I consider myself far left, and when I take those quizzes that’s where I land.
I agree with most of the policies of Scandinavian countries. That’s the shortest way I can say it. I believe that responsibilities toward one’s community are more important than one’s personal ‘freedoms’, although those are also important. That includes the ‘freedom’ to amass vast amounts of money, create monopolies, poison the earth, and treat your employees little better than slaves.
Yes, US politics is right wing or VERY right wing. Centre left positions in Europe and much of the rest of the world’s democracies would be regarded as far left by most Americans. More than election victories or Supreme Court nominations, that is the greatest triumph the Republicans have ever achieved.
Anything that involves using violence to deprive people of life, civil rights, or property in order to engineer a dramatic but equalizing shift of power toward the working class, that doesn’t discriminate based on race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
The “far” is shorthand for extremist, so that means it has to include violence. And “left” denotes a flavor of economic or political theory. So if it doesn’t have both of those elements, it’s not far left.
Progressives like AOC aren’t far left because they’re not violent. Ecoterrorists (to the extent they actually exist) aren’t really far left. Back-to-the-land fundamentalists who want to redistribute wealth to poor people, but leave women and people of color in an inferior position, are of course not at all left, though their environmentalist camouflage can be pretty convincing.
Any movement that wants some sort of radical restructuring of society of the economy, but not in a way that addresses the imbalance of power between the working class and owning class, is not a leftist movement.
I have never thought that “far” = “violence”. I know a lot of people with leftist ideas that are not accepted by much of the general public and not one advocates violence. In fact I associate leftism with a far stronger belief in using established democratic channels and the rule of law to obtain social change, than that of the far right, which is favorable to violence against anyone who annoys or inconveniences them, and advocates murder of public officials.
At this point in history in the US, only the right advocates violence and practices terrorism. This can always change of course.
The notion that universal healthcare is a “far left” idea is absolutely bonkers. This would mean that virtually every other major country in the world is “far left” to some extent (if that makes sense).
The thing that really grinds my gears about the UHC debate in the US is that so many people ignore the fact that there are several right-wing, conservative, pro-business reasons for adopting UHC. Sure, the advantages to individuals also exist, but they’re not the only good thing about it.
It reduces costs to the business. Eliminating the for-profit aspects of insurance alone would do this.
But it’s not just that - a common complaint is that an employee who gets too sick, like with cancer, drives up insurance costs for the business. With UHC, your taxes are the same no matter how much healthcare your employees use.
It helps people stay healthy by getting medical care promptly. This reduces absenteeism, by treating issues before they become crises, and also reducing the spread of disease between workers.
For small businesses, it lets them be more competitive for employees, because the big corporations won’t have a built-in advantage of offering top-rated insurance plans.
I’m sure there’s more, but that alone is enough. Something that has that many pro-business advantages really can’t be called “far left”.
I hate this site and barely come in. PITA trying to figure out what you are exactly responding to without searching all the messages. I know it had to do with the chainsaw but it does not just show me the entire message.
Here’s the thing: in my experience, anyone wanting wealth to be distributed NOW (which is my definition of “far-left”–see above) can expect to be accused of fomenting violence.
Why? Because the accusers (liberals, centrists, and far-right alike) who want to hang on to all the earthly goods they think (wrongly, in my view) they have fairly earned DO NOT WANT TO SURRENDER THEM WITHOUT VIOLENCE. So their case essentially consists of accusing the other side of fomenting violence. That it’s violence that they themselves will happily engage in doesn’t matter–violence is violence. whoever starts it. The only way (they say) to be free of violence is, therefore, to abandon the principle of redistributing wealth.
There was also a National Socialist Workers’ Party, dozens of Liberal Parties, various People’s Democratic Republics. At that point it is all just marketing vs. what people, and people in political circles, traditionally understand by certain terms.
I have a couple friends who are essentially communists, and hence very far left. They believe there should be no wealthy people, and all land should be publicly owned.
I kind of suspect that if you wanted to put up a refinery or cement plant next to Elon’s main residence, wherever that is, he’d get all NIMBY about it and start evoking zoning laws.
IOW, Freedom for me, none for thee – your standard conservative schtick.
The Nolan chart has been a standard libertarian fixture for decades. You might or might not consider libertarianism the best path but it has always seemed a pretty solid world-view to me.
The Wiki article has it a bit wrong. The original Nolan chart is the one depicted as ‘simplified’ if you scroll down a bit with the economic and personal freedom axes in the traditional X - Y configuration. It was Marshall Fritz, founder of *Advocates for Self-government who turned it 45-degrees to not only put the left-right axis to the left and right, but also put libertarians on top.
I don’t define political generalities. I define myself.
I grew up in the 60s, achieved my majority in the early 70s. My first presidential election, I voted for George McGovern.
Since I married an Army man, we lived in many places. I would enter any discussion on politics with my standing: I’m a 60s liberal.
People usually left me alone after that.
I believe in stuff like ecology (remember that word?), social responsibility, equality for women, and equality for all colors.
A friend of mine, who grew up with me, ended up being an East Coast transplant. When I told her I entered into political discussions with “I’m a 60s liberal,” she said she went one step further and introduced herself as a 60s CALIFORNIA liberal.
Anyhow, I’m a “left.” How far left I am, I don’t know.
sorry, I agree with you about that. But if you click on the gray arrow next to the name of the person replied to (in the upper right hand corner of the post), you can go back to what the post was that is being replied to. Meanwhile I will try to remember to paste the quote into my reply as it is so much easier for the reader.
I’m not clear what you’re trying to say here. If you’re trying to suggest that anarcho-capitalism is a leftist movement, or is not an anarchist movement, that’s demonstrably wrong on the fundamentals. It’s not just marketing, those words mean things.
Then those are radical leftists. Extremist = far = violent.
Whatever floats your boat, but this glosses over a fairly long history of extremist (far) left groups using violence to achieve their aims both in the US and internationally. You can argue about what to call them, but you can’t argue that nobody on the left has ever been violent.
There are radical leftists and rightists who believe things that are well outside the mainstream. Some of those, on both sides, have & continue to advocate violence to achieve their aims. Those are the far left and far right.
If you want to suggest that, at the current point in history, violence has a lot more currency on the right wing… whether in the sense of committing violence, or preparing to commit violence, or tolerating violence, I would agree there isn’t much of that on the left nowadays, and a concerning amount of it on the right. In fact we’re near the tipping point where that acceptance of violent change on the right is becoming mainstream for many people. And that’s the point where we start calling it fascism.
No, I am in full agreement. Plenty of violence on the left, historically, and there will always be lone actors. But in this moment in history, the violence as an acceptable activity in general, is only on the right.
