
The Left is a political force that strives to form a more just governance based on Egalitarian ideals; such as, equality of women and men, equality of income between people, and most importantly an equal amount of political and social privilege between people. Hence, the Left is one of the most important political forces in regards to the political climate of the United States. The Left is important because only it will be able to save the United States from ideologies founded upon inequality, racism, and perpetual war; therefore, one should care very much where the Left is heading. The Left with its egalitarian ideals has its roots in the French Revolution, which was orchestrated by a man named Maximilien Robespierre in order to destroy a political/social privilege divide between nobility and non nobility; hence, the mission of the left today is to pick up where he and others have left off in order to eradicate all forms of inequality. In order to better define "The Left", one must know that various groups may fall under the classification of "The Left" such as anarchism, marxism, and neoliberalism. The uniting factor is that all of these groups want egalitarian ideals to be implemented along with a more just governance but they differ heavily on the method to implement them. An anarchist and marxist would want the workers to seize the means of production, which are things like factories, materials, and technology that produce things of value, in a revolution. However, an Anarchist would say that the state needs to be destroyed right then and there, while a Marxist would want say it would go away eventually. The neoliberal has the most different and ineffective approach compared to the marxist and anarchist because he wishes to work within a capitalist system in order to implement these Egalitarian ideals, but the capitalist system is one that will actively work against that due to it allowing business owners at the top to make a profit at the expense of the common man's labor. Therefore, this paper will effectively analyze where the left is heading in the 21st century. The trajectory of a political force cannot be calculated in a vacuum; hence, it must be analyzed in conjunction with a good sampling of various economically and politically related events and phenomena that would concern the left: Destruction of the Soviet Union, Occupy Wall Street, the current trend of leftist theory, Obama's presidency, NSA scandal, and automation of labor. For the sake of this paper, a political force, like the left, will defined as a unifying set of principles that link together various movements, events, and ideals. Occupy Wall Street is the flashpoint event that will need to be analyzed in great detail due to it being the exact point in time where the left started to move away from neoliberalism and more towards anarchism and marxism. Therefore, Occupy Wall Street will serve as a reference point to everything that is to be talked about in this paper, with respects to time and/or influence. Three distinct time periods will be looked at through this paper; that is, Before Occupy Wall Street, During Occupy Wall Street, After Occupy Wall Street, and beyond Occupy Wall Street with respects to the left as a political force.

The Left before Occupy Wall Street was coming out of heavy losses after the destruction of the Soviet Union and the victory of Capitalism in the cold war. As Dr. Callinicos, a well known marxist theorist, has stated, "Plainly no one considering the condition of international socialism today, in the face of the 21st century, can look forward with the same confidence"( Callinicos 9). Any mention of Marxism or Socialism usually conjured up images of horrible state sponsored oppression by Joseph Stalin. As Dr. Callinicos has stated, "If, as I do, one believes that Stalinism represented not a distorted, degenerate, or some in other respect imperfect form of a socialism, but a variant of capitalism, bureaucratic state capitalism, as firmly founded on the exploitation and oppression of the working class as its western counterpart, then one has no reason in principle to defend it or to seek its survival"(Callinicos 12). As one can see Stalinism is not a good representation of any kind far left movement in actualization. Stalinism is not a good representation of a leftist movement in actualization due to it creating a great gap between workers and bureaucrats in regards to the workers having much lesser political power. A great divide between two groups of people in regards to social and political privilege is a great violation of egalitarian ideals that form the solid foundation of any leftist movement. But, even with the victories of capitalism, people were still being oppressed and taken advantage of from forces that they could not see due to cold war propaganda. For example, black people were still being oppressed in the ghettos even though America, as a nation, has "passed" racism; however, the bourgeoisie still have much to gain from the oppression of blacks. The blacks living in the ghetto have now become a sort of utility tool to the bourgeoisie rather than workers themselves. For example, blacks can be kept in a cycle of hate and poverty in the ghetto so they may eventually go on to commit crimes and end up in prison. Once in prison, blacks will be able to provide cheap slave/prison labor to many government agencies; in conclusion, this cycle of hate and poverty effectively forms an prison industrial complex. Blacks can also be used as a tool to drive down labor costs and break strikes. As Dr.Willhelm, a well known American Sociologist, has stated, " Capitalists need racial inferiority to cheapen the cost of labor. 'White employers,' Nearing asserted in 1929, 'are taking advantage of the Negroes-using them to force down wages, to break strikes' "(Wilhlem 98). But, the middle class did not start to feel the blunt of Capitalist greed until the Western nations that went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan against an imaginary threat(War on Terror) started to harvest what they sowed; consequently, at the expense of the middle class. Terrorism is an imaginary threat because one is fighting something that's even more abstract than the concept of a nation. A nation can atleast tie itself to a material piece of land , but terrorism is a word that can be redefined in a slight way and stamped upon the acts of any organization/group. For example, a war against Germany would mean conquering a specific piece of land in Europe, but a "War on Terror" is an attempt at combating an ideology that does not exist in the real world. Hence, terrorism is the perfect de-jure for the bourgeoisie due to its inherent mutability. The