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

[mikeymikec]

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

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'?

Wikipedia has an article on far-left politics which points more at my idea of being anti-government rather than a regime in itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-left_politics

While hypocrisy has had at least a steady foothold in every system of government, the problem with defining say the USSR's "communism" as "far-left" is that a dictatorship that steals from its people in order for the privileged to live in luxury is the opposite of basic left-wing ideology. It was basically a far-right regime that danced a different jig but with the same outcome AFAIK.

 

[pmv]

To me, it means groups who follow the Bolshevik template, and expect a violent revolution to seize control of the state, followed by a dictatorship of the proletariat. Or hard-core anarchists like Class War who have just a general oppositional stance and a liking for getting into fisticuffs with the police. Hardly anyone in the US, barring maybe the Sparts, the IWW, and the SWP (if it still exists?) would qualify. As far as I can see, very few figures in US politics qualify as 'left', yet alone 'far left'.

Pro-USSR Communists do, in my opinion, qualify as 'far left'. Though communists are often extremely conservative in a lot of ways, certainly culturally. I mean, communists and conservatives do have many things in common, both believe in collective values, and the idea that one is born into this world with pre-existing obligations, both are in opposition to liberalism, liberals being individualists.

I wouldn't call the old USSR 'basically a far-right regime' - it's way more complicated than that. Though it's true that after the fall of the system, old Stalinists did start to seem hard to distinguish from fascist nationalists (the 'red-brown alliance'). Stalinism always included a substantial element of Russian nationalism. Also Chinese Communism, once it adopted capitalist economics, started to look hard to distinguish from Pinochet's regime, to me.

 

[shortylickens]

In political theory it basically means socialist.
Keep in mind what political theorists call socialism and what modern Americans call socialism are VERY different things.

By the way, neither the Soviets nor the Chinese ever practiced real communism. They practiced fake communism and lied about it.
Joe McCarthy was too stupid to know it. As are 99 percent of American Republicans. If you wanna see examples of real communism you'd need to hunt down American hippies. Their groups are almost always under a hundred people and they're only able to farm and survive, they're disconnected from the rest of us.
Amish too.

 

[pmv]

In political theory it basically means socialist.
Keep in mind what political theorists call socialism and what modern Americans call socialism are VERY different things.

By the way, neither the Soviets nor the Chinese ever practiced real communism. They practiced fake communism and lied about it.
Joe McCarthy was too stupid to know it. As are 99 percent of American Republicans. If you wanna see examples of real communism you'd need to hunt down American hippies. Their groups are almost always under a hundred people and they're only able to farm and survive, they're disconnected from the rest of us.
Amish too.

I disagree with the idea that the USSR wasn't "real" communism. Just as I disagree with the constant "libertarian" mantra that corporate welfare and plutocracy isn't "real" capitalism. It's too glib to just say the USSR wasn't 'real' communism. The USSR is where actual communism ends up when you try to put it into practice.

I also disagree that 'far left' means 'socialist'. Far left means anarchist or Bolshevik/communist. Socialists, the of the democratic variety, are moderate-left.

Also, a lot of what pass for 'conservatives' these days are actually liberals, e.g. Thatcher was certainly a liberal, as is Boris Johnson. Neo-liberalism is a form of liberalism (hence the name). Most of what passes for 'left' in the US are also liberals, and hence not very different from most 'conservatives'. The US political spectrum only really runs from classical-liberal to welfare-liberal. It's almost all liberalism, except for the religious-right and the fascists (two closely-related groups, especially in the US).

Everybody's a liberal nowadays, except the hard-core religious conservatives and the tiny number of socialists and communists.

 

[mikeymikec]

In political theory it basically means socialist.

To boil the term down to complete meaninglessness, sure, but with your definition anything even vaguely socialist in concept (democracy, taxes, public-funded services etc) are "far-left".

 

[pmv]

To boil the term down to complete meaninglessness, sure, but with your definition anything even vaguely socialist in concept (democracy, taxes, public-funded services etc) are "far-left".

Yeah, if you call socialists "far left" that leaves nothing to put in the "moderate left" category!

If you do that, you have conservatives and classical-liberals on the right, welfare-liberals in the centre, and an empty-category on the left, before reaching 'socialists' on the far-left.

