What is the extreme left these days?
Since China and Russia are capitalist states now, is there really any true representative of leftism today?
What is the left now, and what is the far left? Who is the far left?
What is the left now, and what is the far left? Who is the far left?
Comments (121)
Is this strictly a political question? Do you measure the leftness of the left solely in terms of proximity to Marx , or can ‘left’ mean progressive or radical in a different sense? What about a philosophical far left? Do you think Foucault, Deleuze and Derrida were to the left or the right of Marx politically? What about philosophically? It seems to me the ‘far left’ is a notion concocted by conservatives like Jordan Peterson, who is constitutionally incapable of distinguishing between figures like Derrida and Marx, and between postmodernism and socialism.
That being said, the left is typically about egalitarianism with equal opportunities. The far left would be a large change in societal laws that result in more equitable and baseline starting points in society. One example I can think of would be universal income. This would result in a baseline standard that all people had to work with. Some of course would use that opportunity better than others, but every one would have at least that.
Another example of far leftism would be wanting to consider a person's entire background and evaluate their advantages or disadvantages before deciding how you will treat them in any situation. So for example, if a person came from an uneducated background, you would take the extra time and effort to change your language, approach, and education. Think about a bank teller offering a loan to someone at a particular interest rate. The far left would require that the bank teller explain to the person how much it will cost them over the years, and give alternative options. Someone not left would just offer them the loan, and leave it up to them to make the decision themselves, regardless of their education.
The more left you are, the more the powerful are expected to expend effort and sacrifice for the less powerful. The more right you are, the more acceptable it is for the powerful to exert themselves without any concern of the consequences of those less powerful than they are.
I think it depends on each country's circumstances. At least where I live extreme left represents or stands for avoiding monarchy, banks, riches and catholic church. In an economical way they want to increase the taxes on the wealthiest companies and make a fairer distribution. In an educational program, they stand for public schools instead private. They also defend the rights of LGTBIQ and feminism.
Interesting to point out that some of them feel kind of euroskeptic.
Sounds good.
Quoting Joshs
I got into Hayek recently, and you can't separate his economic view from its political context (which is a little self contradictory). But his proposals are meant to address a problem that has to do with emergence of fascism. However his viewpoint may have later been hijacked, he was trying to be one of the good guys.
Since Hayek is relevant now and Marx is really completely irrelevant, I'd want to judge leftism by how it relates to Hayek. So by his perspective, leftism is about how organized a society is top down. It's about how information in the economy is processed. Per Hayek, the market is the superior organic organizer of information. He saw totalitarianism as the best way to protect the free market, tho. Thoughts?
Is identity politics a sign of leftism?
Quoting javi2541997
What's that mean?
:up:
No. Both left and right partake in identity politics. I would say the left uses identity to achieve equitable egalitarianism while the right uses identity to continue to assert and justify the powerful to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences to those less powerful.
I also want to make it very clear that both taken to their extremes are awful, but both taken to a certain extent are very beneficial to society. There is no winner here.
China and Russia are not fully capitalist states. The governments in each hold their thumb on the economies, choosing winners and losers. As such, the left-wing is for more government control over all aspects of society, whereas the right-wing is for less government control. The right-wing is really just a transfer of power from the government to the corporations or the church where the corporations or the church will have greater control or impact on society which includes the government itself.
The extreme on both sides is about more power being consolidated with a select few. The only difference is who is wielding the power over the rest of us - the government or corporations/church.
The far-left is the faction that wants government to have complete and total control over everything - how we spend our money, what we are allowed to say, etc. While it may seem that the far-left values and fights for the little man or minorities, they are really just using identity politics to create a problem of victimhood for certain groups as a reason to acquire more power over everyone's lives.
Moderates and independents are generally for less control over our individual lives whether that control be from the government or from corporations or the church.
It means that they are not agree on how European Union works. They see the institution as pure capitalists defending the interests of a few. So, they question if European Union really stands for human rights and class workers. Their euroscepticism is just a criticism of the modern era and I don't think it is big as much as Brexit
So the difference is about social safety nets. The extreme left would have the state take care of everyone's needs?
You're saying the left fears individual autonomy. People need to be controlled, guided, and cared for.
On the one hand, this is just valuing life. On the extreme, it wants to reduce all citizens to children.
Isn't it?
