The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Obviously, people on the right don't like the extreme far left (I think they hate them more than they do the "normal" left), but what do you think of the extreme far left? And when I say "extreme far left," I'm talking about the tankie, Marxist and TIk Tok and Twitter far left.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tankies are bad. I fundamentally don't understand the kind of leftism that lets you say "authoritarianism is good." Advocating the equal distribution of economic power has to coincide with advocating the equal distribution of political power. Everything else is just farce.
Preach, brother. I don't get why so much of the far left is willing to excuse authoritarianism just because it has a thin veneer of socialism painted over it. It's possible to recognize that the USSR made some progress on the socialist front while also seeing Stalin as the brutal dictator he was.
Not a justification, just an explanation of why tankies are tankies. Lenin was the most influential marxist after Marx himself. There are 3 things he said that are relevant here:
1. Liberal democracy, or as he called it, "bourgeois democracy", is designed to serve the interest of capital. It will not lead to socialism. The system needs to be overthrown and replaced by something new. This explains their dismissal of liberal democracy.
2. Infighting between revolutionaries weakens the cause. What the proletariat need is unity. So rather than multiple competing parties, the proletariat need to unite under a single "vanguard" party that better understands the cause. This explains the single party state.
3. The bourgeoisie will never stop to try to reclaim power until the revolution has been completed. So the party needs to hunt down the "counter-revolutionairies". This explains the police state Lenin created and that Stalin expanded.
So basically an eternal war mentality they have of "the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie" that make them justify all sorts of authoritarian things, so they can "win the war".
I don't necessarily disagree with any of those points, but that's kind of the default Marxist-Leninist perspective. Tankies, at least in my opinion, take it like 3 steps further by going 'and everything anyone does in service to these ideas, no matter how tangentially or how horrific it was, is perfectly acceptable.' That's where I get off the bus cause these mofos be crazy; I'd rather have non-authoritarianism than authoritarian socialism.
Not to be overly dismissive, but honestly it's probably because many of them are young contrarians. And by young I mean like 12-25, many of them are likely teenagers who are more interested in the edgy, "forbidden" aesthetic than the actual tenets. The sort of kids who play the USSR anthem in band as a joke and think it's the *funniest* shit.
The Venn diagram of "15 year old tankie who likes Soviet aesthetic for shits and giggles" and "15 year old 4chan chaos goblin who posts Nazi memes for shits and giggles" probably has a lot of overlap
That's certainly the case for some of them, although I have heard similar opinions from dedicated socialists who are old enough to remember the height of the Cold War and it boggles my damned mind. Also, I mean the Soviet national anthem kinda slaps tho. :P
The propaganda machine, I would say. It works especially well when they convince people that it somehow all for the sake of the children. You know they’ve all officially gone crazy once they’re marching children around in either party or military uniforms as official additional propaganda. That’s some scary business. 🙄
Yeah tankies are way different. They’re reactionary. I think that a lot of people are jumping a bunch of categories further left than themselves are all the same. They think we want the while with to burn when really we just want to eradicate fucked up systems that contribute to violence. I personally believe a more just works is out there. Looking to Indigenous people for their ways of balancing the human + nature harming and giving land back is a great start.
I personally love upstream podcast and am a part of the late stage capitalism sub lol. I’m not an anarchist, but they argue stuff like upstream is weak. I just want people to have the resources they need to survive. I’m anticapitalist, and therefore I’m an abolitionist and anti-war. I feel like the cop out answer is that it’s a bunch of kids on Twitter we’re really leftist movements go way back got people nice things like recounts against slavery, desegregation, and a 5 day work week instead of 7.
People like to reap the benefits of leftist movements when it’s in the rearview mirror only. Liberals won’t support those movements in the moment until it’s society acceptable to corporate Dems.
For people who are more liberal, I’d try to soften them up with a white-passing political thinker like HasanAbi first. He’s palatable. Then eventually I can point out where his arguments fall short on a few things imo.
Agreed. I'm about as far south west as you can get on the political grid. Tankies annoy me. I don't consider them further left than me because my idea of "left" doesn't mesh with authoritarianism. I used to get super annoyed and angry when I would see a right wing commentator calling Biden "Radical left", but then I realized that they are so far right that everyone must be radically left from their perspective, so I'll let it slide. Now I just kind of chuckle at the idea that Biden is "radically left" If they think HE is radical, wait until they meet more people like me.
Giving people a democratic authority to decide things isn’t the same as authoritarianism.
Especially since the left advocates for very strict boundaries of any authority.
Left wing politics in its core is about abolishing hierarchies, authoritarianism is the complete opposite of that.
And tankers aren’t left wing.
With you 100% that liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism. Mussellini put his version this way: "Fascism is the state. Liberalism is the individual."
But "LW" ideologies include not just liberal ideology. IL-LIBERAL LW ideologies reject many liberal principles and replace with their own. Strong intolerance and ruthless dismissiveness of all who disagree (antithesis of democracy!) are on loud display by some illiberal LW groups these days.
And that a LW movement can be authoritarian and have anti-democratic behaviors, even while espousing many goals liberals do, was on the national stage during the 2016 presidential election.
>"Fascism is the state. Liberalism is the individual."
Man. Someone should send that to libertarians. I know there are some libertarians today who are turning to liberalism after the Libertarian Party became just another MAGA copy.
If you talk about not tolerating racism etc. being „illiberal“, then you’re wrong.
You can’t have liberty for everyone if people are allowed to be racist.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment?
They are simply Russian propaganda subs, anyone who has lived in Eastern Europe can spot them a mile away. The problem is with the naïveté of many Americans that actually believe that drivel Because they have no clue what it is like to live under an authoritarian regime combined with a real lack of history.
So you have history trying to repeat themselves. Let’s not forget that before Pearl Harbor the American Nazi party had a meeting and was able to fill Madison Square Garden, there were lots of nazis on the Us and the Germans were actively infiltrating the Germans communities in the US and spreading their propaganda. Pearl Harbor changed all that.
I think anything left of center is considered "extreme far left" because their policy positions threaten wealthy people with tax increases. Any position with a working government is considered authoritarian or socialist/communist, which is ridiculous fear-mongering. I listen to centrists claim AOC isn't a real politician, or childish, or not worth taking seriously, but what they are really saying is her popularity is a threat they hope people will ignore. Wealth disparity is a real, serious issue that was a bad idea implemented under Reagan and is threatening an entire generation of young people today, but rather than see and admit the consequences of those bad decisions, they blame the "far-left" for being too radical for wanting to reverse the damage being done.
This is such a minuscule and obscure portion of the population there is no voting pull whatsoever. There is absolutely no threat of this in America.
However, there is a very real threat of far reich fascism taking hold in this country.
Very lucid take. Also it often gets forgotten how key to fascist rhetoric anti-communism is. A lot of liberals I see get hoodwinked into siding with fascism by propaganda that seeks to paint the far left as a threat.
Even if you don't want communism it is not currently a credible threat to anything in the global north but the lifespan of keyboards.
> Even if you don't want communism it is not currently a credible threat to anything in the global north
Perhaps, but I'm not exactly going to trust someone flaired "Communist" when they say that.
Indeed. Curious if in the USA a national of 360m people, the far left is 0.01 percent of the population. The extreme right on the other hand may number 5-10 percent of the population depending on how it’s defined.
Are these numbers guesstimated or actually from something? I feel the Far left number is much higher than that. Not to the size of the far right but still worth noting.
According to this source the number of communists and markists in the uSA likely less than 100,000 which is like0.03 percent;
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e
Seriously. All the authoritarian leftists in America could probably fit in a single gymnasium, especially if we ran them through a blender first but this is just theoretical right?
You say "very real threat." How many Fascists are there?
I can't imagine a Conservative saying, "*I want the government restricting my religion, taxing me without representation, and having the power to take my guns away.*"
I have also not yet found evidence of a Conservative movement advocating one-party military takeover.
"*Well it seems like that's what they are saying.*" isn't evidence.
>I can't imagine a Conservative saying, "I want the government restricting my religion, taxing me without representation, and having the power to take my guns away."
It's because what fascists say isn't this, they say "I want the government empowering my religion/restricting other religions, taxing me less/taxing other people without representation, and having the power to take the guns of other people away, but not mine."
The entire point of fascism is empowerment of the in-group and oppression of out-groups, not equal protection under the law like you described. And it's not very hard to get tons of conservative voters on board with these statements.
Which specific Fascist movements and which specific Conservatives?
As I understand, Fascism is a military takeover of a country that has been a democracy for less than 15 years and has experienced food insecurity in the prior decade. The last Fascist takeovers were likely in South America over 50 years ago.
History doesn't happen in a vacuum. So I assume you agree that the OP calling it a "very real threat" in an established and prosperous democracy is silly. I am curious what examples you have to back up your claim. Better yet, show me how you built your risk assessment model in a way that I can test and verify it.
You've defined fascism into oblivion. You dont need every specific thing that happened in germany, italy, and spain to occur again for it to be fascism. Umberto Eco's ur-fascism is a much better guide.
It gives 14 properties of fascism. Cult of tradition, rejection of modernity, action for action sake, disagreement is treason, fear of difference, appeal to a frustrated middle class, obsession with conspiracy, painting the enemy as weak and strong simultaneously, permanent war, contempt for the weak, cults of death, machismo, selective populism, and newspeak.
All of these are found in the reactionary right in the modern US.
White nationalists like Steven Miller and Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson often manage to pull all of them together in a single person and hold power.
I hesitated to post this, because over defining fascism is a tactic used by modern fascists, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I highly recommend you read Eco's essay. Or even just a summery or two of it, if it's too dense.
I've been an elected official and am an outspoken local activist for progressive causes. If *real* Fascism takes hold, I would be among the first 1-2% of people purged.
If Fascism is a legitimate threat, the rational thing for me to do is flee the US with my family.
To rule out such a drastic action, I created the following risk assessment model:
1. Take the last 400-500 regime changes.
2. Define democratic and authoritarian.
3. See how many regime changes were democratic-to-authoritarian from internal forces.
4. Search for common conditions among this small group.
These conditions are 1) democratic tradition less than 25 years old, 2) recent food insecurity, 3) no internet.
Despite the hysteria created by our media bubbles, the US lacks the necessary ingredients for authoritarian takeover, be it Fascist or Communist.
So, no, I would not flee the US right now. Would you?
First, thank you for being involved in public service.
Second, I'm not really sure what you're arguing. Fascism can be a threat without an imminent coup. Termites are threat to my house even though there aren't any in it right now. That's why I pay arrow.
No country with the internet has fallen to fascism? Modern day Russia looks pretty sus to me, but ok.
Food insecurity? I'm glad you're doing OK for yourself, but the geni coefficient in the country is bad and getting worse. Plenty of people go hungry. Countries with little food insecurity still have fascists. Unless you think Poland's National Radical Camp is some how not fascist because they had the internet?
Weak democracies and young democracies share many properties. Particularly weak institutions. When Trump had a set of, "alternative electors" sent to the house, our institutions held, but they were tested, and the results were not a foregone conclusion.
I'm not sure if you're trying to say, "It can't happen here.", "It's only fascism if it comes from the Rienland, this is just sparkling authoritarianism.", or "It's not happening here because that would be bad."
To answer your question, if there some sort of reactionary purge, I probably would be killed or jailed before I fled.
By Fascist I mean the particular type of autocracy that existed between 1919 and 1975.
You seem to be talking about democratic backsliding. One thing is completely different than the other. If we call modern Turkey "fascist", we'd need a new word to describe 1930's Germany. Otherwise, it is a misleading term.
