Tian Xi: Western Left-Wing Thought Trends Through the Lens of the 2019 New York Left Forum
The 2019 Left Forum in New York was held from June 28 to 30 at Long Island University in Brooklyn. Eleven years have passed since the 2008 American financial crisis; these ten-plus years have witnessed a rising tide of left-wing thought and radical movements in the United States. The social reality of vulnerable groups—including Black people, women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBTQ community (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender)—striving for their rights has become intertwined with domestic American outcries against neo-imperialism, neo-fascism, patriarchy, and white supremacy. This formed the social background for Western leftists to gather and seek consensus. The three-day conference featured over 160 thematic panels and two special forums, as well as book fairs and film screenings. Participants engaged in discussions on Trumpism, the practical dilemmas facing the United States, and the challenge of confronting capitalism in the 21st century.
I. Reflections on Trumpism
Trump’s ascension to power could be said to have disrupted the landscape of the entire United States and indeed the world, prompting scholars to interpret and reflect upon Trumpism. Participants discussed the dangers of Trumpism, arguing that it has placed the U.S. on the brink of authoritarianism, posed a threat to the rule of law and civil liberties, exacerbated irreversible climate catastrophe, and infringed upon the rights of minorities and women. Participants even suggested that Trump might start a war on a whim, leaving people at home and abroad with no peace.
The Threat Posed by Trump The economic recession caused by the 2008 economic crisis constitutes a growing source of instability in the Western world; beyond this, the political upheaval and crises triggered by the recession itself cannot be ignored. Joseph Choonara, a lecturer at the University of Leicester, columnist for the monthly Socialist Review, and member of the editorial board of International Socialism, argued that regarding global stability, the more worrying development is Trump becoming the president of the world’s greatest economic and political power. Choonara identified three dimensions to the threat posed by Trump: first, the possibility of further deterioration in global geopolitics; second, Trump has greatly weakened the possibility of global cooperation among Western powers; finally, the massive tax cuts introduced by Trump directly pushed the stock market into the stratosphere. Although the U.S. tax reform will certainly have a positive impact in the short term, it may also lead to severe risks (such as financial fragility) for the United States and other surrounding countries.
The Causes of Trumpism American leftists have not reached a consensus on how Trumpism emerged. Anti-neoliberal leftists claim that Trump’s electoral victory was due to a revolt by the "white working class" against greedy neoliberalism—a neoliberalism that caused their incomes to stagnate for decades. Scholars represented by David M. Kotz, Michael Hudson, and Michael Perelman believe that the failure of neoliberalism was the fundamental reason for Trump’s election. Since the late 1970s, neoliberalism has dominated the American economy. Under this policy, a small number of capitalists rapidly accumulated vast wealth, the gap between rich and poor sharply widened, and the working class—primarily white males—faced wage reductions and increased unemployment, confronting a marginalizing existential crisis.
However, Andrew Kliman, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pace University, pointed out that Trump’s electoral victory does not represent a "white working class" revolt against the "economic hardship" imposed by neoliberalism and economic globalization. He argued that Thomas Piketty and others have abandoned the narrative regarding middle-class income stagnation; in a 2016 paper, Piketty and his colleagues admitted they had previously "underestimated the income growth of the bottom 90% and overstated the growth share of the top group." The most important reason Piketty and others previously underestimated this growth was the failure to include tax-exempt income—for example, employer contributions on behalf of employees to Social Security, Medicare, private pensions, and medical insurance plans, which have grown significantly since 1980. Piketty and his colleagues found that once tax-exempt income is included, the share of national income received by employees did not fall during the entire neoliberal period [1]. In Kliman’s view, Piketty’s revision of this issue brought about starkly different results, indicating that the anti-neoliberal "leftist" explanation for Trump’s election is seriously flawed. If there was no income stagnation caused by neoliberalism, globalization, or financialization, then Trump’s victory cannot be attributed to a working-class revolt against such stagnation. The reasons voters turned to Trump seem to be some combination of racism, sexism, dissatisfaction with cultural change, anti-immigrant sentiment, and authoritarianism. Andrew Kliman further argued that Trumpism is a manifestation of white nationalism, a long-standing presence in American politics, rather than a response to neoliberalism or economic globalization.
