[quetzalcoatl]

This is from SOCIAL DEMOCRACY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: A POST KEYNESIAN PERSPECTIVE, so their liberal perspective must be kept in mind. Nevertheless, they are making some cogent reform proposals (if you are at all interested in an operationally effective left in the West).

(1) end the absurd attachment that many people on the extreme left still have to Marxism and Communism. These were, and are, totalitarian ideologies, and any attachment to them is just a disgrace and embarrassment.

(2)the mainstream left needs to abandon neoliberalism. Return to strong Keynesian and social democratic economic policies. Post Keynesian economics is the foundation of left-wing economic thought – not Marxism, not neoliberalism, and not watered-down neoclassical Keynesianism.

(3) the academic left needs to abandon Poststructuralism and Postmodernism, and all the ridiculous related ideas such as truth relativism, moral relativism and even cultural relativism.

(4) end the climate of political correctness and even hostility to free speech that some left-wing people have. Free speech is sacred in a free society, and you will achieve nothing by demanding that governments silence people whose opinions you don’t like – except to dismantle more of our freedoms and set yourself up for having your own free speech taken away, especially if right-wing governments start imposing their own restrictions on free speech. Hate speech laws, while they are well intentioned, simply go down a dangerous route. There is a real part of the left that is better called the regressive left. It is often intolerant of free speech, is strongly connected with Postmodernism, and obsesses over divisive identity politics.

(5) following on from (4), end the obsessing over extreme identity politics, as it tends to divide people and draw attention from the far more serious issues of economic management and economic justice.

(6) the mainstream left needs to radically rethink foreign policy and even bring Western war criminals to justice. We have just been through the most bizarre periods where even some mainstream left-wing parties (e.g., Britain’s New Labour) have supported the most outrageously immoral and disastrous wars. Even more disgusting, they never been held to account for it. Just look recently at Tony Blair’s “apology” for the Iraq war. Apology, my eye. Any decent mainstream left in Britain would be demanding that Blair – and his New Labour charlatans who planned the war – face charges for war criminality.

(7) the left should strongly defend modern science and secularism, and end the truly bizarre hostility to rationality and science that has emerged from Postmodernism. Related to this, the left should seriously rethink the role of religion in society. Secularism does not necessarily mean hostility to religion, but removing the harmful role of religion from politics, law and society. E.g., there should only be one system of law in a Western secular society, not parallel legal systems for different communities.

(8) the mainstream European left needs to vigorously oppose the Eurozone and European Union, and stand up for national democracy and economic sovereignty. The EU is one of the most outrageously regressive forces in the world today, and it probably should be dismantled.

(9) finally, the most painful and controversial issue for most left-wing people: the left needs to rethink whether mass immigration is a good thing, especially in Europe, on economic and social grounds. The public hostility to mass immigration in Europe is rising. If it really gets to the point where a solid majority wants an end to mass immigration and open-doors borders throughout the EU in each nation, shouldn’t a democratically-elected government – even a left-wing one – respect what most people want?

I strongly disagree with the first point in this list, for two reasons: 1) a Marxist analysis of history needs to be separated from its prescriptive conclusions, and 2) most leftists (even of the radical variety) do not consider the Soviet Union as a viable template.

However, the rest of the article is spot on. The bolded portions above are what I consider the necessary reforms that must be undertaken if the left is to have any relevance in the 21st century.

Especially point 9. "Totally unrestricted, open-borders mass immigration has traditionally been an anarcho-capitalist libertarian position. That is, a position held by the crazies who want to totally, or almost totally, abolish governments." This attitude of the left is basically irrational. Capitalism is the only internationalist force in existence, and only a refocused emphasis on national governments has any hope of fighting this force. Simply repeating the old saw that "capitalism is international, and thus the revolution must be international" is logically incoherent. There is no international institution or entity the left can leverage in furthering its cause.

Reification of the international refugee is part of the same constellation of irrationality identified in 3) and 4), and demonstrates a shockingly pound-salt contempt for the working class within national borders.

[Frollein]

Good luck with that. Considering the irrational spinal reflex-response of the left to almost all of the above points (especially identity politics, nationalism and political correctness), I'd say whoever published that paper should give up his dream of a "reformable left" and just join the right wingers. We don't bite! (much)

[quetzalcoatl]

Good luck with that. Considering the irrational spinal reflex-response of the left to almost all of the above points (especially identity politics, nationalism and political correctness), I'd say whoever published that paper should give up his dream of a "reformable left" and just join the right wingers. We don't bite! (much)

The right has even worse problems.

[EU rope]

Look where the Left has brought Sweden. It's insane! It's suicide, it's mental disorder.