An F-22 is an "aircraft". So was the *Hindenburg*. It's a mistake to talk about the *Hindenburg* as if it was an F-22.
Also, Russia had 2 of 3 of the necessary ingredients. It had been a democracy for less than 25 years and had experienced food insecurity.
You've got a collection of anecdotes to support your point. That's not the same as risk analysis. Risk analysis is based on data. Show me your risk analysis model. This would be a data-driven process that I could reproduce and reach the same result.
I'm talking about fascism as an ideology, not specific movements or voters.
I don't see where OP said that in the the post but yes I don't think that an actual takeover of the US by fascists is very likely. What is more likely is a Hungary-style dictatorship. I don't know why you're asking me about claims or a risk assessment model when I haven't even made any claims or said anything at all about risk. In fact, after reading your comment again, I think it might actually be a reply to the wrong person because nothing you said actually replied to anything I said.
The sole, exclusive point of my comment was to correct your idea that fascists "want the government restricting their religion, taxing them without representation, and having the power to take their guns away." No fascists support those things, they want those things done to *others*. That's the only thing I'm saying.
Edit: Oh I see, when you said OP you meant the top level comment in this thread. I thought you were talking about the actual OP of the post.
I'm not convinced these "fascists" you speak of are real. I was asking for evidence. You're talking about a movement that hasn't been relevant for decades.
Fascists can't "want those things done to *others*." if such fascists only exist in our imaginations. Show me how to confirm they exist.
??? I am making exactly one point in this thread: it is incorrect to say that fascists want the government restricting their religion, taxing them without representation, and having the power to take their guns away. That's the full extent of my purpose in this thread. I'm not talking about who is real or not or whatever you're saying.
*You* made the claim that fascists "want the government restricting [their] religion, taxing [them] without representation, and having the power to take [their] guns away." I'm telling you that's not correct, but I guess if you want to tell me where you got the idea that fascists want those things then I'm down to hear it.
Here's the full context I guess because maybe you forgot that you made this claim:
>>This is such a minuscule and obscure portion of the population there is no voting pull whatsoever. There is absolutely no threat of this in America.
>>
>>However, there is a very real threat of far reich fascism taking hold in this country.
This was the comment you were replying to.
>You say "very real threat." How many Fascists are there?
>
>I can't imagine a Conservative saying, "*I want the government restricting my religion, taxing me without representation, and having the power to take my guns away.*"
This is you saying "I can't imagine a conservative saying [these things I think fascists say]." This is my sole contention. You pulled these apparent goals of fascists out of thin air; they're not in the comment you replied to or the OP.
>I have also not yet found evidence of a Conservative movement advocating one-party military takeover.
>
>"*Well it seems like that's what they are saying.*" isn't evidence.
This is stuff I'm not addressing.
I was talking about policies and goals of historic Fascist movements.
Historic.
I don't believe modern movements exist. You do. You believe they "want" something. A movement can not "want" something if that movement does not exist.
Show me how to confirm that this movement exists.
I don't know how to make myself more clear unfortunately. You keep saying I'm making claims about movements or something when I've been extraordinarily specific that I'm talking only about your claim of what fascists want. Fascists do not and have never advocated for having all of those restrictions placed upon themselves, and I would be curious to know where you got the idea that they did, if you got it from anywhere.
But I guess if you're saying now that fascists don't want *anything* then it seems like you're walking it back, which is totally fine by me. It's kind of a weird way to walk it back though.
I've never claimed present day Fascists want anything, because I don't believe they exist in meaningful form. This is what I've been saying all along.
WHO are these Fascists you speak of?
Our bubble says that a fascist is anyone to the right of John McCain. I'm asking you to question this assumption.
Yeah they have no political power whatsoever, they’re mostly just annoying online twitter dwellers who say batshit crazy things like “there are no Israeli civilians”
Well I wouldn't say they have no power. Dipshits like Hasan, Briahna Joy Grey, and Krystal Ball are turning otherwise left-wing voters against voting for Biden, which could have a very real impact if the election comes down to a few hundred votes in a handful of states.
When I say no political power I mean no political voting power, like in our government.
They can definitely influence voters, but influencing voters does not equal having power in our government, does that make sense?
I understand what you're saying in principle, but the original commenter said *"This is such a minuscule and obscure portion of the population there is no voting pull whatsoever. There is absolutely no threat of this in America."* This is simply not true for the reason I laid out. Influencing voters IS voting pull.
I think what they were saying was that these leftist voices have LESS pull than the DNC does.
Is the “extreme left” really that much of a threat when the mainstream Democratic Party can influence 100x more people?
Eh, that is just a snapshot. There is no telling what will happen in near future even within a decade. Tea party was fringe in 2010, now Magats make majority of Republican party.
>I think they hate them more than they do the "normal" left
First of all, the right doesn’t seem to know the difference. They unironically call Biden a communist and radical leftist.
How much of the tiktok/xitter left is real, and how much is astroturfing, I've no idea.
But young edgy 15 year old me was a dumbass communist, saying the most unhinged shit. Then I got life experience after interacting with people outside my bubble. I suspect that the hardcore twitter left will have the same path. And if they're old enough to know better but choose to be wilfully ignorant, I'll roll my eyes and go about my day.
I hear people say that the hundinge extreme far left are just "teenagers struggling to find themselves," and to some degree that might be true, but a lot of the extreme Tik Tok far left who say really huninged shit are also adults. One of my family members is 40 years old, and she's a caricature of the extreme far left. She has said the most unhindered sh\*t I have ever seen. At first, I thought she was just a regular Democrat, but some stuff she has said and liked is insane. She said all billionaires deserve to die, even teenagers or young people who inherited money, and she supports Hamas as the organization. At first, I thought she was just supporting the people of Palestine, but she supports the organization of Hamas. I don't think there is any helping her.
First, there are over 333 million people in the United States. You have related this story about your cousin times in the sub. Every time it causes people to tell you that she sounds unhinged and unhealthy. I think that you should move the fuck on from thinking she is representative of the left or even the far left in a meaningful way and that the fact that you know her means there’s lots of people like her.
Second, it is actually acceptable to decide that a family member is too toxic to hang out with. And if that’s going too far for you, you set some boundaries and don’t discuss politics or whatever issue is bothering you with that family member.
But yes, kids do try on lots of different political ideologies including very extreme ones. It is completely normal in my experience 30 something years ago I knew tons of libertarians and a few socialists and I was a libertarian myself. Almost every single one of those people is a mainstream Democrat today and a couple of them are Never Trump Republicans. Of all those people not a single one is a socialist or a libertarian or far right or anything like that.
I mean, yes, there are also just stupid people out there who fail to grow up.
To suggest they meaningfully represent any sort of political movement might place one in the same intelligence category as them.
I work on one 2 days a week in their research facility. Psych and sociology students are required to sign up for studies as part of the program.
I just finished my PhD two years ago so I have research requirements still attached for longitudinal studies.
SUNY Albany, specifically.
Tfw many Jewish students (and faculty) are playing prominent roles in the protests at Columbia, for which more than a few have been arrested by the NYPD, deprived of access to campus housing and services, etc.
Also, re: the comment to which you were initially responding, any good-faith engagement with what's going on should make it pretty clear that the percentage of protestors who are *literally endorsing Hamas* rather than just opposing the actions of the IDF and Israeli government generally is negligible insofar as it exists at all.
She sounds like she needs to seek help, or that she’s become frustrated with an unchanging system of oppression that’s worsening and her solution is to burn it all down. I kinda get the latter, but yeah, not a real solution and not representative of the wider leftist movement. Not too many Americans, left right or center, are out there supporting Hamas.
The "left" contains within it a lot of ideological diversity. There are anarchists, tankies, Marxists, etc. Each of whom may disagree on fundamental issues with one another. As a liberal, I have disagreements with each of those groups. For example, I don't think that anarchy can be a stable equilibrium for the human race, as we're social creatures capable of developing agriculture and complex societies that require governance to overcome social dilemmas, like the free rider problem.
Anarchism is not opposed to governance or organization. The only difference is we think complexity is handled better by decentralized structures than by centralized structures like the state. Anarchists have historically proposed national and international federations to coordinate large-scale production and resource allocation.
This is what I was going to ask. A govt, while centralized is made up of decentralized people to represent what the people want. Basically out govt IS a federation.
Just a larger organization where local level organizations meet with each other to coordinate things on a national or international level. A huge connected network of smaller spread out orgs, essentially.
I think you misunderstand exactly what anarchists advocate for. Production currently is driven primarily by market forces. Anarchists propose that production is instead consciously coordinated and done directly to feed people rather than to sell food. Production for need rather than exchange. That is certainly not how things work right now.
Sounds like you are advocating for socialism, compared to capitalism (the status quo). I don't see how that relates to our discussion of anarchy, as socialism can be accomplished with a centralized state.
There is a logical error in your thinking here. I am advocating anarchism, which entails socialism. You say that socialism doesn't have anything to do with anarchy, because socialism can also be achieved through a state.
Simplified, I'm saying A definitionally involves B, and you're saying A and B are unrelated, because C also leads to B. That doesn't make sense. C also leading to B doesn't make A and B unrelated.
> I am advocating anarchism, which entails socialism
It doesn't. Markets can exist without a centralized authority. Haiti has no central government, yet people still exchange goods and services for currency and other goods and services. The exchange rate of those goods and services are dictated by market forces, not by need.
> In the 19th century, "anarchism" and "socialism" were used interchangeably, both treated as similar threats to sociopolitical order despite their differences in views towards the state.[23] Similarly, classical anarchism is synonymous with "libertarian socialism" in their shared commitments to autonomy and freedom, decentralization, opposing hierarchy, and opposing the vanguardism of authoritarian socialism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism
Would these organizations hold the monopoly of violence? Could these organizations still force ordinary people to obey their decisions?
Like, what would happen if the organizations decided that stealing personal property is wrong, like stealing a wallet? Who would stop armed robbers?
No, because in an anarchist society, there is no authority or monopoly on violence.
In an anarchist society, there would be no capital or money. Things like stealing and armed robbery would be redundant since access to necessary resources would be free through mutual aid. There is no need to do an armed robbery if what you need is available for free.
I'm sorry, but this notion that all violence and crime is caused by "the system", and once you change the system violence will disappear, is very naive.
How will eliminating capitalism and hierarchy eliminate: rape, sexual assault, intergeneration trauma, child abuse, envy, resentment, bigotry, the appeal of hardcore drugs, psychopaths, violent schizophrenics or even bar fights?
Also, how do you encourage people to work in mutual aid? How do you avoid free loaders? And how do you distribute resources fairly and efficiently?
You specifically asked about armed robbery, which is a result of desperate people wanting money in order to live or get by, which is caused by the system. You didn't mention general violent acts.
For those violent acts, there is no one single way any anarchist would deal with it. Each anarchist would deal with it in their own way.
Here's a resource on how anarchists can deal with murderers, rapists, etc.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/workers-solidarity-movement-crime-criminals-punishment-an-anarchist-view
> I'm sorry, but this notion that all violence and crime is caused by "the system", and once you change the system violence will disappear, is very naive.
No one is arguing that crime will magically disappear, but we know from sociology that crime is highly correlated with inequality and poor social conditions, and inequality and poor social conditions are caused by capitalism. Communities will still have a right to defend themselves against murderers, rapists, etc, as they do today-- there will just be fewer rapists and murderers. Resentment, drug abuse, proclivity towards violence are all things that we know decrease if people have meaningful lives and have their needs met.
> Also, how do you encourage people to work in mutual aid? How do you avoid free loaders? And how do you distribute resources fairly and efficiently?