- Confronting Trumpism at Both Theoretical and Practical Levels Regarding how to confront Trumpism, some scholars advocated looking to Marxist thought for intellectual resources. Andrew Kliman pointed out that Marx did not only condemn white nationalism but also sought ways to overcome it. Regarding the American Civil War and the Irish Revolution, Marx supported the North’s victory in the Civil War (especially when it became an explicit war against slavery) and Irish independence from British rule. This was not only beneficial for Black people and the Irish but also for white and British working classes. By weakening the sense of identity that white Americans and British workers had with their respective ruling classes, and by eliminating the privileges that prevented them from uniting with Black and Irish workers, the abolition of slavery and the resistance to British rule would help place white and British working people on an independent path aimed at overcoming class rule. Kliman argued that these views remain applicable today. Now that the United States has become the "capitalist metropole," an American economic revolution would have a greater direct impact on the whole world than the British revolution of Marx's era. Trump wields immense power and is likely to cause unprecedented and irreversible harm to human civilization. One must not cater to the white nationalist sentiments among the so-called "white working class"; rather, one should resolutely defeat Trumpism and all manifestations of far-right xenophobia and racism. Only by defeating Trumpism can the American working class be helped to emerge from white nationalism and be set on a path of independent self-emancipation and development.
Other scholars argued for actively resisting Trumpism in practice, calling on the Left to evaluate, reflect upon, refocus, and support the anti-Trump movement, with particular attention to newly emerged forces and movements of resistance. Anne Jaclard, secretary of the Marxist-Humanist Initiative, criticized two types of so-called "leftist" behavior that accommodate or even support Trumpism in reality. One tendency is active support. During the 2016 election, these individuals believed Trump was less evil than neoliberalism, or that the two were roughly the same, so they called on people not to vote for Hillary Clinton. These "leftist" Trump supporters, active since 2016, are seeking ways to promote their own parties, even if it means ruining everyone and everything else by perpetuating Trumpism. Although they do not deny that Trump should be treated as a danger to be confronted, they see Trump more as an opportunity for their own organizations or parties to gain influence—or even control—as the establishment parties self-destruct. The goal of this kind of "Left" is to push its own party onto the throne of power. Unlike a Left that seeks to empower the masses to manage their own lives, these "leftists" only want to succeed in becoming leaders and rulers. Anne Jaclard calls these people "left-firsters" because their goal is only to benefit the "Left," not to destroy Trump or help people build a better world without Trumpism.
The other tendency is ignorant neglect. Unlike those who actively support Trump, another segment of the "Left" supports him implicitly—that is, through inaction and a passive posture. These "leftists" do not talk about Trump at all, as if no matter what the problem is, they do not need to overcome Trumpism before solving their own problems. Anne Jaclard advocates for a radical social and economic revolution worldwide, in which a brand-new society is eventually organized and initiated through the self-development of workers and grassroots movements. Jaclard further argued that the true Left should support this process by encouraging resistance movements to remain independent of the aforementioned "left-firsters" and the Democratic Party, and to develop their own organizations.
II. The Practical Dilemmas of the United States
In recent years, the surge of American activism has been evidenced by strikes by low-wage workers, massive nationwide protests against racist police violence, large-scale marches against climate change in New York City, and movements for the rights of immigrants, women, Native Americans, and the LGBTQ community. The crisis of contemporary capitalism is universal and all-encompassing. In addition to political, economic, cultural, ecological, and social crises, participants also focused their attention on micro-level aspects. In the seminar "Mental Health Crisis: Is Capitalism Driving Us Crazy?", psychological crises also became a focal point.