 

[shortylickens]

To boil the term down to complete meaninglessness, sure, but with your definition anything even vaguely socialist in concept (democracy, taxes, public-funded services etc) are "far-left".

No, it isnt.

 

[Commodus]

Yeah, if you call socialists "far left" that leaves nothing to put in the "moderate left" category!

If you do that, you have conservatives and classical-liberals on the right, welfare-liberals in the centre, and an empty-category on the left, before reaching 'socialists' on the far-left.

Keep in mind there's a difference between social democracy (which sounds like what you're talking about) and full non-market socialism.

Many countries are social democracies, but you wouldn't call them socialist in the strictest sense; they still have classic democracy and capitalist markets.

 

[pmv]

Keep in mind there's a difference between social democracy (which sounds like what you're talking about) and full non-market socialism.

Many countries are social democracies, but you wouldn't call them socialist in the strictest sense; they still have classic democracy and capitalist markets.

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.

 

[cytg111]

far far left could either be full blown communists or full blown anarchists... though anarchists will use any vehicle to burn it all down, left right whatever.

 

[cytg111]

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.

Scandinavia. Most of Europe really, but to varying degrees.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The part about monarchies is not literal.

 

[Commodus]

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.

One example is Canada. It has socialized healthcare and generally believes that government is better at solving certain collective problems, but it's very much a capitalist country with a democratic system.

 

[pmv]

Scandinavia. Most of Europe really, but to varying degrees.

Nordic model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The part about monarchies is not literal.

I suppose that's what the SDP were going for when they called themselves that. But it didn't really work out - all they ended up doing was facilitating rule by the liberal right. Even the terminology didn't survive. I still struggle to grasp what that political tradition actually is. It's difficult, I guess, when it hasn't been a living tradition in your own culture.

 

[MrSquished]

Far left to the Trump party means any policy to the left of shooting homeless people on sight.

 

[nOOky]

Does the definition really matter to modern U.S. politics? Will classifying people politically akin to labeling jars help? If you want to do something to help everyone in the country by trying to reduce wage disparity via taxation or distribution you're a fucking commie to the other side. If you want citizens to be able to make choices on certain personal issues that go against someone else's religious beliefs you're a baby killer.

Why we even give a shit what these deplorable assholes think is beyond me. They need classifying with a rubber chicken upside their heads

 

[Jhhnn]

"Far Left" is anybody who won't just STFU & pay the fucking rent.

 

[sandorski]

"Far Left" is anybody who won't just STFU & pay the fucking rent.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." - Helder Camara

 

[zzyzxroad]

In the US does it really matter? The far right is relevant here because they actually grabbed power and are extremists. The farthest left in national government are not extremists. The want things like some form of national healthcare. This isn't an extreme view and it shouldn't even be a discussion. The rest of our peers in the work have moved to this and it is clearly the most viably solution. They also support reducing man made carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy sources. They also support broad gun regulation is the are I most differ from them. I personally don't think that is a wise use of time but at least their heart seems to be in the right place.

 

[Moonbeam]

I suppose that's what the SDP were going for when they called themselves that. But it didn't really work out - all they ended up doing was facilitating rule by the liberal right. Even the terminology didn't survive. I still struggle to grasp what that political tradition actually is. It's difficult, I guess, when it hasn't been a living tradition in your own culture.

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.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Glad to know according to HumblePie’s rubric I am a conservative. Lol.

 

[Ajay]

Keep in mind there's a difference between social democracy (which sounds like what you're talking about) and full non-market socialism.

Many countries are social democracies, but you wouldn't call them socialist in the strictest sense; they still have classic democracy and capitalist markets.

Sadly the social democrats decided to call their movement 'Democratic Socialism' which, in the US, dooms them till most of my generation dies off (born in the last year of the boomers).

 

[HumblePie]

Glad to know according to HumblePie’s rubric I am a conservative. Lol.

It's the basics of the political system. I am not sure about your answer to number 1, but your discourse around here for questions 2 and 3 put you on the left side from my perspective.

 

[Muse]

If you are a conservative, far left means anyone who doesn't agree with you.

 

[HumblePie]

If you are a conservative, far left means anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Conservative and Liberal are the diametrically opposed viewpoints. Left and Right are not necessarily aligned with either of those. You can have a lefty conservatives and a righty liberal. Liberals vs Conservative are more focused on those social "wedge" issues for a given society than on political spectrum.