- Left wing is also a term used in several sports; see winger (sport).
In politics, left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms that refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially but not exclusively in the American sense of the word), or with opposition to right-wing politics. Communism and socialism (as well as the Marxist philosophy that many base it on) and most currents of anarchism are considered to be radical forms of left-wing politics. (See political spectrum and left-right politics for more on the merits/limitations of this kind of classification.)
The terminology of left-right politics was originally based on the seating arrangement of parliamentary partisans during the French Revolution. The more ardent proponents of radical revolutionary measures (including republicanism, secularism and natural rights) were commonly referred to as leftists because they sat on the left side of successive legislative assemblies. These original references are still relevant, and one will find that left-wing political organisations together with liberal democratic organizations are more likely to support these measures compared to right-wing parties (especially christian democratic and conservative parties), which often tend to support a monarchy for a head of state, religious laws and state churches, and nationalism over universal rights.
The term is also often used to characterize the politics of the former Soviet Union and other one-party "communist states". During the early 20th Century such states enjoyed a considerable degree of popularity amongst many on the political left around the world, however today many (perhaps most) on the political left (including many Marxists) would not consider their own politics to have anything significant in common with any of these states.
Left-wing issues
Equality, social justice, democracy, gender equality, civil rights, labour rights and trade unionism, governmental and social concern for the poor, working-class solidarity, secularism, tolerance, and internationalism are the values typically associated with the left wing of the political spectrum. The left generally favours government or social control over economics and the redistribution of wealth, but is against social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, monoculturalism, privilege for the wealthy, and other values commonly associated with the political right. Those on the left are sometimes described as "progressive", a term that arose from their self-identification as the side of (social) progress.
History of the term
The term "Left" was first used in the early days of French revolution. When the National Assembly first met, the reformers sat on the left side of the meeting hall, while supporters of monarchy and nobility sat on the right. Originally, it wasn't meant to be a political statement, but as the factions within the National Assembly formed, the label stuck.
Although it may seem ironic in terms of present-day usage, the original "leftists" during the French Revolution were the largely bourgeois supporters of laissez-faire capitalism and free markets. As the electorate expanded beyond property-holders, these relatively wealthy elites found themselves clearly victorious over the old aristocracy and the remnants of feudalism, but newly opposed by the growing and increasingly organized and politicized workers and wage-earners. The "left" of 1789 would, in some ways be part of the present-day "right", liberal with regard to the rights of property and intellect, but not embracing notions of distributive justice, rights for organized labour, etc.
In some countries, such as the Netherlands, left had for long times the meaning of the non-religious side of politics. This gradually changed in the more general European meaning of the word.
The European left has traditionally shown a smooth continuum between non-communist and communist parties (including such hybrids as eurocommunism), which have sometimes allied with more moderate leftists to present a united front. In the United States, however, no avowedly socialist or communist party ever became a major player in national politics, although the Social Democratic Party of Eugene V. Debs and its successor Socialist Party of America (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century) and the Communist Party of the United States of America (in the 1930s) made some inroads. While many American "liberals" might be "social democrats" in European terms, very few of them openly embrace the term "left"; in the United States, the term is mainly embraced by New Left activists, certain portions of the labor movement, and people who see their intellectual or political heritage as descending from 19th-century socialist movements.
New Left refers to radical left-wing movements from the 1960s onwards. Where earlier left-wing movements were generally rooted in labor activism, the New Left generally adopted a broader definition of political activism, commonly called social activism. The New Left has had varying degrees of unity since its rise in the 1960s, mainly existing as loose coalitions of numerous distinct movements, including (but not limited to) feminists, greens, some labour unions, some atheists, some gay rights activists, and some minority ethnic and racially oriented civil rights groups.
Many Greens deny that green politics is "on the left"; nonetheless, their economic policies can generally be considered left-wing, and when they have formed political coalitions (most notably in Germany, but also in local governments elsewhere), it has almost always been with groups that would generally be classified as being on the left.
