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

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
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.

I'm not underestimating any evil. You want to talk about the evils of slavery I am down, but that is a different topic entirely. I was talking about believing in the 100% personal property ownership rights of people being the right side litmus test versus not. The moment you have to take exception to anything that can be owned, and slaves are not recognized 100% as being owned unless they willfully want to be owned, then you are not on the right side of that political belief system. That is all. It's a very simple concept. The more exceptions you make to this, the more left side of the political belief you are up to the point where a person doesn't believe in personal ownership of anything. Those would be far left. I am not defining a numerical scale system here or anything like that. Just defining far left and far right based on the political spectrum of private personal ownership.
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
in my context of a western european country, it means left of the social democrats. Mostly, that means communists, often but not necessarily extra-parliamentarian, plus the extra-parlamentarian autonomous social centres and antifa groups which have more militant tendencies in getting their point across, by vandalizing banks and burning cars during protests, and organizing counterprotests against the far-right with both sides being ready to justify violence against the other.

Typically, these people defend the chavez/maduro regime against all data, and often even north korea, purely on an ideological basis. Their acceptance of center-right democratic outcomes is tenuous tbh.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
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:


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.

Horrible reference links that still allude to what I was stating. I am stating the 3 questions that define the far left and far right spectrum on a POLITICAL SYSTEM. A government as its basis breaks down into those 3 key fields. Everything else as I said is wedge issues. Societal issues are something else entirely. Stating the fact in the French revolution that a certain side of the political spectrum sat on one side of the gathering of politicians versus the other is quaint definition. Even still, lets dissect the wiki links shall we? First line below for each link you posted.

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in critique of social hierarchy .

Let's disassemble. Social equality and egalitarianism deals directly with the value of the individual. Are all people equal or not. The far left view is that all people are equal no matter what. That a convicted murderer is just as equal as doctor working at St. Jude's working for free to save the lives of children. That by extension, government must do everything in its power to create that outcome. Thus by extension there can be no private property rights, and the individual can have no self governance. That is the definition of what is FAR left. As I said, there are very few people that are actually far left. The degree to how much to the left they are is by contrasting with the exact opposite view which is Right-wing politics.

Right-wing politics embraces the view that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable

Time to disassemble this as well. This statement is that the individual is the sole king unto themselves. Their actions define who they are and that by their actions some people are inherently better than others. By extension, a government, if any, should be set up to maintain the highest level of emphasis upon the role of the individual. This goes for property ownership and self governance.

The ideas of things like liberalism and conservatism are not the same as left-wing and right-wing politics. There are alignments with either, based upon a given society, but not always the case. Also "forms" of different types of government structures as a whole tend to have elements of both left and right wing political basics. That includes Republics, Democracies, Tyrranies, Fascism, Monarchies, Oligarchies, Communism, and others. Each of those forms of government structures has various implementations of left and right wing political basics.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,446
136
Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in critique of social hierarchy .

Let's dissassemble. Social equality and egalitarianism deals directly with the value of the individual. Are all people equal or not. The far left view is that all people are equal no matter what. That a convicted murderer is just as equal as doctor working at St. Jude's working for free to save the lives of children. That by extension, government must do everything in its power to create that outcome. Thus by extension there can be no private property rights, and the individual can have no self governance. That is the definition of what is FAR left. As I said, there are very few people that are actually far left. The degree to how much to the left they are is by contrasting with the exact opposite view which is Right-wing politics.

You are fucking insane. I mean literally certifiable.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
You are fucking insane. I mean literally certifiable.

No. That is the literal definition of left-wing politics. The more you believe something like that, then the further left you are. The more exceptions you carve out of that, the less left-wing you are. As I said, it is a sliding scale. Sorry you take exception to what the definition literally is.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
I'm not underestimating any evil. You want to talk about the evils of slavery I am down, but that is a different topic entirely. I was talking about believing in the 100% personal property ownership rights of people being the right side litmus test versus not. The moment you have to take exception to anything that can be owned, and slaves are not recognized 100% as being owned unless they willfully want to be owned, then you are not on the right side of that political belief system. That is all. It's a very simple concept. The more exceptions you make to this, the more left side of the political belief you are up to the point where a person doesn't believe in personal ownership of anything. Those would be far left. I am not defining a numerical scale system here or anything like that. Just defining far left and far right based on the political spectrum of private personal ownership.
I'm not sure you're understanding my objection. I'm saying that I'm fairly sure there were plenty of slaves who had been beaten down enough by the system that they would, in fact, recognize themselves as property.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
I'm not sure you're understanding my objection. I'm saying that I'm fairly sure there were plenty of slaves who had been beaten down enough by the system that they would, in fact, recognize themselves as property.

