[lbo-talk] comments on Australia

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at rogers.com
Mon Oct 11 08:53:53 PDT 2004


Doug writes:


> Yoshie was wondering the other day why the lefts in the U.S.,
> Britain, and Australia had so little influence compared to those of
> continental Europe.
---------------------------------- The left has historically been weaker in the English-speaking countries - the socialist tradition has been virtually absent in the US - and we've inherited that legacy. This may well have to do with these countries never having experienced a major war on their soil and the attendant social chaos which accompanies it. Europe experienced a succession of these disastrous conflicts, and, as the celebrated phrase puts it, war is the midwife of revolution - or, at least, of revolutionary ideologies like Marxism and a generally more developed social and political consciousness. Also, all three English-speaking countries had expanding frontiers - internal in the case of the US and Australia and external in the case of the British Empire - which both served a source of profit and as a safety valve to release accumulating working class pressures in the urban centres.

This is undoubtedly not all there is to it, but these factors strike me as good starting points for understanding the historical weakness of the English-speaking left relative to the European. Of course, Europe is now much more integrated, peaceful, and prosperous, which is also reflected in the taming of its left, which has come more and more to resemble our own. But I think there is still a residual popular consciousness in Europe which is less individualistic, which is why the attack on the welfare state has come later and is proving more difficult to execute by the state and corporate sector.

MG



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list