[ThereBeDragons]

I agree with everything on the list except jettisoning cultural relativism, and retaining both Marxism and neoliberalism for their analytical value, but I'm not about to do anything about it.

Any decent mainstream left in Britain would be demanding that Blair – and his New Labour charlatans who planned the war – face charges for war criminality.

If you think this is the key to an operationally effective left you're smoking something. Might as well put Churchill on trial for all the good it'll do.

[KlassWar]

If you think this is the key to an operationally effective left you're smoking something. Might as well put Churchill on trial for all the good it'll do.

Having right-wing social-traitors declared Enemies of the People is one of the keys to reviving the left. The class traitor cancer gotta be cut out for the body to heal.

[layman]

If you think this is the key to an operationally effective left you're smoking something. Might as well put Churchill on trial for all the good it'll do.

Correct and it's contradicts the point on nationalism at its core. A mob before the war might have been useful. A retrospective mob just absolves the parliament we voted for and indeed our own inaction.

One result of this would be to gain back ukip type working case voters. Then the right, or perhaps liberals, could poach the minority vote who have a growing influence. Of course it is possible the left could enact anti immigration policies without anti immigrant rhetoric which might placate the situation.

[KlassWar]

One result of this would be to gain back ukip type working case voters. Then the right, or perhaps liberals, could poach the minority vote who have a growing influence. Of course it is possible the left could enact anti immigration policies without anti immigrant rhetoric which might placate the situation.

A better alternative for anti immigration policies is to give legal residency to any immigrant with a union card. That way you would deport all scabs and drastically increase the unions' political power as soon as them residents get citizenship, while attracting both minorities and working class voters. Local workers will also have to unionize if they don't want to get out-organized by the immigrants, and an increased number of workers is an excellent reason to push for more public housing, more public services and more public sector jobs.

Think outside the box, man.

[Deutschmania]

Obviously I disagree with the idea of rejecting Marxism outright. The author of this article has obviously never heard of libertarian Marxism , or even western Marxism. With that being said however , I do feel that as a whole the political left should be based upon a more general progressivism than hard line Bolshevism. Lastly , as a general rule , I do favor a more open immigration policy. However I also feel that there needs to be steps taken against human trafficking , and other customs violations .But as long as it's both fair and legal , I feel that both goods and persons should be permitted to move freely. Like for example , I agree with Bernie Sanders that immigrants should not be exploited as a servile underclass https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/ , http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-and-immigration-its-complicated-119190.

[quetzalcoatl]

Lastly , as a general rule , I do favor a more open immigration policy.

It's one thing to have immigration policies. It's quite another to reject the state's right to control immigration, as a matter of human rights or some other principle. It is the latter that I reject.

[redcarpet]

end the obsessing over extreme identity politics, as it tends to divide people

There are not 50/50 splits over such issue, that's a lie.

[Potemkin]

end the obsessing over extreme identity politics, as it tends to divide people

If we should reject any political positions which tend to 'divide' people, then surely we should abandon the concept of class conflict, which also divides people, and we should abandon the struggle for better pay and working conditions because that divides people too. Oh, and let's not try to protect the integrity of our national borders, because that's a divisive issue too. Hmm.... not much left, is there?

The whole OP, it seems to me, is just wishy-washy middle-of-the-road waffle. The author of this masterpiece of political analysis seems to think that Keynesianism is 'left wing'. I shall say no more.

[Lexington]

I'm definitely more liberal than left wing, but, my $0.02:

end the absurd attachment that many people on the extreme left still have to Marxism and Communism

Sure.

the mainstream left needs to abandon neoliberalism

I feel like the left could do better than "go back to Keynesianism" but I'll take it. For my own take I think the deregulation and privatization that happened in the 70's, 80's and 90's were on the whole good - a lot of those industries were poorly regulated and poorly run and (often) benefited from being set loose. The tax reforms, the stripping down of the welfare state, and supply-side economics were worse ideas. It would be nice if there was some segment (the Left) that did vocally support activist, bigger government - this isn't actually Keynesianism, but I think that that's what the author means.

the academic left needs to abandon Poststructuralism and Postmodernism

I could not care less.

end the climate of political correctness and even hostility to free speech that some left-wing people have

I agree with this, and there was an article by Jonathan Chait a while ago distinguishing liberalism vs "the illiberal left" like this. It certainly alienates potential allies and seems to distract from more relevant issues.

following on from (4), end the obsessing over extreme identity politics, as it tends to divide people and draw attention from the far more serious issues of economic management and economic justice.

