Maybe there are a few people around that really just want to watch the world burn, but the vast majority of people–including what most would call extremists–have a genuine belief that their preferred political system leads to better outcomes. That’s perhaps more true of anarchists than anyone else, because their beliefs aren’t really explainable except through sheer self-delusion.
There are lots of possible political axes. One I see all the time: to what degree do you view the world through a class-based lens?
The far left, I would say, views everything as a struggle between the working class and the owning class. The far right barely perceives the distinction at all.
Which side has the best claim to the “truth” here actually isn’t my point. It’s about the basic framework in which one perceives the world. Both ways will lead to some truths and some falsehoods.
By this axis, I’m pretty far right. When people talk about workers rights and such, I simply have no context to work with, mainly due to lack of exposure. I can gather up some empathy, but I have almost no direct experience. And so the lens I view the world with is one where class distinctions are close to meaningless.
Here’s an article that I would classify as far left, so far it made me question where I stand on the political spectrum. Empire Burlesque, by Daniel Bessner, originally in the July 2022 Harper’s magazine.
Bessner is a self-titled Restrainer, totally opposed to what he calls liberal interventionism. I can’t fault him for declaring that that American foreign policy after it decided it was in control of the world post-WWII has been almost entirely disastrous. We should all know the long litany of wars, coups, delegitimized governments, embrace of autocrats, and other crimes.
He says, therefore, we should just put out of the rest of the world, slash the military, and let other countries go their own way.
If China wants to seize Taiwan, restrainers assert, then the United States should not fight World War III to prevent it from doing so. If China wants to oppress its population, there’s not much that the United Status can or should do about it.
I see a distinct difference between stopping Russia sending tanks into Ukraine and China conquering Taiwan as contrasted to using the CIA to overthrow the Shah of Iran or Chile’s Allende, or even putting half a million troops into Vietnam because it wanted to vote for Ho Chi Minh. I can’t defend American foreign policy, though, any more than I can wholeheartedly defend the police.
I use them as an example because I think most of what Bessner says Restrainers want is on the level of Defund the Police, simplistic wish fulfillment. Anybody who thinks there’s a simple answer to any of our problems is “far.”
Seems dubious. Why is it rational to want a strong state in order to maximise social welfare, but irrational to think the state is more important than individual welfare? That’s just a value judgement. Similarly with the anarchists: if they think total freedom is more important than making life better for the average person, it’s just different values. And that’s assuming they really don’t have a thought-out plan, which I don’t know to be the case.
At any rate, no one is going to agree on what counts as having a rational plan to achieve your aims - unless it can be shown to have worked, but communism is hardly doing better than fascism by that standard.
We seem to have had several threads on this topic recently, and it’s a bit of a leading question (I’m not accusing the OP of intending it that way).
I think it is true that the US is at least center-right, and maybe just outright right-wing. The Democratic party isn’t very left-wing by international standards, only the progressive wing within it could be considered so (and, officially, the party is simply centrist). And meanwhile the republicans have gone way out to the right.
On FOX, or conservative forums, it’s common for people to refer to “Communists” and “socialists” and, yes, the “far-left”. But it’s largely a fiction; people who espouse such views are a tiny minority.
So, playing along with the OP, I guess someone who wanted full Communism, with a capped wage for all? That wanted to nationalize all major industries? Ban cars?
I don’t know anyone that wants to do any of these things though (yes, phase out gasoline-powered vehicles over time, but I don’t know anyone who thinks we can do without current haulage resource overnight).
Your answer is part of the reason I made this point. No offense, but I do see your answer as sort of a boilerplate view put out by many USA liberals. Radical liberals are far away and non-existent, meanwhile “the nation” is really center right or utterly right wing.
I will say a couple of things. I do challenge you to make honest comparisons with the USA and other countries, if you’re going to identify the USA as right wing. Do you think the average Chinese citizen is more tolerant of trans issues? More interested in green energy?
Other nations have conservative people too, and I’ve seen this trope thrown out there enough that I think it should be questioned.
And worldwide.
Note I’m British, and pretty much a centrist here (I’ve voted for all 3 major political parties at one time or another). I’m not a USA liberal.
Here are some comparisons by the Pew research center, showing that US values are significantly different to Western Europe on things like social welfare, the use of the military, religion etc.
Europe is a much better comparison, being comparable in terms of overall standard of living. I think it is quite misleading to compare the US to a developing country.
Even if we use China, a country with significantly lower per capita GDP as a comparison, things aren’t all that simple.