Absolutely.
Put it another way:
left wing cares about social equality.
right wing cares about rich.
This is the case in almost any country in the west, including:
1. US - Democrats vs Republicans
2. France - Marine le Pen vs Macron
3. Undefeated hungarian Orban vs opposition
etc..
Countries such as Russia and China are one sided, there is no strong opposition.
China and Russia are "capitalist left wing" of some sort, a hybrid of it's own.
The same could be said of the moderates and extremists for both the left and the right. Again, the difference lies in who wields the reins of power over individuals. Both extremes are forms of collectivism, while the moderates of both sides value individual liberty.
It seems that you are going to received skewed explanations of what is the extreme versions of the left and right. Left-wingers are always going to try to make their side look like saints.
Example:
Quoting SpaceDweller
The right does the same thing. It seems that if you want an unbiased view of both sides you will need to ask someone that is a member of neither side.
All the above = @StreetlightX
The state would take care of whatever they deemed the minimal bottom line for equality, but they would not take care of the powerful. This would likely come at the poweful's expense. The extreme right would have the state take care of the needs of the powerful, and that may result in everyone's else's expense. Both will use the state for their agenda.
I wouldn't characterize either the PRC or USSR as ever having been "representative of leftism". Libertarian socialist / Green movements & Human Rights activists/NGOs rather than nation-states IME represent the hard left today.
The extreme right favors big government, nanny-statism with an emphasis on identity politics, activism, and pro-wealth acquisition for those who already have power. (Sometimes this is claimed to be capitalism, it is often times not).
The extreme's of both side are detrimental to a country, usually devolve into some kind of authoritarianism and manipulate the populace for control.
This thread is about the left wing, though.
Correct. But to identify the left wing, you must show how it is different than the right wing. You cannot talk about one without the other.
Expected, I guess. With the exception of the left, fascists have always had a relatively clearer understanding of political stakes involved in the political spectrum than others. Which is why they tend to murder socialists first long before going after anyone else ("first, they came for the socialists..." as the poem goes).
I’m not sure that’s true. To identify the left wing all you have to do is ask them.
My point was your identification of the far left was not unique to being on the left.
It’s true. The left used to be about freedom and individualism. Now it’s statist, reactionary, and collectivist. That’s why the old divisions hardly work anymore.
:up: They had devolved into dictatorships, cults of personality. Christopher Hitchens described North Korea as a Necrocacy, The Father (deceased), The Son (the portly Kim), and..."one short of a trinity" remarked the late, inimitable Hitchens.
No, you are false. We are talking about the extreme. The extreme left and right use the exact same system of division, controls, and authoritarianism. The difference are the targets.
Quoting NOS4A2
Let me give you examples.
Big government: Texas recently banned people from getting abortions, including if you're raped. This is state power over individual freedom. Florida recently mandated school district can't say anything that makes people uncomfortable regarding sexuality. The proper way would have been for local school districts to each handle this as the community wanted.
Nanny-statism with identity politics- The far right has used government to divide blacks out of districts to ensure Democrats do not win seats. Dog whistles have been confirmed to be used for years. I already mentioned gays, we can talk about single mothers back in the 80's. The far right nanny's not the populace, but the powerful. Tax breaks, deregulation, as well as tax incentives for large businesses that create lower tax burden's than the rest of the population. Law enforcement that will break up protests by people to ensure business continues without interruption. Favorable bankruptcy laws and stock market laws favor the wealthy while a lower status individual who takes out a college loan is enslaved to it for life.
Activism: Oh boy. Lies that the election was stolen and we need to make sure "our" guys are in charge of counting next time? Anti-abortion and anti-gay activists. Anti-teachers and finding ways to criminalize drug use and poverty that disrupts wealthy people's lives instead of helping out.
Anti-capitalism: True capitalism means the government largely stays out of business except to regulate and prevent bad actors. This does NOT mean that you don't tax businesses. The far right loves government interference here. Florida's retaliation against Disney because it had a different opinion. Massive tax breaks and deregulation for businesses, especially those that donate. Favorable laws and taxes for the powerful industries like the oil, coal, and medical lobby.
There are plenty on the left and the right who are not extreme. They favor different targets, but go about using minimal government, government with oversight, and compromise. Very few people are extreme because very few people are fully right or left. Most of us have a blend of left and right views based on different situations if we don't brain wash ourselves into thinking party identity is somehow our identity as well.