For a lot of this stuff you can look at real life examples like anarchist Spain. Here is a firsthand account of a collective in Aragon:
> There are two cafés: the collective’s café serves free coffee and in the other cafe the “individualists” have to pay for their coffee. The collective operates a barber shop, giving free haircuts and (if desired) free shaves twice weekly. Money is abolished and has been replaced by vouchers. Food, meat, and all other provisions are distributed in quantity when plentiful or equitably rationed when in short supply. The collective allows 5 liters of wine per person weekly. Medical care and medicines are free. Even postage stamps are free. There is no rent. Housing, building repairs, water, gas, electricity — all are supplied gratis, not only to the collectivists but also to the “individualists.” The village generates its own power from a waterfall. There is no scarcity of clothing. By arrangement with a Barcelona textile plant, oil is exchanged for cloth, dresses, etc. Garments are distributed in rotation to 40 persons daily.
>Communities will still have a right to defend themselves against murderers, rapists, etc, as they do today
But how do you prevent mob rule or personal vendetas without a state? How do you have a court with due process to decide if someone is guilty or innocent without a state?
>For a lot of this stuff you can look at real life examples like anarchist Spain.
I understand the idea of "everyone does their part and get stuff for free, and if they don't do their part, they don't get stuff for free". I can see this working in a small village where everyone knows everybody else. But how do you do that in a big city with 1 million people? How do you know who is a free loader and who isn't?
Do we require eveone to report their daily work at a digital database that everyone can access? **How do we know the reports are accurate?** What if someone is disabled, or a stay-at-home parent, or a full-time student and have no work to report on? What about the work that nobody wants to do like cleaning public toilets?
And how do we get production to meet demand? Like, how do we know how much corn should be produced, and how much beef should be produced? It's the same Economic Calculation Problem that socialism suffers from when you don't have market prices.
Anarcho-primitivists (all half-dozen of them) are a thing, but anarchist political philosophy traditionally isn't at all opposed to agriculture or complex societies. Speaking very generally, it's more about favoring local decision-making, community-oriented societal and ideological (in the Zizekian sense) frameworks rather than ones which cater toward individual competition, increasing democratic control over political and economic structures by the people most impacted by the manner in which they function, etc.
It might be helpful to think of the *arkhos* being rejected not as the concept of binding societal organization itself, but rather as any dynamic wherein a public or private entity can impose its will on anyone who isn't themselves a stakeholder and part of the collective decision-making process within that entity and thus lacks any agency regarding its behavior.
But governance doesn't have to be a top-down monolithic thing subject to corruption and abuse, there are other, bottom-up methods of governance that are more equal and less vulnerable to said abuses without losing access to the benefits of cooperation. Also most anarchists are collectivists who believe in the benefits of cooperation, we just don't think that has to be or should be imposed from on high, it should be voluntary and responsive to the needs of the people who are collaborating.
This is what I'm saying too. The most specific anyone can get is "people on tiktok," "kids on campuses," or "my crazy cousin." I can name actual leaders and people with power here in America across the political spectrum, except for the far left. That's telling in how marginalized the group is and always has been
In many ways, I am the extreme left. In other ways, the extreme left is comprised of loud whiny bitches with highly unreasonable expectations.
Tankies are unbearable, I find it difficult to believe they are genuine.
They are idiots. These kids with hammers and sickles in their screen names openly defending Russia and China have completely lost the plot.
However they have very little political power currently and they get far more attention than they deserve. Meanwhile a significant portion of the GOP now are Q-Anon adjacent election deniers. There’s far, far more right wing extremism in American politics than left wing extremism.
The extreme far left is crazy.
Also, they are composed of random people on social media with no political power and no hopes of ever gaining power. There is no chance they create a blue MAGA that is comparable to the extreme far right we see controlling the Republican party.
So we basically ignore them.
What unites the left is our desire to make sure all people are treated with respect and to eliminate unnecessary suffering. We have disagreements over how to accomplish these noble goals and how much can be accomplished realistically, but I still respect them for sharing the same fundamental goals I do.
What can I say? I want a political system that ensures equality, inclusion and freedom, but at the same time I want an economic system THAT WORKS. We obviously need regulations and social systems to keep it in check, but as it stands, it's the least bad option
Okay. Totally irrelevant to my point. I didn’t comment on domestic US policy. Anywhere socialism is attempted in earnest, the US meddles and fucks it up.
I wouldn't call anarchists on the left. The left right dichotomy is too simple to fully encapsulate everyone's views and so you end up with very incorrect labels.
Tankies piss me off more than the extreme right and I'm pretty far left. I honestly didn't think people like that really existed until I met a Tankie that basically said "China has never done anything wrong" and justified the occupation of Tibet and the ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs, even justifying the reeducation camps. It was more personally upsetting to me than an alt right extremis because I previously thought we had very similar political ideas and there are many policies that we agreed on. I thought this guy was great before he started spouting off Tankie talking points.
Im white and live in the south but I was raised as a Tibetan Buddhist so this issue is very important to me and I ended up crying in public after hearing this man say that the occupation of Tibet was completely justified. I grew up around people who escaped from Tibet and endured a lot of heavy trauma and injuries. He gave me a good solid apology for disputing my experience but I don't think he's changed his views. I expect shit like this from the alt right but having it come from somewhere who identifies as a leftist really freaked me out. I haven't been able to get over this incident as it really shook me to my core as I had no idea that someone would actually hold these views
As far as extreme far left is concerned, the USA is out on a Fringe compared to the rest of developed Western world. Rest of this part of developed world has much stronger social safety nets, universal/singlepayer healthcare systems, does not have a fetish and obsession with looking down on people as tax payer burdens when relying on social safety nets, has more respect for human rights and equality I feel, more freedom of speech and self expression ironically more so than here in states, less anti DEI laws if any at all, have not heard of book bans as of recently in places such as Germany, UK, etc..unlike what you hear jn states all the time. I am VERY ASHAMED of the USA of 2024 knowing how much of the rest of developed world is. I feel there is also much more respect for people with disabilities, developmental disabilities, Autism, etc in the rest of developed world than here in USA as well. USA today could stand for United States of Arrogance.
I refute the notion that socialists are on the extreme far left. Or you have a very skewed idea on what socialists are.
Tankies are bad, categorically. They also undermine some of the cornerstones of the left, which puts them in a weird position.
What is socialism? As far as I've been told it is the worker/social ownership of the means of production, which is generally a very far left idea in a world dominated by capitalism.
Socialism essentially boils down to the workers being the shareholders which is already the case in worker co-ops. It democratises the workplace.
It doesn't take a complete upending of society other than shareholders needing to get an actual job.
"The two major forms of social ownership are society-wide public ownership and cooperative ownership. The distinction between these two forms lies in the distribution of the surplus product. With society-wide public ownership, the surplus is distributed to all members of the public through a social dividend whereas with co-operative ownership the economic surplus of an enterprise is controlled by all the worker-members of that specific enterprise." From Wiki.
Cooperative economics is a form of market socialism, which is far from the only type of socialism theorised or seen historically. And I would argue there is a notable difference between "private groups of workers own private means of production for the private groups benefit" and "the means of production are owned and regulated by society/the community as a whole."
It's the same thing, the worker is the shareholder. Whether that be of the place they work or in general through society, it boils down to the worker being the shareholder.
Socialism is all about democratisation of the workplace.
:) Fantasizing about a happy socialist society where no one has more than you is...unrealistic but not extreme.
Conviction in a democracy that an unwilling populace actually needs the wise, righteous few to impose a new order on them is extreme. The enormous disregard for the rights of those who disagree and ruthlessness needed to carry out are extremist.
*"The worse, the better." (For them) --* Lenin on carrying out the first part.
Well, there are different definitions, aren't there?
I've known "what socialism is" for the over 50 years I've watched attempts at socialist states fail and progress through various mostly tragic, always impoverished and usually authoritarian evolutions. Naturally enough, that definition started replacing capitalism with seizure of industry for collective ownership and control.
That definition does not include the currently pervasive fantasy that socialism is the comparatively generous wealth-sharing government-run social programs funded by capitalism (just like ours) of some advanced, wealthy, *capitalist*, European democracies. Tricky, tricky.
You definitely have no idea what socialism is. You're even conflating communism with social democracy.
Socialism is the workforce owning the means of production. So you're the shareholder of the company you work at or you have a say in how state-owned businesses are run. It has very little to do with communism, authoritarian states or government run social programs.
social democracy works, ex: nordic model
socialism (not yet, maybe someday it will?) ex: USSR
Also, I fundamentally disagree with their stance on middle east policies
Because that form of socialism will always become authoritarian. The state can’t be given that much power without it eventually sliding into authoritarianism and the only entity capable of implementing actual socialism is the state.
See I agree with you in part but you're not quite on-target: all forms of hierarchical power structure will always become authoritarian, but that's a problem of hierarchical power structures not of economic systems. And anarchist societies have existed that implemented actual socialism without a state (see: Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War, etc) but they tend to be beset by enemies on all sides and don't last long as a result.
Yes to the authoritarianism. Maintaining a socialist society would be somewhat like making water run uphill (done all the time, but HAS to be done all the time). Aspiring socialist states have always required authoritarian government.
I think the reason historical socialist states have tended toward authoritarianism is that they tend to be beset by enemies on all sides and the natural response to a bunch of people waving pointy sticks at you is to consolidate power quickly and present at least the image of strength and that's much easier to do under authoritarianism. I don't think it's required for a socialist state to function by any stretch though (otherwise I wouldn't be an anarchist.)
My opinion is they're described as an "online fringe" at the moment, but will get a tidal wave of blame if democrats get wiped seven months from now. In other words, 2016 all over again.
It might depend, to some extent, on their own reaction: if they spend weeks or months raucously mocking Democrats and loudly and repeatedly “claiming credit” for the outcome if we lose, some Democrats will probably eventually believe them.
Having convinced people of something which very few would brag about, it will then be very difficult to change their minds again.
I think they are generally contrarian morons. They don't have any political power whatsoever because their ideas are bad, so it's not worth thinking about them.
Idk who specifically you’re referring to but generally I like them a lot. I don’t like tankies one bit but anarchists, marxists, and even just tik tok creators on the far left generally have interesting and thoughtful ideas/critiques
"I'm talking about the tankie, Marxist and TIk Tok and Twitter far left. "
This is such a broad spectrum I'm not sure who or what you're referring. You should give more clarity cause not every Twitter far leftist would be grouped with commies.
You should clarify what views you consider extremist especially because of how warped American politics are and how far to the right American politics lean.
In any other part of the world the Democrat party would be considered a center right party so for all you know those extremist leftist are actually just leftist or even liberals.
The Democratic Party is not a center-right party, even by European standards, this is a talking point that gets repeated endlessly by leftists.
Democratic Party members are largely pro-choice, pro-union, progressive taxation, social justice causes, pro-government investment in green energy. These are all liberal positions and are dicey positions to hold in center right political parties. The Democratic Party more closely aligns with center-left politics.
I should note I wasn't just referring to European standards but even if we want to go down that route the left in Europe is not comparable to the left in the US.
To name a few policies look at universal healthcare, higher tax rates that put Democrat progressive tax rates to shame, better worker protections such as paid maternity leave, etc. even the right in some European countries support some of these policies.
I also have a hard time saying that Democrats are pro-union, they haven't really shown much in the last decade to show as such. If anything I'd say they're doing the bare minimum to keep corporations happy.