- A Political-Economic Explanation of the Secular Depression More than ten years have passed since the financial storm that heralded a "secular depression." How to view this economic crisis and how to judge the economic situation has remained a hot topic in academic circles. A common view is that, globally, the recession that followed the collapse of the Wall Street bank Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008 has passed. In the thematic seminar "A Political-Economic Explanation of the Secular Depression," Joseph Choonara offered a different perspective on the claim made by many commentators that 2018 was the year the economy finally emerged from the woods. He argued that this optimism is likely misplaced. As early as 2010, he believed that the developing recovery then in its early stages would be "weak, fragile, and uncertain." This fragility stems from a bloated financial system, which risks showing new signs of crisis. This uncertainty is also a product of state interventions; while these interventions forestalled the crisis, they did not solve the fundamental problems that led to it. Choonara pointed out that it is impossible to understand why the current crisis is so deep and persistent without understanding the stagnant trend rooted in low profitability. Marx’s analysis of crisis in Volume III of Capital is worth our consideration:
"The fall in the rate of profit and the acceleration of accumulation are only different expressions of the same process, in so far as both express the development of productive forces. Accumulation... in turn, hastens the fall of the rate of profit... The fall in the rate of profit slows down the formation of new, independent capitals and thus appears as a threat to the development of the capitalist production process; it promotes overproduction, speculation, crises, and surplus capital alongside the promotion of a relative surplus population... In the terror which they feel at the fall in the rate of profit, what is important is the feeling that the capitalist mode of production meets a limit in the development of the productive forces which has nothing to do with the production of wealth as such; and this specific limit bears witness to the limitations and the merely historical, transitory character of the capitalist mode of production." [2]
Choonara particularly emphasized that when our rulers begin to withdraw support for capital, they are likely to find...
The latent sub-surface weaknesses within the capitalist system have once again become prominent. Consequently, this is a perilous moment for global capitalism. At this juncture, we ought to launch a challenge against the capitalist system.
2. The Return of Fascism The issue of immigration is a core point of contention in American society. A series of remarks by Trump regarding immigration and media exposure of border migrant camps once pushed this issue to the forefront of public debate. Jason Stanley, a Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, noted in his speech titled "Fascism and Immigration" that far-right nationalists in Europe and the United States are moving further down the path of attacking immigrants to win elections. Trump once tweeted that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would deport millions of "illegal aliens." The practice by ICE of treating immigrants targeted for deportation as illegal aliens is no different from the methods of the Gestapo; it is a standard tactic of fascism. U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sparked considerable controversy by comparing the Trump administration's detention centers for illegal immigrants on the southern border to World War II concentration camps. Just as the goal of Nazi concentration camps in the 1930s was to force Jews to leave Germany, today’s American immigrant prison camps are similar. Jason Stanley pointed out that fascism is a technical means of obtaining power that can rapidly identify enemies, appeal to the majority, crush the truth, and swiftly replace it with power.
3. U.S.-Russia Conflict and Sino-U.S. Relations Since Putin came to power, U.S. policy toward Russia has become increasingly hostile. Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are gradually heading toward a new "Cold War," with the potential for a new arms race and the danger of war. David Kotz, Ruslan Grinberg, David Laibman, and Aleksandr Buzgalin held discussions on issues such as the U.S.-Russia conflict and Sino-U.S. relations.
