What Is The Far Left?

[Zhade]

I've asked this question of some who throw it at those they disagree with here at DU, without defining what they think of as 'far left'.

I've also heard it from rightwingers.

My question is, what does the term 'far left' mean to most DUers? Does it refer to (as I think) groups such as Maoists? Or are progressives 'far left', and such groups as Maoists are ultra-far left?

Bonus Question: where and when did 'far left' come into political usage?

EDIT: I posted this thread not to be divisive but because I believe the term 'far left' is a rightwing pejorative used to divide progressives and pit them against each other. An agreed-upon definition would help alleviate this.

[mahina]

1. Clarifying 'other' = revolutionaries

But I could get from here to there if they try it again.

[AlienGirl]

2. I am the "far left"

[porkrind]

122. Me too !

Hardcore lefty here. :evilgrin:

[shockingelk]

3. It depends on the context

If it's referring to someone in America, it may mean someone who wants socialized medicine and to abolish the death penalty. In Spain, that same person could be a right-leaning centrist.

[arcos]

11. exactly n/t

[andino]

4. Far Left

Personally, I don't think that someone can be 'far left'. I am sure that most people would say that I am 'far left' on some issues but the same people would say that I am 'far right' on other issues. I also believe that its just a label that was placed on us much the same way the liberal label was placed on us. It really doesn't mean jack. It's just a name for people to fear and hate without understanding that we are all combinations of liberal and conservative ideas.

[sandnsea]

5. Other

Not Maoists. Socialists or Communists are what they are, they could be included in the far left though, I guess. When I say far left I'm actually usually mad because America just isn't ready for some ideas. Look how hard of a time JK is having with the modest health care plan he's proposed. If he really did propose single payer, he'd be laughed out of the election. It's not really a "far left" idea, but I get mad when some people don't understand how "far left" it seems to alot of Americans. Of course, I believe Bush is using some sort of ear piece, so some would call me the looney fringe left on that one too. So it all depends I guess.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

6. Most political scientists would consider the term "far left" to describe

State-planned economies and a Marxist distribution of wealth.

Although its more often used by the right-wing to describe anyone left-of-center they disagree with.

[enki23]

7. anyone who doesn't enthusiastically jump in the meat grinder

.

[enki23]

8. anyone who doesn't enthusiastically jump in the meat grinder

.

[sweetheart]

9. I think in practice...

It means anyone who rejects private capitalism as an economic system.
..
Like that the Kapital should be owned by the state. I think as a
society gets older, it naturally shifts towards this, as there is
less and less a sense, in each generation, that the citizens "built"
the place, and rather that they live in a house built generations
ago, work in a company formed generations ago, and has no sense of
owning it, even if they do... as it seems merely an accident of birth
to be born in the owner's bed, and not in the tenants bed.

So how best to vest the interests of the stakeholders in the
institutions of society? Collective ownership is a failure due
to the low state of humankind, but it has and does still work on
some south pacific island cultures and such. They are called far
left, for opposing having big hotels come in to town, and employ
them all, and privatize their communities that they suddenly become
ranked poor whilst wealthy denizens stay in the hotel tossing
tips to the natives, who are then priced out of their previous
state of communal existance by the social darwinism of fighting
for beachfront property and scratching for a buck.

[Selatius]

10. Reply

According to the political compass, I'm a libertarian socialist in the neighborhood of the likes of Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. I took the quiz on the site.

I generally use their coordinate system to get my political bearings. I lean to the left on economic issues but not so far that I'm a pure collectivist, and I lean towards libertarian on social issues but am not a pure libertarian here.

[serryjw]

105. You and I must think very similar.

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74

[bowens43]

12. Anyone who disagrees with bush about anything

[Mike Niendorff]

13. Other (and I know this because Rush told me so) :

Clearly, the "far left" is composed of each and every person in America who isn't a Republican. Which is to say, the majority.

Every person who hates what Bush has done to the economy : far left.

Every person who thinks it's wrong to lie a nation into a middle east war : far left.

Every person who thinks that insane budget deficits are bad for our future : far left.

Every person who asks questions : far left.

Every person who values the Bill of Rights : far left.

Every person who doesn't think George W. Bush speaks for God : far left.

Every person who is scared shitless by what Bush and his gang are doing to this once-great country : far left.

Evil, devils, communists and traitors all.

Rush told me so.

Therefore it must be true.

Because only the far left asks questions anymore.