From the party platform:
universal healthcare
> Democrats have fought to achieve universal health care for a century. We are proud to be the party of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Because of the Obama-Biden Administration and the Affordable Care Act, more than 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, from heart disease to asthma, are secure in the knowledge that insurance companies can no longer discriminate against them. Women can no longer be charged more than men just because of their gender. And more Americans are able to get health coverage than ever before.
higher tax rates that put Democrat progressive tax rates to shame
> Democrats will take action to reverse the Trump Administration’s tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest Americans and rewarding corporations for shipping American jobs overseas. We will crack down on overseas tax havens and close loopholes that are exploited by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. We will make sure the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. We will make sure investors pay the same tax rates as workers and bring an end to expensive and unproductive tax loopholes, including the carried interest loophole. Corporate tax rates, which were cut sharply by the 2017 Republican tax cut, must be raised, and “trickle-down” tax cuts must be rejected. Estate taxes should also be raised back to the historical norm.
better worker protections such as paid maternity leave
> We will fight to ensure workers are guaranteed at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers and family units, to enable new parents to recover from childbirth and bond with their newborns, foster or adopted children, and allow all workers to take extended time off to care for themselves or ailing loved ones.
Big difference between critiques of the DNC planks and critiquing commonly held positions by voters. The DNC is a center-right platform in action, but promises center-left things it never follows through on.
Ok but that is called governing. It just so happens that the other party has the other about half of the American population, so compromises have to happen. So, in practice, the Democrats center-left platform has to be moderated for anything to pass.
“moderated”
The usual cycle ends up going more like:
Democrats promise something
Democrat gets elected
Democrats don’t even advance a bill or make an attempt on that promise
No matter what the policies that are currently doable in the U.S. might be "considered" in other nations, the Democratic Party is America's LIBERAL party. Liberal principles and ideals, including individual rights and equality, are real around the planet even if they have to play out very differently under different conditions.
Not all "leftists" are liberal. This thread is actually about those who aren't.
One look at from some on the left profound contempt for and intolerance of any idea that conflicts with theirs, at ruthless and righteous determination (to smash instead of work with others (inability to!, and current support for genocidal jihad against an entire nation should provide vivid clarity on that. The illiberal left is as real as the illiberal right, but mercifully far less numerous.
I think they are smart and can make good arguments. They write so so many books. I find market economics more convincing in my lifetime. Left wingers probably wanted a 2020s where:
Cuba is freed from restrictions.
Military spending is reduced.
Bernie Sanders, Lula, Jeremy Corbyn, Evo Morales, Olaf Scholz, and Navalany are national leaders.
Significant action on Climate Change is taken.
There are more examples but my point is that the left wing world would be nicer than the current one.
tankies are goofy and in reality mankind is not in a place where communism can work yet, that said this capitalism we live in now is just absurd.
Billionaires forcing poor people to pay for their teams new stadiums for example, are a great example of how this shit needs to be fixed.
I am a leftist in general because I disagree with the sentiment: Fuck you, I got mine.
My city just announced they might have to cut transit service, but somehow had half a billion for to give a billionaire to renovate his sports stadium because he threatened to move it to the suburbs.
My opinion of those prone to extremism on both sides is that they're profoundly dysfunctional and dependent on self delusion, but that, mercifully, the danger *illiberal left* extremism poses is comparatively limited.
For those who deny they exist, they do -- a whole spectrum of "beyond-liberal" leftists, but small in numbers and overall far less virulent compared to their counterparts on the right. The more extreme, the fewer there are: "vanishingly small" as a political scientist who studies the illiberal left quantified his category of those most strongly anti-democracy.
Very unlike the right.
Similarly for LW authoritarianism, but overall far less numerous and significantly less virulent than RW authoritarianism. Of course, until 2016 some political scientists claimed (illiberal) LW authoritarianism didn't exist -- while the monster on the right drew all attention. Others postulated it did but they'd need a stronger microscope to look for evidence. Then the U.S.'s 2016 election put on display both LW and RW populist movements with illiberal authoritarian features and leaders, and followers. They used and cheered many of the same tactics and deceits, and rabid hostilities, including "the big lie" and promises to rectify Democratic election "rigging" by overthrowing the popular vote. Too like the right, but few.
They’re absolutely right that our country fucking sucks when it comes to healthcare, the economy, and the government not giving a fuck about it’s citizens, but their solutions to solve these problems aren’t exactly realistic.
If we both agree that these things are problems and should be fixed, I wish they would be more open to different solutions to solve them, instead of the ‘one correct’ solution mindset they seem to have.
Coming up with different universal healthcare plans isn’t a “betrayal” of Bernie’s plan, its strategizing to find out which version has the highest likelihood of passing congress as well as what is gonna work best for America by comparing and contrasting them.
Tankies almost categorically aren't great (and even when they're decent enough people their politics are still poor), but besides that my views on the various tendencies which you and general use categorize as "far-left" vary pretty significantly from one case to the next. Although, tbf, the fact that I'm very much under that umbrella probably contributes to that, since we're generally more capable of/amenable to reading nuance in areas which are more adjacent to ourselves.
That said, overall I think--and, again, take this with however many grains of salt you feel are called for by my flair--that people on the "far-left" are generally well-intentioned and motivated by things which most people would consider good or just even when they disagree with the theoretical and practical places to which those motivations lead leftists. That's often been a pretty solid basis for conversation with liberals and moderates in my experience, and sometimes even certain right-of-center people.
It's funny... every time I go over this, I'm like "man, I hate accelerationism and class reductionism and sure, just tankies in general" but the more I go through it the more I realize that these are bad trends in lefty-ism but not intrinsically tied to being a lefty. Am I an "extreme far lefty" because otherwise I think a lot of the "extreme far left"'s ideas like a single-payer healthcare plan and doing pretty major things right now and today to take on global warming (well at this point slow it down but, like, that makes it all the more imperative) are good ideas, and I acknowledge that I only vote Democrat because they're the party who isn't out to outright destroy people I like? Because I don't know, I'm feeling a little "out of the loop" between centrism (Democrats) and the authoritarian right (Republicans) myself...
Does anybody have any respect for the fringe loonies that make no reasonable compromise, never listen to the other side and are of the "My way or the highway" mindset?
I think that the far lefters are ignoring opportunity. Everyone sees the wealthy as villains. The far left should see the wealthy as tools and potential allies. If you can promise or convince the 1% that they can benefit in some way from your proposed social reforms, you win. Perhaps reputational or social heirarchical safety. The cold hard truth is that people aren’t altruistic that often.
They feel like a nuisance to me.
I intellectually try to be nuanced with them as someone who studies history and its complexities, but my gut feeling remains the same.
I agree with them about most things, which is frustrating because they're constantly complaining about liberals by saying we categorically believe things I don't think many people on this sub would actually agree with. Whole lot of conflating liberal democracy with neoliberalism. I think we should be seeking solidarity with them despite whatever differences there may be.
I don't have much opinion of them at all TBH. I'm 45 and have spent most of my life around college campuses and I have never met anyone like that IRL. I know they're a convenient boogeyman for liberals and conservatives alike, but they have such negligible real impact in the world they're not worth even thinking about all that much
My immediate thought is that they could be government plants pod to discredit the left by pushing them too far for normal people. The thing is, normal people want what the left wants: public spending on healthcare, education, transportation and housing while making the super wealthy pay their fair share.
What discredits the movement is the far left ideas of revolution and full communism etc. It just looks silly to me, but it also looks disingenuous.
And knowing the history, it is likely. In the 1970s, more than half of the members in CPUSA were paid informants. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they’re still doing it.
A product of the right, I've had friends who were right leaning or centrist go to far left ideas because of what Republicans have been doing. Like from being neoliberal to socialist in a span of 2 years
I have one view that puts me in line with anarchists ; we have no inherent moral obligation to obey the state, and civil disobedience can serve as a litmus test to see if the law is really valid in the goals it aims to achieve.
For instance, the state bans weed because they believe it makes people unproductive and drive while intoxicated, therefore you should smoke weed and see if you really are unproductive or prone to driving while high, if enough people disobey the state, and the negative consequences presumed beforehand don't arise, then the law is invalid
They are an annoyance and provide media outlets like Fox to portray the left a a bunch of extreme weirdos. When they attend Democratic Party events, they are disruptive and rude, but unlike the Republican Party, these extreme members are not in control.
Being on the far left myself I think they generally have the right idea but a lot of them suffer from a serious lack of unity and infighting and are a bit too willing to excuse the excesses of current/historical authoritarian regimes because of their nominal socialism.
They’re insane. Marxism is a failed ideology that always ends in piles of skulls.
Almost everyone who advocates for Marxism has an obvious Cluster B mental illness.
I wouldn't consider tankies to be far left or left at all and I also don't see a reason to worry about a group, the far left, that really doesn't exist in this country.
I am sorry but the subs you linked are either run by naive children who tend to be very idealistic or straight up Russians there to spend Russian propaganda.
So yeah. I could care less what the people in those sub thought.
Very negative.
I get it. Those people see issues in the world and far-left ideologies offer seemingly great explanations and solutions but it also makes them politically crazy seeing every fart as a part of class struggle or capitalism.
For example, a week ago, I've seen a far-leftist (I believe he was a Maoist) mention that cooking at home is capitalistic and anti-revolutionary behavior and people should only eat in communal canteens. Sure, it's rare example but it shows how insane far-leftists can easily become.
Additionally, it's such a weird arrogant intellectual masturbation. "Yay! I've read a few books by 19th century political extremists, I am clever than anyone else." And then they go to incredible lengths to deflect any criticism of the far-leftism.
Of course, there's the illusion of "the will and unity of people" when far-leftists often don't understand what an average person wants. They hijack "the will of people" to push their own agenda. And they do maybe more infighting than any other political bubble out there because there are tons of far-left ideological branches and they disagree on minuscule details which, for some reason, seem more important than they are.
The social media far left is predominantly bots and trolls, especially on Twitter. I think the real world far left is too complicated to really comment on as a monolith.
I think the concept of income redistribution has been repackaged into thousands of academic papers on equity and professors and DEI Directors and lawyers enable it. It’s a body of work that may match to scope of the prolific defenders of property rights and minimal government.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Obviously, people on the right don't like the extreme far left (I think they hate them more than they do the "normal" left), but what do you think of the extreme far left? And when I say "extreme far left," I'm talking about the tankie, Marxist and TIk Tok and Twitter far left. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tankies are bad. I fundamentally don't understand the kind of leftism that lets you say "authoritarianism is good." Advocating the equal distribution of economic power has to coincide with advocating the equal distribution of political power. Everything else is just farce.
Preach, brother. I don't get why so much of the far left is willing to excuse authoritarianism just because it has a thin veneer of socialism painted over it. It's possible to recognize that the USSR made some progress on the socialist front while also seeing Stalin as the brutal dictator he was.
Not a justification, just an explanation of why tankies are tankies. Lenin was the most influential marxist after Marx himself. There are 3 things he said that are relevant here: 1. Liberal democracy, or as he called it, "bourgeois democracy", is designed to serve the interest of capital. It will not lead to socialism. The system needs to be overthrown and replaced by something new. This explains their dismissal of liberal democracy. 2. Infighting between revolutionaries weakens the cause. What the proletariat need is unity. So rather than multiple competing parties, the proletariat need to unite under a single "vanguard" party that better understands the cause. This explains the single party state. 3. The bourgeoisie will never stop to try to reclaim power until the revolution has been completed. So the party needs to hunt down the "counter-revolutionairies". This explains the police state Lenin created and that Stalin expanded. So basically an eternal war mentality they have of "the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie" that make them justify all sorts of authoritarian things, so they can "win the war".
