What does 'far-left' actually (theoretically?) mean?

[ch33zw1z]

You stated the average liberal in the US could be placed in Venezuela and be just fine with the system there, which is, indeed, a command economy where the government under Chavez often seized the means of production and individual wealth and ran them. You should try to keep up with your own statements. The average liberal here supports none of that.

That's him buying what the rwnj media is selling.

 

[mikeymikec]

Far left, like far right, means adhering to ALL ideas of one side of the political spectrum. Simple as that. The political spectrum is broken down into 3 relevant parts.

1) Society at large (value of the individual)
2) Government power vs individual power (the role of the people vs the government)
3) Government ownership vs individual ownership (the control of the economy)

The simple questions can be asked for this to determine where you stand.

1) Do you believe all people are equal/same?

If you answer no to this then that is a right side political spectrum ideology. If your answer is yes or have to quibble on the answer then you are on the left side of the spectrum for society.

2) Do you believe people can make their own decisions?

If you believe a person is capable of self rule and doesn't need government to rule for them then that is a right side political stance. If you believe that government is good or has a place in society then that is a left side.

3) Do you believe in people owning personal property?

If you say yes then you are again on the right side. If you say no or have to quibble on this then you are on the left side.

Answer those questions honestly and add them up. I am right leaning personally. Here is my breakdown.

1) no (right side)
2) I quibble a bit here since I respect people's right to make their own decision but I see a greater need for government intervention with limits. (left side)
3) yes (right side)

As far as social wedge issues such as abortion, religion, or other crap those things are neither right side nor left side political stances. They are tools from each side to leverage for political gain. Nothing more and nothing less. Those are political "issues" because they can be used to effectively garner support to one side of the political spectrum versus the other.

Uh, your grasp of politics is child-like.

In response to your questions:

1: I'm going to ignore the "all people are the same" part of your question (because that was just dumb no matter which way you slice it) and focus on the latter part which I assume you meant to ask whether they should all be considered equal in the eyes of the law. In response to that question I'd bet that 99.99999% of people living in "Western" (at the very least) countries would answer yes (because they think that sounds morally right at face value), then many conservatives in particular would want to add a shitload of caveats. Are these people immigrants/Muslims/Jewish/non-hetero/non-cis, for example.

2: You thought this was a simple question? Are you nuts? It's probably divisible into a hundred questions each deserving their own topic and responders would display a drastic variation of stances regardless of whether they're "left" or "right". IMO the only purpose such a question might serve without any qualification would be to answer "are you an anarchist/naive libertarian or other".

Furthermore, I've never heard a conservative outside of the US who'd answer no to that question.

3: I've literally never met a person in my entire life who wasn't fine with the idea of personal property. Most of my friends lean left (as do I). I'm not sure I've even heard of a person who wasn't OK with it.

 

[Pohemi]

Wrong. Schools, roads, and police were all privatized only in the US in our history.

Show your work, or stfu. And not a school or two here or there. Systemic.

 

[MrSquished]

Venezuela is not a 100% command economy. There is private ownership there as well. It has more of the economy under the command of the government in comparison to the US.

It's not 100% but it's getting pretty close. The military is in charge for the production and distribution of basic goods and much of the means of production has been seized by the government and private wealth just confiscated. I don't care what you say, the average liberal here would not support the Venezuelan model. It's a looney tunes statement, like you saying simply to support personal private property is just a right-leaning way of thinking. Maybe if you are dumb, but a smart leftist can live in a more complicated world where there is private and public property.

 

[desy]

I think Hippie commune as far left

 

[HumblePie]

I'm fairly confident he has some sort of mental disorder or at least is on the spectrum approaching one.

It is unquestionable that people have been bought and sold against their will throughout history, up through and including today. You are clearly saying that you don't think humans should be owned as property, which is great, but by your own argument now places you on the left because right now, today, someone is owned by another person.

Welcome to the resistance.