MDN

[Zhade]

22. What are we to conclude, then, when DUers use the term?

That they (unknowingly?) agree with people like Limbaugh?

That's an unpleasant thought!

[George_S]

14. Far left = merely liberal?

But what does liberal mean? If we define it as the freepers would, we could say it is the opposite of what they fight for.

Except it is not the opposite like they think it is.

Gun control

Most liberals don't want to take away all their guns but only want some common sense.

Antiwar

Freepers think all liberals are anti-war, but after 9/11 the vast majority were in favor of going into Afghanistan to get bin-Laden. So liberals aren't anti-war, really, we are anti-wrong war. It's been that way since Vietnam. Bush had so much support after 9/11 (that he squandered) that we could say the majority of the population is pro war, provided it is the right war.

God

The freepers think they are at war with a secular society. Of course, many liberals are Christians or worship God in their way. This is far left though because it may not rely on organized religion. In short, their preachers want to be paid well.

Education

Because freepers think there has been a trend of revisionist history in schools (multi-culturalism), and a decline in the social aspect and quality of education, they promote vouchers and home schooling. They think the decline is because God is no longer in the schools. Thing is, education was never Christian.

Feminism

Freepers think feminists rely too much on victim-hood, hate men, and most important promote abortion. This is the big one.

Government/Economy

Freepers think government should be small and not interfere with everyday life, that we should be self reliant and not depend on the government for anything (welfare, health care and so on), and that taxes shouldn't go to the well being of other citizens. They call this communism. Thing is, there are very few supported by the government who aren't really in need. For example, most who go on welfare don't stay on it long.

Art and Hollywood

Freepers think art and movies are too liberal and don't promote "family values," whatever that is. Thing is, almost all art does in one way or antother. For some reason, violence is fine but sex is taboo. Maybe that's why they love any war instead of the good war.

So, none of these are really far left, but they are called far left.

[Zhade]

23. Excellent post! Thanks for that.

NT!

[sendero]

15. Anyone who still supports Nader...

... is "far left". Not to mention a few other things I won't mention.

[Zhade]

25. Are they really "far left", though? Or just quixotic?

Much as I despise some of those who fund Nader, and wish he were not running, a lot of what he says is true, painful as it is to hear.

Note that I said "some", not "all".

Are his followers really "far left" in their beliefs? Does he have voting blocs of Maoists, anarchists and hardcore communists backing him?

Isn't calling a (certainly misguided in this election cycle) Nader voter a member of the "far left" just what the rightwing does to those liberals that disagree with them?

[kiahzero]

90. Some are just nuts.

I think that someone who argues that someone who fought in war (and therefore almost certainly killed one person, if not more) is therefore a war criminal and unworthy of holding office, could be fairly called a member of the "far left."

[troubadour]

16. Micheal Moore

anyone who fabricates things and lies isn't someone i want representing me. the ends do not justify the means.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Michael (please note spelling) Moore does not represent you.

He does represent much of what I believe.

Please point out what he's fabricated. List some lies.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbie67]

24. that's highly ironic

considering all the lying and fabricating coming from the right

More to the point, Moore isn't lying, doesn't lie, and can back up the facts he presents in his movies. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is much more rooted in facts than "Stolen Honor" could ever hope to be.

[Zhade]

27. Doesn't that tired tactic get old to you fools?

[Rhoderick]

30. I agree...

...with the context. The question is whether or not Michael Moore fabricates or lies. I'd say he exaggerates with good intentions. That, too, could be dangerous. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore's, but I'm glad he's on our side.

Some of you people are starting to sound like Freepers: getting all paranoid when you hear a dissenting opinion. Chill. We're the good guys, remember?

[Bridget Burke]

33. Why is Michael Moore dangerous?

Details can be very interesting.

[Rhoderick]

35. Not so much...

...that HE is dangerous, but some of his methods may be. There's no shame in admitting that Michael Moore appeals to emotion. It's the same tactic that conservatives use: they disregard science, logic, and rational thought, and they replace it with junk science, junk logic, and lack of thought.

Michael Moore is a brilliant man. He knows exactly how to tug on the heart-strings, and that's why I admire his ability. But we should never forget that our principles and our values must come first, and one of my values is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (unless it's during a campaign... exceptions can be made). I haven't seen F9/11 yet, but I've seen "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," and although I thought they were brilliant movies, there were a few spots where I said to myself, "That's almost true, but what about this? Or that?"