Hitler: far right
Stalin: far left
Ideologies are dead ofc. my point is that since then left and right changed but mention of right\left started with WW2 and cold war narrative.
What actions of Stalin makes him a leftist?
That's interesting. Neither extreme can accept diverse viewpoints, so in a sense they're both collectivist in their own ways. Is that what you mean?
He was anti-right.
• rightism advocates exclusive shareholder control of government, business, media and culture (e.g. oligopoly/plutocracy) mostly manifest as corporatocracy, police-statism and nationalism.
• leftism advocates inclusive stakeholder participation in government, business, media and culture (e.g. economic democracy) mostly manifest as mass solidarity struggles against (A) corporatist labor exploitation/resource depletion/malfeasance, (B) police-state surveillance/brutality and (C) nationalist 'military-keynesianism'.
Quoting frank
W.T.F. :roll:
ok
So they weren't even on the spectrum?
Quoting 180 Proof
Ah. Doctors without borders is an NGO I contribute to, so I'm a hard leftist.
No, they both began as dictatorships. Mao & Lenin, respectively.
So, the left started off on the wrong foot.
Quoting frank
Both were totalitarian nationalist regimes (i.e. militarist (rightist) command economies)
:sweat: No, you're just an accidental (bourgeois) humanitarian.
We’re all over the place here. I thought we were talking about the left today, and not the right yesterday. Both are statist, both are authoritarian, both like identity politics, both are collectivist, yes. I appreciate the examples but I just don’t know what purpose they serve.
The point is we should be giving examples of the far left that are different than examples of the far right. The examples you gave were not examples that are isolated to the far left, but shared with the far-right. Can you think of unique approaches to governance that the far left does that the far right would not do?
Fair enough. I’m not sure the far right would employ multiculturalism or socialism as state doctrine, for example.
See what you think of this analysis:
Hayek’s brand of free market libertarianism is embraced by conservatives and neo-liberals on the right.
Marx is completely irrelevant to Hayek and his followers because they don’t consider him an influence on their thinking. Their political philosophy is pre-Marxist The situation is quite different on the left. To the extent Marx’s specific doctrines are less relevant to them than in the past it only because major elements of his thought have been re-interpreted and incorporated into neo and post-marxist models. I would suggest that it is not possible to understand contemporary thinking on the left and far left without making your way through Marx, which conservatives from Jordan Peterson to Andrew Breitbart have recognized.
I think those are good points.
With all due respect to their genius, Hayek's views won. As we ponder where we go from here, it's Hayek we need to understand. Why was neoliberalism so devastatingly successful? What problem did it solve? What problems has it left us with?
Quoting Joshs
Hayek is 20th Century. Marx was from a world that's gone now.
Quoting Joshs
That may be, but what relevance does the left or far left have in the world today?
Because it is capitalism.
Hayek may have lived in the 20th century , but his political theory is derived from philosophical ideas that are considerably older than Marx. Essentially Hayek is an 18th century philosopher in the cloak of a 20th century political thinker. Given your respect for him, I wager your own notion of the cutting edge of philosophy (and by derivation political theory) consists of figures like John Stewart Mill , Kant , Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, although you may know their ideas chiefly through contemporary interpreters on the right.
Quoting frank
Today’s political left and far left were born out of the aftermath of Hegel’s project. What also emerged from
Hegelianism was Darwin’s theory of evolution, American Pragmatism, psychoanalysis, the human potential
movement and humanistic psychology, and today’s leading approaches in neuroscience, perceptual psychology, personality theory and models of psychopathology , including analysis of autism, schizophrenia, depression, grief and ptsd.
I would include the most advanced thinking in artificial intelligence , which is a key point , because more and more you will find that ‘smart’ technology based on how the mind works will dominate the corporate world and shape its politics, and eventually the larger culture. . Those who fail to keep up with these advances in ‘mind’ technologies will fall gather and farther behind economically.
I would argue that the new thinking about intelligence as a function of reciprocally causal global integrated neural networks is incompatible with the philosophical framework that Hayek operated within. If one were to poll those at the leading edge of the field of A.I., one would find very few embracing Hayak’s brand of libertarianism , but most would align themselves with one post-Hegelian philosophy or another. This is no coincidence. Each eta of technology is made possible by a specific philosophical ground, with its own implications for political theory .
