Yes, but I imagine we agree that the vast, vast majority who used the words “defund the police” didn’t mean that.
I’d say the vast majority calling for it DID mean that at first, but most rapidly realized how bad that would be and tried to change the definition to mean something else. After all, cities DID respond by defunding police.
I don’t know if anyone holds what you call the strawman, but there is plenty of room to the left of what you consider the actual goal. But my point is that you could hold such positions without also holding an anti-capitalist position.
What definition are you claiming they originally meant, and what definition are you claiming they changed it to? I’m confused, because you linked to a story about cities reducing police budgets - which is what liberals argue “defund the police” really meant all along.
Reducing police budgets is not disbanding or completely defunding the police.
Reducing police budgets is not a far left position. All kinds of city budgets are reduced all the time. If money is better spent on psychiatric care than police, reallocating some money that way makes sense and is NOT a far left position.
@Miller, I think you mean “defund” not “disband”.
Ugh. Yes, thanks, I’ll correct that.
What do you base those figures on? I strongly doubt the percentage of people who favor nationalizing businesses is anywhere near that high.
I didn’t base those figures on any hard data. “thus, the tildes ;)” However, I do think that the majority of democrats and a sizable minority of republicans support regulating large companies “albeit for different reasons.” Democrats tend to support nationalizing large companies for the betterment of the working class, while republicans support breaking up monopoles because they stifle competition.
Please provide some cites for either of these claims. That is, I don’t think that Democrats support nationalizing business and I don’t think that Republicans support breaking up monopolies. Any reputable polling data would be fine. Thanks!
While there are always problems with surveys on politics, the one here has a lot of info and discussion that some may find useful. https://politicalcompass.org/ It is better than most of the ones out there and you will find out if you are closer to Noam Chomsky or Milton Friedman, and why Hitler and Stalin are very different, if equally reprehensible. They have a good section on American “liberals,” most of whom, like Obama, would be on the right in most other places.
Well, I am a Democrat and I don’t support nationalizing large companies. I support the principles of capitalism, the free market, and private property, although I feel that corporations need to be more regulated than they currently are in America.
My feelings about the betterment of the working class is that we should have a solid network of social services (including free health care) and the government should support union rights so employees can negotiate with employers on a more equitable basis.
If they didn’t mean it, then why did they keep saying it? A better soundbite? Fit better on a protest sign? The people who came up with weren’t very smart? Or?
“Far left” for me boils down to: do you want to replace the current system of government and economy with an entirely new one. You are not interested in reforms to the current system, no matter how far reaching and progressive they are, the only thing that will solve the worlds problems is abolishing the whole political and economic system of the entire world and starting again from scratch.
Its my personal bug bear when someone says words the the effect of “Oh we’ll never fix problem X in the capitalist system, rather than trying to we should work on tearing the whole thing down and starting again.” Which strikes me (as its is typically someone who is comfortably off in the developed world and not currently material effected by problem X who is saying this) as the height of privilege.
Random twitter user “DankCommunistBongHits1992” is not going to be bringing about the downfall of the entire global capitalist system any time soon, so they are really saying they don’t care about Problem X enough to do anything about it.
Someone on the far left may want to replace the current system, but some other group may also want to replace it, with a right-wing dictatorship. Therefore that does not uniquely characterize the far left. Also, what is the difference between “replacing”, “reforming”, “making progress”, and “changing” the system?
The poor and oppressed can be leftists too.
One random guy does not a political movement make. An idea supported by let’s say 30% of the population, that is a different story.
Either way, I think your criteria do not specifically apply to the left. IMO better to define it by specific policies and positions like anti-capitalism and others that have already been mentioned.
I’d argue that wanting to tear down the economic system (and the political system that supports it, but only as means to that end) and replace it with something new is unique to the far left. The far right may want to tear down the political system (and take down a few ahem “globalist” business leaders in the process), but they are happy to keep the wider economic system in place.
But I personally don’t hear them saying things like “Oh we shouldn’t be dealing with the problem of why I’m am indentured worker forced to work myself to death on this palm oil plantation, we should concentrate on bring down the world economic system first.” That is the difference being a leftist (which I’d consider covers myself) and being part of the “far left”.
Here is an interesting source in regards to this matter. 2/3rds of Americans agree income inequality is a problem, but Democrats/Republicans disagree on the solution to that problem.
I guess they overestimated the ability of right-wingers to understand nuance. Sort of like “black lives matter”, which really meant “black lives also matter”, but somehow conservatives could never figure it out.
Thanks, but that has nothing to do with your claims.
A lot of poor and oppressed people do connect overthrowing global economic injustice with fixing their personal oppression, though. That’s why a lot of poor and oppressed people worldwide are Communists (although not in the US).
(And that’s not to say that most forms of state communism are actually effective at fixing oppression, just that many poor and oppressed people are in fact on board with communist principles.)
Yeah, that’s it. 
How is “cut the NYPD budget” to fund education and housing not de facto defunding the police? The argument wasn’t spend more money on education/housing/whatever, it was cut the police budget to do so.
I would classify that as far left.
By this measure, most Republicans in congress are “far left”: ‘Republicans are defunding the police’: Fox News anchor stumps congressman | Fox News | The Guardian