Posted by: Ann Corcoran | April 15, 2012

So what are they (the hard Left), progressives, socialists, Marxists?

I don’t know about you, but every time I write about them, I’m never quite sure what to call them because they don’t fit the historical definitions of Communists, Marxists, socialists and so forth.

Cathy and Judy sent me this long, but really interesting article by Barry Rubin entitled, Needed: A Marxist-Style Analysis to Understand and Combat the Extreme Left’s Hegemony which to some degree helps answer my question.

Rubin refers to them as the New New Left and explains why he thinks they don’t fit into the normal definitions.

Before I get to Rubin, here are a few of the facts that have puzzled me and has made it hard for me to define the hard Left:

* Surely George Soros isn’t pushing all this B.S. so that he can live as Ayn Rand described in ‘We the Living’ where he, as one of the mega rich, would give up to the government all of his homes and 4 or more families of the proletariat would divide his mansions for their living space.

* Saul Alinsky described in both his books the joy of creating chaos.  And, when I say joy I mean it in near religious terms as Alinsky, the atheist, describes it.  Alinsky actually said he wished he had the fervor of an ideological Communist but he didn’t.  It was the game, the war, the upsetting the rich and privileged that he enjoyed so much.

* What happened to the poor of Appalachia I heard so much about in the late 1950’s and 60’s whose plight motivated the Left at the time?  Remember later, during Bill Clinton’s Presidency, they were transformed into “trailor trash.”  Why do Lefties like some poor people and not others? Rubin actually helps answer that—lives of middle and poor Americans improved under Capitalism and they became those folks clinging to their Bibles and their guns. Their kids went on to yet better lives, some by joining the military.  They are patriots for the most part and aren’t demanding goodies from the government.  It’s just as Rubin said recently, here, those people aren’t cool (those Walmart shoppers).

* Then how about this question of mine:  In a Communist system big businesses would necessarily lose their companies to the government.  But, that isn’t happening (to any great degree), but instead many big business leaders are working hand in glove with federal and state governments.   Aren’t they afraid of being taken over as the New New Left gains power?   Jonah Goldberg (Liberal Fascism), describes what they are doing as corporatism—using government regulations and such to out-compete any competitors.

* And, finally, if the rich of the New New Left are so interested in wealth redistribution, why aren’t they redistributing their own wealth?  Why did Barack and Michelle buy a mansion in Chicago?  Why indeed is Barack Obama making nearly $800,000 a year and not just giving his federal salary back to the government so it might be redistributed to the poor?  Surely he has a roof over his head at the moment and food on the table for his family.  He is also using the tax code to its fullest to make sure he pays less taxes (only 20%!).  So why aren’t his 99 percenters complaining about that!

Sorry readers, this is already getting way too long, and I haven’t even gotten to Rubin who begins his analysis with this:

Ironically, those opposing the current hegemonic ideas and political forces in the United States and Europe must develop a Marxist-style analysis of what has happened. To call the current dominant ideas and political currents socialist, Marxist, Communist, leftist, progressive, or liberal is not meaningful and conceals more than it reveals. The movement must be understood on its own terms in order to understand it and see how it differs from its predecessors.

The problem of revolutionary movements has been to find a group to be the motive force in fundamentally transforming society. Next, they must analyze which groups can be made into allies and which must be defeated.

Honestly, after reading Rubin and thinking about Obama and all he and his cadre are doing, I believe they are being “revolutionaries” simply for the joy of bringing chaos (ala Alinsky).  I don’t think they have any real ideological goals beyond bringing themselves (the cool people) power.

Here (below, emphasis mine) is one section of the Rubin piece that interested me as he describes the new “proletariat” as educated “intellectuals.” And, because they had to have some theme around which to organize their new collection of the downtrodden (immigrants, gays, Muslims and blacks), the “redistribution of wealth” is a handy “ideological” reason for what is really just a naked power grab (in my opinion it’s merely about power of the elite New New Left ruling class over the country class conservative rubes).   In psychological terms these New New Lefties are covert aggressive manipulators who have joined forces.  These are people who just want to win.

