The massive Russian disinformation campaign that has targeted the Right to manipulate the country has been more effective than the massive Russian disinformation campaign that targets the Left.

Most of the far (and not so far) left has been conned into working inside the system to change – no, reform :shade: – the system, that is, just rattling the cage of the status quo. America has long been a majority center-right country and the left (which isn't by any stretch a monolith) is outnumbered, I hazard to guess, by a ratio of at least 10-to-1. This is why the center-right majority has for +4 decades kept voting to butt fuck themselves in order to further enrich the rich who tell them (via FOX Noise) that those other working poor people are to blame for everything wrong in the majority's working poor lives. Thus, a reminder from a century ago still rings true:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. — Upton Sinclair

There is no left wing in the US. Just a bunch of effete liberals - all of whom are centre right - who confuse politeness and table manners for politics.

Also, the idea that Russia is responsible for the insanity of American politics and not the fact that Americans are endogenously politically insane is hilarious.

There is no left wing in the US. — StreetlightX

As a leftist, that's news to me. How do you know this?

Where is the Left Wing Uprising in the USA?

What you doing next Tuesday?

Because the maximal horizon of US 'progressivism' amounts to nothing more than capitalism with a human face, where everyone gets to be exploited with equal opportunity. But yeah, @pfhorrest is right - there is no organized left except for those who occasionally intervene to stem the blood loss in the form of providing tents to the homeless and airing podcasts now and then. Not a US exclusive problem by any means.

I suspect he just means that we (leftists like you and I) have no real political representation or power. There are some people like us with left-wing views, but not a proper left wing of American political activity.

I think ur asking for too much when the your asking for (currently anyway) to overthrow the biggest country, that’s the reason there’s only uprisings in small counties.

Virtue signaling, or call it what you will, compensates for the left’s inability (or reluctance) to demand genuine economic change. At the bottom of our current “heresy-hunting frenzies” is a desire for compensation, to feel politically triumphant, even if it is only in ineffectual ways. This ritual of self-celebration — typified by the “heroic” postures struck by campus radicals, cable news hosts, and career activists — has become a major part of the “political subculture of the left.” Burgis believes that this obsessive allegiance to virtue-rooted-in-identity has become pathological, whether it is found on the left or right. The arguments associated with “identity politics” are inevitably rooted in the same source: an embrace of the impregnable power of subjectivity (or to our proclaimed “subject positions,” at least) rather than a call to reason.

Review of "Canceling Comedians While the World Burns"

There's Black Lives Matter and Bernie.

The very idea of there being an uprising is skipping steps, there isn't any other option than hard work by organizers and taking over local governments and councils, which accelerated due to the Sanders campaign. It's difficult to keep track of the work being done because we live in a continent sized country but it's there if you've been following your state politics, just don't expect to overturn the country in the next few years.

Speaking generally, their only recourse is government; either government action, or government forbearance. They have forfeited the credible alternative.

Most of the far (and not so far) left has been conned into working inside the system to change – no, reform :shade: – the system, that is, just rattling the cage of the status quo. — 180 Proof

Bernie and AOC have done their job well.

But when the next elections come things will change...if you only vote for the Democrats, that is. And then when things don't change...they will surely change in the next elections!!!

America has long been a majority center-right country and the left (which isn't by any stretch a monolith) is outnumbered, I hazard to guess, by a ratio of at least 10-to-1. — 180 Proof

The majority of Americans are in favor of taxing the rich, free public education, student debt relief, universal healthcare, climate change mitigation, gun reform, etc. Poll after poll. If that's what we mean by "left," then we by far have the numbers. So I don't think the 10-1 is accurate in that sense.

The problem is that we have no organization. We don't even have a labor party as most other comparable countries do. There are many reasons for this, of course, but chief among them (in my opinion) is the education system and the media. These are the institutions that control thought; they're called, respectively, indoctrination centers and propaganda outlets -- and this is accurate.

So we're left with apathy, disenfranchisement, passivity, hopelessness. Most importantly, the traditional means of circumventing these systems of thought control have been destroyed or weakened: unions, independent media, social groups, etc. There's also the cultivation of fear and hatred of one another. All this is to say nothing about the (structural) fact that we're also being worked to death, and so have little energy or time to dedicate to educating and organizing ourselves.

Add it up and it's no wonder there's not an organized "left" in this country. But it's there. The fact that people were shocked about the Sanders campaign should tell you something.

The non-establishment right aren't very organized either, they just fight a lot harder. They also have structural advantages electorally, so are disproportionately represented in government.

The very idea of there being an uprising is skipping steps, there isn't any other option than hard work by organizers and taking over local governments and councils, which accelerated due to the Sanders campaign. It's difficult to keep track of the work being done because we live in a continent sized country but it's there if you've been following your state politics, just don't expect to overturn the country in the next few years. — Saphsin

I think this is exactly right. Although I'm there if there's a revolution!