When it comes to traditional slavery, the slaves still were not in it willingly for the most part. They didn't agree to the contract of ownership recognized at large by the rest of the society they were in. Thus they weren't property even then. You can claim ownership to a chunk of rock because it neither recognizes nor denies ownership of itself to anything else. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

[HumblePie]

It's not 100% but it's getting pretty close. The military is in charge for the production and distribution of basic goods and much of the means of production has been seized by the government and private wealth just confiscated. I don't care what you say, the average liberal here would not support the Venezuelan model. It's a looney tunes statement, like you saying simply to support personal private property is just a right-leaning way of thinking. Maybe if you are dumb, but a smart leftist can live in a more complicated world where there is private and public property.

Production is still mostly privately owned in Venezuela for most goods. Distribution is mostly government controlled though. I think what you are taking umbrage here is the current outcome of the current amount of government control in Venezuela has become. Up until very recently you had prominent politicians like Bernie Sanders exclaiming the virtues of that country and the socialism constructs in place there. Advocating for them to be implemented here along with many of his followers. Even many not his followers were also advocates to a degree. Then when things turn sour, the line becomes "that isn't true socialism because it turned out like that!" which is pretty much the no true Scotsman fallacy argument. Point I was making is many liberals in the US advocate for similar if not the same political socialism constructs that were in place in Venezuela up until the time of the massive collapse of it all.

 

[sandorski]

Wrong. Socialism constructs are socialism. It is you deciding what degree you want to apply the label at. You are trying to make it a difference with a distinction when in reality it is not. At what point in your opinion does a government move from being not socialist to socialist do you draw the line at? I promise you that line isn't going to be the same for everyone.

Constructs are a Subset, not the Whole. You are operating under a One-Drop rule, which is silly.

 

[Pohemi]

If you believe in pants pockets to put items in, then you must be all the way to the far right because you have to own that thing before you can put it in your pocket! ANTIFA HATES POCKETS!!

First imbecile back on the newly cleared iggy list. Too much stupid for me.

 

[MrSquished]

Production is still mostly privately owned in Venezuela for most goods. Distribution is mostly government controlled though. I think what you are taking umbrage here is the current outcome of the current amount of government control in Venezuela has become. Up until very recently you had prominent politicians like Bernie Sanders exclaiming the virtues of that country and the socialism constructs in place there. Advocating for them to be implemented here along with many of his followers. Even many not his followers were also advocates to a degree. Then when things turn sour, the line becomes "that isn't true socialism because it turned out like that!" which is pretty much the no true Scotsman fallacy argument. Point I was making is many liberals in the US advocate for similar if not the same political socialism constructs that were in place in Venezuela up until the time of the massive collapse of it all.

"Under President Nicolas MADURO, the Venezuelan Government’s response to the economic crisis has been to increase state control over the economy and blame the private sector for shortages. MADURO has given authority for the production and distribution of basic goods to the military and to local socialist party member committees."

Venezuela Economy - overview - Economy

Facts and statistics about the Economy - overview of Venezuela. Updated as of 2020.

www.indexmundi.com

Source: CIA World Factbook

 

[fskimospy]

When it comes to traditional slavery, the slaves still were not in it willingly for the most part. They didn't agree to the contract of ownership recognized at large by the rest of the society they were in. Thus they weren't property even then. You can claim ownership to a chunk of rock because it neither recognizes nor denies ownership of itself to anything else. It's a pretty simple concept.

It's a distinction you made up to try and cover up for how your rubric was stupid.

These individuals had a bill of sale, their status of being owned by another person was officially recognized by the government and they were freely bought and sold on the market as you would buy or sell anything else. They were by any commonly understood definition, property.

If you think otherwise please link to a definition that would indicate chattel slaves were not the property of their owners.

 

[HumblePie]

Uh, your grasp of politics is child-like.

