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

[mikeymikec]

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.

No, I'm really not interested in your attempt to make a round block fit through a square hole. You claim to want civil discourse but you concede nothing even in the face of your points being utterly annihilated. You just keep blathering as if what you're saying is true despite obvious evidence to the contrary and the best you can do to support your argument is opinion pieces.

Life is too short to waste it arguing with people like yourself.

 

[UNCjigga]

Let’s inject a little honesty into this debate. I’m sick and tired of all the bad faith and projection that now substitutes for reasoned policy debate in GOP circles.

The entire truth of half the people supporting Trump’s GOP today is that they would be 100% behind Bernie Sanders and AOC if everyone in America looked like them and worshipped like them. But unfortunately (for them) that isn’t the case, and what’s even more worrying to them is that the “other” is growing while white Protestant and Catholic America is shrinking.

Thus every policy promoted by the GOP should be viewed in the context of a) how it actively seeks to undermine the health and prosperity of these “other” Americans, or b) how it promotes the redistribution of wealth from these other Americans and areas where they live (cities/blue states) to areas where they don’t (I.e. private schools, commercial real estate investment, private sector capital held by elites, large farms and white rural America.)

Abortion, gun control, tax policy, judicial philosophy, environmental policy... you name it. It all boils down to these two things.

 

[JD50]

God damn I haven't seen Humblepie owned this hard since.... the last thread he shit in.

 

[desy]

So not a huge surprise for me, as a Canadian I believe in social safety nets but not funding every whim of every taxpayer. I also am fine with being socially liberal and not fine with Religion driving the bus. Not square in the middle but I did put strongly for sexual liberties, just let people be who they are if its not impinging on your freedoms

 

[Rebel_L]

Considering that far-right tends to mean typical conservative policies but pushed to such an extreme that most typical conservatives wouldn't vote for them without a shitload of brainwashing first, far-left must also logically mean something sufficiently left-wing but pushed to similar extremes that most typical left-wingers wouldn't vote for them etc.

Based on that logic, I guess a authoritarian regime is a given (otherwise it would have to be some kind of weird anti-authoritarian majority collective which has dismantled out of extreme socialist ideals to get rid of anything that represents too much concentrated power?), but a regime that decides that capitalism has had its day or 'excessive personal wealth'?

While I realize this post has gone somewhat sideways at this point I thought I would throw in my 2 cents anyways.

I see the Right as a focus on the 1 vs Left being a focus on the many. I see the socialist economic system as been primarily based on the idea that we succeed or fail as a large group and so the economic engine should belong to whole group. You capitalist system is all about whoever succeeds the most individually and awards them with the most power and goods.

The statement "A government of the people, by the people, for the people" reads to me as an incredibly "left" statement. Dictatorships are the natural extension of the focus on the one and to me that is a part of extreme "right" politics. Wandering a bit off topic here I think this also why the right seems try to move in this direction at times, its really is just where they would naturally end up moving to. It also probably has something to do with why so many religious groups have big "right" movements even when the values of those "right" groups seem to clearly contradict the religions values. Religions with an infallible deity at their head are always focused on the individual, just not a human individual, so its natural to lean that direction. It is also why to me a country like Russia for instance is not a "left" country at all, their socialist economic philosophy was just a way for the "right" dictator to claim control over all the resources. Putin is not a representative of the people and as he controls the country, the economy clearly does not belong to the people either, it is simply a sham to keep the people in line. If I were to to try an explain what I see as real socialism to a capitalist I would probably say that the countries economic engines are like one large company, the citizens the share holders, and the government the board of directors, appointed and potentially changed during regular shareholder meetings.

Where I would see left extremism having a pitfall would be in one of two ways. Either the extreme focus on wanting input and consensus on every decision or the total rejection that change can be positive followed by a violent reprogramming of anyone not part of the current majority consensus.

The first type to a minor extreme would be something like holding a referendum for any bill proposed by the government with the total extreme being having to choose a majority approved breakfast food as your breakfast and only dressing in majority approved clothing.

The second is more the idea of a simple mob rule, where anyone who says anything not in alignment with the mob is thrown out of society, beaten until they chant the same mantra as everyone else or simply killed outright for daring to say something different. I would throw something like a lynch mob into this category, only think country wide and approved by the majority of the people.

 

[Leeea]

and here I thought I was far left:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Muse]

and here I thought I was far left:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

I seem to be farther left than you:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Vic]

I like reading your thoughts. I hope @Vic weighs in on this thread. I don't know anything but I think there are two kinds of left and two kinds of right, libertarian and authoritarian. Personally I would be most concerned about far left of the authoritarian sort, the desire and willingness to use force to obtain conformity.

