On the political spectrum, what good things do you feel the far left accompish

Great Debates
21

So I figured there would be comments like this.

To my understanding, the political spectrum is basically as follows

Far left – center left – centrist – center right – far right

In the US, examples of this spectrum would be as follows

  • Far right - Trump and the MAGA movement
  • Center right - John McCain, Mitt Romney
  • Centrist - mainstream democrats
  • Center left - progressives like AOC, Bernie, Warren
  • Far left - communists

In the US, we basically have 2 mainstream parties. The far right republicans and the centrist democrats. Progressives are a marginal part of the democrats, and the far left are an even tinier part of politics in the US.

The things you listed are supported by the center left. Yes the far left also support them which is great. But the far left also sit out elections so they can feel morally superior, making it harder to actually pass laws to make these things happen in real life.

My understanding is that a hundred years ago, the far left were getting hired in factories so they can unionize the labor force. They were engaging in illegal acts to stop fascism. They were promoting civil rights long before it was popular.

But the modern far left is just marching in solidarity with far right wing Islamic fascism. Or going on social media and pretending to be morally superior. Or sitting out elections in the hopes that they can help far right movements win to teach democrats a lesson. They aren’t doing anything productive in the modern age.

As an example, some far leftists were marching in NYC, saying anti-semitic things and supporting far right wing Islamic terrorism. AOC spoke out and said there was no room in the progressive movement for anti-semitism. So now the far left have condemned her as a sellout and a zionist.

So basically thats what I mean. 100 years ago the far left were organizing labor unions and fighting for civil rights in the south.

The modern far left are supporting Islamic extremism, being anti-semitic, and going on social media and demanding everyone pretend they are morally pure.

What happened to a pragmatic, useful far left?

22

Is seems you are concerned about the “far left” from your list above.

That group has basically zero power in the US. They will Twitter/X a lot but that’s about it.

Most “far left” that matter are (per your list) center left progressives who are in for Sanders and/or AOC (as examples). They are the, “pragmatic, useful far left.”

You can always find a fringe person on any side. That does not make them representative of the whole.

23

Noam Chomsky is arguably far left; his writing is enchanting. Let’s see what the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World, or the Wobblies) are up to:

  • Organized a Starbucks union in NYC in 2004, and continued organizing at Chicago Starbucks
  • 2007-2008: Organized food warehouse and distributor workers in NYC,
  • General strike in Wisconsin in 2011, when Governor Walker tried to outlaw unions
  • More fast food organizing in 2010s

That’s how it’s done. The IWW remains tiny in the US though with a membership under 10,000.

The takeover of the DSA by tankies shows the vulnerability within the left to purity campaigns. In Germany, the Green Party has always been split into a pragmatist camp (the Realos) and a shouty camp (the Fundis).

24

Both sides grow more and more vulnerable to purity campaigns the further they get from the center. That’s how MAGA took control of the Republicans.

25

Back in 1911, the notion that a company couldn’t just lock all of their employees in a burning building was pretty radical left.

And before you take for granted that we’d never go back to that, that’s exactly what Trump is in the process of doing.

26

I find these articles to be pretty accurate to what I experienced. The louder and more extreme voices took over and pushed the rest of us out.

I was strongly in support of the Palestinians, and protested against the genocide Israel was committing many times, but as they were making excuses for the massacre and openly started supporting Islamic fundamentalist terrorists like Hamas, I realized over time that I couldn’t be a part of it anymore. They have this mentality that the United States is the most evil and corrupt nation on Earth, and so anybody who opposes US interests is an ally, regardless of how much more evil and corrupt they are compared to us.

27

Yes; that’s the “campism” that was mentioned upthread. America/“the West” is bad, and anyone who opposes it for any reason is good. Which is both morally bankrupt and pretty much renders the entire actual left wing agenda moot.

You don’t advance an agenda by ignoring it in favor of amorally supporting literally anyone who opposes the guys you don’t like.