In response to your questions:

1: I'm going to ignore the "all people are the same" part of your question (because that was just dumb no matter which way you slice it) and focus on the latter part which I assume you meant to ask whether they should all be considered equal in the eyes of the law. In response to that question I'd bet that 99.99999% of people living in "Western" (at the very least) countries would answer yes (because they think that sounds morally right at face value), then many conservatives in particular would want to add a shitload of caveats. Are these people immigrants/Muslims/Jewish/non-hetero/non-cis, for example.

2: You thought this was a simple question? Are you nuts? It's probably divisible into a hundred questions each deserving their own topic and responders would display a drastic variation of stances regardless of whether they're "left" or "right". IMO the only purpose such a question might serve without any qualification would be to answer "are you an anarchist/naive libertarian or other".

Furthermore, I've never heard a conservative outside of the US who'd answer no to that question.

3: I've literally never met a person in my entire life who wasn't fine with the idea of personal property. Most of my friends lean left (as do I). I'm not sure I've even heard of a person who wasn't OK with it.

Your desire for belittling the categorization rubric doesn't make it any less correct. You are also still trying like so many to conflate Conservative with Right and Liberal with Left. Especially in regards to US politics. The definition for what defines LEFT vs RIGHT on the political spectrum is literally that simple. That doesn't mean people are that simple. That is why there is very few far left or far right people in the world. Not that there aren't, but I've never met one. If you can answer without quibble or explanation a hard line NO or YES to any of those questions in the rubric, then you are far left or far right on that answer only. If you have to create your own definition, which most people do, then you are somewhere closer to the middle.

That was all I was trying to illustrate with that rubric. The fact that so many people here seem to not understand such a simple concept here in beyond me.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, now you mention it, I suddenly realise I've never been at all clear on what "social democrats" are. It's always been a rather ill-defined category for me. It usually seems to mean either socialists who have given up and compromised so far that they aren't socialists any more (the German SPD, for example, historically derided as the least socialist socialists in Europe) or Tories-in-disguise (our own SDP, that ended up as the Lib Dems with their "orange book" free-market fixation, facilitating the Tories austerity poliitics).

I guess it's been much more of a live tradition on the Continent.

See you are used to seeing evidence of far left thought out in the open over there at least in the UK. I still chuckle to myself that at the big Edinburgh festival, there were parades of communist labor movement people carrying anti-Nazi signs. This was in 2007. That's something you almost never see in this country. This country has not the faintest idea of what far left is.

 

[HumblePie]

It's a distinction you made up to try and cover up for how your rubric was stupid.

These individuals had a bill of sale, their status of being owned by another person was officially recognized by the government and they were freely bought and sold on the market as you would buy or sell anything else. They were by any commonly understood definition, property.

If you think otherwise please link to a definition that would indicate chattel slaves were not the property of their owners.

Wrong. The person owning them recognizing them as property. Other non slaves would recognize them as property. The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property. Thus nullifying the ownership claim. Ownership has to be 100% recognized by all in a given society for it to be actual ownership. Which is not at all what the question is about. It is about people being 100% able to own property. Aka, have it recognized by all as owned by them. You are the one strawmaning this yet again. Your strawmaning argument is as stupid as if I was to claim you believe only the government should own slaves instead. It is a ridiculous conjecture to make for either statement. Believing in 100% personal property ownership isn't the same as believing in trying to own people against their wills. Stop with the strawmanning you ape.

 

[Pohemi]

Wrong.

Just because you say a word, doesn't make it so. How did you get to be so sure of yourself, and yet so blindly ignorant and stubbornly stupid?

 

[hal2kilo]

Wrong. The person owning them recognizing them as property. Other non slaves would recognize them as property. The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property. Thus nullifying the ownership claim. Ownership has to be 100% recognized by all in a given society for it to be actual ownership. Which is not at all what the question is about. It is about people being 100% able to own property. Aka, have it recognized by all as owned by them. You are the one strawmaning this yet again. Your strawmaning argument is as stupid as if I was to claim you believe only the government should own slaves instead. It is a ridiculous conjecture to make for either statement. Believing in 100% personal property ownership isn't the same as believing in trying to own people against their wills. Stop with the strawmanning you ape.