On a worldwide basis humanity is splitting f into two camps , traditionalists and postmodern globalist urbanites. there is a reason why the word’s greatest concentration of high tech companies happens to be in the most leftists cities in the world, San Francisco and Seattle. Conservative high tech is an oxymoron, like military intelligence.
I don't think so, but it's a moot point. His view is still the the blueprint for the world you live in.
Quoting Joshs
I'm a fascinated, but neutral observer. I'm immune to academic retching. It just makes me feel pity.
Quoting Joshs
Marx wasn't particularly Hegelian, though. The community around him was.
Quoting Joshs
How so?
This interests me. Can you say more about the Hegelian influence on AI?
Marx was Hegelian--the concept of history as dialectical
Quoting frank
I dont live in his world. You live in his world.
Quoting frank
Darwinism as Hegelian Dialectics Applied to Biology:
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/darwinism-as-hegelian-dialectics-applied-to-biology/
Today’s neural models make use of complexity systems approaches.
If you look at the model of a complex dynamical
system it is essentially a dialectical movement. Temporary states of equilibrium in a living system are followed by a disequilibrating event , and then restabilize at a higher state of organization, like a spiral.
Thanks. I don't have the knowledge about this, something to learn about.
There aren't many places untouched by his views. If you're American, you definitely live in his world. Why not look into it?
I'm not a fan boy. I'm just interested in how the world works. Aren't you?
Quoting Joshs
Oh good grief. Are you serious? Darwin was a naturalist. He demonstates the influence of Democritus in our world, not Marx.
I'm not insulting Marx by the observation that history has left him behind. It's just a fact.
:100:
:mask:
Quoting frank
:up:
Maybe a little around the edges.
Seems to me at the core. Marx thought of himself as Hegelian.
He was criticized for failing to be Hegelian and he admitted it. He was more into Feuerbach than Hegel.
Who criticized him and for what? Marx called himself a materialist and differed only on what he called Hegel's idealism.
No, much earlier. The French Revolution (1789), "left-right" refers to respective seating areas of rival ideologues in the National Assembly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
Quoting frank
:up:
Fine.
Let's start by looking at how Hayek and company were a reaction to fascism. Interested?
nice, didn't know :up:
One only leaves a thinker behind by incorporating the valuable features of his work into a new whole, such as to think him better than he thought himself. I’m not convinced you or Hayek understand very much about the history of philosophy since Hegel, that is to say , all of the philosophies and social sciences which have benefited from his influence. A central feature of post-Hegelian thought is the appreciation that individual knowing is the product of interactive dynamics within a cultural community, that knowledge and values are in large part socially constructed through language. Post-Hegelians are thus moral relativists rather than moral realists.
Conservative post-Hegelians maintain that there are certain higher order universal valuative principles that are not themselves relative to culture, whereas postmodernists argue that all morality is culture -relative.
Would not agree with that assertion. Does any culture believe stabbing and murdering people is acceptable (outside of war!)?
So. You're saying Marx is ground zero for everything in philosophy since Hegel?
Probably not.
Are you asking if a culture believes doing immoral things is moral? The answer is no. You know why? Because labels like ‘murder’ already presuppose the condemning of the perpetrator as immoral. You need to ask the question differently. Let’s let social constructionist Ken Gergen lay out the issue:
“Constructionist thought militates against the claims to ethical foundations implicit in much identity politics - that higher ground from which others can so confidently be condemned as inhumane, self-serving, prejudiced, and unjust. Constructionist thought painfully reminds us that we have no transcendent rationale upon which to rest such accusations, and that our sense of moral indignation is itself a product of historically and culturally situated traditions. And the constructionist intones, is it not possible that those we excoriate are but living also within traditions that are, for them, suffused with a sense of ethical primacy?“
No. Just what I said. Stabbing people for fun. What culture thinks that is good?
You treat figures like Marx as though their ideas are hermetically sealed products that are either used or discarded, and bear little connection to a larger history of thought.