Rubin continues:

The strategy was greatly assisted by another factor — a new definition of the revolutionary forces. The proletariat was replaced by elements of the new technological-intellectual-managerial elites. Since these people had high levels of education, power, and money, they were far more empowered than the proletariat had been.

Much of this sector was linked to the state. Increasing government spending could be portrayed as something that would benefit “everyone” with “free stuff.” In fact, such a policy was in the class interests of those advocating it, including the recipients of government grants, for welfare or other purposes, and employees of the state. Crony capitalism benefited those big companies that went along with the program (General Motors, General Electric, “green energy” scams). See cartoon, above.

Much of the alliance would be built on cultural-intellectual lines. As Bill Ayers and his colleagues posited in the early 1970s, the key was to use race and gender; Third World peoples (including illegal immigrants and Muslims); gay movements, and other “out-groups,” including a lumpenproletariat dependent on government payments. Even the planet Earth itself was co-opted into this coalition through global warming.

This provided the movement with the cultural-intellectual equivalent of nuclear weapons: any critic could be accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. Those in the intelligentsia and professional classes who would laugh at being called “enemies of the working class” cringe and surrender at the hint of being called one of these new “-isms.”

Despite the fact that capitalism has met past “group” grievances, new complaints are continually manufactured to ensure that opportunity, past reforms, and capitalist productivity will never get credit for solving problems. Just as the Stalinist USSR had to create counterrevolutionary agents, the New New Left must create accusations of racism, etc. to argue that American or Western or capitalist society can never offer justice.

Equally important, the left could not compete on complaining about low living standards since Western — and especially American — capitalism had achieved tremendous gains that enriched the average working people. It therefore switched to the argument of inequality: the injustice was not poverty as such but difference. Marx argued that the workers would never be able to purchase goods, say — in today’s context — automobiles, television sets, or homes.

Obama complains that not everyone has the same quality goods. The tactic, then, is not nationalization of the means of production — which remain in private hands — but redistribution of wealth. This may be more economically damaging than a socialist economy, since successful capitalism is simultaneously left in place and sabotaged.

Rubin says that sooner or later they will fail, but the big problem for us is whether it’s later (when it’s too late to avert economic disaster):

One weakness of the radical movement, however, is clear. The old revolutionaries created a new regime that ensured their hold on power. Failures, such as economic decline, need not worry them because they could repress any dissent and did not need to win fair elections. The New New Left, however, is trying to run an existing capitalist society in which its misfit policies inevitably produce failure and even disaster. What they are doing is somewhat akin to trying to get your computer to boot up by hitting it with a club. There are also big holes in its control over information, allowing reality to shine through.

Thus, the failure of their program will be increasingly obvious and sooner or later they will be voted out of power. There is a big difference, however, between “sooner,” when the damage might be reversed, and “later,” when things have gone too far, too many people bought off or indoctrinated, and too much debt accumulated.

I won’t go on.  You get my drift. The New New Left is nothing more than a bunch of pseudo-intellectual punks (kind of like the cool kids in high school), using immigrants, minorities and such to give a patina of some larger ideological mission, but who are only interested in their own power.  Do not be frightened by them!  Don’t let them shut you up!

I am not however dismissing the reality that there are political forces around the world with sinister goals for America, and these punks of the New New Left are helping them reach their goal.  If they win, they will throw the “cool” kids in the media and Hollywood,  Obama, Ayers, and the whole bunch away like so many pieces of garbage.



  1. I agree that corporatism is a major factor in the current economic system. Still, the “New New Left” does not include President Obama. Obama is more centrist like Clinton  was in the 1990s. He may be saying things that sound populist, yet he is fubded by corporations. This is because he wants to win votes. 

