there are not spaces for men in the left quite the same way as there is on the right.
I agree with this, actually, but I think the problem goes even deeper. For about fifty years, huge portions of the bourgeois western left have stigmatized concepts like struggle and comradeship and militancy as "toxically masculine." In fact these are neither masculine nor feminine, but human; and becoming an adult means realizing these same deeply human qualities within oneself. This can only be done communally. Very many young people emerge from childhood, look at the bourgeois left (it is the most visible), and despair; and they turn thus to the right, which claims to offer a path to the human qualities mentioned. Of course, the right is lying, for they too want people to be good consumers and wage slaves who never question imperialism or the capitalist system. But there is on the right a show of comradeship and militancy -- "the left calls you toxically masculine? Well, we're toxically masculine and proud! -- and young people turn to it like a thirsty man in the desert.
(This latter, by the way, you find among young women as well as men, though the male version of the phenomenon is much more noticed. The material conditions of capitalism deny both men and women humanity, but women rather more. The right's "solution" to this is to complete the subordination of woman to man, in theory as a kind of "helpmate," but actually more like a slave. Thus, the thought goes, women can "participate" in the human qualities which the male embodies; but she becomes human only by emptying and negating her humanity. We hear much today about the supposed "feminization" of men. This is not what is going on. Men are stripped by capitalism of their basic human qualities of struggle and militancy; hence, women cannot draw from men these qualities; and as a result many women become resentful of the "impassivity" of men. But the blame is put in the wrong place, on secondary social factors instead of the system).
One of the things that actually drew me to communism when I was younger was the fact that, compared to the idiot beer-swilling, Bush-loving, war-mongering-but-also-draft-dodging conservatives I was surrounded by, communists like Che and Stalin and Kim Jong-Il seemed to embody a true, authentic, and positive masculinity. They were as different from these would-be "manly" posers as night is from day. Stalin was the man who industrialized a continent. Lenin was a titan of moral and intellectual strength -- almost a frightening demigod of the mind. Mao fought for years a brutal guerilla war. My understanding has gotten a lot more sophisticated since then, but I wish more young men could have that same experience.
I agree with this, actually, but I think the problem goes even deeper. For about fifty years, huge portions of the bourgeois western left have stigmatized concepts like struggle and comradeship and militancy as "toxically masculine." In fact these are neither masculine nor feminine, but human; and becoming an adult means realizing these same deeply human qualities within oneself. This can only be done communally. Very many young people emerge from childhood, look at the bourgeois left (it is the most visible), and despair; and they turn thus to the right, which claims to offer a path to the human qualities mentioned. Of course, the right is lying, for they too want people to be good consumers and wage slaves who never question imperialism or the capitalist system. But there is on the right a show of comradeship and militancy -- "the left calls you toxically masculine? Well, we're toxically masculine and proud! -- and young people turn to it like a thirsty man in the desert.
(This latter, by the way, you find among young women as well as men, though the male version of the phenomenon is much more noticed. The material conditions of capitalism deny both men and women humanity, but women rather more. The right's "solution" to this is to complete the subordination of woman to man, in theory as a kind of "helpmate," but actually more like a slave. Thus, the thought goes, women can "participate" in the human qualities which the male embodies; but she becomes human only by emptying and negating her humanity. We hear much today about the supposed "feminization" of men. This is not what is going on. Men are stripped by capitalism of their basic human qualities of struggle and militancy; hence, women cannot draw from men these qualities; and as a result many women become resentful of the "impassivity" of men. But the blame is put in the wrong place, on secondary social factors instead of the system).
One of the things that actually drew me to communism when I was younger was the fact that, compared to the idiot beer-swilling, Bush-loving, war-mongering-but-also-draft-dodging conservatives I was surrounded by, communists like Che and Stalin and Kim Jong-Il seemed to embody a true, authentic, and positive masculinity. They were as different from these would-be "manly" posers as night is from day. Stalin was the man who industrialized a continent. Lenin was a titan of moral and intellectual strength -- almost a frightening demigod of the mind. Mao fought for years a brutal guerilla war. My understanding has gotten a lot more sophisticated since then, but I wish more young men could have that same experience.