I'd love to give you specifics but I'm not motivated enough to go over the transcript.

[Robbie67]

37. So you're not willing to back up what you say

What happened to "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

If Michael Moore exaggerates anything, it is only directly proportional to how slanted the mainstream media view is of a given subject.

[Rhoderick]

42. It isn't that I'm not willing to

I'm just too lazy to.

Some exaggeration is necessary, I agree. It can be used as a powerful tool of persuasion, but I think it's also crucial that the author recognizes his own exaggeration. Think of it this way: Bush lies and exaggerates, and he believes his lies and exaggerations. That's why he's borderline insane.

Michael Moore exaggerates (and according to some, lies) but he recognizes his exaggerations, and that's what makes him brilliant.

But, in the end, it IS the same tactic; it just differs in matter of degree and severity.

[Robbie67]

47. I appreciate your response

I understand that some see Michael Moore as the "left's version of Rush Limbaugh" What I challenge is the notion that he's unduly exaggerating anything.

You haven't seen F9/11 so let's talk about Bowling For Columbine. I heard over and over and over again that BFC was an anti-gun, anti-America hit piece. When I saw it, I couldn't believe anyone had said that. So, maybe exaggeration is in the eye of the beholder?

That's why I'm more interested in a refutation of the facts that he presents, rather than the opinion he interjects around those facts. Everybody's entitled to an opinion...even Flush Blimpturd...but an examination of the facts in support of the opinion of people like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al shows that their opinion is not based in any fact, but in ideological positions. When Moore presents facts and then makes an opinion based on those facts, then he has as much credibility as people like Bill Safire, Howard Fineman, or any editorial page has.

[DBoon]

114. BFC was pro-gun

A major point was that Canada has a higher rate of gun ownership than the US, yet a lower crime rate. Moore was obviously not blaming guns for the deep-seated issue of crime in the US.

[Cat Atomic]

61. If you're too lazy to back up a claim, don't make the claim.

[Zhade]

39. "I'm not motivated enough to go over the transcript."

You do realize this makes you look suspicious, right?

I'm not going to say you're a disruptor, but I will admit that I'll be looking at your posts with a skeptical eye.

[Rhoderick]

44. Are you serious?

I think we're having a relatively civil and interesting discussion. I've been lurking at the DU for quite some time now, and I've even used it as a cue for posts in my blog. I wouldn't think that a differing opinion is immediately cause for concern? Especially if that differing opinion is presented in a civil manner?

It's not like I'm frothing at the mouth and posting in ALL CAPS.

[Zhade]

45. Yes, I'm serious.

You're correct, this is a civil conversation - and I do appreciate that.

I am merely pointing out the inescapable fact that, right or wrong, you will be looked at as suspicious when you say Moore exaggerates but are unwilling to back up your claims. (Being too lazy to do so is a form of unwillingness.)

If I was assured you were a disruptor, this conversation would already be over. However, I can't lie and say that a new poster, coming on just after another obvious disruptor is banned for similar (but much stronger comments), saying what you are saying won't look suspicious. It can't be helped. We've had to deal with double-teaming before. Heck, you could be a new version of the banned disruptor.

I am not saying you are. Just that some will think you are if you don't back up your statements.

[Rhoderick]

49. It's understandable

I know how many trolls DU has had to deal with.

[Sterling]

85. I think.

You are being evasive and therefore are a disrupter. Just my opinion. We will see if any of the mods end up sharing it over time.

I am tired defending Moore to people who base there opinion of his work on RW talking points. See the movie or STFU. I have a feeling it will blow your mind. I am imagining a clock work orange type viewing as you seem so resistant to seeing something everyone else has seen for months and have discussed in great detail.

[Rhoderick]

94. I tried to see it

On the second weekend after it was released in theaters. The movie projecter kept cutting out (you can imagine how angry most of the moviegoers were). We were about 20 minutes into the movie when it cut out for the third time and finally, they announced they were going to give us a refund. I got 5 free movies out of it so I couldn't complain. I just never found the motivation to go back. What I saw of it looked good, though.

I think you're missing my point, anyway; but I don't think explaining it further would help, so I'll just take your advice and STFU.

[Sterling]

83. These are not tactics Moore uses:

"they disregard science, logic, and rational thought, and they replace it with junk science, junk logic, and lack of thought."

Move along please.