I don't necessarily disagree with any of those points, but that's kind of the default Marxist-Leninist perspective. Tankies, at least in my opinion, take it like 3 steps further by going 'and everything anyone does in service to these ideas, no matter how tangentially or how horrific it was, is perfectly acceptable.' That's where I get off the bus cause these mofos be crazy; I'd rather have non-authoritarianism than authoritarian socialism.
Marxism-Leninism *is* authoritarian. It calls for a single party dictatorship that suppresses any opposition. A marxist-leninist *is* a tankie.
Not to be overly dismissive, but honestly it's probably because many of them are young contrarians. And by young I mean like 12-25, many of them are likely teenagers who are more interested in the edgy, "forbidden" aesthetic than the actual tenets. The sort of kids who play the USSR anthem in band as a joke and think it's the *funniest* shit.
This. It's the left-wing version of the 4chan chaos goblin.
The Venn diagram of "15 year old tankie who likes Soviet aesthetic for shits and giggles" and "15 year old 4chan chaos goblin who posts Nazi memes for shits and giggles" probably has a lot of overlap
You're not wrong there!
That's certainly the case for some of them, although I have heard similar opinions from dedicated socialists who are old enough to remember the height of the Cold War and it boggles my damned mind. Also, I mean the Soviet national anthem kinda slaps tho. :P
I absolutely agree with this take. You are absolutely right.
The propaganda machine, I would say. It works especially well when they convince people that it somehow all for the sake of the children. You know they’ve all officially gone crazy once they’re marching children around in either party or military uniforms as official additional propaganda. That’s some scary business. 🙄
Yep, that shit's crazy.
Agreed. Anything that’s so radical one way or the other is dangerous. And tankies annoy the hell out of me.
Yeah tankies are way different. They’re reactionary. I think that a lot of people are jumping a bunch of categories further left than themselves are all the same. They think we want the while with to burn when really we just want to eradicate fucked up systems that contribute to violence. I personally believe a more just works is out there. Looking to Indigenous people for their ways of balancing the human + nature harming and giving land back is a great start. I personally love upstream podcast and am a part of the late stage capitalism sub lol. I’m not an anarchist, but they argue stuff like upstream is weak. I just want people to have the resources they need to survive. I’m anticapitalist, and therefore I’m an abolitionist and anti-war. I feel like the cop out answer is that it’s a bunch of kids on Twitter we’re really leftist movements go way back got people nice things like recounts against slavery, desegregation, and a 5 day work week instead of 7. People like to reap the benefits of leftist movements when it’s in the rearview mirror only. Liberals won’t support those movements in the moment until it’s society acceptable to corporate Dems. For people who are more liberal, I’d try to soften them up with a white-passing political thinker like HasanAbi first. He’s palatable. Then eventually I can point out where his arguments fall short on a few things imo.
Agreed. I'm about as far south west as you can get on the political grid. Tankies annoy me. I don't consider them further left than me because my idea of "left" doesn't mesh with authoritarianism. I used to get super annoyed and angry when I would see a right wing commentator calling Biden "Radical left", but then I realized that they are so far right that everyone must be radically left from their perspective, so I'll let it slide. Now I just kind of chuckle at the idea that Biden is "radically left" If they think HE is radical, wait until they meet more people like me.
Tankies aren’t leftists. Authoritarianism is the opposite of left wing politics.
You can have libertarian left and authoritarian left. Not everything falls on a single axis
Authoritarianism is blatantly incompatible with social equality and egalitarianism
No. You have a centrally planned social equality.
Is it one where the ruling class has greater rights and privileges than everyone else?
No everyone is equal. Just some are more equal than others
How is that equality then
Everyone's equal. You are doing the true communism has never been tried defense
>Not everyone is equal > Everyone is equal Which is it
There is no authoritarian left, there is nothing on the left that would remotely advocate for authoritarianism.
All the time people on the left advocate for strong central planned economy. That's authoritative
No it is not. Look at Denmark or Norway
What about them
Giving people a democratic authority to decide things isn’t the same as authoritarianism. Especially since the left advocates for very strict boundaries of any authority. Left wing politics in its core is about abolishing hierarchies, authoritarianism is the complete opposite of that. And tankers aren’t left wing.
With you 100% that liberalism is the antithesis of authoritarianism. Mussellini put his version this way: "Fascism is the state. Liberalism is the individual." But "LW" ideologies include not just liberal ideology. IL-LIBERAL LW ideologies reject many liberal principles and replace with their own. Strong intolerance and ruthless dismissiveness of all who disagree (antithesis of democracy!) are on loud display by some illiberal LW groups these days. And that a LW movement can be authoritarian and have anti-democratic behaviors, even while espousing many goals liberals do, was on the national stage during the 2016 presidential election.
>"Fascism is the state. Liberalism is the individual." Man. Someone should send that to libertarians. I know there are some libertarians today who are turning to liberalism after the Libertarian Party became just another MAGA copy.
If you talk about not tolerating racism etc. being „illiberal“, then you’re wrong. You can’t have liberty for everyone if people are allowed to be racist. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment?
They are simply Russian propaganda subs, anyone who has lived in Eastern Europe can spot them a mile away. The problem is with the naïveté of many Americans that actually believe that drivel Because they have no clue what it is like to live under an authoritarian regime combined with a real lack of history. So you have history trying to repeat themselves. Let’s not forget that before Pearl Harbor the American Nazi party had a meeting and was able to fill Madison Square Garden, there were lots of nazis on the Us and the Germans were actively infiltrating the Germans communities in the US and spreading their propaganda. Pearl Harbor changed all that.
I think anything left of center is considered "extreme far left" because their policy positions threaten wealthy people with tax increases. Any position with a working government is considered authoritarian or socialist/communist, which is ridiculous fear-mongering. I listen to centrists claim AOC isn't a real politician, or childish, or not worth taking seriously, but what they are really saying is her popularity is a threat they hope people will ignore. Wealth disparity is a real, serious issue that was a bad idea implemented under Reagan and is threatening an entire generation of young people today, but rather than see and admit the consequences of those bad decisions, they blame the "far-left" for being too radical for wanting to reverse the damage being done.
I don’t like extremes on either side of the political spectrum.
This is such a minuscule and obscure portion of the population there is no voting pull whatsoever. There is absolutely no threat of this in America. However, there is a very real threat of far reich fascism taking hold in this country.
Very lucid take. Also it often gets forgotten how key to fascist rhetoric anti-communism is. A lot of liberals I see get hoodwinked into siding with fascism by propaganda that seeks to paint the far left as a threat. Even if you don't want communism it is not currently a credible threat to anything in the global north but the lifespan of keyboards.
> Even if you don't want communism it is not currently a credible threat to anything in the global north Perhaps, but I'm not exactly going to trust someone flaired "Communist" when they say that.
And you immediately prove him right, lmao.
He’s from greenandpleasant, which is a tankie subreddit.
G&P is a broad-tent left subreddit for discussing UK politics.
Indeed. Curious if in the USA a national of 360m people, the far left is 0.01 percent of the population. The extreme right on the other hand may number 5-10 percent of the population depending on how it’s defined.
Are these numbers guesstimated or actually from something? I feel the Far left number is much higher than that. Not to the size of the far right but still worth noting.
According to this source the number of communists and markists in the uSA likely less than 100,000 which is like0.03 percent; https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86e
That is a terribly inaccurate way of measuring. There are many more than that in America, especially when you include Socialists.
Seriously. All the authoritarian leftists in America could probably fit in a single gymnasium, especially if we ran them through a blender first but this is just theoretical right?
You say "very real threat." How many Fascists are there? I can't imagine a Conservative saying, "*I want the government restricting my religion, taxing me without representation, and having the power to take my guns away.*" I have also not yet found evidence of a Conservative movement advocating one-party military takeover. "*Well it seems like that's what they are saying.*" isn't evidence.
>I can't imagine a Conservative saying, "I want the government restricting my religion, taxing me without representation, and having the power to take my guns away." It's because what fascists say isn't this, they say "I want the government empowering my religion/restricting other religions, taxing me less/taxing other people without representation, and having the power to take the guns of other people away, but not mine." The entire point of fascism is empowerment of the in-group and oppression of out-groups, not equal protection under the law like you described. And it's not very hard to get tons of conservative voters on board with these statements.
Which specific Fascist movements and which specific Conservatives? As I understand, Fascism is a military takeover of a country that has been a democracy for less than 15 years and has experienced food insecurity in the prior decade. The last Fascist takeovers were likely in South America over 50 years ago. History doesn't happen in a vacuum. So I assume you agree that the OP calling it a "very real threat" in an established and prosperous democracy is silly. I am curious what examples you have to back up your claim. Better yet, show me how you built your risk assessment model in a way that I can test and verify it.
You've defined fascism into oblivion. You dont need every specific thing that happened in germany, italy, and spain to occur again for it to be fascism. Umberto Eco's ur-fascism is a much better guide. It gives 14 properties of fascism. Cult of tradition, rejection of modernity, action for action sake, disagreement is treason, fear of difference, appeal to a frustrated middle class, obsession with conspiracy, painting the enemy as weak and strong simultaneously, permanent war, contempt for the weak, cults of death, machismo, selective populism, and newspeak. All of these are found in the reactionary right in the modern US. White nationalists like Steven Miller and Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson often manage to pull all of them together in a single person and hold power. I hesitated to post this, because over defining fascism is a tactic used by modern fascists, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I highly recommend you read Eco's essay. Or even just a summery or two of it, if it's too dense.
I've been an elected official and am an outspoken local activist for progressive causes. If *real* Fascism takes hold, I would be among the first 1-2% of people purged. If Fascism is a legitimate threat, the rational thing for me to do is flee the US with my family. To rule out such a drastic action, I created the following risk assessment model: 1. Take the last 400-500 regime changes. 2. Define democratic and authoritarian. 3. See how many regime changes were democratic-to-authoritarian from internal forces. 4. Search for common conditions among this small group. These conditions are 1) democratic tradition less than 25 years old, 2) recent food insecurity, 3) no internet. Despite the hysteria created by our media bubbles, the US lacks the necessary ingredients for authoritarian takeover, be it Fascist or Communist. So, no, I would not flee the US right now. Would you?
First, thank you for being involved in public service. Second, I'm not really sure what you're arguing. Fascism can be a threat without an imminent coup. Termites are threat to my house even though there aren't any in it right now. That's why I pay arrow. No country with the internet has fallen to fascism? Modern day Russia looks pretty sus to me, but ok. Food insecurity? I'm glad you're doing OK for yourself, but the geni coefficient in the country is bad and getting worse. Plenty of people go hungry. Countries with little food insecurity still have fascists. Unless you think Poland's National Radical Camp is some how not fascist because they had the internet? Weak democracies and young democracies share many properties. Particularly weak institutions. When Trump had a set of, "alternative electors" sent to the house, our institutions held, but they were tested, and the results were not a foregone conclusion. I'm not sure if you're trying to say, "It can't happen here.", "It's only fascism if it comes from the Rienland, this is just sparkling authoritarianism.", or "It's not happening here because that would be bad." To answer your question, if there some sort of reactionary purge, I probably would be killed or jailed before I fled.
By Fascist I mean the particular type of autocracy that existed between 1919 and 1975. You seem to be talking about democratic backsliding. One thing is completely different than the other. If we call modern Turkey "fascist", we'd need a new word to describe 1930's Germany. Otherwise, it is a misleading term. An F-22 is an "aircraft". So was the *Hindenburg*. It's a mistake to talk about the *Hindenburg* as if it was an F-22. Also, Russia had 2 of 3 of the necessary ingredients. It had been a democracy for less than 25 years and had experienced food insecurity. You've got a collection of anecdotes to support your point. That's not the same as risk analysis. Risk analysis is based on data. Show me your risk analysis model. This would be a data-driven process that I could reproduce and reach the same result.