Seems someone's hit a nerve.

 

[fskimospy]

Wrong. The person owning them recognizing them as property. Other non slaves would recognize them as property. The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property. Thus nullifying the ownership claim. Ownership has to be 100% recognized by all in a given society for it to be actual ownership. Which is not at all what the question is about. It is about people being 100% able to own property. Aka, have it recognized by all as owned by them. You are the one strawmaning this yet again. Your strawmaning argument is as stupid as if I was to claim you believe only the government should own slaves instead. It is a ridiculous conjecture to make for either statement. Believing in 100% personal property ownership isn't the same as believing in trying to own people against their wills. Stop with the strawmanning you ape.

I like how your response to being called out for making things up is to just make more things up. The courts are going to have a meltdown when they realize that any time there's disputed ownership no one owns it, haha. You said you were against all restrictions on property ownership of any kind. This was an obviously stupid thing to say and obviously something you don't actually believe, so I showed you why you don't actually believe that. Instead of revising your answer of course you did the same thing you always do which was try to lie your way out.

Still waiting for that definition, btw. Got an ETA on that?

 

[ewdotson]

The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property.

Quite aside from how facile the rest of your argument is, I think you're wildly underestimating the evils of slavery. I don't think this statement was a universal truth.

 

[Juiblex]

Just because you say a word, doesn't make it so. How did you get to be so sure of yourself, and yet so blindly ignorant and stubbornly stupid?

Have you ever attempted to have a discussion without calling someone a name? Just curious.

 

[hal2kilo]

I love getting law lectures from SimpleTart.

 

[brycejones]

Wrong. The person owning them recognizing them as property. Other non slaves would recognize them as property. The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property. Thus nullifying the ownership claim. Ownership has to be 100% recognized by all in a given society for it to be actual ownership.

WTF kind of bull shit is this? Please provide evidence that slaves don't know they are property.

 

[mikeymikec]

Your desire for belittling the categorization rubric doesn't make it any less correct. You are also still trying like so many to conflate Conservative with Right and Liberal with Left. Especially in regards to US politics. The definition for what defines LEFT vs RIGHT on the political spectrum is literally that simple. That doesn't mean people are that simple. That is why there is very few far left or far right people in the world. Not that there aren't, but I've never met one. If you can answer without quibble or explanation a hard line NO or YES to any of those questions in the rubric, then you are far left or far right on that answer only. If you have to create your own definition, which most people do, then you are somewhere closer to the middle.

That was all I was trying to illustrate with that rubric. The fact that so many people here seem to not understand such a simple concept here in beyond me.

I don't really have any desire to belittle anyone, but your grasp of this topic is what I'd categorise as a Dunning-Kruger poster-boy, and it's downright unhealthy to leave that unchallenged. Furthermore, if the topic was really simple, then these two articles would be far shorter:

Left-wing politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right-wing politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that's wiki-freaking-pedia, not the font of all knowledge on the topic. If you want to get even an inkling of how complicated the topic is, then visit https://www.politicalcompass.org/ and go through the survey. TBH I'd be hard-pushed to come up with a single yes/no question to honestly, seriously and accurately determine whether one is left/right leaning.

That's aside from you sliding between talking about far-left/right and left/right as if they're seemingly freely interchangeable. And the fact that you didn't answer a single counterpoint I posed.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I'm fairly confident he has some sort of mental disorder or at least is on the spectrum approaching one.

Either way no rational dialog with him is going to occur. You can't have a rational debate with someone who is insane. You also cant have a rational debate with someone who isn't honest.

 

[Pohemi]

Have you ever attempted to have a discussion without calling someone a name? Just curious.

On a daily basis, I do indeed. Just not with RWNJ idiots who refuse to acknowledge observable reality. I call em like I see em.

 

[HumblePie]

WTF kind of bull shit is this? Please provide evidence that slaves don't know they are property.

There is a difference between recognizing someone else thinking they are property and willfully wanting to be someone else's property. Strawman again.