I can point to the fact that when the slaves were freed they didn't fight to be slaves again kind of goes against your point. Once given freedom, they didn't fight for slavery to come back to make them slaves again. I know of no instance of that in any history, kind of destroys your argument. I am sure that many slaves while being slaves would state they like their current position mainly from fear otherwise. Given a choice, most people don't want to remain a slave. As I said, there are some strange masochists out there even today. What two willing people consent to though isn't any of my business. Again I use that word willing.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,446
136
No. That is the literal definition of left-wing politics. The more you believe something like that, then the further left you are. The more exceptions you carve out of that, the less left-wing you are. As I said, it is a sliding scale. Sorry you take exception to what the definition literally is.

No. You are out of your mind and the fact people can think like you and exist in society is frightening. I can ask any leftist I know and they would all say a convicted murderer belongs in prison, unless any evidence comes to light which can exonerate them, which means he is certainly not as equal in their eyes to a non-criminal doctor who works at a hospital. Because that murderer has lost many freedoms compared to that doctor, you know, by deservedly being in prison and all, which certainly means they don't believe they are equal. The fact you can even type a sentence like that is crazy, but then defend it? You should seek mental help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
No. You are out of your mind and the fact people can think like you and exist in society is frightening. I can ask any leftist I know and they would all say a convicted murderer belongs in prison, unless any evidence comes to light which can exonerate them, which means he is certainly not as equal in their eyes to a non-criminal doctor who works at a hospital. Because that murderer has lost many freedoms compared to that doctor, you know, by deservedly being in prison and all, which certainly means they don't believe they are equal. The fact you can even type a sentence like that is crazy, but then defend it? You should seek mental help.

I am not thinking they are equal you dipshit. I am pointing out what FAR LEFT by definition means. It's great you have leftist friends who aren't far left who don't think murders are the same as doctors. Good for you. Why are you trying to equate the definition of what far left-wing politics means to something in your own life? Are you stuck on victimhood mentality or something?

I am defending the definition of a phrase. I am not defending the concepts of that definition you loon.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,332
10,239
136
No. You are out of your mind and the fact people can think like you and exist in society is frightening. I can ask any leftist I know and they would all say a convicted murderer belongs in prison, unless any evidence comes to light which can exonerate them, which means he is certainly not as equal in their eyes to a non-criminal doctor who works at a hospital. Because that murderer has lost many freedoms compared to that doctor, you know, by deservedly being in prison and all, which certainly means they don't believe they are equal. The fact you can even type a sentence like that is crazy, but then defend it? You should seek mental help.
Hyperbole works so well when you are trying to prove a point. /s Works for humor.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,446
136
I am not thinking they are equal you dipshit. I am pointing out what FAR LEFT by definition means. It's great you have leftist friends who aren't far left who don't think murders are the same as doctors. Good for you. Why are you trying to equate the definition of what far left-wing politics means to something in your own life? Are you stuck on victimhood mentality or something?

I am defending the definition of a phrase. I am not defending the concepts of that definition you loon.

Nah dude. I'm pretty sure I know a shit ton of people that you would consider far leftist, including myself, that think nothing of the sort or even remotely close to that. Surprisingly enough, all of them believe in personal and private property too.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Nah dude. I'm pretty sure I know a shit ton of people that you would consider far leftist, including myself, that think nothing of the sort or even remotely close to that. Surprisingly enough, all of them believe in personal and private property too.

Nope. I haven't met anyone IRL I would call far left or far right. Maybe looney left and looney right depending which is based upon my own opinion of their views to which I assert my right to make that valuation. I am sure others have called you far left. I've been called far left and far right from all sorts of people. Mainly because I am only right leaning. It is what it is.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Strawman, another word you don't know the meaning of.