There is no left wing in the US. Just a bunch of effete liberals - all of whom are centre right - who confuse politeness and table manners for politics. — StreetlightX

Oh, SLX, you're just so cute. I want to pinch your cheek.

Most of The Left do not want the mere reforms you've listed, we want to change, that is, replace "the system" – governmental & economic – completely. Specifically, we want to change the game from shareholder control to stakeholder control and not just change the rules which perpetuate "the status quo" (i.e. shareholder control). The latter are "liberals" at most, many are "conservatives" too and not what The Left consider "left", whereas the former are (radical) Leftists

That's how I see things and, to the extent we disagree, Xtrix, I suspect it's more of a matter of semantics than substance, and not worth quibbling over definitions & labels for me to get my point across when I say "the Left, as far as the Anerican electorate is concerned, are outnumbered (approximately?) 10:1" IMO. If you still disagree, then let's agree to disagree on the precise ratio, but I don't suspect we disagree that to a significant degree The Left is outnumbered by, let's call them, the Center-Right + Right in the US. Or do we disagree even on that?

Since when was aiming for stakeholder socialism the dominant agreed upon goal among American leftists in contrast to cooperative model, computerized planning, radical social democracy… (don’t get me wrong, I’m intrigued in the Meidner Plan, Roemer model, etc. It’s probably the most experimentally feasible out of all the socialist models. None of this is possible in the short term anyways.)

Even what I consider as leftists broadly, I wish we made 10% of the electorate. It’s not even close.

True, the left isn't a monolith, but I coildn't help representing the cohort I most identify with. And yeah, "10%" ain't even close, just a conservative guessimate.

Most of The Left do not want the mere reforms you've listed, we want to change, that is, replace "the system" – governmental & economic – completely. — 180 Proof

Well that's speculation. It's hard to say. Maybe they want structural changes in the form of Keynesian policies. Maybe they want an end to what's called "capitalism" altogether. What we do know is where the country stands on these issues. I think deep structural change is wanted -- I want it as well. But short of a revolution, that's not going to happen. Changes happen gradually and require hard work sustained over time. But as I said before, I'm all for radical changes if I'm missing something -- I'm there if there's a revolution. Give me something to sign and I'll sign it. But I don't see it happening in my lifetime. So we have to work within the confines of reality.

Specifically, we want to change the game from shareholder control to stakeholder control and not just change the rules which perpetuate "the status quo" (i.e. shareholder control). The latter are "liberals" at most, many are "conservatives" too and not what The Left consider "left", whereas the former are (radical) Leftists — 180 Proof

That's interesting you mention stakeholder control. I created a thread about that here. But a lot of that reminds me of greenwashing. I like the words, but it's probably just more delay tactics so we don't come for their blood.

It's funny you mention that as radical change, though. Unless you're meaning something different when you say "stakeholder control", which I take to mean companies taking into account customers, workers, environment, etc., rather than just shareholders (i.e., away from the Friedman Doctrine), I see it as more of a system we had in the 50s and 60s -- the era of managerialism and the "soulful corporation." I frankly think that is a welcome step forward, and we need to look no further than the economies of those decades to see what the effects could be.

But when I think "radical," I'm thinking worker ownership and control of industry, in the anarchist tradition (or anarco-syndicalist tradition anyway). I see this happening already in worker co-ops. Very successful.

That's how I see things and, to the extent we disagree, Xtrix, I suspect it's more of a matter of semantics than substance, and not worth quibbling over definitions & labels for me to get my point across when I say "the Left, as far as the Anerican electorate is concerned, are outnumbered (approximately?) 10:1" IMO. If you still disagree, then let's agree to disagree on the precise ratio, but I don't suspect we disagree that to a significant degree The Left is outnumbered by, let's call them, the Center-Right + Right in the US. Or do we disagree even on that? — 180 Proof

No, I was nit-picking. But I only did so because I think it's important to emphasize just how many people there are out there who think along similar lines. Whether the 10:1 ratio is correct or not in any other respect, I have no idea. Maybe you're right. But like you said, not terribly important. I don't think they're a silent majority, for example.

With the rise of "Far Right Extremism" and the Right so emboldened as to storm the Capitol building, where is the Far Left's Uprising? There are forms of Left Wing radicalism apparent in the US, but none so apparently emboldened as the Right's. — Lil

You missed the Antifa and BLM "mostly peaceful" riots last summer in which at least 23 people were shot dead, 700 police officers injured, 150+ federal buildings damaged, hundreds of small businesses destroyed, and billions of dollars in property damage was done?

