I am saying that I talked to an anarchist who is actually involved in politics, who denied that “anarcho-capitalism” has anything to do with anarchism or that capitalism + anarchism is anything but an oxymoron as @Pardel-Lux puts it.
But nothing is stopping anyone from picking their own party or movement name with the word “anarchism” in it and forming an Anarcho-Capitalist Party, which would obviously be a right-wing party. They will not be fooling or confusing anybody.
Says who?
Anarcho-capitalism isn’t anarchism, and is a deliberate attempt to redwash right-libertarianism.
One of the fundamentals of anarchism is that it is anti-capitalist.
And let’s not forget that the guy who coined the term “anarcho-capitalism” was all for having a free market in children… that’s fundamentally abhorrent to every flavour of actual anarchism I know of (as are the anti-feminist and anti-civil rights views he held).
The “rest of the world” is not just Western Europe and friends anymore. We aren’t living in the colonial era where Europe is used as the benchmark for everything.
I have a hard time believing that the USA is more right win than Mexico, India, Numbia, or Singapore.
Yeah, that’s actually pretty similar to what I had in mind.
I would say that ‘moderates’ on either side want to work within the system and make incremental changes in favor of their preferences.
‘far’ right and left want to tear down existing power structures and institutions and rebuild the economy and society along new, radical/rectionary lines.
This.
There’s no way that universal healthcare is a far left position, since many (most?) Republican voters would not want to see Medicare (single-payer universal healthcare for seniors) or the VA Hospital system (socialized universal healthcare for veterans, where the whole system is run by the government) taken away. Republicans may try to fiddle with these systems when they’re in power, but have never tried to dismantle them.
Can someone explain why Republican politicians constantly refer to regular boring Democratic politicians as “far left”? Do they really believe this, or are they lying to their constituents and don’t think their constituents are smart enough to figure it out? I think it’s the latter, and if my representatives thought so little of me, I would vote them out on principle.
Anyway, far left would be someone itching for revolution to overturn the current hierarchy and try to put something like Marxism or Communism in its place. Or, someone who is already in that system and wants the status quo (the Cuban government, for example).
ETA: Looking for cites on Republicans and Medicare, it seems like around 50% are in favor of Medicare for all! So, clearly, universal healthcare is not a far left position.
If the end result is that their actions are indistinguishable, does it matter?
Yeah, that’s kind of what I was thinking too, more or less.
My thought was that far-left people tend to doggedly stick to their notions of how they think things should be, and get angry/frustrated/etc… that more progress isn’t made in that direction, instead of working for changes that are attainable. Basically sacrificing the “can be” in favor of a relatively unattainable “should be”, in a sentence.
I mean, universal single payer healthcare is a fine idea, but that political capital and effort are (IMO) far better spent chipping away at something a bit more attainable- shoring up Obamacare and maybe making some changes to it to make it more useful for more people.
That’s the difference between far left, and left to me.
If you don’t like my definition, you’re welcome to offer your own. What in your mind sets off “far left” from a left that you wouldn’t call “far”?
Because it works. Millions of voters now believe to their core that, now matter how stupid, bigoted, corrupt and evil Republicans may be, they’re still better than those far-left Democrats who want to turn the country into Venezuela.
So your answer is “Says me”? That’s real persuasive.
A firm embracing of anti-capitalism and internationalism, and an opposition to neoliberalism and globalization. These aren’t my definitions, mind you, they’re the general consensus definitions.
My two cents:
Left: Someone who believes capitalism and free enterprise are valuable, but need firm governmental oversight (via regulatory enforcement) to protect against fraud, gross inequity and environmental damage.
Far Left: Someone who believes capitalism and free enterprise are inherently evil and need to be abolished.
That “far left” definition may be something of a strawman, since very few Americans actually feel that way. Which leaves a definition of “left” that can still have several points on a spectrum as it answers questions such as “How much oversight (and in what form)?” and “How do you define ‘gross’ inequity?”
I consider myself far left. I think the most objective measure is the availability of presidential candidates whose views align with mine. I always vote for the Democratic candidate, but they’re always way too centrist for my liking. I’ve accepted this; I don’t think anyone I really like could even secure the party nomination.
My wife’s cousin, whom I mentioned upthread, isn’t quite this far left. The sense I get is that he’s generally fine with small businesses, especially those which treat their employees and customers with respect. But, he seems to feel that, when a business gets larger, it almost invariably becomes exploitative and evil.
So, he doesn’t oppose capitalism, per se, but he certainly opposes big business.
I don’t think it’s about size. You can have one-person operations with no scruples whatsoever, and operations employing thousands that treat their employees well and enrich their communities.
ISTM that if you believe that capitalism and free enterprise should be legal at all, you can’t draw a line on size without disincentivizing the growth potential that drives people to start businesses in the first place. But you do have to draw lines. Lots of lines. And that’s what makes being left-of-center so damn complicated.
Literal police/prison abolition? Though even then, I understand the belief that the current system is too broken and corrupt to be reformed.
Wanting the literal abolition of the capitalist system?
Advocating physical violence against the 0.1%?
I think people can be far left on social issues without regard to capitalism. “Defund the police” is a far left idea for example.
Do you mean the statement, the strawman, which seems to imply removing all funding from the police, or the actual goal, which is to redirect some police funding to other services who could, say, better deal with people with mental issues?
Because the strawman version would seem to be a far left position, but does anyone really hold that?
As I said above, there is definitely a nonzero number of people who think the justice system is too inherently corrupt and racist for any reform to ever take root and make a difference, so destroying it and starting from scratch is the only answer that keeps minorities from being disproportionately imprisoned and killed by cops.