There is a rich, interwoven tapestry of philosophical
positions that spread out in the wake of Hegel , just as Hegel himself belonged to a web of ideas going back before him. Marx is just one of dozens of important writers who emerged beginning in the mid 1800’s who contribute to this fabric. There are so many interconnections between authors like Hegel , Marx , Feurbach, Kierkegaard, Freud, Habermas, Adorno, Focault , Derrida, Piaget Sartre, James , Lacan, Bergson, Nietzsche and Heidegger that it is silly to try and wall any of them off from each other as either useful or not , relevant or irrelevant. None of them are ground zero. Instead, they are all nodes in the larger network
of thought and all are still useful.
You just did it again. Saying someone stabs someone else for fun is interpreting their behavior as willfully immoral. We assume the person deliberately caused harm because they enjoyed being cruel. We assume they lacked caring and empathy. But to label them as immoral we have to stop the analysis there, and not inquire how someone could come to feel that way about others. We have various psychiatric labels which help, such as sociopathy and psychosis. But most of us tend to believe in a notion of willful evil.
Sure. But the economic ideology organizing the global economy is presently neo-liberal, not Marxist. That's the palpable relavence I referred to.
Is there left and right philosophy? Absolutism vs. Relativism? One objective reality vs. many?
Sustainable economy vs. economical growth?
The scientific method vs. Against method?
What is positive side of killing someone for fun? Nothing to do with moral or immoral. Why would any society want people to do it?
I thought we were talking about moral relativism. Quoting Jackson
Okay, I should not comment anymore.
Yes. Being a moderate or independent typically means youre anti-extremist and anti-collectivist.
Are you a moderate?
Defining "the left" and "the far left" is like using a cheap microscope. The image jerks in and out of focus at the slightest touch; artifacts of light and cheap lenses distort the image, whether it is in focus or not. It's very frustrating and unsatisfactory,
More, the left and far left are not just one species. The 'left' of identity politics has nothing to do with the "left" descending from 19th century philosophers and revolutionaries.
For me, the "Liberal Left" means strong labor organizations, active governmental regulation, active government involvement in bringing about a more equitable society, and a strong program of civil rights. The "Far Left" or hard left means a program to eliminate capitalism, and institute a socialist economy, and which does not implicitly or explicitly require an authoritarian solution.
There are all sorts of social movements which are neither "far left", "left", "right" or "far right". Sexual liberation movements, whether it is about women, gays, or gender, are not "left" or "right" -- they are simply activism towards the affinity group's goals. There was nothing essential in gay liberation that involved economic reorganization.
It makes no difference, though, how you or I define "left" or "far left" because people will continue to deploy these (and a lot of other terms) in a helter skelter manner.
Little remains of the "left" or "far left" of my youth (60 years ago). The last generation of people for whom "left" and "leftist" had a fairly clear meaning are dead or will be gone in another decade. This passing isn't anything tragic or new; it's normal.
Conservatives use the "far left" as a rhetorical device to devalue liberals. A meaningless term.
That was a helpful post. Thanks.
Do you know what has taken the place of the left-right conflict? Is there a conflict that's well formed enough to be named?
In the US it is the GOP fascist party versus democracy.
When clear, structured conflict faded, it was replaced by less well organized, more dispersed conflict. In the 1960s, there were hippies, women's libbers, gays, blacks, peaceniks, etc. all trying to achieve life-style changes, as opposed to major structural changes. In saying that I am not denigrating any of the various 'movements'.
The movements of the 1960s have played themselves out, to a large extent, or have run into very resistant barriers.
The movements of the current decades are even less well structured than those of the 1960s and 1970s and are even more personal and limited. They are further out on a limb, so to speak. The trans movement sometimes runs into conflict with right-wing movements, such as in Florida. The "right to life" movement has, after 50 years, almost achieved its goal of ending Roe vs. wade. On the one hand we have gender activists redefining sexuality and family, and conservatives defending their idea of family.
A lot of "what is going on" seems very "edgy" which is to say, not highly understandable, probably not widely supported. Four year olds switching genders and reactionaries who want to see women back in the kitchen in heels like 1950s advertisements, are both "far out". Left and Right just seem irrelevant terms for such of this (crap).
:up: Bizarre times indeed.
It's 1 May... Not the first of April.
It just sounds like you're saying the American culture has arrived in an ideological ditch.
Are we just in limbo in between wars and economic disasters? I think sometimes about how the 20th Century started with a pandemic, a world war, and an economic disaster, and in the US there was also an environmental disaster that affected the Great Plains and the Tennessee Valley. Could this century be repeating that? That’s probably too simplistic.