War on Terror has negatively affected the middle class because they were the ones who funded the war with their respective tax dollars. Therefore, the bourgeoisie were able to have a expense free war in which they profited from via sales of weapons and extraction of natural resources from the lands that were invaded; hence, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. As Mrs.Dean, CEO of a well known labor council that works to progress the labor movement, has stated, "The lack of voice that most Americans experience in the economic sphere--exacerbated by the decline of institutions such as trade unions--is also present in our political life"(Dean). Of course, the American public were feeling neglected by the system and of course had to turn to radical politics; thus, setting the tone for a universal undirected angst against the system. This point is further exemplified from what Mrs. Dean has stated, "The Occupy movement has emerged at a moment when that gap has been particularly severe."(Dean). Therefore, this undirected angst laid down the groundwork for the re-embodiment of classical marxist and anarchist traditions into a neoliberal dominated left; however, this is a dual edge sword because the undirected angst also makes room for radical right wing politics (fascism).

During Occupy Wall Street, the narrative was quite mixed in regards to what the protestors wanted; however, all of the protestors could unite behind the slogan of the "99% vs the 1%". The slogan "99% vs 1%" is important due to it allowing an absolute material basis for the protestors to rally behind. The "1%" is used to signify the 1% of the population in the United States that hold most of the wealth and land, and the "99%" is the rest of the population that hold so little wealth and land compared to the "1%". In conclusion, one can't get any more material than unfair distribution of money and land within a population. As Dr. Vey, a German sociologist who researches various leftist movements, has stated "By focusing on self-organisation, equal participation and internal deliberation, Occupy Wall  Street was mainly engaged with forms of direct action in the tradition of (European) anarchism"(Vey 2). As one can see, the Occupy Wall Street movement directed the left as a political force more towards the anarchist side, instead of the traditional statist-marxism; however, this is to be expected because Occupy Wall Street by nature was culmination of chaotic angst against "the system" of capitalist exploitation controlled by the "1%" against the "99%". This great dualism between the "1%" and the "99%" is important because it allowed people to take off their "ideological lense" for a moment and see past "the spectacle" laced with distracting images. "The spectacle" is the endgame of a decedent consumer culture produced by capitalism; accordingly, "the spectacle" is kept alive by the desire of one living under capitalism to consume and identify with his consumption. This identification of the consumer to the object he consumes is precisely what " the spectacle" is. The consumer seeks meaning and self expression through brand name clothing and products promising great pleasure and lifestyle improvements. However, the only thing that is truly given to the consumer is a sort of great alienation that can only be supposedly remedied by mass consumption of media or products. Hence, "the spectacle" holds the consumer's attention while great atrocities are committed towards him or against others with the help of his tax dollars. Nevertheless, mass consumption of media will lead to mass consumption of products through advertisements in a never ending cycle of alienation and consumption, which to no surprise greatly benefits a capitalist society. Since, "the spectacle" is so heavily tied to capitalism it would be impossible to destroy working within the framework of capitalism; as a result, the only groups, within the Left, who can possibly destroy "the spectacle" would be someone like an anarchist or marxist, not a neoliberal. Guy Debord exemplifies this point here, "The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images" (Debord 3). Hence, during this brief moment of clarity, for the populace, called Occupy Wall Street could the left, as a political force, have any chance of returning back to its more anarchist or marxist roots. Take note, that a step towards anarchism for the "left" as a political force, is a step in the right direction, even if anarchism is not marxism. For, anarchism and marxism both have great potential, if implemented and put to action, to implement egalitarian and replace a broken system like capitalism with a better one. Therefore, there should be no preference given to anarchism or marxism; accordingly, their importance lies in them being able to work outside of capitalism and "the spectacle" it produces. One should care about this because if the Left were to lean towards neoliberalism then the spectacle would continue to stay intact. Effectively meaning, one would live a life of alienation and distraction at the expense of oneself and people beneath one in terms of economic status. Occupy Wall Street in conjunction with its radical potential to temporarily remove "the spectacle" truly scared the "1%" because once "the spectacle" is gone there is nothing left to distract a populace. Only when the populace is undistracted can it ever be informed, and an informed populace is the cornerstone of any democracy. Dr. Graeber, a well known anthropologist and anarchist activist, exemplifies this point here, "As the history of the past movements all make clear, nothing terrifies those running the US more than the danger of democracy breaking out"(Graber). The most important part of Occupy Wall Street was it's ability to show an alternative to capitalism to the populace, which can only be done with "the spectacle" is temporarily lifted. As Dr. Graeber has stated, "As a result, Zuccotti Park, and all subsequent encampments, became spaces of experiment with creating the institutions of a new society - not only democratic General Assemblies but kitchens, libraries, clinics, media centres and a host of other institutions"(Graeber). Occupy Wall Street's ability to self organize is important because it showed people that it was not a bunch of hooligans running amok, but rather the protesters of Occupy Wall Street could unite in order to provide things ranging from libraries to health clinics. For, people could now truly see that there are true alternatives out there to capitalism, and once people realize that there are alternatives can society head towards egalitarian ideals rather than decay into fascism and ideologies fueled by hate.