The Left and the Soviet Union
The relationship between left-wing movements and the U.S.S.R was a complicated one. Generally the ideology of the former Soviet bloc is included as on the left, much in the same way as fascism is generally included as on "the right". However, some argue that (in spite of its use of socialist rhetoric), Soviet-style communism should be viewed independently of the conventional left-right spectrum: this case has, perhaps, been made most eloquently by Karl Popper, through his development of the concept of totalitarianism
Critics of the left often use the perceived deficiencies and crimes of Soviet-style politics to criticise democratic socialism or left-liberalism; however, this ignores the diversity of relationships between the left and Stalinist politics.
In the days of the Soviet Union, leftist movements worldwide had different relationships with Moscow-line communist parties, ranging from enthusiastic support to outright opposition. Lincoln Steffens, in 1919, said of having visited the Soviet Union, "I have seen the future and it works"; it would be many years until any large portion of the left believed otherwise, and even today, some parts of the radical left extol all or some aspects of Soviet-style communism or that of Maoist China, while others loathe the perceived crimes of those regimes and denounce them at every turn.
For example, most Trotskyists adhere to some variant of Leon Trotsky's view of the post-Lenin Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state" and denounce Stalin as a traitor, some even claiming that the Soviet Union was actually a kind of 'monopoly capitalist' state. Large segments of the left never took inspiration from the Soviet model and actually rejoiced to see the USSR's system collapse—as Michael Albert of Z Magazine put it, "one down, one to go" (referring to Stalinism and capitalism). At the other end, the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA continues to praise the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Some critics of the left claim that leftist movements lost their moorings—or their rationale—after the collapse of the European communist states (beginning in 1989 and ending with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991).
The Left and China
The 1949 victory of the Chinese Revolution brought to power the then ultra-left Chinese Communist Party of Mao Zedong, who, over the next quarter of a century attempted the radical transformation of society through the Great Leap Forward and the Chinese Cultural Revolution. After Mao's death, it became the conventional wisdom among China's leadership that these attempts had been a disaster. Although it has retained its name, the Chinese Communist Party today has abandoned Communism in its economic policies, pursuing instead an agenda of economic liberalization, beginning in the 1980s with the Four Modernizations of Deng Xiaoping. The Chinese government, however, has remained rigidly authoritarian; socially and politically, it is still commonly viewed as repressive, though far less so than in Mao's time. Most leading Chinese dissidents are political and social liberals.
In contrast both to the government and the liberal dissidents, Chinese neo-leftism, embracing postmodernism and Chinese nationalism, and opposed both to democracy and to what they see as a return of China to the capitalist world, arose as a political idea during the mid-1990s. Neo-leftism is seen as being more appealing to students in China today than liberalism, as problems faced by China during its modernisation such as inequality and the widening gap between the rich and the poor are becoming more serious.
The Left and postmodernism
A few self-described leftists also subscribe to postmodernism, including deconstructionism, a philosophical point of view that claims that every text "contains the allegory of its own deconstruction" and thereby questions the possibility of rational discourse. (Most postmodernists see themselves as leftists, but most leftists are not postmodernists.) Critics on the right have generally seen this as an indication of the poorly thought-out, fashionable nature of the academic left. However, there are many on the left who say that postmodernism makes no sense and offers no useful political lessons.
Some critics of the left also suggest that deconstructionism is not the only Nietzschean element in contemporary leftism, pointing to older, mistaken interpretations of Nietzsche as the font of moral relativism and the "God is dead" philosophy, both of which they see as characterizing the perceived nihilism of modern leftist politics. On the other hand, most leftists consider such accusations to be completely baseless and incorrect; this is especially true of religious leftists, many of whom hold the ideas of moral relativism and nihilism in low regard.
