• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
But why would the message of the left be any less popular with low income workers in the service sector? The working class isn’t dead, they just moved from steel mills to McDonalds.

Parties on the radical left need organization. Organizing workers that are concentrated in a few big factories is a lot easier than organizing individual service workers who may work three or more jobs at various workplaces in the service industry. Nowadays, the gig economy allows you to work <strike>for a platform</strike> "self-employed" on a platform without ever meeting one of your co-workers.
 
But why would the message of the left be any less popular with low income workers in the service sector? The working class isn’t dead, they just moved from steel mills to McDonalds.

It is also a generation thingy... the Western left (excluding the hard core communists) become mainstream. If you want to "revolt" against the system, then you don't go with the mainstream. Which means the alt-right is the new left. The alt-right also had an extra point that "foreigners" (be them immigrants in their own land or labor competions from other countries) are really competing with lower class people for jobs and driving/keeping the salaries lower.
 
But why would the message of the left be any less popular with low income workers in the service sector? The working class isn’t dead, they just moved from steel mills to McDonalds.

It's not that the ideals of the left are neccessarily less popular, so much as the ability of traditional leftist organizing tactics have been lessed (feeding into the idea that it's pointless) as mentioned, collective organizing is a lot easier when you actually work (and in some cases live) collectively.
 
It is also a generation thingy... the Western left (excluding the hard core communists) become mainstream. If you want to "revolt" against the system, then you don't go with the mainstream. Which means the alt-right is the new left. The alt-right also had an extra point that "foreigners" (be them immigrants in their own land or labor competions from other countries) are really competing with lower class people for jobs and driving/keeping the salaries lower.
The left didn't become mainstream, a form of liberalism that incorporated many left-wing causes at a very superficial level achieved power and influence and managed to more or less crush the left. This liberal ideology promised the end of racism, poverty, pollution and dictatorship without requiring the abolition of capitalism or any change in our hedonistic consumerist lifestyles, and of course it proved to be a popular alternative to previous conservative regimes. It even succeeded in convincing many people that what the left regard as the tools or inevitable byproducts of capitalism (things like discrimination, inequality and corruption) were in fact little more than primitive stumbling blocks in the path of the free market's evolution that had yet to be swept away by progress.

This ideology inevitably failed. True colour-based racism is dying out but is instead being replaced by more insidious "values fascism" and even arbitrary discrimination for its own sake devoid of any psychological motivations on a personal level. Inequality is higher than ever, and we now have this insane idea that poverty is absolute rather than relative and it's fine that some people have stupendous wealth as long as the rest have mobile phones and flushing toilets. The environment is of course going down the pan. And the waves of democratisation that followed the fall of the Soviet Union have gone into a complete reversal. The Obamas, Macrons and Trudeaus of the world have done nothing except lead it down the path towards annihilation, and yet we are forced to support their likes because only they are strong enough to hold back the monsters of their own creation.
 
without requiring the abolition of capitalism or any change in our hedonistic consumerist lifestyles
and we now have this insane idea that poverty is absolute rather than relative and it's fine that some people have stupendous wealth as long as the rest have mobile phones and flushing toilets.

Of course if the deep green austerity left gets its way we won't even get to keep the flushing toilets. Will Derek Wall offer to clean my bedpan?
 
Here comes an uninformed opinion which I'll throw out and see what people think of it. Most likely I'll get lots of disagreement but I think that's fine as well.

In my eyes the fall of the USSR was catastrophic for the left in the West. And the way I see it there have been, or could have been, four main results from this in regards to the Left. And admittantly I am here taking lots of things from my own personal experience. So I could be up the walls wrong, but here goes.

1. No boogeyman for the Right. To start with there's no monster scaring the right-wing any more on an ideological level. So there's little need for moderation or cooperation and not go all-in regarding a right turn in the economy and society. Its back to the 19th century where real threats to the socio-political order are far and few between. And I think that the current shifts in my country comes at least partly from this. When there's no monster that you must keep people from getting attracted to, you can essentially screw them over without fear this monster will get a foothold in the system due to, well, people getting screwed over and looking to see if the grass is greener on the other side.

2. Easy to tie leftist politics to a failed system. Given that its undeniable that the Soviet system ended up failing its by far easier to link this to left-wing politics that tie them to failure and collapse. Just like one can tie right-wing politics to the US and get them associated with success and good stuff, regardless of how faithful this association really is. If the Soviet Union had still been running then it would have been easy to point to the USSR and claim that leftist politics keeps it strong and working.

3. Far easier to demonize left-wing politics and alienate people from them. By having been associated with the USSR leftist parties can be denounced through "guilt by association" with the USSR and their misdeeds where Lenin and Stalin would be perhaps the most popular of the targets for right-wing propaganda. Thus making people think that a vote for a left-wing party that isn't clear and fast to embrace a centrist position will lead to a vote on getting a Stalin into power. There was a mentioning above in the thread that the workers had moved from steel mills to McDonald's. And that is true but what is also true is that socialist politics, like labour organization and unions, can in people's minds be associated with KGB, DDR and other less than nice aspects of the Communist system and act as a stop sign to keep workers from going for them. Much to the gain of employers and loss of the workers.