28

Thank you, thats a good answer. I’m glad there are still far leftists who are organizing labor unions instead of doing things like marching in favor of far right wing Islamic theocracy, promoting anti-semitism, intentionally using apathy to help get fascists elected in an accelerationist agenda, or demanding everyone pretend they are morally pure so they can feel good about themselves. I’m glad there are useful, pragmatic far leftists out there.

I’m sure the people vandalizing Teslas are far leftists too. Thats nice. I feel like one good thing about the far left is they will break the law to do whats right.

On the subject of Noam Chomsky, he has a book and a film called ‘requiem for the American dream’. I’ve never read the book but the documentary was very eye opening. Its available free on services like Tubi and youtube.

https://tubitv.com/movies/451500/requiem-for-the-american-dream

29

Ok, but hard core Marxists have a reputation for splinterism and generally non-constructive self-marginalizing behavior.

I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush. Marx is still a propulsive force for the left-of-center. Personally, I think it’s way past time to move on but I don’t want to give the impression that everything about him is terrible. The bad things done in his name occurred 20 - 140 years after his death after all. Brad DeLong has a quality assessment of Marx, which I’ve linked to in the past.

30

Let’s also not lump in “Marxism” and “socialism” as the same thing, either.

31

Yeah, I was raised by actual, doctrinaire Marxists. They absolutely, positively would have laughed at anyone referring to the DSA as “far left”, because if you support a mainstream American political party at all you’re a sell-out. Hell, my folks considered the American Communist Party sell-outs for, as they saw it, de facto advocating for voting for Democrats. They wanted an actual worker’s revolution, not a slightly more socialist society like Sweden (who to them are still evil capitalists at the end of the day).

Now, me - I’m more or less okay referring to the DSA as “far left” in an American context, so I’m good with very loosely lumping them in with even much more marginal groups like Trotskyists or Syndicalists. But, yeah - there are certainly gradations. However…

Center left is not far left by definition. I’m not really okay calling AOC “far left”, unless we are talking relative to the internal wings of the Democratic Party. The real “far left” are not Democrats. Not in any way, shape or form. They are, as you say, an itsy, powerless minority in this country. I’m not willing to cede ground to the Republican right who want to redefine everyone left of Susan Collins as “far left.” I’m also not okay with centrist Democrats that want to redefine everyone left of Obama as “far left.”

32

Oops - too late to edit. I was getting the DSA confused with other more marginal socialist parties. Yeah, no - they don’t really fit with my definition of “far left” as they are too Democratic Party friendly.

33

It’s too general a question. IMHO there’s at least three different axes to consider.

Economic, with the far right being robber baron capitalists and the far left communists.
Government, with the far right being totalitarian authoritarians and the far left anarchists.
Social, with the far right being extreme traditionalists and the far left those who want to get rid of all social norms.

Where any one person falls on one axis doesn’t necessarily correlate with falling in the same position on the other axes. Either way, the far left is too small in number to have any meaningful accomplishments. At less than 1% (assuming that even AOC is too far to the right to count as far left), no group can accomplish anything (barring terrorist acts).

Disagree. The reason the MAGAs took control is because the spectrum on the government axis (from authoritarianism to anarchy) isn’t bell shaped. There’s a large bump at the far right, a huge dip in the center right, and then another bulge in the center and center left. What happened is that the controlling axis changed. In the past (before 2015) the deciding factor in a lot of people’s votes was based on the economic axis, which does indeed have a traditional bell shaped curve. But then around 2015 a large number of voters began voting based on where they stand on the government and social axes rather than the economic one. When this happened the people on the center right of the economy axis but the center to center left on the government axis (the John McCains, Mitt Romneys, and Liz Cheneys of the world) were left without a home, and suddenly realized how small in number their intersection of those axes really is.

34

don’t forget Ralph Nader and Gore

35

Don’t forget, in 1919-1920, the US deported hundreds of far leftists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman and imprisoned hundreds of others. Your typology is just too simple to be useful. Strongly recommend checking out politicalcompass.org for a more nuanced analysis. Some here have been skeptical of the site, but I’ve yet to see a better one.

Also, re Chomsky, he advocates voting.

As for the IWW, its preamble is a useful place to start when thinking about the far left. It begins, “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.”

