A world of literature and resources exist throughout the internet on the historical roots of communism in the USA. The purpose of this article is not to debate the history of socialistic or communistic movements in the USA. We do, however, need to start with the understanding that socialism and communism movements in the USA pre-1960’s were predicated on REVOLUTION, a vanguard socialistic uprising to overthrow of the government.
Another important point in Marxist theory is that a dictatorship of the proletariat is an intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership. Leninists strictly subscribed to this theory however Stalinists believe that revolution could manifest itself without the intermedia step of capitalism. The Stalinist view is VERY important because it explains alt-left communist movements from the end of World War II until the 1960’s.
A google search of the term “Long March Through the Institutions” will provide a motherlode of results! As we sifted through literature about “The New Left”, interestingly the phrase “The Long March” was appearing over and over again. What exactly is “The Long March”?
The “Long March” has its roots cultivated back to the Chinese communist march in 1934-1935.
The term morphed and took on a new meaning in 1967. Rudi Dutschke, a German student-movement leader, in reformulated Antonio Gramsci’s philosophy of cultural hegemony with the phrase Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen (The Long March through the Institutions) – an overt war metaphor harkening back to Mao’s Long March (1934–35) of the Communist Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Democrat Socialists throughout Europe, Russia, South America and here in America used “The Long March through the Institutions,” where the working class, through persistence and force, would fabricate their own organic intellectuals and culture (dominant ideology) to replace those imposed by the bourgeoisie.
Two Very Important Concepts Above (Will Discuss in More Detail Later)
Cultural Hegemony – The domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.
The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of educators, agitators and others who sought to implement a broad range of reforms on issues such as civil rights, gay rights, abortion, gender roles, and drugs, in contrast to earlier leftist or Marxist movements that had taken a more vanguardist approach to social justice and focused mostly on labor unionization and questions of social class. Sections of the New Left rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism’s historical theory of class struggle, although others gravitated to variants of Marxism like Maoism. In the United States, the movement was associated with the hippie movement and anti-war college-campus protest movements including the Free Speech Movement.
With the advent of the New Left, came an environment that gave birth to organizations and movements such as Students for a Democratic Society, counterculture, anti-establishment movements and a host of radical activists. Some of the radical activists that found breathing room to operate in this environment include Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals) and Bill Ayers (Weather Underground).
The Long March takes root in academia however the founders of the movement implemented their own version of the Long March, The Long March Through the Institutions in the USA. These instituations include; 1) Colleges and Institutes or Higher Learning, 2) Media and 3) Public Office. Any of this sound familiar yet?
Fast forward 50 years and the crown jewels of this movement are among us;
Our purpose is not debate the direct connections between Alinsky-Clinton and Alinsky-Obama. That said, it would be foolish to argue against the INDIRECT connections and influence that Alinksy had on both present day leaders.
Would anyone care to debunk that colleges (institutes or higher learning), media and government have NOT been hijacked by The New Left?
We are entering the third generation of The New Left. The torch being passed from Alinsky/Ayers to Obama/Clinton and now the next generation. This 3rd generation of The New Left is frequently referred to as The Cosmopolitan Intellectual Elites.
Cosmopolitan Elites: A term used to describe politically left-leaning people, whose education had traditionally opened the doors to affluence and power and form a managerial elite. It is commonly used with the implication that the people who claim to support the rights of the working class are themselves members of the ruling classes and are therefore out of touch with the real needs of the people they claim to support and protect.
While conservatives and people right-of-center on the political scale viewed the first two generations of The New Left as dangerous and subversive, this generation of The New Left may prove to be exponentially more dangerous.
These 3rd generation New Leftists have experienced the “liberal college meat grinder“, are firmly entrenched in and steadfastly supported by the main stream media and are staunch advocates of BIG government. The cosmopolitan elites possess other character traits that of particular concern to conservatives;
The danger with cosmopolitan elites is that they are armed with education, unequivocally supported by the press/media and are defacto “pro-establishment.” By defacto pro-establishment, we mean they have acquired an inherent elitist attitude that the ruling class (government and establishment) can solve all problems through an instrument of globalist governmental policy, that is their “world view”.
Truth be told, there is no immediate quick-fix or counter-balance to 50 years of establishment subversion. The conservative response requires both reactive and proactive forces.
The reactive forces we are experiencing right before our eyes in the current polarized political world we live in;
The proactive force is a long term play and requires due-diligence, dedication and a commitment to displacing progressives and liberals in academia, media and government until such time there is a more equitable balance. There is a LOT of momemtum to recruit young conservatives while promoting and training these young conservatives in leadership.