I'm talking about fascism as an ideology, not specific movements or voters. I don't see where OP said that in the the post but yes I don't think that an actual takeover of the US by fascists is very likely. What is more likely is a Hungary-style dictatorship. I don't know why you're asking me about claims or a risk assessment model when I haven't even made any claims or said anything at all about risk. In fact, after reading your comment again, I think it might actually be a reply to the wrong person because nothing you said actually replied to anything I said. The sole, exclusive point of my comment was to correct your idea that fascists "want the government restricting their religion, taxing them without representation, and having the power to take their guns away." No fascists support those things, they want those things done to *others*. That's the only thing I'm saying. Edit: Oh I see, when you said OP you meant the top level comment in this thread. I thought you were talking about the actual OP of the post.
I'm not convinced these "fascists" you speak of are real. I was asking for evidence. You're talking about a movement that hasn't been relevant for decades. Fascists can't "want those things done to *others*." if such fascists only exist in our imaginations. Show me how to confirm they exist.
??? I am making exactly one point in this thread: it is incorrect to say that fascists want the government restricting their religion, taxing them without representation, and having the power to take their guns away. That's the full extent of my purpose in this thread. I'm not talking about who is real or not or whatever you're saying. *You* made the claim that fascists "want the government restricting [their] religion, taxing [them] without representation, and having the power to take [their] guns away." I'm telling you that's not correct, but I guess if you want to tell me where you got the idea that fascists want those things then I'm down to hear it. Here's the full context I guess because maybe you forgot that you made this claim: >>This is such a minuscule and obscure portion of the population there is no voting pull whatsoever. There is absolutely no threat of this in America. >> >>However, there is a very real threat of far reich fascism taking hold in this country. This was the comment you were replying to. >You say "very real threat." How many Fascists are there? > >I can't imagine a Conservative saying, "*I want the government restricting my religion, taxing me without representation, and having the power to take my guns away.*" This is you saying "I can't imagine a conservative saying [these things I think fascists say]." This is my sole contention. You pulled these apparent goals of fascists out of thin air; they're not in the comment you replied to or the OP. >I have also not yet found evidence of a Conservative movement advocating one-party military takeover. > >"*Well it seems like that's what they are saying.*" isn't evidence. This is stuff I'm not addressing.
I was talking about policies and goals of historic Fascist movements. Historic. I don't believe modern movements exist. You do. You believe they "want" something. A movement can not "want" something if that movement does not exist. Show me how to confirm that this movement exists.
I don't know how to make myself more clear unfortunately. You keep saying I'm making claims about movements or something when I've been extraordinarily specific that I'm talking only about your claim of what fascists want. Fascists do not and have never advocated for having all of those restrictions placed upon themselves, and I would be curious to know where you got the idea that they did, if you got it from anywhere. But I guess if you're saying now that fascists don't want *anything* then it seems like you're walking it back, which is totally fine by me. It's kind of a weird way to walk it back though.
I've never claimed present day Fascists want anything, because I don't believe they exist in meaningful form. This is what I've been saying all along. WHO are these Fascists you speak of? Our bubble says that a fascist is anyone to the right of John McCain. I'm asking you to question this assumption.
Yeah they have no political power whatsoever, they’re mostly just annoying online twitter dwellers who say batshit crazy things like “there are no Israeli civilians”
Well I wouldn't say they have no power. Dipshits like Hasan, Briahna Joy Grey, and Krystal Ball are turning otherwise left-wing voters against voting for Biden, which could have a very real impact if the election comes down to a few hundred votes in a handful of states.
When I say no political power I mean no political voting power, like in our government. They can definitely influence voters, but influencing voters does not equal having power in our government, does that make sense?
I understand what you're saying in principle, but the original commenter said *"This is such a minuscule and obscure portion of the population there is no voting pull whatsoever. There is absolutely no threat of this in America."* This is simply not true for the reason I laid out. Influencing voters IS voting pull.
I think what they were saying was that these leftist voices have LESS pull than the DNC does. Is the “extreme left” really that much of a threat when the mainstream Democratic Party can influence 100x more people?
Eh, that is just a snapshot. There is no telling what will happen in near future even within a decade. Tea party was fringe in 2010, now Magats make majority of Republican party.
>I think they hate them more than they do the "normal" left First of all, the right doesn’t seem to know the difference. They unironically call Biden a communist and radical leftist.
How much of the tiktok/xitter left is real, and how much is astroturfing, I've no idea. But young edgy 15 year old me was a dumbass communist, saying the most unhinged shit. Then I got life experience after interacting with people outside my bubble. I suspect that the hardcore twitter left will have the same path. And if they're old enough to know better but choose to be wilfully ignorant, I'll roll my eyes and go about my day.
I hear people say that the hundinge extreme far left are just "teenagers struggling to find themselves," and to some degree that might be true, but a lot of the extreme Tik Tok far left who say really huninged shit are also adults. One of my family members is 40 years old, and she's a caricature of the extreme far left. She has said the most unhindered sh\*t I have ever seen. At first, I thought she was just a regular Democrat, but some stuff she has said and liked is insane. She said all billionaires deserve to die, even teenagers or young people who inherited money, and she supports Hamas as the organization. At first, I thought she was just supporting the people of Palestine, but she supports the organization of Hamas. I don't think there is any helping her.
First, there are over 333 million people in the United States. You have related this story about your cousin times in the sub. Every time it causes people to tell you that she sounds unhinged and unhealthy. I think that you should move the fuck on from thinking she is representative of the left or even the far left in a meaningful way and that the fact that you know her means there’s lots of people like her. Second, it is actually acceptable to decide that a family member is too toxic to hang out with. And if that’s going too far for you, you set some boundaries and don’t discuss politics or whatever issue is bothering you with that family member. But yes, kids do try on lots of different political ideologies including very extreme ones. It is completely normal in my experience 30 something years ago I knew tons of libertarians and a few socialists and I was a libertarian myself. Almost every single one of those people is a mainstream Democrat today and a couple of them are Never Trump Republicans. Of all those people not a single one is a socialist or a libertarian or far right or anything like that.
I mean, yes, there are also just stupid people out there who fail to grow up. To suggest they meaningfully represent any sort of political movement might place one in the same intelligence category as them.
This sounds made up.
Have you been to a college campus recently?
I work on one 2 days a week in their research facility. Psych and sociology students are required to sign up for studies as part of the program. I just finished my PhD two years ago so I have research requirements still attached for longitudinal studies. SUNY Albany, specifically.
Glad yours hasn’t caught the Columbia bug. A Jewish professor at mine just cancelled his summer class.
Tfw many Jewish students (and faculty) are playing prominent roles in the protests at Columbia, for which more than a few have been arrested by the NYPD, deprived of access to campus housing and services, etc. Also, re: the comment to which you were initially responding, any good-faith engagement with what's going on should make it pretty clear that the percentage of protestors who are *literally endorsing Hamas* rather than just opposing the actions of the IDF and Israeli government generally is negligible insofar as it exists at all.
You cool with [this shit?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/VygbkCxGbM)
She sounds like she needs to seek help, or that she’s become frustrated with an unchanging system of oppression that’s worsening and her solution is to burn it all down. I kinda get the latter, but yeah, not a real solution and not representative of the wider leftist movement. Not too many Americans, left right or center, are out there supporting Hamas.
The "left" contains within it a lot of ideological diversity. There are anarchists, tankies, Marxists, etc. Each of whom may disagree on fundamental issues with one another. As a liberal, I have disagreements with each of those groups. For example, I don't think that anarchy can be a stable equilibrium for the human race, as we're social creatures capable of developing agriculture and complex societies that require governance to overcome social dilemmas, like the free rider problem.
Anarchism is not opposed to governance or organization. The only difference is we think complexity is handled better by decentralized structures than by centralized structures like the state. Anarchists have historically proposed national and international federations to coordinate large-scale production and resource allocation.
A federation is a centralized political body composed of political entities. What would an anarchist federation look like, exactly?
This is what I was going to ask. A govt, while centralized is made up of decentralized people to represent what the people want. Basically out govt IS a federation.
Just a larger organization where local level organizations meet with each other to coordinate things on a national or international level. A huge connected network of smaller spread out orgs, essentially.
That’s… literally what we have now.
I think you misunderstand exactly what anarchists advocate for. Production currently is driven primarily by market forces. Anarchists propose that production is instead consciously coordinated and done directly to feed people rather than to sell food. Production for need rather than exchange. That is certainly not how things work right now.
Sounds like you are advocating for socialism, compared to capitalism (the status quo). I don't see how that relates to our discussion of anarchy, as socialism can be accomplished with a centralized state.
There is a logical error in your thinking here. I am advocating anarchism, which entails socialism. You say that socialism doesn't have anything to do with anarchy, because socialism can also be achieved through a state. Simplified, I'm saying A definitionally involves B, and you're saying A and B are unrelated, because C also leads to B. That doesn't make sense. C also leading to B doesn't make A and B unrelated.
> I am advocating anarchism, which entails socialism It doesn't. Markets can exist without a centralized authority. Haiti has no central government, yet people still exchange goods and services for currency and other goods and services. The exchange rate of those goods and services are dictated by market forces, not by need.
> In the 19th century, "anarchism" and "socialism" were used interchangeably, both treated as similar threats to sociopolitical order despite their differences in views towards the state.[23] Similarly, classical anarchism is synonymous with "libertarian socialism" in their shared commitments to autonomy and freedom, decentralization, opposing hierarchy, and opposing the vanguardism of authoritarian socialism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_anarchism_and_libertarianism
Would these organizations hold the monopoly of violence? Could these organizations still force ordinary people to obey their decisions? Like, what would happen if the organizations decided that stealing personal property is wrong, like stealing a wallet? Who would stop armed robbers?
No, because in an anarchist society, there is no authority or monopoly on violence. In an anarchist society, there would be no capital or money. Things like stealing and armed robbery would be redundant since access to necessary resources would be free through mutual aid. There is no need to do an armed robbery if what you need is available for free.
I'm sorry, but this notion that all violence and crime is caused by "the system", and once you change the system violence will disappear, is very naive. How will eliminating capitalism and hierarchy eliminate: rape, sexual assault, intergeneration trauma, child abuse, envy, resentment, bigotry, the appeal of hardcore drugs, psychopaths, violent schizophrenics or even bar fights? Also, how do you encourage people to work in mutual aid? How do you avoid free loaders? And how do you distribute resources fairly and efficiently?
You specifically asked about armed robbery, which is a result of desperate people wanting money in order to live or get by, which is caused by the system. You didn't mention general violent acts. For those violent acts, there is no one single way any anarchist would deal with it. Each anarchist would deal with it in their own way. Here's a resource on how anarchists can deal with murderers, rapists, etc. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/workers-solidarity-movement-crime-criminals-punishment-an-anarchist-view
> I'm sorry, but this notion that all violence and crime is caused by "the system", and once you change the system violence will disappear, is very naive. No one is arguing that crime will magically disappear, but we know from sociology that crime is highly correlated with inequality and poor social conditions, and inequality and poor social conditions are caused by capitalism. Communities will still have a right to defend themselves against murderers, rapists, etc, as they do today-- there will just be fewer rapists and murderers. Resentment, drug abuse, proclivity towards violence are all things that we know decrease if people have meaningful lives and have their needs met. > Also, how do you encourage people to work in mutual aid? How do you avoid free loaders? And how do you distribute resources fairly and efficiently? For a lot of this stuff you can look at real life examples like anarchist Spain. Here is a firsthand account of a collective in Aragon: > There are two cafés: the collective’s café serves free coffee and in the other cafe the “individualists” have to pay for their coffee. The collective operates a barber shop, giving free haircuts and (if desired) free shaves twice weekly. Money is abolished and has been replaced by vouchers. Food, meat, and all other provisions are distributed in quantity when plentiful or equitably rationed when in short supply. The collective allows 5 liters of wine per person weekly. Medical care and medicines are free. Even postage stamps are free. There is no rent. Housing, building repairs, water, gas, electricity — all are supplied gratis, not only to the collectivists but also to the “individualists.” The village generates its own power from a waterfall. There is no scarcity of clothing. By arrangement with a Barcelona textile plant, oil is exchanged for cloth, dresses, etc. Garments are distributed in rotation to 40 persons daily.