[Rhoderick]

97. That isn't what I meant

I was talking about the appeal to emotions. I just got carried away with my description of the conservative approach. What I meant to say was that Michael Moore appeals to our emotions and our emotions aren't always in line with our logic. We have to separate the two. That doesn't mean that I think Michael Moore is a liar. I don't think that at all. I think he's creative persuader who has the facts on his side.

Damn, I didn't know you guys would be so sensitive to this subject or I wouldn't have responded.

[IrateCitizen]

121. People can't "separate" the two -- they respond to the most basic appeal

That's something that the Republicans figured out some time ago, and something that people on the left have been hopelessly trying to fight off.

When Dick Cheney goes on the campaign trail and talks endlessly of "terror, terror, terror", when he makes outrageous claims like "The US will be attacked again if John Kerry is elected President", we like to howl in outrage. What we fail to realize is that Cheney's approach, while completely disingenuous, is effective. Why? Because he's playing to the most basic emotive level for people -- survival.

Michael Moore's talent is that he realizes the effectiveness of this approach, and is able to capture it in a way that helps advance a left-of-center POV. The most powerful parts of F-9/11 weren't necessarily the ones in the first half about Bush's ties to the Saudis and such. Rather, they were the parts in the latter half of the movie -- the scenes with Lila Lipscomb, the footage from the 3rd ID in Iraq -- that really affected people. They were effective not because they hit people in the head, but because they dealt a body blow to the gut.

It's time we start realizing the effectiveness of such an approach and start EMBRACING those who are able to advance it, rather than denouncing them for "confusing logic and emotion".

[Robbie67]

34. The original poster said that Moore lies outright

You say that Moore "exaggerates"

Can you give us an example?

[Rhoderick]

38. Nothing you haven't heard before

I'm sure you've been over this a million times, and any specifics I'd give you would be debatable, so it eventually comes down a matter of faith. If you take Michael Moore for his word, that's fine. I just choose not to.

I'd love to give you some examples but that would require me doing one of two things:

1) Visiting a conservative hate-site to find their accusation and pick through them for the ones that are valid, or...

2) Digging up transcripts and finding those parts I found as curious and pointing them out to you.

I have too much pride to do #1, and I'm too lazy to do #2.

[Zhade]

40. Um, conservative hate sites are unlikely to have valid accusations.

You're right, we HAVE been through this. Many times.

No one who has ever said things like you're saying has proven their point.

I'm not saying MM is perfect or anything - he's human, duh - but your initial posts on DU don't make for a credible entrance.

[Rhoderick]

43. Well if you don't trust me

Read my blog. I've got nothing to hide.

http://www.turnspit.com/

You'll find no Bush-loving there, I guarantee you.

[Zhade]

46. As I said, I'm skeptical. It's healthy to be a little skeptical nowadays.

I'll check out the blog.

In the meantime, I would suggest either offering some evidence to back up your claim that Moore exaggerates, or back off the claim for now until you build some DU cred.

I'm open to a well-reasoned, honest argument, but you gotta give us something here.

[Zhade]

48. Well, I looked at the blog...

...you definitely are well-read. So kudos on that (having Juan Cole as a news source increases my opinion of you).

Again, I was not calling you a disruptor. Hopefully you understand that we have been hit countless times with trolls, and have had a few slip under the radar (I can think of three or four who are still here).

As far as MM goes, I have my own issues with some of his work. Empire Notes (which I cannot recommend highly enough) pointed out the Saudi-bashing prevalent these days and how MM played on that. Not my favorite part of the film. However, I think one would be hard-pressed to say he lies or exaggerates the facts. His conclusions are one thing, the facts stand on their own merits.

That said, welcome to DU. Got any thoughts on the question that started this thread?

[Rhoderick]

50. Thanks

Juan Cole is a hell of a lot smarter than I'll ever be.

As for the original thread, someone in here said that it was a tactic. I agree with that. "Far left" is a term coined by conservatives to strike fear into the heart of Americans. I don't think it actually has much of a definition, to be honest. Maybe on the political scale, it does have some relevance to socialism, but in America, I don't think it means anything of significance.

[camero]

51. Everybody misreads the Saudi part of the film

To me, that part just proves how there is a clique among world leaders that seeks to keep control of the resources among themselves for profit and how they use the poor and middle class as cannon fodder. He just left out the Dem PNACers in the film.

It would have been better for him to show how big this clique really is but I understand how he couldn't do that at this point for fear of mass revolution.