In some ways "life is limbo". It's kind of fluxy. We might get to experience prolonged periods of placid pleasantness, but... rest assured: it will be disrupted eventually,
Epidemics were far more common prior to 1950 (thanks to antibiotics), Tuberculosis was the leading cause of death into the 20th century, Economies have periodic recessions, or depressions; what it gets called depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Depressions and recessions are recurrent events in US history. For instance:
The Panic of 1873 lasted 5 - 1/2 years, and was world wide. The economy shrank by 34%. Ten years later there was a recession where the economy shrank by 24% and lasted 3 years. There were two more recessions in the next few years. In 1893 there was another depression, quite severe, that lasted for 4 years, After that there were recessions every few years, or a depression.
Upheavals, actually, are more the rule than the exception. There are natural disasters, wars, epidemics, economic collapses, revolutionary technological changes, political revolutions, and so on. If it isn't one thing it's something else,
Upheaval isn't all bad; disasters can have a very stimulating effect. The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake resulted in a lot of reconstruction -- good for business, good for jobs good for the GDP. The multi-city riots of 2021 were likewise stimulating--as the saying goes, "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good".
Should one, therefore, not worry? Remain Calm? Keep on the sunny side of the street?
That approach doesn't work for me, that's for sure. But we can at least expect bad things to happen -- plan on them, prepare ahead.
One has to have little historical understanding to put things into context, as you have.
Independents and moderate Dems, like Bill Maher and Elon Musk, use the term, "far left" to show that "liberal progressives" arent liberal or progressive, but are wacko-wokesters that are actually status-quo authoritarians. When you have an incessant need to control other people and continue to vote for people that have been in power for decades, they are anything but liberal or progressive. Both sides mis-use the terms, "liberal" and "progressive". Both extremes are authoritarian in that they want to tell you how to live your life. One or two-party systems are the status-quo and abolishing political parties would be considered progress.
I'm actually not sure how to plan ahead for a catastrophe. I'll have to think about it.
Name it.
I was thinking more of mental preparation. Really big catastrophes leave little opportunity for meaningful preparation. Like, the dinosaurs should have expected a meteorite to wipe them out? Ukrainians should have known the Russians would wreck everything in 2022?
On the other hand, lots of people regularly put themselves in harm's way. They buy a house located in a flood plain. They build a house in the fire-prone Northern California forests. They site a nuclear power plant on a known earthquake fault.
Insofar the catastrophe is involved, there are tours organized now inside atomic shelters that are now out of use. The TV said the tours were sold out months ahead...
Even the culture you live in currently finds it acceptable to drop bombs scientists have invented. But that's inside the domain of war. Which is stabbing and murdering between abstract entities like countries.
Paraphrasing the ur-leftist himself, "the conditions of production determine the conditions of society".
The upheavals in changing production, say from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the present, have driven upheavals in the culture. The 19th - 21st centuries contain the story of almost continual change in culture, technology, working conditions, trade, and, well, everything.
There are historical reasons why you can say, "There is no left left." One reason (at least in the United States) is that socialist organizations, socialist publications, and socialist organizing have all been subject to corporate and government suppression since the end of WWI - 1918. The "Red Scare" of 1919 involved brutal action against leftist activists. Anyone identified as an effective "change agent" might get a beating, a lynching or a bullet for their trouble. For a good time, investigate what the FBI
"COINTELPRO" operation (1956-1971) was all about,
Unionization peaked in 1954 at 35% of workers. Workers didn't abandon unions -- the unions were murdered (so to speak). Beginning in the 1950s on up to the present, organizing unions and holding on to unionized work places has become very difficult owing to laws which favor anti-union activity by companies. It pays for a large company to spend 20 or 30 million dollars to a union busting consulting group, rather than accept unionization.
Quoting Hillary
I do not see the world as a gray ball of monotony.
For example, people have been saying for decades that media were homogenizing the culture, particularly the way Americans talk; we will all sound like television programs. In fact, the distinctiveness of regional accents had intensified, as opposed to becoming homogenized. No thanks to the media for this. Language changes, media or not.
Culture also changes continually, media or not. There are enduring and distinctive differences in the several major American cultural regions, even as changes occur.