After Occupy Wall Street, was an interesting time due to the failure of OWS to accomplish anything material, but it's ability to raise class consciousness within the American populace made it all worth it. Into Obama's presidency the economy got better and things were starting to look better for the middle class; however, minorities, like blacks, were still perplexed as to how their material conditions were still trash compared to other more well off races (whites). With the ever increasing police violence against blacks with incidents ranging from shooting of unarmed black men from Mike Brown to Walter Scott. These events against an traditionally oppressed group sparked the dormant flame in the leftist political force, and like clockwork various academics went out of their way to analyze the situation. The fatal flaw of these analysts were mostly due to them looking at these incidents with the eyes of a neoliberal, that is focus on the problem at hand, whilst ignoring the system that caused it in the first place. As Mr.Saval, editor of n+1(critical theory magazine), has explained here, "For example, many students were strongly indoctrinated into the work of Walter Benjamin, a literary critic associated with the Marxist Frankfurt School for Social Research. But much of what we were taught to admire about him were his departures from Marxism -- into Jewish mysticism, or analyses of allegory in German theater. In these discussions, labor, work, and the economy went unmentioned"(Saval 57). The Frankfurt School along with Walter Benjamin  holds an important and controversial position in the history of leftism. The Frankfurt School advocated more of culturalist approach, in contrast to a more traditional structural marxism, in order to understand society. One analyzes the world through a culturalist perspective by looking into how culture evolves, effects a society, maintains the current political structure, and maintains the current status quo. Gramsci's theory of superstructure and base is the essence of a marxist structural analysis. To explain, the superstructure and base theory is that the superstructure, which constituents things like culture, art, and politics, is held up by a base, which constituents things like property, money, tools, machines, and factories. The base is dominant, as in if the base did not exist then the superstructure would not exist. However, the base and superstructure both maintain and shape each other; hence, they both need each other in order to exist. The English department is important in the context of it being a bastion of theory due to fact it's one of the few hubs of Continental Philosophy and social justice in the United States. Now, the problem with the English department, a bastion of theory, taking a more culturalist rather than a structuralist approach is due to the inability of the culturalist approach to attack capitalism at its root. For Attacking the base of the superstructure and destroying the superstructure is a sure fire way to destroy institutions of oppression and hate. The bourgeoisie would have no way to enforce their laws and power structures if their respective property, tools, money, and machines were seized. To synthesize all of these points, there is too much of a focus on social privilege that is so hard to calculate in an objective way within the left as a political force. There should be more of a move back to a economical analysis of classes and oppressed groups. Now, this does not mean that blacks do not suffer societal stereotyping from the media. According to Bristor et al. , blacks are often stereotyped in a sublime manner in media; that is to say, that blacks are often unproportionally made to play roles that reinforce a certain negative narrative about them (Bristol et al.). This reinforcement of a certain negative narrative serves to allow the social oppression of blacks to continue in the realm of ideology. As Slavoj Zizek states, "It's not ideas the media/society is putting in you, it's the molding of your thinking which shapes the ideas you make"(Zizek). Nevertheless, this neoliberal way of thinking within the left will not solve anything relating to the problems of minorities. Therefore, the left will move towards a direction that advocates cutting the root of the cancer, which is economical nature, and what better system of thought to analyze something from an economical point of view than marxism. 