The Left and Opposition to War
While anti-war movements have never been exclusively left-wing, they have generally been led, inspired, organised, and (critics would argue) manipulated by those on the left. While some on the left are inspired by pacifism, most left-wing opposition to war is inspired by anti-imperialism which leads them to reject specific wars because they see them as being in capitalist interests rather then being morally against all violence. Left-wing opposition to war is also often characterised by the internationalist belief that the world's workers share common interests with one another, rather than with the powers governing their respective countries.
The First World War
Before World War I there was a fierce debate among members of the Second International as to the position socialists should take towards the impending war. On the 25 July 1914, the executive of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) issued an appeal to its membership to demonstrate against the coming war, only to vote on 4 August for the war credits the German government wanted. Likewise the French Socialist Party and its union, the CGT, especially after the assassination of the pacificist Jean Jaurès, organised mass rallies and protests until the outbreak of war, but once the war began they argued that in wartime socialists should support their nations against the aggression of other nations and also voted for war credits. [1]
In 1915 members of the Second International holding what was by then a minority anti-war position within their respective national parties, met at Zimmerwald to try to work out a joint platform of opposition to the war that was in progress. The Zimmerwald Conference failed to end the War, but did bring together a left wing that supported the Russian Revolution and laid the basis for the Third (Communist) International[2]. Leon Trotsky argued at the time that the failure of the Left to oppose the war led to the destruction of the Second International.[3]
In Russia, opposition to the war led to soldiers also establishing their own revolutionary committees and helped foment the October Revolution of 1917, with the call going up for "bread, land, and peace". After the revolution, the Bolsheviks called for an armistice, but the world powers refused, worried about the possible spread of revolution.
The Second World War
World War II was largely seen as an anti-fascist war, and thus not resisted by many on the left. The positions of many of the communist parties vacillated in line with the vacillation of the policies of the Soviet Union.
Vietnam War
The Vietnam War was opposed by many socialists, but there was argument within the left over the nature of and the level of support to be given to the Communist Party of Vietnam. The movements in the U.S. were largely co-ordinated by the left but involved much wider forces. There was also tension within some organisations: for example the far-left Revolutionary Communist Party attempted to organise a more left wing group 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist' (VVAW-AI) in opposition to the more mainstream (and far larger and more successful) Vietnam Veterans Against the War. As of 2005, both organizations survive to this day.
The Post 9/11 anti-war movement
Most on the left agreed with the majority of people that the September 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by Al-Qaida, though a small segment of the left—along with many Muslims in the Middle East [4][5] and some on the far-right—placed the blame elsewhere.
There was, however, disagreement over the correct response to the attacks. On the centre left many went along with the political consensus that the acts were merely the product of unexplainable fanatical hatred of the "West". However, others disagreed and put the blame on U.S foreign policy, specifically its imperialist nature.
Within weeks, it became clear that Bush intended a set of changes to U.S. criminal law and immigration law and an invasion of Afghanistan. There was division within the left about this invasion. [6][7][8]. Nonetheless, an international anti-war movement began to arise; in the U.S. and other countries whose governments enacted legislation analogous to the USA PATRIOT Act, it was equally a movement in protest of what were perceived to be assaults on civil liberties and immigrant rights.
In these anti-war movements, left-wingers formed loose coalitions with pacifists and others with long-time associations with global peace movements, and with Arabs and Muslims, including, but by no means limited to, Islamists. The predominant arguments against the Afghanistan invasion and the subsequent invasion of Iraq were on the grounds of pacifism, international law, opposition to perceived U.S. imperialism; disbelief in the sincerity of the U.S.'s stated war aims, belief that the wars were motivated by neocolonialism and petroleum politics; that war would bring unnecessary suffering on the people of Afghanistan and that it was not the most effective way to dislodge or isolate al-Qaida; and, in a few cases, denial of al-Qaida's responsibility for the September 11 attacks.