How libertarian is someone - really - if they don't believe in liberty and freedom for everyone?
There is nothing special in loving one's own freedoms. That's the primary motivation of every authoritarian.

 

[mikeymikec]

The second is more the idea of a simple mob rule, where anyone who says anything not in alignment with the mob is thrown out of society, beaten until they chant the same mantra as everyone else or simply killed outright for daring to say something different. I would throw something like a lynch mob into this category, only think country wide and approved by the majority of the people.

I didn't respond to the rest of your post because I'm pretty much in agreement with you there, so I'm just responding to this point. Considering the cross-section of beliefs (I don't mean religious) amongst millions of people, I don't think this is a particularly plausible scenario... unless we're going to explore the topic of just how far one can brainwash a population, which would certainly be a relevant topic given recent events especially in America. I'm not suggesting we should, in fact I'd probably bow out of such a discussion because reality is harsh enough as it is!

Given that brainwashing and extremist politics go hand in hand IMO, what you're proposing probably is plausible.

Yes, I changed my mind halfway through writing my post.

 

[mikeymikec]

Political compass: "Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care. " - damn, that's a loaded question! To which I'd ideally ask "higher than what".

My result:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Lezunto]

Let’s inject a little honesty into this debate. I’m sick and tired of all the bad faith and projection that now substitutes for reasoned policy debate in GOP circles.

The entire truth of half the people supporting Trump’s GOP today is that they would be 100% behind Bernie Sanders and AOC if everyone in America looked like them and worshipped like them. But unfortunately (for them) that isn’t the case, and what’s even more worrying to them is that the “other” is growing while white Protestant and Catholic America is shrinking.

Thus every policy promoted by the GOP should be viewed in the context of a) how it actively seeks to undermine the health and prosperity of these “other” Americans, or b) how it promotes the redistribution of wealth from these other Americans and areas where they live (cities/blue states) to areas where they don’t (I.e. private schools, commercial real estate investment, private sector capital held by elites, large farms and white rural America.)

Abortion, gun control, tax policy, judicial philosophy, environmental policy... you name it. It all boils down to these two things.

Republicans have perfected a decades old message that reasonable economic regulations are ridiculous, obscene profits are not just acceptable, but necessary, and racial hatred and discrimination should be given the old wink and a nod.

The Dems of 2021 seem to be trying to help as a united force. I'm just glad Trump is gone.

 

[UNCjigga]

Republicans have perfected a decades old message that reasonable economic regulations are ridiculous, obscene profits are not just acceptable, but necessary, and racial hatred and discrimination should be given the old wink and a nod.

The Dems of 2021 seem to be trying to help as a united force. I'm just glad Trump is gone.

But it wasn’t always this way. Had I been the same age I am now and of similar socio-economic status in the 1950s, I would no doubt be an Eisenhower Republican. I’d probably even vote Nixon over JFK (pre-Civil Rights era.)

These “reasonable economic regulations” and the taxes to pay for these policies only became “ridiculous” once the Civil Rights Act meant that blacks would start to see a benefit too.

 

[Dulanic]

I don't mean American conservatives' idea of far-left (being anything left of pretty fucking far right).

Awww I was going to say, a moderate conservative.

 

[Dulanic]

I seem to be farther left than you:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

Seems to be a consistent theme on this forum. Most are close to this it seems.

The Political Compass

explanation of the Political Compass model

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Pohemi]

Nifty, though not surprising.

 

[desy]

Political compass: "Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care. " - damn, that's a loaded question! To which I'd ideally ask "higher than what".

My result:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

I agreed with that statement not because its 'fair but because it helps drive innovation and invention. Nobody takes risks without reward and for medicine to invest in the best they need to be able to recoup the cost

 

[Muse]

Political compass: "Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care. " - damn, that's a loaded question! To which I'd ideally ask "higher than what".

My result:

The Political Compass

www.politicalcompass.org

We're close to an exact match.

 

[Muse]

The Dems of 2021 seem to be trying to help as a united force. I'm just glad Trump is gone.

The goner the better and the sooner the better. That guy poisons the national discourse, thoroughly and consistently. Brainlessness is goddamn contagious.

 

[mect]

Nytimes is now considered propaganda? I thought they were your darling. As I said, the discussion of what AOC and Bernie represent in terms of the relation to what has been done in other socialist countries like Venezuela is going to be a pure opinion issue either way. If you can't see the similarities for yourself then no one can point them out to you.

Also, attacking the messenger is a logic fallacy. Attacking the message isn't. You are still a douche for not knowing the difference.

