'll begin to realize only they can do something about it.
R
----- Original Message ----- From: robert mast To: LBO Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Anti-Chomsky Reader
Doug asked this tough, but important, question:
"What is it about the left that it draws so many people of gloomy temperament who only want to see the worst in the world? We used to be about possibility, transformation, finding the seeds of the new in the womb of the old. Now we're about why everything sucks and is getting worse."
Your question implies the need for a psychological answer, but there's an important social-educational dimension that can't be ignored.
First, I suppose part of the answer inheres in the frustration, anger, and probable depression that 'left' individuals experience from their studies of objective conditions in economy, politics, and society. Things ARE bad and getting worse. Compared to what? Compared to visions of a more perfect society and successes of past revolutionary or progressive movements which appear to less and less be available to us. Perhaps then, to avoid (possibly to express) intense depression and/or destructive personal habits, we take our tensions out on comrades, or we angrily regurgitate theoretical platitudes calculated to raise the ire of some human target (or political 'tendency'). Let's put the idea of 'agents' on the back burner for now. Assuming the 'left' is a composite of persons believing in some kind of socialism, and forming a kind of extended family of believers, there's a parallel with the nuclear family where the level of violence is the highest to be found.