The U.S. establishment has three official explanations for U.S.-Russia relations, each of which David Kotz refuted. He pointed out that the first explanation cites Putin’s KGB background as the cause of U.S. hostility toward Russia, arguing that Putin created a state managed by former KGB agents and that such a state inevitably becomes an enemy of the U.S. on the global stage. In contrast, Boris Yeltsin, who came to power through the dissolution of the Soviet Union, could be described as the darling of the U.S. political establishment. However, the key issue is that U.S. government hostility toward post-Soviet Russia began during Yeltsin’s presidency, rendering this explanation untenable. The second explanation posits that post-Soviet Russia shifted from democracy to authoritarianism. This explanation lacks credibility because U.S. policy is not guided by a country’s level of democracy. Russian elections are honest, as evidenced by the fact that many high-ranking Communist officials failed to win elections. Yeltsin followed U.S.-backed "shock therapy" [3], which destroyed the Soviet Union’s diversified industrial economy and plunged the Russian people into poverty. The populace was enraged, and an opposition formed within the democratically elected parliament. The reorganized Communist Party of the Russian Federation led the opposition, calling for the re-nationalization of energy and a return to the path of building a democratic form of socialism. In order to win the 1996 election, Yeltsin illicitly utilized U.S. funds to engage in large-scale vote forgery to defeat Zyuganov, a result the U.S. applauded. Thus, the U.S. government praised the key steps that transformed the post-Soviet republic into an authoritarian regime. As neoliberal policies continued to undermine the Russian economy while enriching the new oligarchs, the possibility of a democratic form of government vanished in Russia. In short, the U.S. government and establishment politicians have never cared about democracy; all they want is a regime that follows U.S.-favored policies and accepts U.S. leadership. The third explanation accuses Russia of "rogue interventionism," an explanation that emerged after the 2014 Ukraine conflict and was followed by allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. In fact, the Ukraine crisis was a result of U.S. intervention.
The growing U.S. hostility toward Russia and the threat of a new Cold War are the results of a conflict of class interests in the era of imperialism. David Kotz noted that in Russia, American big capital is unable to access most areas of the economy, such as highly profitable sectors like oil, natural gas, minerals, and metals. These sectors were seized by a new Russian bourgeoisie and eventually occupied by oligarchs. An extremely wealthy independent bourgeoisie emerged in Russia that is independent of the American bourgeoisie. Putin’s goal is for Russia to play a leading regional role and a significant role in the global system, which puts the Putin regime in conflict with U.S. attempts to dominate the entire world. Buzgalin argued that the U.S. government has been the global hegemon since 1945 and cannot accept any powerful country independent of the United States; this is the true root of growing U.S. hostility toward Russia, and it also makes the Sino-U.S. trade war easy to understand. Since 2010, the U.S. has increasingly viewed China as a dangerous adversary. David Kotz pointed out that in the past 10 to 15 years, China’s role in the global economy has changed; it is no longer merely a source of low-wage, low-tech, and low-profit products. In terms of economic and technological levels, it is rapidly approaching and reaching rough parity with the United States. In 2017, China’s R&D investment ranked second in the world; from 2011 to 2017, China ranked first in the world in patent applications; and in 2017, China ranked third in the world in terms of valid invention patents. This explains the broad support among American big capital for "tough on China" policies and the support in the mass media for the rising anti-China movement in the U.S.
Global capitalism is a system characterized by deep hierarchy and ubiquitous conflict. David Laibman pointed out incisively that the official claims of this system sound very good: first, all countries benefit from free trade; second, all countries have the right to self-determination; and third, global capitalism is committed to promoting the economic development of all nations, especially underdeveloped ones. However, what we see today is a starkly different reality. The U.S. is sanctioning Russia because Russia does not allow U.S. corporations to control its most profitable industries. The U.S., as a hegemonic state, is attempting to sanction China because China dares to fulfill the promise of bringing economic progress to the world's underdeveloped nations. David Laibman believes that the world today is at a juncture that matches the situation before World War I; we face intensifying global tensions and the danger of a devastating war breaking out. Progressives around the world should resolve conflicts through negotiation rather than illegal economic sanctions or threats of force.
III. Confronting Capitalism in the 21st Century
The American Left’s understanding of capitalism is built upon their profound understanding and holistic reflection on social reality. Some scholars believe it is extremely important to explicitly oppose "capitalism without adjectives"—that is, not to oppose "neoliberal capitalism," "corporate capitalism," "savage capitalism," or even "crony capitalism" or "financial capitalism," but rather to oppose "capitalism" itself. Participants discussed issues such as "the end of history," the legacy of Marxism, and transcending utopia around the problem of opposing capitalism in the 21st century.