While still an opinion piece, the NYT article is at least reputable. The problem is that it doesn't support what you are saying. But to know that, you'd have to actually read the opinion piece. Note that the other articles from junk sources that you posted claim the left in the US is following Venezuela's brand of socialism, not the European. This is obviously ludicrous. The NYT piece doesn't make that claim. It simply shows that Venezuela fucked up socialism by pairing it with authoritarianism, and then tries to use that to paint socialism in general in a poor light. AOC and Bernie would completely agree, don't make the US an authoritarian socialized country. As others have already pointed out, everything being pushed by AOC and Sanders follows European socialism models (which aren't really socialism, but social democracies).

Attacking the messenger is a logical fallacy when attacking an attribute of the messenger that is irrelevant to their credibility. Calling a person a jerk in order to detract from their argument is a logical fallacy. Calling a person a conman because that person is a conman in order to refute their argument is not a logical fallacy.

 

[Pohemi]

Attacking the messenger is a logical fallacy when attacking an attribute of the messenger that is irrelevant to their credibility. Calling a person a jerk in order to detract from their argument is a logical fallacy. Calling a person a conman because that person is a conman in order to refute their argument is not a logical fallacy.

He just wants to be able to lie and misrepresent "facts", then play his cute little victim card when he gets called out on it.
A dishonest shithead, as always. His hijack of the thread is a good example of his typical method.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I generally consider myself a moderate, but perhaps I lean a little bit to the left sometimes.

The Political Compass

explanation of the Political Compass model

www.politicalcompass.org

 

[Moonbeam]

How libertarian is someone - really - if they don't believe in liberty and freedom for everyone?
There is nothing special in loving one's own freedoms. That's the primary motivation of every authoritarian.

I would agree with that. I see, in reading what I wrote that I could have been unclear about one thing. When I said I would be most concerned about the radical left of the authoritarian sort I meant I would be more worried about the authoritarian rather than the libertarian left. At the moment I think that the authoritarian l left, while perhaps becoming more noticeable and active of late due to the inevitable reaction that the authoritarian right creates what it fears, that problem is only undergoing a magnification of prevalence due to the astounding danger we are actually currently experiencing from the insanity we see from the authoritarian right.

Personally I always come out somewhere close to Mahatma Gandhi when I take those political tests that separate left from right and authoritarian from libertarian, somewhere in the middle of the lower left quadrant, but I don't really have the insight or wisdom, I think, to define the difference between the libertarian left and right, much less which makes the greater sense or if such sense really is anything more than subjective. I think you are farther to the right than I am and why interests me. I find the comments you make on this forum to be cogent and incisive and requiring for their delivery a depth of insight and educated astuteness I do not have.

From the place where I do feel some confidence to speak, the idea of caring only about one's own rights as being nothing special, and I take that to mean generally very typical, I see that as relating to my views on the human ego, the development of a false self in childhood based on imposing obedience and conformity via fear and how that creates attachments to sacred cows that are essentially empty of any real value, including allegiance to political parties.

The implication of that, in my opinion ineluctably means, that libertarian sensibility increases with emotional maturation, the dawning realization and growth of true selfishness, that one is only well off in relation to how well off others are.

 

[mikeymikec]

I agreed with that statement not because its 'fair but because it helps drive innovation and invention. Nobody takes risks without reward and for medicine to invest in the best they need to be able to recoup the cost

I 'agreed' assuming that people can get access to necessary and safe/competent healthcare in a reasonable manner, and that I'd always expect that more money can provide more options.

 

[Fenixgoon]

While still an opinion piece, the NYT article is at least reputable. The problem is that it doesn't support what you are saying. But to know that, you'd have to actually read the opinion piece. Note that the other articles from junk sources that you posted claim the left in the US is following Venezuela's brand of socialism, not the European. This is obviously ludicrous. The NYT piece doesn't make that claim. It simply shows that Venezuela fucked up socialism by pairing it with authoritarianism, and then tries to use that to paint socialism in general in a poor light. AOC and Bernie would completely agree, don't make the US an authoritarian socialized country. As others have already pointed out, everything being pushed by AOC and Sanders follows European socialism models (which aren't really socialism, but social democracies).

Attacking the messenger is a logical fallacy when attacking an attribute of the messenger that is irrelevant to their credibility. Calling a person a jerk in order to detract from their argument is a logical fallacy. Calling a person a conman because that person is a conman in order to refute their argument is not a logical fallacy.

Edit: obligatory text. Yes, lots of people disingenuously conflate european social democracy with communism and/or socialism

 

[soulcougher73]

God damn I haven't seen Humblepie owned this hard since.... the last thread he shit in.

Crap. Now i have to read this thread. I just jumped to last page haha