You are creating something else for me to attack as a defense that has no bearing on the original topic. Which is exactly what you did. The fact you are asking for evidence for an attack against your created strawman is also called a Motte and Bailey routine too. Look it up.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
I can point to the fact that when the slaves were freed they didn't fight to be slaves again kind of goes against your point. Once given freedom, they didn't fight for slavery to come back to make them slaves again. I know of no instance of that in any history, kind of destroys your argument. I am sure that many slaves while being slaves would state they like their current position mainly from fear otherwise. Given a choice, most people don't want to remain a slave. As I said, there are some strange masochists out there even today. What two willing people consent to though isn't any of my business. Again I use that word willing.
That's just stupid. I'm not saying that the slaves would have been *happy* about being property or *want* to be property. I have no earthly clue why you would think that that was something I was saying.

I'm saying that many of them would have acknowledged that prior to being freed that they were, in fact, property.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
That's just stupid. I'm not saying that the slaves would have been *happy* about being property or *want* to be property. I'm saying that many of them would have acknowledged that prior to being freed that they were, in fact, property.

That isn't stupid. If slaves are given the choice of freedom and slavery to choose freedom everytime, then they don't really ever recognize themselves as slaves willingly in their heart of hearts. They may state they are slaves, aka property, out of fear; but that isn't out of willingness.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,992
23,793
136
You are creating something else for me to attack as a defense that has no bearing on the original topic. Which is exactly what you did. The fact you are asking for evidence for an attack against your created strawman is also called a Motte and Bailey routine too. Look it up.

Bullshit, you posted a statement that was quite clear. I asked you for evidence supporting said statement. You chose to invent a new meaning that is NOT what you actually said. So fuck off you dishonest fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,613
10,881
146
That isn't stupid. If slaves are given the choice of freedom and slavery to choose freedom everytime, then they don't really ever recognize themselves as slaves willingly in their heart of hearts.
Jesus fuck just stop already. It gets dumber every time you double and triple down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,535
7,660
136
Just like "temperature" is relevant to the instrument used to measure it and the agreed-upon standardized scale to plot it, so are political stances.

So, "far left" here in the states is going to be approximate to "center-left" in any western European country where you'd feel safe living for more than a week.

Trying to get into any more detail would require a standardized and agreed-upon scale to plot, which is where the "political compass" would come into play if this thread were anything more than most everyone getting trolled.

All of that said, I do enjoy watching the white power apologist troll the ever-loving shit out of y'all. He shows up when a black person is murdered by a white person, to defend the white person, and to troll about political definitions, by OF COURSE starting off his rubric that ALL MEN ARE NOT EQUAL.

Go figure, white power apologist who defends any white person killing any black person starts their political rubric with their personal belief that ALL MEN ARE NOT EQUAL.

You can't make this shit up. He's as consistent as the fucking tides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Bullshit, you posted a statement that was quite clear. I asked you for evidence supporting said statement. You chose to invent a new meaning that is NOT what you actually said. So fuck off you dishonest fuck.

I just explained it to ewdotson. Recognizing being a slave out of fear versus willingness is two different things. As I explained to him, point to a single conflict or even action in history where the once enslaved sought to be enslaved again after gaining freedom. I'll save you the trouble. You can't. There are very few people masochistic enough to willingly wanting to be a slave.

I think the better question that could have been posed an argument wasn't the slavery route though. It is, do parents own their children? To that I say yes as someone who believes in 100% property ownership. Kids are property of the parents until they can show they are not willing to be otherwise and can be on their own. Our system is setup for this with even tax rules around it. I know many people have the complete opposite opinion on kids being owned by anyone.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
That isn't stupid. If slaves are given the choice of freedom and slavery to choose freedom everytime, then they don't really ever recognize themselves as slaves willingly in their heart of hearts. They may state they are slaves, aka property, out of fear; but that isn't out of willingness.
No, this is still stupid. Where did willingness come in? Your original statement that I was replying to was "The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property." Not "The person being the slave wouldn't have willingly entered the arrangement and be content to remain in that state after they had been freed."

"I recognize X is true" and "I willingly chose X" are two *completely* different statements.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
No, this is still stupid. Where did willingness come in? Your original statement that I was replying to was "The person being the slave wouldn't recognize themselves as property." Not "The person being the slave wouldn't have willingly entered the arrangement and be content to remain in that state after they had been freed."