4. No real alternative to capitalism in the world. And finally no matter where you look there really isn't an alternative to capitalism. So if you think this system sucks, well, you'll only find capitalism no matter where you look, with some minor and by now well demonized exceptions, and so getting the sense that there's no other way or that nothing can be done about it. Contrary to this USSR would offer a clear cut example that things can be done differently regardless if you agree with them or not.
 
The left didn't become mainstream, a form of liberalism that incorporated many left-wing causes at a very superficial level
Oh come off it. Compare Britain today to Gladstone's Britain, its a massive, massive shift to the left. Anything but superficial. There's huge transfers of wealth from those that have capital and higher incomes to those without capital and lower incomes. Health, education welfare and a hundred and one other things the modern western state delivers huge value to its less privileged citizens.
 
I'd like to know how Gladstone, who's death predates the USSR, is relevant.

The point was that the rise of the social democrats (and the conservatives who had to ape them to not get left behind) was a real, significant transformation of society.
 
I'd like to know how Gladstone, who's death predates the USSR, is relevant.
indeed, although we must remember that prior to the October revolution, Communists often called themselves Social Democrats, including Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Luxembourg and Liberknecht. Liberals in principle were for legal and political equality, although only radical Liberals wanted to abolish monarchy and aristocracy and give Blacks real legal and political equality. Social Democrats sought socio-economic equality. It was generally presumed that political equality would inevitably, if not immediately lead to social democrats taking power and instituting social equality, although there were already signs in the French revolution that the lower class would require a radical middle class dictatorship to institute socialism on their behalf.
 
Oh come off it. Compare Britain today to Gladstone's Britain, its a massive, massive shift to the left. Anything but superficial. There's huge transfers of wealth from those that have capital and higher incomes to those without capital and lower incomes. Health, education welfare and a hundred and one other things the modern western state delivers huge value to its less privileged citizens.
Oh come off it. Compare Britain today to Vortigern's Britain, it's a massive, massive shift to the right. Anything but superficial. There's huge transfers of wealth from the common free tribesmen into the hands of the burghers and merchants, you can't even vote for your king any more and there's a massive standing army and police force stamping around stopping honest men and women from joining in with whatever blood feuds they please.
 
Last edited:
Oh come of it. Compare Britain today to Vortigern's Britain, it's a massive, massive shift to the right. Anything but superficial. There's huge transfers of wealth from the common free tribesmen into the hands of the burghers and merchants, you can't even vote for your king any more and there's a massive standing army and police force stamping stopping honest men and women from joining in with whatever blood feuds they please.

:D
 
While we are talking about socdems, would you say it is wrong to describe social democracy as "a highly revisionist form of marxism"?
 
While we are talking about socdems, would you say it is wrong to describe social democracy as "a highly revisionist form of marxism"?
You could describe it as that I think, but it wouldn't be very useful as a description. "Highly revisionist to the point that it isn't actually consciously Marxist at all" is to all intents and purposes non-Marxist.
 
Lenin, Martov and Trotsky were all members of the Iskra faction of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party. Lenin and Martov had a row in a London pub in 1902. The Bund and the economist factions had walked out earlier, allowing Lenin to win a majority vote for his nominations for the central committee at the Second Congress. Plekanov sided with Lenin, but then switched to Martov's side meaning that Lenin lost control of the Iskra editorial board. He then set up Pravda. After the October revolution the Bolsheviks chose to use the name Communists and encouraged their allies in the Second International to do likewise.

This led to various splits notably the KPD from the German SPD, leading to a Third (Communist) International splitting off from the Second International. The USPD also split from the SPD, but later the USPD split, some joining the KPD, the rest rejoining the SPD. So that's how the term Social Democracy ended up being associated with the centre left.

Alles Klar?
 
You could describe it as that I think, but it wouldn't be very useful as a description. "Highly revisionist to the point that it isn't actually consciously Marxist at all" is to all intents and purposes non-Marxist.

That's not really true. If you are looking at the high point, IE: 50's and 60's social democrats, these remained largely consciously marxist, at least in their base assumptions if not in their political prescriptions. (a lot of it dealt with definitions of "control", people like Wigforss etc. argued that a democratic government could control the means of production via indirect means without neccessarily having to directly seize ownership: You could let the capitalists keep the title to their factories but excercise democratic control in how they could utilize them)

You could argue about the efficicacy of this position, but it was at least clearly Marx-derived.
 
Nazis and communists sent social democrats to death camps, the reverse isn’t true.

Lol.
And that is equivalent to being sent to a gulag or concentration camp?

Living as a communist activist, or leading a communist party, in Soc Dem countries was a lot safer than being a Soc Dem in Nazi Germany or the USSR.

In BRD, communists couldn't teach. You haven't heard about berufsverbot?