Many Islamists and Arabs, and a few leftists, saw the military campaigns as battles in a religious war—a crusade—against Islam. This was the obverse of the ideas expressed, for example, by Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. This was largely rejected by those on the left who saw the war as a clash between capitalist powers and those responding to it. Tariq Ali mocked the notion of a clash of civilisations in his book "Clash of Fundamentalisms".
Left and anti-war in the U.S.
The most prominent U.S.-based movement groups were Act Now to Stop War and End Violence (ANSWER), Not in Our Name (NION), and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ).
ANSWER and (to a lesser degree) NION have been targets of much criticism from within the left [9] for their associations with the Workers World Party [10][11] and the Revolutionary Communist Party, respectively. Right-wing critics have also seized on these relationships, pointing at them to claim that these small parties "dominate" the anti-war movement.[12]. Critics of ANSWER and NION from within the anti-war movement (such as Michael Albert and Stephen R. Shalom writing in Z as well as Chuck Munson writing for Infoshop.org) generally urged support for these groups' rallies, despite their qualms, arguing that most people at a "...demonstration will in fact be unaware of exactly who said what and whether any particular speaker omitted this or that point. What they will experience will be a powerful antiwar protest. And most of the public will see it that way too." [13]
The groups have collaborated at times on events, although collaboration has not always been easy. In perhaps the most infamous incident, Rabbi Michael Lerner was banned from speaking at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco, less than a month before the U.S. invaded Iraq. It was generally believed that this was done at ANSWER's behest, because Lerner had been critical of what he perceives as ANSWER's anti-Israel politics. Lerner, though irked that NION and UFPJ did not stand up for his inclusion as a speaker, continued to encourage people to attend the rally.[14][15]
During the 2004 U.S elections many on the left saw there most important task as removal of President George W. Bush because of his imperialist policies this led many to support an "Anybody but Bush" campaign. This resulted support for the Democrats and a large drop in support for Ralph Nader, the independent left-wing candidate. However, the Democrats' platform largely supported the war and Bush Administration policies. The "Anybody But Bush" campaign failed, and Bush was re-elected.
Left and anti-war in Europe
In general, the Left in Europe see the anti-war movement as reinvigorating the Left; however, there is some disagreement as to whether it should continue to been seen as a central mobilising tool. The UK political coalition Respect, which grew out of the anti-war movement, argue that anti-war feeling is key to the growth of the Left while leading members of the French left-wing group ATTAC claim that to much focus on the war will lead the Left away from focus on economic issues.
Popular opposition to war on Iraq in Europe climaxed in an international synchronised anti-war demonstration around the world on February 15, 2003.
Left and anti-war in other Parts of the world
In Spain, the response to the Madrid bombings was an anti-war move to the left with the election of a social democratic government.
Left-Muslim alliance
Many European countries have large and growing Muslim minorities. From a left-wing position they are generally seen as oppressed minorities, and are seen as taking the place once occupied by Communists, as the bogeymen and scapegoats of centre and right-wing politics. Some on the left such as the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP) argued the necessity for those on the left to unite with Muslims in the fight against the Iraq war. They achieved this aim to a large extent leading to the British Stop the War Coalition, having Muslims take leading positions. The more religious Muslim groups refused to work with the Left in anti-war demonstrations as they disagree with their secularism.[16]
Some claim that the presence of extremists and alleged Islamists [17], as well as anti-Israeli slogans, show that the anti-war movement has been "hijacked" to become anti-western and anti-Semitic. Aurélie Filipetti, a spokeswoman of the Green Party in Paris, criticized some of her fellow French leftists for creating an anti-Israeli atmosphere which she claims encourages antisemitism[18]. Other Jewish leftists have also been critical of the European left for excusing antisemitism when it comes from the "oppressed world" of Arab/Muslim people.[19]
These points are disputed by left-wing groups who point out that the general mood is in opposition to the rulers of the United States rather than to its people, and that the pro-Palestine slogans it has taken up do not amount to anti-Semitism, as they are critical of the Zionist project rather than the Jewish ethnic group. Also a Pro-Palestine position is the norm amongst the left including some on the Jewish left (See 5 Jews for justice in Palestine).