Beyond OWS or looking towards the future of the 21st century, one can see that the western world is heading towards somewhat of a conundrum with the influxation of new technologies; such as, the internet, surveillance, and automation. Therefore, the left as a political force must rise to the challenge and find a way to answer these problems relating to surveillance by the NSA and huge personal data holding by companies like Facebook and Google. As Mr. Bamford, a well known PBS documentary producer, explains, "NSA program known as TREASUREMAP is being developed to continuously map every Internet connection  --  cellphones, laptops, tablets  --  of everyone on the planet, including Americans."(Bamford ). As one can see the government has absolute control of one's smartphones and electronic devices. This governmental control of technology is scary because the average smartphone is a computer that can be made to run any program; therefore, the government could easily remotely turn on and record the camera or microphone of any smartphone. The government can also analyze the internet traffic stream of any user's smartphone or computer in order to build up a political/ social profile of the user. Hence, things like the Xbox kinect, smart televisions, and smartphones with front facing cameras can all be turned against you. Of course the neoliberal narrative cannot provide the answers to such questions within the constraining framework of Capitalism; hence, radical progress of technology, calls for the left to look back and learn from the teachings of Bakunin and Marx. To elaborate, how is one to trust neoliberalism when it tends to "shoo away" any mention of radical change within a system that supports such atrocities against its populace. As Dr. Fuchs, a well known european researcher of marxism and technology, explains here, " For Karl Marx, surveillance was a fundamental aspect of the capitalist economy and the modern nation state"(Fuchs 5). As one can see, Marx had already predicted the necessity of surveillance on the proles by the bourgeoisie; however, not even Marx could predict the malignant form it took on with the birth the internet. Automation is the other conundrum facing Western Society as we move ever so closer to the realization of fully automated labor. Automatized labor is way cheaper, easier to maintain, and control compared to a human worker; therefore, the continual progression of technology necessarily implies the continual replacement of human workers with automated labor. If the populace of a nation is replaced by automated labor then there will be no one left to work, and if their is no one left to work then who will consume the products made by said automated labor; thus, capitalism would implode. As Dr. Elliott, a well known marxist scholar, explains here, "These radical changes have three major consequences. One is that output and wealth come to depend less on the amount of labor employed and more on the powerful forces affecting labor productivity: science and technology. Labor productivity grows "out of all proportion" to the direct labor employed in production" (Elliot 163) The rapid progress of Technology is something that will lead to the demise of capitalism; even though, capitalism as an economic system goes hand and hand with fast advancement of technology. The importance of a left more aligned towards anarchism and marxism cannot be stressed enough once capitalism implodes due to rapid progress of technology(automation). For, only the anarchist or marxist have the ability to keep the floodgates of fascism, racism, and hate at bay. At desperate times people will be more aligned towards radical ideas; accordingly, one can look back to Occupy Wall Street in regards to how people became more open to anti center politics in times of economic crisis. Therefore, the left as a political force will move towards a direction that would allow it to synthesize some sort of theory to better analyze government surveillance and automation. This new direction will of course be more towards anarchism and marxism rather than neoliberalism; in conslusion, more "far left" than before.

The left as a movement has always had the interests of the common man/woman as their core motivator; however, different spectrum's, such as anarchism, marxism, and neoliberalism, of the left may go about it in different ways. One will be hard pressed to find an anarchist that agrees with a marxist on seizing the tentacles of the state and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. As explained before, the anarchist sees the state as something evil and oppressive that must be destroyed immediately while the marxist is more inclined to believe it will wither away eventually once capitalism is destroyed. Nevertheless, the marxist and anarchist both agree on establishing a socialist state with no government as their respective end goal. Even the neoliberal will say he is fighting for the benefit of the common man. With the full picture in mind, one can see that the left as a whole will be headed "more left" on the political spectrum; hence, erring more towards marxism and anarchism rather than neoliberalism. This is the only logical choice for the left if it is to survive the post Occupy Wall Street era. The reason being is that people have lost faith in the current system in light of current incidents; for example, 9/11, the failure of the Iraq war, the persecution of minorities like blacks, and of course the NSA scandal. All of these various problems and contradictions within a capitalist society that parades as a democracy has culminated to the Presidential run of Donald Trump (Fascism) vs Bernie Sanders (Socialism). This is as of 2016 where people have begun to put their trust more into far left and far right politics, far away from the center.