You will see some dramatic cultural changes in less-developed countries once cell phones and the internet become available. East Africans, for example, developed banking by text messages as soon as they got cell service--way before I started banking by phone.
People are "all alike" more than they we are "all different". Greater contact between people will mean more borrowing in both directions. The result is a more complex pattern rather than a movement towards gray-scale.
Look, Hillary, there are enough things to lament without inventing more of them.
So be flexible. Plan for life to continue as it has, but also recognize that we might be in a world war next week.
I can do that.
Well, that might all be true. But when I hear my Italian grandfather talking about the old communist glory days, my heart gets filled with longing. Before 1970s , it was the far-left; and after, the left-wing, so already there a reduction in power can be noticed. The once iron red fist has become a rosa broken wing.
"The Communist Party (Partito Comunista, PC) is an Italian political party of Marxist–Leninist inspiration, founded in 2009. It defines itself as "the revolutionary political vanguard organization of the working class in Italy."
A staggering 0.88% voted on it. Compare with the 33.4 percent in 1947...
Such argot tells me that the Partito Comunista is talking to itself. No wonder they didn't break 1%.
One has to operate organized in the vanguard to combat the rigid corporate elect and crush it's wicked new slavery schemes with the remorseless and righteous left fist and blow a far left uppercut in the name of global freedom and justice. It's the argot, necessary to break the chains. The red star is on the rise my fiend.
Maybe where you live, the rhetoric of "One has to operate organized in the vanguard to combat the rigid corporate elect and crush it's wicked new slavery schemes with the remorseless and righteous left fist and blow a far left uppercut in the name of global freedom and justice. It's the argot necessary to break the chains. gets the blood of the working class boiling but, the world I live in departed that time and place decades ago.
The rhetoric doesn't work (here and now) because the working class has changed. First, most workers don't think of themselves as working class. They think they are middle class. "Workers" are the unskilled louts who clean the offices in which they labor. They and their boss both think that the boss creates wealth by his brilliance (or profound crookedness) or maybe by magic. That they themselves, the workers--even office workers--create all wealth is an idea that has not occurred to them,
Once upon a time workers understood that they were exploited. With the help of PR, lies, propaganda, advertising, oft repeated cliches, and cheap bread and circuses they have lost consciousness. Their awareness has regressed into "preconsciousness". Education has to start with the basics of today's experiences, not those of 1844, 1890, 1968, or 2001.
I don't know; when I look at Global Warming I wonder whether we have time to accomplish anything.
"The red star is on the rise my fiend." Did you mean "fiend" or "friend"?
I prefer Billy Bragg's version of the Internationale:
I see my own struggles promoting antinatalism in this.. They will say that it is you who have it wrong... No amount of showing wealth inequalities is going to make people then say, "Oh I guess I better start the revolution".
I mean, I think the conditions of life itself puts us in chains from the get-go. Yet we don't revolt against this either. Don't worry, both fighting the good fight, but no one will listen.
"Blessed are the shat upon." Simon and Garfunkel
:lol: Haha. The picture you paint is right on the money, but I won't ignore it. All on point. Ignored locust eating wilderness howlers. And correct, dismissed out of hand, even if the howled message is right on the money. Dismiss, dismiss, dismiss.
Definitionally I'd say that the far left is whoever is politically active towards the swift replacement of capitalism with socialism, where socialism is the social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, which might lead to some sort of classless society, e.g., communism. Note: not (necessarily) government or state, but certainly social, ownership and control.
The project has been a horrendous failure so far and it has no current prime representative. But capitalism has been in many ways a horrendous failure too, so the spectre of socialism will continue to haunt the world.
:up:
Ah! Sorry bout that! It's a small r between love and hate...
Billy Bragg! Alright! Thanks my fRiend! You feel he means it!! Two for you in return:
So it exists as a ghost who is invoked because of the problems with liberalism. :up:
One of the reasons it has failed is because socialism was never able to mature into a classless society because the ones that led the revolutions against monarchies and capitalism were privileged oligarchs themselves and did not recognize human rights.
Both sides are authoritarian in that power over many is consolidated into a few, whether it be elitist politicians and their families, CEOs, or the cleregy.
For liberalism to work power needs to be dispersed not just over space but over time in that every person in power cannot be in power until they die (term limits).
Even if this comment made sense it would be foolish. Don't waste our time please. Up your game.