THE US LEFT (AND IMITATIONS THEREOF)

Are left and right meaningful terms?

Historically, the left has been somewhat ambivalent about political
power. The right has no such inhibitions—they want political
power.

I don’t much like the terms left and right. What’s called the left
includes Leninism, which I consider ultra-right in many respects.
The Leninists were certainly very interested in political power—in
fact, more so than anyone.
Leninism has nothing to do with the values of the left—in fact,
it’s radically opposed to them. That was recognized at the time by
mainstream left Marxists like Anton Pannekoek, Paul Mattick and
Karl Korsch. Even Trotsky had predicted that the Leninists would
turn to dictatorial rule (before he decided to join them).
Rosa Luxemburg warned of the same things (in a more or less
friendly way, because she didn’t want to harm the movement). So did
Bertrand Russell. And, of course, most of the anarchists did.
Conventional terms of political discourse like left and right have
been almost evacuated of meaning. They’re so distorted and
irrelevant it’s almost better to throw them out.
Take Witness for Peace, which has been a very important
organization since the 1980s. People from an imperial country
actually went down and lived in Third World villages, in the hope
that a white face might protect the inhabitants from state terrorists
organized by their own country. That’s never happened before.
Was that left or right? It certainly represents the traditional
ideals of the left, like justice, freedom, solidarity, sympathy. On the
other hand, a lot of it came out of the conservative Christian
community. I don’t know where to put Witness for Peace on any
political spectrum. It’s just human beings acting decently.
What’s currently lambasted as “political correctness” is
supposed to be left. But in many places I go—including campuses
that are extremely conservative, where there is hardly any political