Why has the left been unable to fuse socialism with the working class?

Pic not related

The new left happen'd

Damn that is some fine vexillology.

would take pages to explain and different perspectives give different answers. I think the answer is that the working class is not people but a function, a potential lever of control over social reproduction and that this doesn't necessarily mean the working class qua humans or people. Historical conflict needs to be redefined. I think it's important to read Society of the Spectacle and The Coming Community. Might not hurt to add 'Eclipse and Re-emergence' by Dauve and the work of Camatte. And Marx to be sure.

Things weren't any really different prior to the new left though. Except maybe for a brief moment in the 1930s.

Every time.

updated

...

Zion is a good idea, it would answer the palestinian question for good.

The working class have become, at least tacitly, the enemy of the middle and upper class idpol groups who're now leading liberal and leftist groups. The focus on the various particularisms of the idpolyps has resulted in the abandonment of universal causes such wages and workers rights.

In the US at least:

Elites typically use a high-low vs. middle strategy to centralize and expand their power, framed with the language of universalism, democracy, human rights, and so on. With things like the New Left (>>2208480) we had high (elites and their various Foundations) and low (student activists, minority activists, and so on) vs. middle (everyone else). Though the virtues of things like Civil Rights were obvious, the end goal of the liberal patrons whose foundations paid for these movements, imo, was really to pass the Great Society and Immigration acts. Have you seen how retarded our welfare system is? It's as if it was intentionally designed to make you a dependent on the state. You can make LESS money by trying to work.

The immigration act of course conveniently sets up the next round of high-low vs. middle: High (elites and their Foundations) and low (student activists, immigrants, minority activists) vs. middle (traditional pre-1965 working classes). Any benefits that the global poor might derive from this are purely incidental because the goal is to further centralize power. A similar mechanic is at work with "Free Trade": High (elites and their foundations, economists at elite schools), low (the global poor) vs. middle (American working class), framed by antiracism - if you don't want to grow the Chinese middle class you are a racist who is ignoring economic efficiency, look at what this Harvard PhD says :)

This explains why idpol and other such forms of stupidity continually plague socialist movements: Billionaires are funneling them money to turn them in a direction useful to them. This also suggests that the best way to get a socialist revolution going here in the US would be to get China to give you money.

years of capitalist ideology

because the majority of the working class in north america enjoy a super high quality of life, even if they don't like working

Up to the 40s, actually. American Socialists had a lot of pulls through orgs like the IWW and CPUSA, both being tied to the labor movements throughout the US

They started losing traction in the "Golden Age" of post-WW2 Capitalism, and probably would have regained momentum in the 70s then onwards if the New Left hadn't change the sphere of influence of American Leftism from working class people to University students that liked to LARP Mao and were completely out of touch with the proletariat and more concerned with challenging white supremacist patriarchy or some shit.

Most of America outside of wealthy areas is third world tier.

Nah, even labor unions continued to drop downwards outside of the growth of the new left.

Not really. Most third-worlders would take their chances with America given the choice.

Most third-worlders live in cities

Wut?

I assume your question is mostly about burgerland, since there were and are plenty of working class leftists in south america, europe, asia, etc. the short answer: pic related

That is demonstrably false though.

You're forgetting the Taft-Hartley Act as well as globalization which helped to neuter labor unions in America. The new left was a response to that power vacuum.

Which does not imply at all that they do live a better life in the USA.

Then go and demonstrate why