Exiled Iranian writer Amir Taheri, goes much further, viewing portions of the anti-war movement in Western Europe as "an alliance between the radical Left and hard-line Islamists... built around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and the hoped-for collapse of the global economic system." [20]. Taheri clearly views this alliance with Islamists as compromising traditional humanist values of the left and all "leftist" values in general; he clearly implies that this coalition could go on to embrace terrorism.
While many leftists have happily worked with Arab or Muslim groups in opposition to perceived U.S. or Israeli imperialism, alliances between leftists and Islamists are relatively unusual and recent, since leftist politics of Civil libertarianism and secularism jar with hard-line Islamism. More typical examples of leftists working in anti-war coalitions with Muslims would be the membership of American Muslims for Jerusalem in UFPJ or of the Muslim Student Association, American Muslims for Global Peace, and Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam in ANSWER. These are Muslim groups, but they are not Islamist groups.
Political parties on the left
'The left' is of course an controversial classification. Depending on the political view point of the categoriser different groups might be categorised as on the left. One might generally characterise parties as on the political left in their respective countries, though even then they might have relatively little in common with other left-wing groups beyond their opposition to the right. However even this can case issues for example, the Democratic Leadership Council (in which Bill Clinton was active) is generally considered to form the right wing of the U.S. Democratic Party (which outside the US is considered to be right of centre), but in terms of the whole country he was generally perceived as being on the moderate left.
For a list of Political parties of the left see Political parties on the left
Notes
- 1⇧Prelude To Revolution: Class Consciousness and the First World War, International Socialism Issue 76, September 1997.
- 2⇧The Second International (Social-Democracy), Marxists Internet Archive
- 3⇧The War and the International (The Bolsheviks and World Peace), Marxists Internet Archive
- 4⇧Poll: Muslims call U.S. 'ruthless, arrogant' CNN, February 26, 2002
- 5⇧Hamilton College Muslim America Poll Hamilton College
- 6⇧Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney remarks re. war, Cynthia McKinney, September 21, 2001
- 7⇧The algebra of infinite justice, Arundhati Roy, The Guardian, September 29, 2001
- 8⇧Kucinich Denounces U.S. Tactics in Afghanistan, Muslims For Kucinich (Originally published in the Washington Post)
- 9⇧Ten Q&A On Antiwar Organizing, Michael Albert interviewed by Stephen R Shalom, ZNet, October 24, 2002
- 10⇧Ramsey Clark, List of articles on Ramsey Clarke, Why War?
- 11⇧Tracking Down A Fifth Column Front, Edward Immler, FrontPageMagazine.com, September 18, 2002
- 12⇧Has anti-war movement been hijacked?, Sherrie Gossett, WorldNetDaily.com, November 4, 2002
- 13⇧Ten Q&A On Antiwar Organizing, Michael Albert interviewed by Stephen R Shalom, ZNet, October 24, 2002
- 14⇧Authoritarianism and Anti-Semitism in the Anti-War Movement?, Tikkun magazine, May/June 2003
- 15⇧The Banning of Rabbi Lerner, David Corn, Common Dreams News Center, February 11 2003
- 16⇧ DON'T STOP THE WAR: Except through Islamic Politics, Hizb ut Tahrir, 22nd January 2003
- 17⇧ The London Streets, Who are these anti-Bush people?, Amir Taheri, National Review, November 18, 2003
- 18⇧ציונות, מילה גסה (in Hebrew, partially translated at 3)
- 19⇧NRG ???, in Hebrew
- 20⇧THE BLACK-RED ALLIANCE, Amir Taheri, Jerusalem Post, June 10, 2004
See also
External links
Discussion sites
Reference sites
Blogs, Webzines and News Sites
|