I'm on the fence on this one. I'm kind of biased, I guess, since I'm a gay guy, so I'm one of the identities that has very recently benefited immensely from liberal identity politics. For one thing, there are legitimate issues in identity politics (like gay marriage or racism or women's rights). These, however, do end up becoming divisive. I would agree that economic issues are more important - income inequality is a more serious issue than gay marriage! - but I would stress that that doesn't mean abandoning identity issues.

the mainstream left needs to radically rethink foreign policy and even bring Western war criminals to justice

This one really baffles me. Although I was against the war in Iraq, I don't think Tony Blair's a war criminal. Even if I did, it still happened ten years ago and we were just talking about "far more serious issues" and things that "tend to divide people." If you want an example of something quixotic, divisive, and unserious, a campaign to put Tony Blair in front of the Hague a fine one.

the left should strongly defend modern science and secularism

Sure.

the mainstream European left needs to vigorously oppose the Eurozone and European Union

Obviously I'm going to disagree. There was, however, a time when a vocal segment of the left opposed the EU (Corbyn comes from that strand) and anti-globalism is always fertile ground for gathering supporters, so, whatever floats your boat.

the left needs to rethink whether mass immigration is a good thing

See above. I'm generally pro-immigration, but again tapping into that anti-globalist sentiment can work just as well for the left as for the right.

One thing the author didn't mention that I would add: resurrecting labor unions. That used to be kind of the backbone of the left but since the 70s they've all but disappeared and I'd wager that that's more than a small part of the stagnation of the middle and working class (and the left) we've seen.

[fuser]

The whole OP, it seems to me, is just wishy-washy middle-of-the-road waffle. The author of this masterpiece of political analysis seems to think that Keynesianism is 'left wing'. I shall say no more.

This.

[quetzalcoatl]

The author of this masterpiece of political analysis seems to think that Keynesianism is 'left wing'. I shall say no more.

Keynesianism is not a radical theory of economics. It does not presuppose the end of capitalism. To the extent that democratic socialism can be made to work, Keynesianism (or some variant) will necessarily have to play a role. This is surely not the rapture, I will freely admit. Until the end times come upon us and Marx descends from the heavens, I will throw in my lot with the democratic socialists.

[Potemkin]

Keynesianism is not a radical theory of economics. It does not presuppose the end of capitalism.

Indeed not. In fact, it was created by Keynes precisely to prevent the end of capitalism.

To the extent that democratic socialism can be made to work, Keynesianism (or some variant) will necessarily have to play a role.

Really? Why?

This is surely not the rapture, I will freely admit. Until the end times come upon us and Marx descends from the heavens, I will throw in my lot with the democratic socialists.

I repeat: Keynesianism is not socialism. It is, in fact, a form of state-directed capitalism. I realise that to your average American voter the two things are synonymous, but your average American voter knows nothing about Keynesianism and even less about socialism.

[quetzalcoatl]

I repeat: Keynesianism is not socialism. It is, in fact, a form of state-directed capitalism.

Oh, puh-leeze.

Democratic socialism is a form of state-directed capitalism, which is just an alternate description of highly regulated capitalism. If you want to say that democratic socialism is not socialism, okay, that's fine...but it has nothing to do with the American voter. Forms of democratic socialism in Europe produced the most advanced and just forms of governance ever to appear on the face of the earth. They did not fail at all, they were deliberately sabotaged.

Capitalists no longer believe they need Keynesianism to save them, and they are quite correct.

[Zamuel]

Keynesianism is not socialism. It is, in fact, a form of state-directed capitalism. I realise that to your average American voter the two things are synonymous, but your average American voter knows nothing about Keynesianism and even less about socialism.

Is it such a BAD thing that decisions are left to unpolluted minds ... ?

Zam

[Potemkin]

Is it such a BAD thing that decisions are left to unpolluted minds ... ?

All knowledge is indeed a form of mental pollution, Zamuel. However, without it, we would still be living the existence of the animals rather than living in cities and exchanging our opinions via the communications technology of the internet.

[kobe]

Identity politics are the only form of left-wing politics proper left. Don't be surprised when black people and gay people turn to identity politics to have their voices heard.

I agree with the general idea that we can (and probably should) work within the nation-state structure to achieve the end of capitalism, but that's about as far as my agreement goes with the OP. How does one just ignore Marx and communism? Should we then ignore the American revolution as well? Obviously not. In any case, the Red Scare is one of the best arguments against the façade of bourgeoisie "ethics", which is merely a front until they can bully and bombard countries into submission.

Also, it's hard to deny the perspective of cultural relativism if you're an atheist. I can't say science supports the idea of universal morality either. It seems as if the author is confused as to what leftism is and meant to address their message to liberals so that they can stay on point for the democratic primaries.