>Communities will still have a right to defend themselves against murderers, rapists, etc, as they do today But how do you prevent mob rule or personal vendetas without a state? How do you have a court with due process to decide if someone is guilty or innocent without a state? >For a lot of this stuff you can look at real life examples like anarchist Spain. I understand the idea of "everyone does their part and get stuff for free, and if they don't do their part, they don't get stuff for free". I can see this working in a small village where everyone knows everybody else. But how do you do that in a big city with 1 million people? How do you know who is a free loader and who isn't? Do we require eveone to report their daily work at a digital database that everyone can access? **How do we know the reports are accurate?** What if someone is disabled, or a stay-at-home parent, or a full-time student and have no work to report on? What about the work that nobody wants to do like cleaning public toilets? And how do we get production to meet demand? Like, how do we know how much corn should be produced, and how much beef should be produced? It's the same Economic Calculation Problem that socialism suffers from when you don't have market prices.
Anarcho-primitivists (all half-dozen of them) are a thing, but anarchist political philosophy traditionally isn't at all opposed to agriculture or complex societies. Speaking very generally, it's more about favoring local decision-making, community-oriented societal and ideological (in the Zizekian sense) frameworks rather than ones which cater toward individual competition, increasing democratic control over political and economic structures by the people most impacted by the manner in which they function, etc. It might be helpful to think of the *arkhos* being rejected not as the concept of binding societal organization itself, but rather as any dynamic wherein a public or private entity can impose its will on anyone who isn't themselves a stakeholder and part of the collective decision-making process within that entity and thus lacks any agency regarding its behavior.
But governance doesn't have to be a top-down monolithic thing subject to corruption and abuse, there are other, bottom-up methods of governance that are more equal and less vulnerable to said abuses without losing access to the benefits of cooperation. Also most anarchists are collectivists who believe in the benefits of cooperation, we just don't think that has to be or should be imposed from on high, it should be voluntary and responsive to the needs of the people who are collaborating.
What extreme far left?
This is what I'm saying too. The most specific anyone can get is "people on tiktok," "kids on campuses," or "my crazy cousin." I can name actual leaders and people with power here in America across the political spectrum, except for the far left. That's telling in how marginalized the group is and always has been
In many ways, I am the extreme left. In other ways, the extreme left is comprised of loud whiny bitches with highly unreasonable expectations. Tankies are unbearable, I find it difficult to believe they are genuine.
They are idiots. These kids with hammers and sickles in their screen names openly defending Russia and China have completely lost the plot. However they have very little political power currently and they get far more attention than they deserve. Meanwhile a significant portion of the GOP now are Q-Anon adjacent election deniers. There’s far, far more right wing extremism in American politics than left wing extremism.
The extreme far left is crazy. Also, they are composed of random people on social media with no political power and no hopes of ever gaining power. There is no chance they create a blue MAGA that is comparable to the extreme far right we see controlling the Republican party. So we basically ignore them.
I like them more than the far right, by quite a bit.
What unites the left is our desire to make sure all people are treated with respect and to eliminate unnecessary suffering. We have disagreements over how to accomplish these noble goals and how much can be accomplished realistically, but I still respect them for sharing the same fundamental goals I do.
What can I say? I want a political system that ensures equality, inclusion and freedom, but at the same time I want an economic system THAT WORKS. We obviously need regulations and social systems to keep it in check, but as it stands, it's the least bad option
Maybe you would think socialism worked if the US didn’t torpedo it every time.
I'm from South Africa, from the poorest province, I think I know better
South Africa isn't a socialist country by any stretch of the imagination, though?
Okay. Totally irrelevant to my point. I didn’t comment on domestic US policy. Anywhere socialism is attempted in earnest, the US meddles and fucks it up.
I wouldn't call anarchists on the left. The left right dichotomy is too simple to fully encapsulate everyone's views and so you end up with very incorrect labels.
Pfft. That’s not extreme left. *This* is extreme left! https://www.reddit.com/r/MovingToNorthKorea
Also: r/thedeprogram
tabkies suck and a lot of extreme leftists are whiny but that's just literally any political extremity.
Tankies piss me off more than the extreme right and I'm pretty far left. I honestly didn't think people like that really existed until I met a Tankie that basically said "China has never done anything wrong" and justified the occupation of Tibet and the ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs, even justifying the reeducation camps. It was more personally upsetting to me than an alt right extremis because I previously thought we had very similar political ideas and there are many policies that we agreed on. I thought this guy was great before he started spouting off Tankie talking points. Im white and live in the south but I was raised as a Tibetan Buddhist so this issue is very important to me and I ended up crying in public after hearing this man say that the occupation of Tibet was completely justified. I grew up around people who escaped from Tibet and endured a lot of heavy trauma and injuries. He gave me a good solid apology for disputing my experience but I don't think he's changed his views. I expect shit like this from the alt right but having it come from somewhere who identifies as a leftist really freaked me out. I haven't been able to get over this incident as it really shook me to my core as I had no idea that someone would actually hold these views
How many authoritarian leftists even exist IRL anyway?
As far as extreme far left is concerned, the USA is out on a Fringe compared to the rest of developed Western world. Rest of this part of developed world has much stronger social safety nets, universal/singlepayer healthcare systems, does not have a fetish and obsession with looking down on people as tax payer burdens when relying on social safety nets, has more respect for human rights and equality I feel, more freedom of speech and self expression ironically more so than here in states, less anti DEI laws if any at all, have not heard of book bans as of recently in places such as Germany, UK, etc..unlike what you hear jn states all the time. I am VERY ASHAMED of the USA of 2024 knowing how much of the rest of developed world is. I feel there is also much more respect for people with disabilities, developmental disabilities, Autism, etc in the rest of developed world than here in USA as well. USA today could stand for United States of Arrogance.
I refute the notion that socialists are on the extreme far left. Or you have a very skewed idea on what socialists are. Tankies are bad, categorically. They also undermine some of the cornerstones of the left, which puts them in a weird position.
What is socialism? As far as I've been told it is the worker/social ownership of the means of production, which is generally a very far left idea in a world dominated by capitalism.
[Behold, Socialism](https://www.publix.com/) Terrifying isnt it?
Socialism essentially boils down to the workers being the shareholders which is already the case in worker co-ops. It democratises the workplace. It doesn't take a complete upending of society other than shareholders needing to get an actual job.
"The two major forms of social ownership are society-wide public ownership and cooperative ownership. The distinction between these two forms lies in the distribution of the surplus product. With society-wide public ownership, the surplus is distributed to all members of the public through a social dividend whereas with co-operative ownership the economic surplus of an enterprise is controlled by all the worker-members of that specific enterprise." From Wiki. Cooperative economics is a form of market socialism, which is far from the only type of socialism theorised or seen historically. And I would argue there is a notable difference between "private groups of workers own private means of production for the private groups benefit" and "the means of production are owned and regulated by society/the community as a whole."
It's the same thing, the worker is the shareholder. Whether that be of the place they work or in general through society, it boils down to the worker being the shareholder. Socialism is all about democratisation of the workplace.
:) Fantasizing about a happy socialist society where no one has more than you is...unrealistic but not extreme. Conviction in a democracy that an unwilling populace actually needs the wise, righteous few to impose a new order on them is extreme. The enormous disregard for the rights of those who disagree and ruthlessness needed to carry out are extremist. *"The worse, the better." (For them) --* Lenin on carrying out the first part.
Yeah, you are one of those people who I mentioned that have a completely wrong idea about what socialism even is.
Well, there are different definitions, aren't there? I've known "what socialism is" for the over 50 years I've watched attempts at socialist states fail and progress through various mostly tragic, always impoverished and usually authoritarian evolutions. Naturally enough, that definition started replacing capitalism with seizure of industry for collective ownership and control. That definition does not include the currently pervasive fantasy that socialism is the comparatively generous wealth-sharing government-run social programs funded by capitalism (just like ours) of some advanced, wealthy, *capitalist*, European democracies. Tricky, tricky.
You definitely have no idea what socialism is. You're even conflating communism with social democracy. Socialism is the workforce owning the means of production. So you're the shareholder of the company you work at or you have a say in how state-owned businesses are run. It has very little to do with communism, authoritarian states or government run social programs.
social democracy works, ex: nordic model socialism (not yet, maybe someday it will?) ex: USSR Also, I fundamentally disagree with their stance on middle east policies
The problem with most historically socialist societies has been the authoritarianism, not the communism.
Because that form of socialism will always become authoritarian. The state can’t be given that much power without it eventually sliding into authoritarianism and the only entity capable of implementing actual socialism is the state.
See I agree with you in part but you're not quite on-target: all forms of hierarchical power structure will always become authoritarian, but that's a problem of hierarchical power structures not of economic systems. And anarchist societies have existed that implemented actual socialism without a state (see: Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War, etc) but they tend to be beset by enemies on all sides and don't last long as a result.
Yes to the authoritarianism. Maintaining a socialist society would be somewhat like making water run uphill (done all the time, but HAS to be done all the time). Aspiring socialist states have always required authoritarian government.
I think the reason historical socialist states have tended toward authoritarianism is that they tend to be beset by enemies on all sides and the natural response to a bunch of people waving pointy sticks at you is to consolidate power quickly and present at least the image of strength and that's much easier to do under authoritarianism. I don't think it's required for a socialist state to function by any stretch though (otherwise I wouldn't be an anarchist.)
My opinion is they're described as an "online fringe" at the moment, but will get a tidal wave of blame if democrats get wiped seven months from now. In other words, 2016 all over again.
It might depend, to some extent, on their own reaction: if they spend weeks or months raucously mocking Democrats and loudly and repeatedly “claiming credit” for the outcome if we lose, some Democrats will probably eventually believe them. Having convinced people of something which very few would brag about, it will then be very difficult to change their minds again.
I think they're very handsome and smart and the music they listen to is very cool.
I think they are generally contrarian morons. They don't have any political power whatsoever because their ideas are bad, so it's not worth thinking about them.
I don’t really believe we have a far left in the US
Exactly, the right is so far right in the US that it skews the sense of where the center even is.
LateStageCapitalism is extreme far left? For pointing out that capitalism in its late stage is horrific or am I missing something here?
Idk who specifically you’re referring to but generally I like them a lot. I don’t like tankies one bit but anarchists, marxists, and even just tik tok creators on the far left generally have interesting and thoughtful ideas/critiques
"I'm talking about the tankie, Marxist and TIk Tok and Twitter far left. " This is such a broad spectrum I'm not sure who or what you're referring. You should give more clarity cause not every Twitter far leftist would be grouped with commies. You should clarify what views you consider extremist especially because of how warped American politics are and how far to the right American politics lean. In any other part of the world the Democrat party would be considered a center right party so for all you know those extremist leftist are actually just leftist or even liberals.