China is quite socially conservative in some ways, and it’s true that trans may experience persecution. However, it’s also true that China’s equivalent of Oprah was an openly trans male → female (Jin Xing), and that might be part of why in data collected by UCLA some 73.7% of Chinese said that trans must be protected from discrimination (cite PDF).
In terms of green energy, China outspends the rest of the world, including the US, on wind and solar by a large margin. They also have more electric cars than the rest of the world combined.
China has had record heatwaves this year – not just a record for China but a huge outlier in terms of climate change worldwide. And in recent years a number of catastrophic weather events. The Chinese public is absolutely aware of, and agrees with the need to counter, man-made climate change (example).
Yes, despite all this China is marginally a bigger CO2 emitter than the US, thanks to having such a massive population. But hopefully you have some idea of how wrong the right-wing talking point of “We don’t need to do anything until China does something” is.
The Democrat running for Congress in my Kentucky district might be classifiable as “far left”, but I’m opting for “suicidally stupid”.
Geoff Young (who has replaced the “o” in his last name on campaign literature with a peace sign, how 1960s), was at best a long shot to unseat the incumbent Republican, Andy Barr. But he’s taken a blowtorch to his flimsy chances by outing himself as a Putin appeaser.
You see, our sanctions against Russia are “hateful”, “immoral” and “illegal”. We must “Cooperate with Russia & China. Make peace, not war.”
Young’s campaign flyer ends with the immortal words, “If you want to die in poverty, vote for Andy Barr. If you want to live in peace, vote for me.”
Kentucky’s 6th District is not as red as others in the state, as it includes relatively liberal Lexington. I still wonder if Young has a shot at being defeated by the largest margin in a Kentucky Congressional election in modern times. Where did Democrats get this guy?*
*his platform also calls for the legalization of all drugs, abolishing the C.I.A. and impeaching Joe Biden for “risking World War 3”. That stuff should go over well with voters.
I’m as far left as anyone I know (well except for my friend who literally defines himself as “hardcore Marxist”) and I think engineering equality of outcome is ridiculous. It’s the massive INequality of outcomes that capitalism engineers I’d like curtailed.
Certainly it is possible for someone to be, generally, on the far left and not seek equality of outcome, but wherever I’ve seen it proposed it is from someone of the far left.
Where it is esposed, it is a pretty safe indicator of far left tendencies, but far left tendencies do not demand it.
i strongly suspect that when you literally hear a self-described leftist demanding equality of outcomes, you’re hearing either an utterly impractical idealist who knows he will never live to see that if he lives a billion years, or someone who’s describing his goals in a five-words-or-fewer summary.
Either way, it’s inaccurate. Sort of like hearing a rightwinger describe himself as a lawnorder extremist who, given a little more time, will allow for the need for defense lawyers, appeal courts, parole boards, etc.
I have noticed this too, although the people I have heard it from haven’t directly used the phrase “equality of outcome.” But when you use the phrase “equality of opportunity” they will reflexively answer “you think we already have equality of opportunity! That means you think we don’t need to do anything to address the issue! You’re just a status quo untrustworthy liberal!” Whereas I believe that addressing inequality in education and the justice system for the poor and marginalized would do a lot to further true equality of opportunity.
What tends to happen is that E.O.Out. sneaks in as an assumed goal that naturally follows from E.O.Opp. and they are often conflated.
It is certainly idealistic to think that all groups could ever be equally represented across all activities. It cannot happen. There are too many interest or identity groups to have any hope of balancing that equation.
You’ll note as well that people who do promote equality of outcome never talk about which females they will force into plumbing or trawler work, or which females they will sack as primary school teachers.
Which black or mixed race footballers will be prevented from representing the England team? The demographics suggest that there should only be 1 in the starting line up.
So yes, it is certainly an idea that can really only exist in the realm of fantasy or as a glib response without any actual thought behind it.
One of the reasons you get the 2 being conflated is that there can never be anything even remotely considered “equality of opportunity” until the 1% lies broken and bleeding at the feet of Democracy. Diderot was right - he just didn’t extend it far enough.
Heh. You just classified the 45th President of the United States of America (the America-hating Fuckstick, for those of you playing at home) as being “Far Left.”
Center left are progressives like Sanders, Warren, AOC, etc. who want to work within the democratic and capitalist system, but who want major reforms to the system.
Far left are authoritarian leftists who want to replace democracy and capitalism. Communists and socialists.