"Well that's speculation. It's hard to say. Maybe they want structural changes in the form of Keynesian policies. Maybe they want an end to what's called "capitalism" altogether. What we do know is where the country stands on these issues. I think deep structural change is wanted -- I want it as well. But short of a revolution, that's not going to happen. Changes happen gradually and require hard work sustained over time. But as I said before, I'm all for radical changes if I'm missing something -- I'm there if there's a revolution. Give me something to sign and I'll sign it. But I don't see it happening in my lifetime. So we have to work within the confines of reality."

I lean towards Erik Olin Wright's formulation of "non-reformist reformism" on the path to socialism. Let me know if you're sympathetic to it (personally I find this path to be obvious, there is neither going to be a revolution or slow build up of anarchist communes that will lead to socialism. I'm just glad someone was able to articulate it in formal language)

"There is a third position in debates within the Marxist tradition over the problem of transcending capitalism. This third approach, which is neither strictly revolutionary nor reformist, advocates what has been referred to as “nonreformist reforms.” Here the idea is to struggle for reforms in the institutions of the state that have three kinds of simultaneous effects: they solve some pressing problem in the system as it exists; they enlarge, rather that close down, the space for future transformations; and they enhance the capacity of popular social forces to fill that space. The central argument is that the capitalist state is an internally contradictory configuration of principles and mechanisms, and thus it is possible, under appropriate historical conditions, to achieve such nonreformist reforms of the capitalist state itself. Simple reformists don’t worry about the second and third conditions; revolutionaries deny their possibility.”

- Erik Olin Wright from John Gastil: Legislature by Lot

P.S. It's true that polls have shown the majority Americans seem to agree with policies that are significantly more progressive than the Democratic Party Elite when asked. I don't think that means they're "left-wing" however, if that means a particular political worldview (having a political worldview involves many different tendencies other than just policy) 80% of the American public is "politically ignorant" meaning they are so ignorant that they can not answer very basic questions about American politics. The people who somewhat follow the news and hold strong political opinions is a fraction of the U.S. public at large. What it does mean that in the state of ignorance, a lot of progressive policies simply make sense in the absence of ideological blinders. So there is an opportunity to catch them in.

I found the far left!. They're in this thread and they're forming an uprising, but they first have to debate why they haven't done it yet.

You missed the Antifa and BLM "mostly peaceful" riots last summer in which at least 23 people were shot dead, — fishfry

Shot dead by whom? Cite your sources— seems bogus to me, or hiding context.

There were massive protests all last summer, millions of people in fact. The vast majority of people—99%— were peaceful. I know conservative media loves to try to portray it all as “chaos,” but we already know why that is. The same reason they’re trying to portray the sacking of the capitol as akin to a “guided tour.”

I see you’re a consumer of this fiction. What a shocker.

They were also almost entirely ineffective, with police brutality continuing unabated in the US today. Not enough police stations were set on fire.

Not enough neighbourhoods were set on fire. — StreetlightX

That’s just silly. Talk to an organizer about why, but the reasons are fairly obvious. It’d be as effective as the WU in the 60s. May make us feel better, but takes the cause backwards.

Yeah yeah, the organizers have been so tremendously successful so far. In any case you're right, hence my edit before your post :)

The funny thing is that Americans have historically known very well how to achieve change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long,_hot_summer_of_1967

They have just forgotten.

With the rise of "Far Right Extremism" and the Right so emboldened as to storm the Capitol building, where is the Far Left's Uprising? There are forms of Left Wing radicalism apparent in the US, but none so apparently emboldened as the Right's.

Why? — Lil

I'm hoping because they are just sitting back and watching the right melt down. Why would you want to take any oxygen away from that fire?

Yeah yeah, the organizers have been so tremendously successful so far. — StreetlightX

Because police brutality continues, yes. But by that standard the anti-war movement wasn’t successful either, nor the early civil rights movement, etc.

Burning police stations has the opposite effect as well. Just gives police more sympathy and Fox easier material. But I’m guessing you know all this already and are just being provocative. Still it’s worth reminding ourselves of when enraged by the lack of any significant progress.

80% of the American public is "politically ignorant" meaning they are so ignorant that they can not answer very basic questions about American politics. — Saphsin

What is your source for this? I’m actually interested.

ean towards Erik Olin Wright's formulation of "non-reformist reformism" on the path to socialism. Let me know if you're sympathetic to it — Saphsin

Sure. There are many paths we can take. I’m for Revolution as well, actually. It’s just that no one is starting one — and no one listens to me! So I’m left with the most realistic options.

But I’m guessing you know all this already and are just being provocative. — Xtrix

No. Significant change does not occur so long as the ruling classes do not feel threatened. If their conditions of life and social reproduction are not rendered intolerable, anything else is just so much fluff.