Willingness is part of the recognition. Saying something under duress isn't something that should be taken as recognition of anything. That is why our law system doesn't allow confessions under duress to be admissible as evidence. That is why I stated at every part of my posts on this subject the word willingness. That is why in the very first post in my rebuttal to eski saying I accepted slavery as a strawman argument I used the word willingnes https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...eoretically-mean.2590606/page-3#post-40435008

People not wanting to be slaves are not property. Thus there is no ownership. If someone wants to willingly be owned as a slave by someone else and those two like the arrangement, I don't care what the heck they do. It is a difference with a distinction.

As I said it is a distinction. You can't have willingness if there is duress.

As for the edited comment you added in, I already answered that.

"I recognize X is true" and "I willingly chose X" are two *completely* different statements.

A person cannot be considered property of another if they aren't willing to of their own free will without duress the property of another. Or unless they are dead I guess. Although that comes back around to a corpse being an inanimate object that can't contest to being property of another.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
Willingness is part of the recognition. Saying something under duress isn't something that should be taken as recognition of anything. That is why our law system doesn't allow confessions under duress to be admissible as evidence. That is why I stated at every part of my posts on this subject the word willingness. That is why in the very first post in my rebuttal to eski saying I accepted slavery as a strawman argument I used the word willingnes https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...eoretically-mean.2590606/page-3#post-40435008
Fair enough on your having mentioned willingness earlier (and seriously - it's totally fair of you to have called me out on that point), although you'll note that was not the post I was responding to. And while the post I *did* respond to did note that "Believing in 100% personal property ownership isn't the same as believing in trying to own people against their wills", you'll note that that wasn't the *part* of that post I was responding to. Seriously, the entirety of what I was objecting to was the statement that a slave would not recognize that they were owned as property. I consider their willingness to be orthogonal to that. You consider it key to it. I don't think we're going to go any further than that.
 
Last edited:

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Fair enough on your having mentioned willingness earlier (and seriously - it's totally fair of you to have called me out on that point), although you'll note that was not the post I was responding to. And while the post I *did* respond to did note that "Believing in 100% personal property ownership isn't the same as believing in trying to own people against their wills", you'll note that that wasn't the *part* of that post I was responding to. Seriously, the entirety of what I was objecting to was the statement that a slave would not recognize that they were owned as property. I consider their willingness to be orthogonal to that. You consider it key to it. I don't think we're going to go any further than that.

When it comes to being recognized as property. The property has to willfully recognize itself as being property (if it can). That's why I say people don't pick cats as pets they pick you. I have 2 cats in my house as an example. One is mine and one is my wifes because one picks me every time over her. Thus that cat is my property and the other is hers. A person isn't property unless they willingly do so without duress. The other metric is the other person has to claim them as property too. In animate objects can't do willingness so it is property if claimed and everyone else recognizes it as claimed. That is where things get funny when it comes to property ownership.

For example say you have a tree growing in your yard and it starts dropping fruit in my yard as it has branches that extend over into my recognized property. I claim those fruit. You claim otherwise. We have to have a 3rd party render judgement on whos claim is valid and whos isn't. This is because everyone has to agree to ownership systems in a society for it to be real ownership. With my above example, if the judge rules in my favor then I am the recognized by society owner of that fruit. If you also willingly agree to the outcome then there is no more content. I own that fruit. If you don't, then you can appeal the decision or even go rogue and try to take it from me in various means. Either way, I could be deprived of ownership of that fruit because you still disagreed. It gets more complicated, but this is going out of the bounds of my simple explanation for left-wing vs right-wing politics as a definition. As I wrap back into that, the point I was making was that left-wing politics by definition is believing everyone is completely equal at all times and wanting a form of government that enforces that. The right-wing political viewpoint is the exact opposite. Most people aren't that staunch adherents to being pure far left or pure far right. Eski made a strawman in an attempt to be snide in that definition that right-wing being 100% for property meant they also want slaves. It was a strawman 100% with some nice hyperbole thrown in. My rebuttals were attempts to disarm his stupid strawman to the point it made it evident to everyone reading this thread that the definition of far right believing in "people can 100% own property" doesn't equate to owning slaves by extension.

The other issue here is that many people here had severe projection issues when I was stating the definition which coincides with the wiki definition of left-wing versus right-wing. Especially as many here want to conflate their own self identification with what I said and take the victimhood approach. I didn't label anyone in this thread with any political label at all except myself.
 
Last edited: