JKJ, Cognitive dissonance can express itself in a belief that something is 'confused jumble'. Like most people, and all the media, you are accustomed to the pseudo-left being regarded as a genuine left. This is what my blog, C21st Left, seeks to challenge.

Regarding ownership or control of means of production, capitalism only means the 'private' in the sense of monopoly and duopoly ownership of the key economic sectors and the crushing of competition. Social ownership of socially produced wealth, based on a decentralised workplace democratic system with a multi-party competitive electoral system, is socialism for this century. You are setting up a redundant and out of date 'model' in order to shoot it down.

I'm a Leftist and I'm all for 'western' intervention on the side of the oppressed in the Middle East, and have been since the Iraq War. The pseudo-left oppose it, but they are knee-jerk anti-Americans with little to no grasp of Marxism or dialectical thinking. Just another form of religious dogmatic thinking.

(cont) reply to JKJ. Hitler was a National Socialist and the most vicious anti-communist of the first half of the C20th. His first custom-made concentration camp, Dachau, was mainly for the communists. National Socialism is not socialism at all, but a ploy to win over disgruntled sectors of the population, such as the unemployed, lest they become attracted to real socialism. Hitler's economy was essentially a tightly regulated state capitalist economy in which the capitalist class was rescued from overthrow.

I know of no left-wing parties that take the absurd position on global warming that you describe. I know of Green parties that do that (and they actually have much in common philosophically with Hitler, as anyone who has read Mein Kampf will know). Also, there are pseudo-left parties like that. But a left-wing party influenced by Marxism will support the unleashing of the productive forces. That's Marxism 101. And it would perhaps mean moving to nuclear power as an intermediate measure while demanding greater investment in R&D into nuclear fusion (as part of the ITER project).

Not many words left but what I stand for is basically the extension of democracy into the social and economic realms, which means social wealth belonging to those who produce it rather than the irrelevant less-than-one-percent who happen to exploit productive labour through ownership of the means of production. No, I do not support a one-party state and, yes, there's no reason why this can't happen with a multi-party competitive electoral system, including parties that will support the old order.

In the meantime, with my feet firmly on the ground, I'll be happy if I can help differentiate the pseudo's from the real thing.

Hi loudmouth; there is much in what you say!
However, I'm not advocating a utopia, nor permanently populated dream castles in the clouds, just cooperative capitalism as a preferred, private ownership, free market model.
A number of points; co-ops were the only capitalist free market model, to survive the Great Depression, largely intact!
They rarely if ever, get too big to fail! I can't find as much as a single example.
They produce few hangers on or unproductive parasites, which hate them much more than communism or socialism, which are all tossed into that much reviled basket, by the elitist exploiters and other extremely privileged drones, who wouldn't couldn't work in an iron lung, let alone do what they expect of others, often much brighter, more enterprisinhg people than they are!.
Plus a few self made men, (portly posers) born in the log cabins they carved from the woods, with their own bare hands!
I remember a reportedly true story about a Brazilian billionaire, forced to the brink of bankruptcy, by his gold digging unscrupulous partners, and a parasitical bank, eager to carve off its pound of flesh.
The Brazilian turned the tables on this motley crew, by signing over the majority, controlling ownership of the manufacturing plant and property, to his most loyal staff.
As a staff owned enterprise, they cleaned out the drones and embarked on a mission to acquire more customers, with extremely competitive pricing/direct, [eliminate the profit demanding middleman,] sales?
And in a nutshell, not only rescued the business, but created a massive turnaround.
As part of their deserved reward, they created a staff owned housing cooperative, a school, a creche and a hospital?
They also set their own salaries, which were invariably, a lot less than the management committee, would entertain!
That former billionaire, is reportedly, still a very rich man, thanks to the 10% interest he maintained, and now tours the world, chasing the sun and golf tournaments; and has never been happier.
It's not utopia, nor drone supporting state ownership, I'm advocating, just applied, evidence supported, practical pragmatism.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

"Cognitive dissonance can express itself in a belief that something is 'confused jumble'."

Notice how, when a leftist is challenged, his first response is a descent straight-into mind-reading = ad hominem? The implication is that, if I challenge him, I must have a psychological/perception problem.

And notice how Barry didn't answer my questions which cut to the chase?

"I'll be happy if I can help differentiate the pseudo's from the real thing."

Good, thanks, I appreciate that.

Please answer these questions.

1. Do you support the full socialisation of the means of production, and if not, why not?

2. If not, then why does that not mean that you support crony capitalism, in other words, the economic policy of fascism? How do you avoid that conclusion if you don't agree with full socialism, don't agree with a voluntary society, and believe the role of government is to permit private ownership, subject to whatever conditions the government chooses to impose on anything?

A well reasoned and timely article by Barry York. The Left is very much in decline among thinking people in the west. The left has been very successful in portraying itself as the "progressive" and "intelligent" side of politics to young people. The problem for the Left is that young people get older and wiser sooner or later, and they begin to figure out that they are being conned.

It is alright running around denouncing "the establishment" and sneering at societies laws when you have no responsibilities yourself. But reality bites when the result of some frenzied sexual activity produces an unplanned offspring. The huge responsibility of inculcating pro social values into a new person to make them productive and accepted citizens usually cures most Leftists of their characteristic sneering contempt for all authority.

The problem for the Left is something akin to the tobacco companies problem, who realised that their very survival depended entirely upon marketing their product to adolescents and teenagers through "youth media." But whereas the tobacco companies could rely upon addiction to their product to maintain their market share, the Left knows that it's hold on most youth has a use by date, and it is entirely dependent upon continuing to corrupt every generation of young people before they grow out of their youthful naivety.

Of course, the Left is looking for other sources to create a new support base. Thus they are championing refugees, non western immigration, and recently denouncing Israel to get the Arab vote. The Left is smart enough to figure out that western voting demographics are changing, and appealing to the resentments and aspirations of the ever growing numbers of non western people now inhabiting western societies is the way to go. This is why they are supporting restrictions on freedom of speech through 18C. which traditionally as "progressives" they are supposed to be opposing.

It just goes to show that for all their finger wagging, leftists are just as adept at foregoing their principles to get votes as the right wing parties are.

JKJ, I apologise to you for the ad hominem implication. It was not intended that way, though I do see how you could take it that way. I find that what I regard as a pseudo-left has been so promoted by media as a genuine left - THE left - that I am sometimes accused of confusion because I do not fit the pseudo-left, nor the conservative Right, categories.

I felt that I had replied on socialisation but clearly not to your satisfaction. I said: "What I stand for is basically the extension of democracy into the social and economic realms, which means social wealth belonging to those who produce it rather than the irrelevant less-than-one-percent who happen to exploit productive labour through ownership of the means of production".

Is this what you mean by socialisation? If so, yes, I support it - but with the vitally important rider that, to me, it must not be a top-down process. That is why I added the bit about competitive multi-party democracy. I believe there has been historical experience, albeit limited, to show that workplace democracy can be real and work at a grass-roots level. I'm not an anarchist and also support government along parliamentary lines.

There is a very good site by economist David McMullen that delves deeper in 'social ownership' or what you call 'socialisation'. http://economsoc.wordpress.com/

I'm all for private ownership of things privately produced but not for the kind of private ownership of things produced socially that occurs under capitalism, which is based on concentrated private ownership.