1. The End of the "End of History" "The End of History" is a euphemism for what Margaret Thatcher called "There Is No Alternative" (in the face of neoliberalism); it means history is about to end, it means the end of social reform, and it means the end of society, said Michael Hudson, a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri. The popularity of "the end of history" lies in the belief held by some that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe [4] marked the end of communism and that there is only one path for historical development. In fact, "the end of history" means total privatization and the elimination of state intervention; it means the end of the Progressive Era. Buzgalin stated that we are now in the era of the decline of neoliberalism and its corresponding economic globalization. It has been over 20 years since the publication of The End of History and the Last Man, and now the author of that book has also begun to discuss the revival of Marxism and socialism. David Harvey stated that the financial crisis did not kill neoliberalism but actually embedded the logic of neoliberalism even deeper into our lives. The only way to completely end this system is to change the way we confront it. David Kotz believes that the current state of economic stagnation and increased political instability proves that neoliberalism is in a crisis phase and is unlikely to continue surviving, because the model of economic expansion driven by debt-fueled consumer spending has reached its limit. From a historical perspective, such past periods have ended with the restructuring of capitalism. Currently, there are two directions for restructuring in the U.S. and global capitalism: one is authoritarian right-wing nationalism, as seen in Turkey, India, and the U.S. In Trump, we see a combination of right-wing nationalism and extreme liberalism [5], the former manifested in foreign tariffs and the latter in tax cuts for the wealthy and the privatization of education. Authoritarian right-wing nationalism can solve the structural crisis of capitalism, but the working class will pay a huge price. The second is Green Social Democracy. The Green New Deal, built on a new compromise between labor and capital and more active government intervention, can solve the structural crisis and make progress in addressing global climate change. At present, in the U.S. or other major capitalist countries, Green Social Democracy may be the best choice for working people. Although it also has many problems—for example, it retains many of the contradictions and oppressions of capitalism; it cannot fully resolve the contradiction between humanity and nature under capitalism; it cannot last, as big capital will eventually dismantle it, etc.—David Kotz believes the Left should still support Green Social Democracy to facilitate the transition to the next stage: socialism.
2. The Legacy of Marxism In the United States, the International Marxist-Humanist Organization (IMHO) and the Marxist-Humanist Initiative (MHI) are the two major organizations upholding the demands of Marxist-Humanism. At a symposium titled "Socialist Humanism: A Contemporary Legacy," Kevin B. Anderson, a Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a representative of the IMHO, pointed out that Marx studied the economic laws of capitalism to essentially expose the alienation of people in capitalist society. Real human beings are the driving force of socio-historical development and the core force for transforming society, and social history must inevitably move toward a humane direction that overcomes human alienation. Dr. Kieran Durkin of the University of York in the UK gave a speech on the legacy of the anti-colonial tradition of socialist humanism, pointing out that racism and colonial conquest must be fought both spiritually and materially.
Some scholars utilize Marxist analysis to examine the explosive crises of contemporary capitalism. Julio Huato, Associate Professor of Economics at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, New York, points out that humanity today faces a series of explosive crises for which no solution can be found within the capitalist framework. These include the rapid deterioration of the environmental crisis, the crisis in world relations which increases the possibility of nuclear catastrophe, and economic malaise. Applying a Marxist analysis to these crises reveals that the phenomenon of human beings separating themselves from the production process, its products, and social structures is reaching unprecedented levels; socialism constitutes the negation and overcoming of this alienation. While Marx was a man of the 19th century, he is also our "contemporary." David Harvey argues that Marx’s thought is more relevant today than ever before, and that Marx's analysis of what capital is and its contradictions is now more appropriate than at any previous time.
3. Transcending Utopia During the panel discussion "Beyond Utopia, Beyond Incrementalism: Visions of Socialist Structure," Paddy Quick, Julio Huato, and David Laibman argued that the development of socialist movements must summarize experiences and transcend partial modifications.
Julio Huato pointed out that socialism does not occur by accident. Workers must rely on meticulous planning, and their actions must take into account possible consequences. Increasingly conscious, organized, and sustained mass activity by the working class must serve as the engine of socialism. The role of socialist activists (cadre organizations, party factions, etc.) is also of great importance. He believes that continuous democratic participation and large-scale public activities are crucial to the development of the socialist movement.