36

Chomsky himself has blamed the war in Ukraine on “NATO expansion” and said (during the Biden administration) that the U.S has a “totalitarian culture” making it less free than the Soviet Union before Gorbachev.

This kind of thing doesn’t enhance the far Left’s credibility. It makes it increasingly hard to distinguish its foreign policy positions from those of Trumpites.

37

I would add two other often-ignored axes: Malice, and rationality. Some people are well meaning, others just want to hurt the people they don’t like. Some at least try to base their plans of facts and reason, while others operate on faith and fantasy.

The extreme leftists I’ve read and conversed with run the gamut from “well meaning but totally unconcerned with facts and practicality”, to “technically rational but basically want to burn down everything and kill the unbelievers”. (The “rational, benevolent” ones aren’t extremists). If nothing else it’s a practical consideration; lack of political power or not I’d be genuinely afraid to go off somewhere alone with some of the “kill all the capitalists” sorts. And while the irrational ones aren’t likely to hurt you on purpose their willful blindness can get people hurt or killed without intending it. Or animals for that matter, like people who feed their cats vegetarian meals because Meat Eating Is Bad.

In contrast to MAGA, which is all the way out there on the “Irrational, Malignant” corner of the graph. And unfortunately they have plenty of political power.

38

Speaking of peace activists, I remember seeing videos of people in the green party spouting anti war talking points, then celebrate Hamas and call for Israel’s destruction.

These people are as violent, warlike, imperialistic, colonialist, bigoted as the people on the far right that they hate. They just think that because they are campist and they direct these things at the west, rather than do them to benefit the west, that they are morally pure.

39

My understanding is what happened is that about 25% of Americans score really high on authoritarianism, and they’ve basically all become republicans. High authoritarian democrats became Trumpist republicans while low authoritarian republicans became democrats.

Among panelists who reported voting for Trump in the 2020 election, just over 4 in 10 score in the highest quartile of the Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale when the original survey weights from the 2019 survey are applied. This leaves just over half of Trump supporters who are not classified as having high authoritarian inclinations. [It should also be noted that only a handful of President-elect Joe Biden’s voters in the panel have a high RWA score – too few to break out in this analysis.]

https://www.prri.org/press-release/survey-four-in-ten-americans-are-susceptible-to-authoritarianism-but-most-still-reject-political-violence/

Two-thirds of Republicans score high on the RWAS (67%) compared with 35% of independents, and 28% of Democrats. Republicans who hold favorable views of Trump are 36 percentage points more likely than those with unfavorable views of Trump to score high on the RWAS (75% vs. 39%). White evangelical Protestants (64%) are the religious group most likely to score high on the RWAS, followed by smaller majorities of Hispanic Protestants (54%) and white Catholics (54%). A majority of weekly churchgoers (55%) score high on the RWAS, compared with 44% of Americans who attend church a few times a year and 38% of those who never attend church services. Patterns are similar for the CRAS, although less pronounced.

40

Given a two party system reinforced by first-past-the-post voting and tribalism among Republicans, I’d say people’s effective positions are damn well correlated. If you support Trump in every objective way, but claim you don’t agree with everything he does, you are an authoritarian supporter whatever you claim your beliefs are.

It’s always interesting to draw distinctions and study demographics, but empirically in terms of political power, @Wesley_Clark’s model fits the factual outcomes very well. It’s a good starting point and covers most observed outcomes I say.

Der hammers on malice, causing eye-rolls at this message board, but I say liberals have a blind spot for deceit and a bigger blind spot for malice. They’ve got rationality covered though, as a group.

For example, the rational voter model and the median voter model both receive push-back. Liberals might be right or wrong, but it’s not a blind spot. But liberals also believe in Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” This I say is excellent advice, but it should be taken literally: actively consider malice when the facts stack up in favor of it. It can be difficult to tease these aspects out since malice and irrationality are heavily correlated, but to the extent that we’ve confirmed the existence of malice as a politically important characteristic, it shouldn’t simply be assumed away or hand waved away. Otherwise, we get Trump.