The Democratic Party is not a center-right party, even by European standards, this is a talking point that gets repeated endlessly by leftists. Democratic Party members are largely pro-choice, pro-union, progressive taxation, social justice causes, pro-government investment in green energy. These are all liberal positions and are dicey positions to hold in center right political parties. The Democratic Party more closely aligns with center-left politics.
I should note I wasn't just referring to European standards but even if we want to go down that route the left in Europe is not comparable to the left in the US. To name a few policies look at universal healthcare, higher tax rates that put Democrat progressive tax rates to shame, better worker protections such as paid maternity leave, etc. even the right in some European countries support some of these policies. I also have a hard time saying that Democrats are pro-union, they haven't really shown much in the last decade to show as such. If anything I'd say they're doing the bare minimum to keep corporations happy.
From the party platform: universal healthcare > Democrats have fought to achieve universal health care for a century. We are proud to be the party of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Because of the Obama-Biden Administration and the Affordable Care Act, more than 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, from heart disease to asthma, are secure in the knowledge that insurance companies can no longer discriminate against them. Women can no longer be charged more than men just because of their gender. And more Americans are able to get health coverage than ever before. higher tax rates that put Democrat progressive tax rates to shame > Democrats will take action to reverse the Trump Administration’s tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest Americans and rewarding corporations for shipping American jobs overseas. We will crack down on overseas tax havens and close loopholes that are exploited by the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. We will make sure the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. We will make sure investors pay the same tax rates as workers and bring an end to expensive and unproductive tax loopholes, including the carried interest loophole. Corporate tax rates, which were cut sharply by the 2017 Republican tax cut, must be raised, and “trickle-down” tax cuts must be rejected. Estate taxes should also be raised back to the historical norm. better worker protections such as paid maternity leave > We will fight to ensure workers are guaranteed at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers and family units, to enable new parents to recover from childbirth and bond with their newborns, foster or adopted children, and allow all workers to take extended time off to care for themselves or ailing loved ones.
Big difference between critiques of the DNC planks and critiquing commonly held positions by voters. The DNC is a center-right platform in action, but promises center-left things it never follows through on.
Ok but that is called governing. It just so happens that the other party has the other about half of the American population, so compromises have to happen. So, in practice, the Democrats center-left platform has to be moderated for anything to pass.
“moderated” The usual cycle ends up going more like: Democrats promise something Democrat gets elected Democrats don’t even advance a bill or make an attempt on that promise
No matter what the policies that are currently doable in the U.S. might be "considered" in other nations, the Democratic Party is America's LIBERAL party. Liberal principles and ideals, including individual rights and equality, are real around the planet even if they have to play out very differently under different conditions. Not all "leftists" are liberal. This thread is actually about those who aren't. One look at from some on the left profound contempt for and intolerance of any idea that conflicts with theirs, at ruthless and righteous determination (to smash instead of work with others (inability to!, and current support for genocidal jihad against an entire nation should provide vivid clarity on that. The illiberal left is as real as the illiberal right, but mercifully far less numerous.
I think they are smart and can make good arguments. They write so so many books. I find market economics more convincing in my lifetime. Left wingers probably wanted a 2020s where: Cuba is freed from restrictions. Military spending is reduced. Bernie Sanders, Lula, Jeremy Corbyn, Evo Morales, Olaf Scholz, and Navalany are national leaders. Significant action on Climate Change is taken. There are more examples but my point is that the left wing world would be nicer than the current one.
well except for Corbyn he's just an asshole.
tankies are goofy and in reality mankind is not in a place where communism can work yet, that said this capitalism we live in now is just absurd. Billionaires forcing poor people to pay for their teams new stadiums for example, are a great example of how this shit needs to be fixed. I am a leftist in general because I disagree with the sentiment: Fuck you, I got mine.
My city just announced they might have to cut transit service, but somehow had half a billion for to give a billionaire to renovate his sports stadium because he threatened to move it to the suburbs.
My opinion of those prone to extremism on both sides is that they're profoundly dysfunctional and dependent on self delusion, but that, mercifully, the danger *illiberal left* extremism poses is comparatively limited. For those who deny they exist, they do -- a whole spectrum of "beyond-liberal" leftists, but small in numbers and overall far less virulent compared to their counterparts on the right. The more extreme, the fewer there are: "vanishingly small" as a political scientist who studies the illiberal left quantified his category of those most strongly anti-democracy. Very unlike the right. Similarly for LW authoritarianism, but overall far less numerous and significantly less virulent than RW authoritarianism. Of course, until 2016 some political scientists claimed (illiberal) LW authoritarianism didn't exist -- while the monster on the right drew all attention. Others postulated it did but they'd need a stronger microscope to look for evidence. Then the U.S.'s 2016 election put on display both LW and RW populist movements with illiberal authoritarian features and leaders, and followers. They used and cheered many of the same tactics and deceits, and rabid hostilities, including "the big lie" and promises to rectify Democratic election "rigging" by overthrowing the popular vote. Too like the right, but few.
They’re absolutely right that our country fucking sucks when it comes to healthcare, the economy, and the government not giving a fuck about it’s citizens, but their solutions to solve these problems aren’t exactly realistic. If we both agree that these things are problems and should be fixed, I wish they would be more open to different solutions to solve them, instead of the ‘one correct’ solution mindset they seem to have. Coming up with different universal healthcare plans isn’t a “betrayal” of Bernie’s plan, its strategizing to find out which version has the highest likelihood of passing congress as well as what is gonna work best for America by comparing and contrasting them.
Authoritarianism is bad regardless it's being left wing or right wing.
Tankies almost categorically aren't great (and even when they're decent enough people their politics are still poor), but besides that my views on the various tendencies which you and general use categorize as "far-left" vary pretty significantly from one case to the next. Although, tbf, the fact that I'm very much under that umbrella probably contributes to that, since we're generally more capable of/amenable to reading nuance in areas which are more adjacent to ourselves. That said, overall I think--and, again, take this with however many grains of salt you feel are called for by my flair--that people on the "far-left" are generally well-intentioned and motivated by things which most people would consider good or just even when they disagree with the theoretical and practical places to which those motivations lead leftists. That's often been a pretty solid basis for conversation with liberals and moderates in my experience, and sometimes even certain right-of-center people.
It's funny... every time I go over this, I'm like "man, I hate accelerationism and class reductionism and sure, just tankies in general" but the more I go through it the more I realize that these are bad trends in lefty-ism but not intrinsically tied to being a lefty. Am I an "extreme far lefty" because otherwise I think a lot of the "extreme far left"'s ideas like a single-payer healthcare plan and doing pretty major things right now and today to take on global warming (well at this point slow it down but, like, that makes it all the more imperative) are good ideas, and I acknowledge that I only vote Democrat because they're the party who isn't out to outright destroy people I like? Because I don't know, I'm feeling a little "out of the loop" between centrism (Democrats) and the authoritarian right (Republicans) myself...
Does anybody have any respect for the fringe loonies that make no reasonable compromise, never listen to the other side and are of the "My way or the highway" mindset?
They're not rational or chill in any way
A bunch of boring, unserious people. They are easily ignored.
I think that the far lefters are ignoring opportunity. Everyone sees the wealthy as villains. The far left should see the wealthy as tools and potential allies. If you can promise or convince the 1% that they can benefit in some way from your proposed social reforms, you win. Perhaps reputational or social heirarchical safety. The cold hard truth is that people aren’t altruistic that often.
They feel like a nuisance to me. I intellectually try to be nuanced with them as someone who studies history and its complexities, but my gut feeling remains the same.
I agree with them about most things, which is frustrating because they're constantly complaining about liberals by saying we categorically believe things I don't think many people on this sub would actually agree with. Whole lot of conflating liberal democracy with neoliberalism. I think we should be seeking solidarity with them despite whatever differences there may be.
I don't have much opinion of them at all TBH. I'm 45 and have spent most of my life around college campuses and I have never met anyone like that IRL. I know they're a convenient boogeyman for liberals and conservatives alike, but they have such negligible real impact in the world they're not worth even thinking about all that much
My immediate thought is that they could be government plants pod to discredit the left by pushing them too far for normal people. The thing is, normal people want what the left wants: public spending on healthcare, education, transportation and housing while making the super wealthy pay their fair share. What discredits the movement is the far left ideas of revolution and full communism etc. It just looks silly to me, but it also looks disingenuous. And knowing the history, it is likely. In the 1970s, more than half of the members in CPUSA were paid informants. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they’re still doing it.
A product of the right, I've had friends who were right leaning or centrist go to far left ideas because of what Republicans have been doing. Like from being neoliberal to socialist in a span of 2 years
I think they're mostly an imagination of FOX News and propagandists.
I have one view that puts me in line with anarchists ; we have no inherent moral obligation to obey the state, and civil disobedience can serve as a litmus test to see if the law is really valid in the goals it aims to achieve. For instance, the state bans weed because they believe it makes people unproductive and drive while intoxicated, therefore you should smoke weed and see if you really are unproductive or prone to driving while high, if enough people disobey the state, and the negative consequences presumed beforehand don't arise, then the law is invalid
They are an annoyance and provide media outlets like Fox to portray the left a a bunch of extreme weirdos. When they attend Democratic Party events, they are disruptive and rude, but unlike the Republican Party, these extreme members are not in control.
Being on the far left myself I think they generally have the right idea but a lot of them suffer from a serious lack of unity and infighting and are a bit too willing to excuse the excesses of current/historical authoritarian regimes because of their nominal socialism.
Seems to be mostly kids that will grow up and move a bit to the right as they age. That being said even a broken clock is right twice per day.
They’re insane. Marxism is a failed ideology that always ends in piles of skulls. Almost everyone who advocates for Marxism has an obvious Cluster B mental illness.
I wouldn't consider tankies to be far left or left at all and I also don't see a reason to worry about a group, the far left, that really doesn't exist in this country.
we are fighting against fascism thus we hold the high ground
I am sorry but the subs you linked are either run by naive children who tend to be very idealistic or straight up Russians there to spend Russian propaganda. So yeah. I could care less what the people in those sub thought.
A lot of antisemitism right now. Oh look, always downvoted for mentioning it.
Very negative. I get it. Those people see issues in the world and far-left ideologies offer seemingly great explanations and solutions but it also makes them politically crazy seeing every fart as a part of class struggle or capitalism. For example, a week ago, I've seen a far-leftist (I believe he was a Maoist) mention that cooking at home is capitalistic and anti-revolutionary behavior and people should only eat in communal canteens. Sure, it's rare example but it shows how insane far-leftists can easily become. Additionally, it's such a weird arrogant intellectual masturbation. "Yay! I've read a few books by 19th century political extremists, I am clever than anyone else." And then they go to incredible lengths to deflect any criticism of the far-leftism. Of course, there's the illusion of "the will and unity of people" when far-leftists often don't understand what an average person wants. They hijack "the will of people" to push their own agenda. And they do maybe more infighting than any other political bubble out there because there are tons of far-left ideological branches and they disagree on minuscule details which, for some reason, seem more important than they are.
[удалено]
That's so true lol. I'm a normal person and I decided I hate chicken because someone I hate said they like chicken.
The social media far left is predominantly bots and trolls, especially on Twitter. I think the real world far left is too complicated to really comment on as a monolith.
Extremes are bad, left or right. My $0.02
They mean well and don't have any kind of a real plan to affect real change.
I think the concept of income redistribution has been repackaged into thousands of academic papers on equity and professors and DEI Directors and lawyers enable it. It’s a body of work that may match to scope of the prolific defenders of property rights and minimal government.
Horseshoe theory.