Paddy Quick maintains that uniting vulnerable groups is the arduous path toward achieving class solidarity and the building of socialism. This necessarily requires a global socialist reproductive structure to ensure a massive transfer of productive forces toward socially disadvantaged strata. Given the ubiquity of alienation, class solidarity will not form smoothly or in an orderly fashion. It is necessary to utilize surging social movements to establish lasting political, legal, and economic structures, promoting the continuous expansion of mass movements and completing the transition from "movement" to "structure." Paddy Quick advocates that in the management of public assets, what should be promoted are mechanisms of democratic participation, rather than those mechanisms which consolidate bureaucracies and reduce the people to passive recipients of aid.
The leftist struggle will have smooth paths as well as setbacks. Partial victories may intoxicate us, and setbacks may cause us to fall into despair—even for a prolonged period. Julio Huato emphasizes that the revolutionary process is like a spiral motion [6]. It undergoes a process from the simple to the complex, from sporadic actions to sustained activity, from individual initiatives to mass activities, from transient structures to stable and permanent institutions, and from local actions to an increasingly integrated global movement.
Debates regarding reform versus revolution, as well as the roles of persuasion versus coercion, frequently emerge within the socialist movement. In summarizing the lessons of the 1871 Paris Commune, Marx's conclusion was that the Parisian working class could not simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes; rather, they must smash it and replace it with a new set of public institutions to meet the next goals of the working class. David Laibman pointed out that it is evident that existing institutions and mechanisms of public life are shaped by capital; in this sense, they are carriers of the logic of capital. In the course of leftist movements, these institutions and mechanisms will come under great pressure, forced to strive to provide products they were not originally intended to provide, and will ultimately reveal their limitations.
In the United States, leftist conferences or forums essentially survive in the "cracks" [7], yet the New York Left Forum maintains significant influence in North America, which warrants our attention and study. A characteristic of the New York Left Forum is that it has never been a "monolith" [8]. Since its inception, it has been known for its pluralistic hybridity, adapting to different historical moments, cultural identities, geographical regions, political environments, and social practices. In fact, the New York Left Forum is more like a massive "discursive field" in which all discussions and practices are based on the historical facts of capitalism and the various consequences it has caused. In this forum, participants include the nation-state, racial systems, gender oppression, modern politics, colonial hegemony, class rule, and modernity within their critical vision, deeply dissecting and launching critiques of capitalist reality. Some of these analyses inherit Marx’s critical tradition. However, viewed as a whole, the New York Left Forum faces problems such as a heterogeneous mix of personnel, lack of ideological unity, and a need for strengthened academic rigor. We should analyze the viewpoints within the New York Left Forum dialectically.
References [6] Jiang Yang: The Rise of Marxist Studies in the United States, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2014. [7] Zhang Xinning and Guo Zhifang: Studies of Marxist Economics in the United States, Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Publishing House, 2016. [8] Yuan Junya: "Interpretation of Marx’s Philosophy by Contemporary American Humanist Marxism," Studies on Marxist Philosophy, No. 1, 2017. [9] [UK] David Harvey: The New Imperialism, translated by Chu Lizhong and Shen Xiaolei, Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (CASS), 2009. [10] Pang Jinyou: "Whither Conservatism in the Era of Great Changes: Trumpism and the Future of American Conservative Politics," Contemporary American Review, No. 4, 2019. [11] [Germany] Ingo Schmidt: "The Future of the Left and World Socialism in the Context of the Fourth Organic Crisis of Global Capitalism," compiled and translated by Kou Jingna, Contemporary World and Socialism, No. 3, 2014. [12] David M. Kotz, "The Current Financial and Economic Crisis and the Prospects for a New Socialist Movement", International Critical Thought, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2011. [13] Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, "Global Capitalism and American Empire", Socialist Register, Vol. 40, 2004.
(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Peking University) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Qiushi (Marxist Studies), Issue 3, 2020