    Obama has professed his support for Occupy Wall Street (OWS) yet they don’t support him. You argue that the 99% have not opposed Obama’s 1% status. That is not true. OWS has been opposed to Obama since early on (they attack both parties):  

    The same goes for others like Hugo Chavez, Ayatollah Khamenei (the Supreme Leader of Iran), Nancy Pelosi, Miley Cyrus, Alec Baldwin, Jeffrey Immelt (GE CEO), Kanye West, Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) and Joe Biden. Just because they say “endorse” the movement does not mean the movement supports them. In fact, I believe that overall these figures are not supported by the movement as OWS stands with the people of Iran, dislikes Democrats, attacks corporatism (why they wouldn’t support GE). As for the North Korea govt.’s endorsement, OWS stands with the poor and oppressed, so they are against the N.Korean govt. However, the endorsement of the US Border Guard of OWS is welcomed (what’s wrong with that?). Anonymous’s endorsement is expected as they led to the creation of OWS (Operation Empire State Rebellion= wanted Bernanke to resign & occupations of public squares). ANSWER is an anti-imperialist protest organization which organized many of the anti-Iraq war protests in the 2000s so its endorsement is expected. However, the group is connected with the Workers World Party which endorses Kim Jong-il, endorsed Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic while also backing the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989. The endorsements of dictatorial rulers by the ANSWER-affiliated Workers World Party would not be endorsed by OWS. Also the Party for Socialism and Liberation has endorsed OWS which isn’t really supported by the movement either as it is Marxist-Leninist. OWS states in their statement of autonomy that they have “never…been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization.” This applies to the 
    American Nazi Party, Communist Party USA, Black Panthers (original), Socialist Party USA, Revolutionary Communist Party, IWW,  Revolutionary Guards of Iran, CAIR, Communist Party of China, 9/,  Hezbollah, White Revolution, PressTV, Int’l Socialist Org., Marxist Student Union and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. While OWS welcomes “all who…petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence,” the groups I just mentioned are not affiliated with OWS. This because as I mentioned earlier OWS has “never…been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization.” 

    Getting to the main point of the article, I would like to note that the “New New Left” you talk about has very little influence. An “American left” is coming back but very slowly. The side this blog goes with, the talk show hosts, FOX News, even sometimes the conspiracy theorists have more influence. They foster the continuation of the corporate state (maybe even conspiracy theorists to some extent). Still, numerous people “on the other side” also support the corporate state. I am saying that the people’s interests should be cared for, not choosing the “right” or “left” but creating solutions that help people, not the wealthy elite. 

    I look forward to your response. 

  2. Yes, it’s weird. Even Soros seems more intent on collapsing the economies of entire countries rather than simply getting rich. For Soros, and the New New Left, it seems to be about destruction for its own sake. The same goes for Goldman Sachs and their ilk.

  3. This is an incredibly interesting post. First of all, considering the “new new left” as presented, I have three words for you: irritate, agitate, and dominate. That seems to me to be their goal. Examples: We, as a people, should get rid of our gas guzzling SUV’s and drive Chevy Volts and Toyoto Prius’s to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that are contaminating the air that we breathe and is destroying the environment. Of course, it’s OK for the President, the First Lady, and their children to flit about the world on jet planes that spew far more CO 2 and other contminates into the enviroment than your SUV does. It is a clear case of: Do as I say, not as I do.

    And let us take a look at Al Gore who won a Nobel prize (that is a million bucks) for his dissertation on global warming, of course he lives in a mansion that uses more electricity in a month than most average Americans use in a year (do as I say, not as I do.) And, let’s not forget that Al Gore travels by personal jet that I am , pretty sure, does not get as good of gas mileage as your SUV.

    The problem that the left has is simple, in my opinion, they are always asking us to do what they won’t.

    • Greg, it really is amazing too that their followers don’t ever seem to notice the hypocrisy, and blindly keep following….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: