Society/Culture Those who identify as left wing, what would you consider to be Extreme Left?

[Seeds]

We hear endlessly (in the media and on these boards) about what the far-right/alt-right is (woman hating, gay hating, white supremacist, Trump supporting etc.) and that is the subject of many other threads on this board but we hear very little about what the far-left is.

Honestly, I would like to hear from some of the left wing types in here about what they consider to be extreme Left wing ideas/theories/actions/policies and what makes them extreme in your opinion.

And please attack the ball, not the man.

(Conservative types, please refrain from posting until there is something to post about)

Extreme left wing and extreme right wing are essentially the same thing.

 

[Deadpool]

Extreme left wing and extreme right wing are essentially the same thing.

I agree. But how?

 

[Gethelred]

"A number of a number of things".......do they multiply together?

Together with such statements:

"Those guys"
and
""White privilege"
and
"It's so obvious I dont need to say anything further"
and
"It's the vibe"

Read Richard Evans, and on socialism, then tell me that Nazi Germany wasn't Far Left.

You are a dunce. Speak to Chief.

A few things:
1. Far be it for me to use my phone - which has considerable input lag - to make a comment.
2. Does being a 'dunce' as it were inherently make me wrong?
3. There is profoundest irony in you objecting to private companies like Youtube censoring right wing identities then you responding to someone you disagree with by calling them names or deriding their intelligence. Render yourself sufficiently unlikeable/offensive and no wonder no-one will host your content.
4. From Richard J. Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich: How the Nazis Destroyed Democracy and Seized Power in Germany: “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism… Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”.

Your attitude has betrayed your intent with this thread. You do not seek to understand or to illuminate, you sought further ammunition to fire, new battlegrounds upon which to wage war on your political opponents. And I reiterate; this is not the location on this website to be arguing this particular nonsense, and nonsense it is.

Read this analysis of the claim, 'were Nazis socialist' which also contains quotes from Evan's books: https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Thank you, at least. You've assisted me with uncovering just how unbelievably full of s**t the argument you're espousing is. Next.

 

[Gough]

This is where the debate gets messy - any argument for equitable access to opportunity gets hijacked by the more extreme people on both sides of the divide.

I'm progressive and happily argue that access to heath, education, etc is a basic right we can afford to provide in Australia. So some people, that's rampant communism. To others, I'm hyper-capitalist because I don't want to tear down 'the market' to achieve it.

It would be instructional if the op listed what they considered to be of the left because for the most part I see the term being thrown around to describe those who suppoirt progress socially, ignoring the basic economic foundations of the theory entirely.

 

[Mofra]

It would be instructional if the op listed what they considered to be of the left because for the most part I see the term being thrown around to describe those who suppoirt progress socially, ignoring the basic economic foundations of the theory entirely.

The term on this board is often just a catch-all for 'anything I don't like'.

 

[Run n Spread]

Terms such as left and right have no meaning now. I'd consider left as in libertarian an extreme form of left would be total anarchy I guess, no law or ownership rights. But now you have examples where China are considered left. (They are a right wing authoritarian state) so who knows?

 

[Mofra]

Terms such as left and right have no meaning now. I'd consider left as in libertarian an extreme form of left would be total anarchy I guess, no law or ownership rights. But now you have examples where China are considered left. (They are a right wing authoritarian state) so who knows?

Libertarians don't sit neatly in either camp. Ron/Rand Paul are GOP but not popular within their own party.
Many people who could be described as left aren't progressive either, as I'd argue to be progressive you need to be pro-scientific progress.

People who put ideology above reality can be described as extreme, or at least well on their way.

 

[Gough]

Libertarians don't sit neatly in either camp. Ron/Rand Paul are GOP but not popular within their own party.
Many people who could be described as left aren't progressive either, as I'd argue to be progressive you need to be pro-scientific progress.

People who put ideology above reality can be described as extreme, or at least well on their way.

Last paragraph describes a lot of Cabinet which is a touch worrying.

 

[Seeds]

Terms such as left and right have no meaning now. I'd consider left as in libertarian an extreme form of left would be total anarchy I guess, no law or ownership rights. But now you have examples where China are considered left. (They are a right wing authoritarian state) so who knows?

Isnt communist russia extreme left? They are the opposite of anarchy.

 

[Run n Spread]

Isnt communist russia extreme left? They are the opposite of anarchy.

Extreme left economically but was run as a right wing (military dictatorship) style of government.

 

[Seeds]

Extreme left economically but was run as a right wing (military dictatorship) style of government.

But that is the only way you can run such an economic system that denies people the right to create what they want and consume what they want. They go hand in hand together.

 

[Run n Spread]

But that is the only way you can run such an economic system that denies people the right to create what they want and consume what they want. They go hand in hand together.

True. Then you could nearly argue extreme communism is right wing. Regardless the definitions have both been taken to extreme measures they are meaningless.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Interesting conversation, some would label me as conservative because my views are based on practic and logic. I'm all for progress so long as it based on practic and logic instead of unachievable ideals. So no I wouldn't consider myself and nor should I be labeled a conservative.

So what would I consider extreme left? Progressive ideology that only caters for minorities that the propensiters would put through at any cost, regardless of the harm that it would do to the majority or has the potential to.

 

[Deadpool]

4. From Richard J. Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich: How the Nazis Destroyed Democracy and Seized Power in Germany: “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism… Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”.

Would you like to quote the whole paragraph then, and from any of his later sections in his trilogy?

I have no time for idiots that parrot from Google.

It would be instructional if the op listed what they considered to be of the left because for the most part I see the term being thrown around to describe those who suppoirt progress socially, ignoring the basic economic foundations of the theory entirely.

So you believe that the Left can never go too far?

How about anarchism? Where does that fit in with your ideology?

 

[Deadpool]

Libertarians don't sit neatly in either camp. Ron/Rand Paul are GOP but not popular within their own party.
Many people who could be described as left aren't progressive either, as I'd argue to be progressive you need to be pro-scientific progress.

People who put ideology above reality can be described as extreme, or at least well on their way.

I do quite agree with this.

 

[Deadpool]

The term on this board is often just a catch-all for 'anything I don't like'.

Terms such as left and right have no meaning now. I'd consider left as in libertarian an extreme form of left would be total anarchy I guess, no law or ownership rights. But now you have examples where China are considered left. (They are a right wing authoritarian state) so who knows?

You've basically summed up your views as Left=good and Right=bad with this post.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Interesting conversation, some would label me as conservative because my views are based on practic and logic. I'm all for progress so long as it based on practic and logic instead of unachievable ideals. So no I wouldn't consider myself and nor should I be labeled a conservative.

So what would I consider extreme left? Progressive ideology that only caters for minorities that the propensiters would put through at any cost, regardless of the harm that it would do to the majority or has the potential to.

Antifa or any form of left idealized anarchy would be a good example.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I'm a classic lefty but I think the whole left right thing doesn't really work anymore.
There are authoritarians on both sides and I think that misses the point.
The last time I took one of those political compass tests I was practically off the radar in libertarian/anarchist territory but I have a regular job, pay taxes and function quite normally in society.
So to me the sort of people who might be held up as examples of far left aren't left at all because they just become authoritarian facists. The only difference between them and nutters like Bolt or Abbott is they are all convinced 100% of their "rightness" but just about different things.

Great post that sums up my experiences too. I'm probably left-leaning under the classical 'left-right' model but find authoritarian views that privilege ideology, (left or right) or religion, over facts of scientific evidence abhorrent.

I generally dislike seeing 'extreme' actions being taken (though I recognise that this line of reasoning is circular because I probably can't always tell you what I'd consider to be extreme until I see it!). Reflecting on the past, I'd say I tend to be more understanding of seemingly extreme actions when it's clear to me that less extreme actions have been attempted without any success or recognition. I also want to be convinced that the protagonists have at least seriously considered what the alternatives to their own views would look like.

So, in practical terms, this translates to me having a hard time sympathising with the vegans invading those farms. Their actions seem to be motivated by a strong commitment that their views are the 'right' ones where I am not so sure it's that cut and dry, I don't feel as though they have made serious attempts at engaging people, and targeting random farms is arbitrary. On the other hand I do sympathise with the Hong Kong protests and with the recent climate change protests. There has been plenty of reasonable discussion and debate on those issues, alternatives have been pondered and considered, (on the latter) the scientific evidence is very clear, and yet things are not changing.

In terms of this board and other social media, I cringe when I see people on the left resort too quickly to using labels like racist, homophobic, Proud Boy (I was called this the other day by a poster who later apologised) or sexist, without first fleshing out what that person's views and concerns are. Yeah, there are racists etc. out there (and some of them post here), and these people should be identified as people who won't argue in good faith, but don't start the discussion by playing that card.

Oh, and I just remembered I saw a great example of the loony left on Twitter a few days ago, where a trans woman was claiming that people who might refuse to date someone else based on what genitals the latter had had were transphobic ("we are people, not genitals").

Anyway, great discussion - it's good to reflect on this from time to time!

 

[Patrick Bullet]

One thing that bugs me on the left is the discussion around 'privilege'. When I hear the word "privilege" I think of undeserved advantages that a person has managed to procure. Examples might be bribing one's way into a university that would not have otherwise accepted you or inheriting so much wealth that one does not have to work. When I hear the word tied to an identity (e.g., male privilege or white privilege), it bugs me a lot. I do get that white males (just for an example) generally find it easier to achieve certain things than black people (in the US) or women (just about everywhere). Not denying that. But, I think the word "privilege" makes it sound too much like those achievements must have been (somehow) unearned, when that may not be true (many white males do work their asses off!). To me, the root of the problem is not the advantage of the advantaged group; it's the disadvantage of the disadvantaged group that needs to be fixed (their 'un-privilege'?).

E.g., one of the 'privileges' of being white is that the police don't pull you over 'randomly' as much as they would if you were black. I'm sorry, but that's not a 'privilege' that needs to be resolved, it's something that everyone should reasonably expect!

I think it's just the word that I am having a hard time with - I do want equal opportunity for all identity groups. I just get a bit tired of being told to "check my privilege" as if doing that is actually going to achieve anything.

I'm happy to have my mind changed though!

 

[Deadpool]

One thing that bugs me on the left is the discussion around 'privilege'. When I hear the word "privilege" I think of undeserved advantages that a person has managed to procure. Examples might be bribing one's way into a university that would not have otherwise accepted you or inheriting so much wealth that one does not have to work. When I hear the word tied to an identity (e.g., male privilege or white privilege), it bugs me a lot. I do get that white males (just for an example) generally find it easier to achieve certain things than black people (in the US) or women (just about everywhere). Not denying that. But, I think the word "privilege" makes it sound too much like those achievements must have been (somehow) unearned, when that may not be true (many white males do work their asses off!). To me, the root of the problem is not the advantage of the advantaged group; it's the disadvantage of the disadvantaged group that needs to be fixed (their 'un-privilege'?).

E.g., one of the 'privileges' of being white is that the police don't pull you over 'randomly' as much as they would if you were black. I'm sorry, but that's not a 'privilege' that needs to be resolved, it's something that everyone should reasonably expect!

I think it's just the word that I am having a hard time with - I do want equal opportunity for all identity groups. I just get a bit tired of being told to "check my privilege" as if doing that is actually going to achieve anything.

I'm happy to have my mind changed though!

Great post.

I am one of those white guys that gets pulled over by the cops a lot, gets followed around stores by security etc. and it pisses me off that that happens, but I wear hoodies and have long hair (and am poor) A lot of it has to do with that. Same with black people that get harassed by police, they wear baggy clothes (and lets not forget the fact that most security guys these days aren't even white- an important fact that gets forgotten- look at the Ben Simmons hoax). And the fact that black people commit more crime than people of other ethnicities (just a FACT) means that law enforcement is more likely to keep an eye on them, and that will naturally lead to more profiling.

Privilege is something that is "unearned"- the fact is that black communities do very little internally to discourage crime and violence (look at rap music FFS) and see it as righteous more than despicable. So black communities have actually sadly "earned" that "unprivilege" by being too proud to question their own culture, like white people have.

Ultimately though, the only real privilege is that of economic privilege: that's why it is so disgusting that well off white people throw poor whites under the bus in the name of privilege simply to assuage their own (actual) guilt over their unearned wealth and luxury.

 

[Deadpool]

Last paragraph describes a lot of Cabinet which is a touch worrying.

Says the guy that basically has no limit on Left-wing extremism.

 

[Deadpool]

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This is what I mean by atomised, you are Nietzsche’s Last Man, purely in search of comfort.

Interesting. I know we're going off on a tangent here but you deserve an answer. Some of what's written below describes me, but not all;

Nietzsche and Thus Spoke Zarathustra: The Last Man and The Superman

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the main character leaves his home at the age of 30 and retreats into the mountains hoping to find enlightenment. There, “6000 feet beyond man and time”, Zarathustra rema…

academyofideas.com

...The Last Man is the individual who specializes not in creation, but in consumption. In the midst of satiating base pleasures, he claims to have “discovered happiness” by virtue of the fact that he lives in the most technologically advanced and materially luxurious era in human history.

But this self-infatuation of the Last Man conceals an underlying resentment, and desire for revenge. On some level, the Last Man knows that despite his pleasures and comforts, he is empty and miserable. With no aspiration and no meaningful goals to pursue, he has nothing he can use to justify the pain and struggle needed to overcome himself and transform himself into something better. He is stagnant in his nest of comfort, and miserable because of it. This misery does not render him inactive, but on the contrary, it compels him to seek victims in the world. He cannot bear to see those who are flourishing and embodying higher values, and so he innocuously supports the complete de-individualization of every person in the name of equality. The Last Man’s utopia is one in which total equality is maintained not from without, by an oppressive ruling class, but from within, through the “evil-eye” of envy and ridicule...

I am a hedonist, it's true. I do seek pleasures in life. Good food, good booze, good people to enjoy them with. The bolded though - that's not what I'm about at all. I'm a great believer in individuality. Equality to me is not about erasing all colours from the patchwork of life except for an all-encompassing grey. It's more that no colour should be treated as or viewed as any lesser than any other. The patchwork is seen as a whole, but is created from many.

And so humanity.

 

[its free real estate]

Interesting. I know we're going off on a tangent here but you deserve an answer. Some of what's written below describes me, but not all;



I am a hedonist, it's true. I do seek pleasures in life. Good food, good booze, good people to enjoy them with. The bolded though - that's not what I'm about at all. I'm a great believer in individuality. Equality to me is not about erasing all colours from the patchwork of life except for an all-encompassing grey. It's more that no colour should be treated as or viewed as any lesser than any other. The patchwork is seen as a whole, but is created from many.

And so humanity.

How can you be in favour of equality and a hedonist? Hedonism is antithetical to equality.

You have stated that social harmony is the goal - what characteristics does your social harmony take with full realised individuality? What you are talking about is something narrowly idealised to your frame of reference - ie the state should let me freely enjoy my peccadilloes and those of people whom I tolerate, but no one else's.

Do you think the existence of billionaires are an injustice? If so, what are billionaires if not arch-hedonists?

 

[medusala]

People who put ideology above reality can be described as extreme, or at least well on their way.

Roz Ward and safe schools is a perfect example.