[Zhade]

53. Go read Empire Notes' take on it. Very interesting.

A most excellent blog.

[Rhoderick]

95. On the Saudi part of the film?

Do you have a link, by chance?

[Zhade]

102. Yeah, here's the direct link.

http://www.empirenotes.org/october04.html#14oct042

A lot of people here would NOT like Empire Notes, because the guy lays down some hard truths about American imperialism. I find it a remarkable read, though.

[Sterling]

87. Nothing on DU comes as a matter of faith.

Sorry thats for freepers. It's logic reason and facts that make it here. You are not making it here.

[Rhoderick]

96. That's my point

I don't take anything as a matter of faith. Not even what Michael Moore says.

In the future, after I see F9/11, I'll make my case to you; at which point you can debate me into the ground if you like. I'm not above admitting that I'm wrong. That's part of learning.

[Cat Atomic]

60. That's great- because he doesn't represent you.

[murdoch]

73. You have eight posts...

....and the ninth one is an attack on Michael Moore. You are a troll.

[H2O Man]

76. I think it was terrible

when Michael Moore lied about those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A lot of American kids have died for that lie. Or when Michael Moore put on that silly Power Rangers halloween costume and pranced around the ship in front of the "War Is Over!" poster that Yoko Ono put up. Darn them! I really get angry when I think how Michael Moore had a foreign intel group that had a front in Washington DC forge those Niger yellow cake uranium documents. Bad Michael. Down boy. Or when Michael Moore called Robert Novac, and forced him to "out" Valerie Plame as a lesbian, (at Kerry's request) and Novak tried to cover by calling her a CIA operative to protect her, I thought it was yet another case of "you are what you eat." When Michael Moore disenfranchised the blacks in Florida, simply because he is a hateful man who doesn't think black folks deserve to vote, you can't tell me that if Jeb Bush did that, the liberals wouldn't squeel like Katherine Harris in mid-organism. Michael Moore hates Ammerica. Look what he did to the elderly Jews in Floridia? Drew a Star of David next to Pat Buchanan on the butterfly vote pads. Michael Moore thinks it is okay to buy his "weed" from Canada, but keeps elderly welfare collectors from buying their description rugs from Canada -- is THAT free trade? I could go on and on.

[Zhade]

78. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

My friend, this made me smile. Nicely done!

[Swamp Rat]

86. please do...

Stoned slackers loved to be entertained! :D

[Hutzpa]

107. It's all Michael's fault...

he is responsible for 50% dumb-asses who still think this administration have done a good job, he is definitely responsible for Bush being a moronic asswipe.


:grr:

[DBoon]

113. Michael Moore does not lie and he is not a "far leftist" either

He does make strong points through creative editing and by various publicity stunts. If you watch him with half a critical mind, it is very easy to tell when he is relating a fact versus using hyperbole to make a point. In common with the rest of the entertainment industry, he skillfully uses his media to make a point. If you compare his factual statements with those in any network news broadcast, he comes out very well.

Michael Moore's politics aren't really that far left either. To the extent he has presented a political agenda, it is right in the middle of the old American left/populist tradition. Robert LaFollette and Eugene Debs would feel right at home with Michael Moore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Those of us to the left of "liberal".

Socialists, Communists, Anarchists. Or, those who want radical change in this country and the world in favor of the people rather than the capitalists.

[FarLeftRage]

20. That would be me!

I favor the general good of all the people, rather than just selected groups...

[okayremedy7]

21. Me also n/t

[jonnyblitz]

52. and me. liberal isn't left enough, it's too establishment. n/t

[porphyrian]

26. The hobgoblin of simple conservative minds? - n/t

[Zhade]

29. ...and some DLCer minds, as well?

It does seem to be thrown at non-moderates a lot here. Whenever I ask one of those self-proclaimed centrists to define 'far left', they never do.

Not once.

That leads me to conclude, without an alternative answer, that it is being used by them as a pejorative term to divide DUers and distract from the issue at hand (usually involving something pro-corporate, like NAFTA or outsourcing or the war or...).

So, I thought it reasonable to ask DUers as a whole what the term 'far left' means to them, so I can see if I am drawing unfair conclusions about those few posters who use it frequently. I'd like to not repeat the mistake that they so often make about people like myself (who is about as far left as he is the Pope).

[Hutzpa]

109. Just like this troll wanting praise for LIEberman..

spit on his grave that number one sell out.



:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2509086&mesg_id=2509086

[apnu]

28. Other: in the *Bush world "far left" is...

...anybody left of Paul Wolfowitz.

[Zhade]

31. Man, that's a terrifying thought.

Election can't come soon enough!

[Swamp Rat]

32. "What Is The Far Left?" - a political tool.

It's a construct used by a power elite to divide Americans, so that we can be controlled.

[Zhade]

41. That's my thinking, too.

But then, why do some on DU use it? Do they realize what they're doing? Or have they fallen for the ruse?

Love your alien lizard pics, btw - they always make me grin!

[Swamp Rat]

81. Thank you

I wish I could remember a good Chomsky quote right about now... ;)

[camero]

36. To centrists and conservatives: Just about everyone.....

who suggests that American society could use a little economic leveling and see wealth for what it is. A huge waste of resources.

[Zhade]

54. Well, an interesting sidetrack into a Moore discussion...

...but I'd really hoped those who actually use the term would show up and defend their use of it by at least defining it.

I have no interest in getting into a flame war with those posters - I'd just like an answer to the question, so I can understand where they're coming from. If I am indeed unfairly characterizing them, I'd like to know that, so I can stop assuming they're using it to silence people they disagree with.

That's not unreasonable, is it?

[Selwynn]

55. Far-left is a meaningless sloganistic term

For Republicans it means anyone who isn't a republcian.

For Democrats, it means what ever the sayer wants it to mean, short of being a Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman.

[mdguss]

56. Ralph Nader and his supporters:

Far left.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Well, I agree with most of what Nader stands for, but I don't support him.

But, I consider myself to the left of Nader.

[Zhade]

58. See post #25.

And can you explain why you see him and they as 'far left', or is this another example of a DLCer throwing a pejorative and hoping it sticks?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. I much prefer Nader to the DLC (Homeless moderate Repugs)

Didn't Lieberman, et al, also refer to the anti-war candidates as "far left" also.

[Zhade]

62. Yes. But then, the DLC are corporate whores.

It's a shame their fans don't realize this - which is why I put the five links to DLC research threads in my signature, in the hopes of educating a few.

[Robbie67]

65. Someone who believes in capitalism is far left?

Well! I must reorganize the playing field then! :crazy:

[Zhade]

68. Yeah, it's funny how that works...

DLCers here say that the DLC is "pro-business" (which it is, just to the detriment of citizens' and workers' rights).

However, isn't making sure people earn a living wage pro-business, since people will be able to afford to purchase goods and services?

Isn't making sure all Americans have health care pro-business, so your employees don't get sick and maybe lose their jobs, costing your business time and money to replace them?

Isn't making sure corporations aren't killing the environment pro-business, since without an environment there would be no businesses?

Isn't making sure that workers' rights are protected pro-business, because it keeps your employees happy and productive?

The DLC, IMHO, is pro-corporate-business, while liberals and progressives not receiving corporate funding and working for the above measures are pro-good-business.

Am I really that far off?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

101. Nader's ideas were part of the Democratic Party platform in the '70s

[TahitiNut]

63. A myth to scare neoconservatives.

It doesn't exist in this country. Not on any ballot. Not in any national party. It doesn't exist.

[Zhade]

67. So why do some DUers use it? Did they fall for the myth?

Maybe they have a definition in their mind - is it a fixed one?

See, I want to think that they're not intentionally using it to intimidate those they disagree with, but since they haven't offered up a definition (and I've sent PMs about this, with no response) I have concluded that it is, indeed, a method of attack.

Am I wrong?

[TahitiNut]

69. Siege mentality would account for some of it.

There are "moderates" (I would call them "Eisenhower Republicans" and "Goldwater Republicans") who seem to believe the fascist right (which IS in the White House) will stop attacking if the 1970's liberals would just go away. Thus, we get people who keep wanting to move closer to the attackers and get underneath their artillery trajectories.

There are no "Democrats" whose ideology isn't virtually identical to the prevailing mainstream political position of major Western nations like Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, etc.

When we get to the point of calling those countries "far left" then we're no better than fascists.

[Zhade]

70. Appeasers, in other words?

Vichy Dems, to be harsher?

It does seem a losing proposition - the extreme right will not go away if "our own" drive the "far left" from politics (it'll never happen anyway).

In fact, the "moderates" you describe are actually enabling the extreme right through their efforts to drive liberals and progressives away.

I understand the corporatist DLC - it's the corporate cash, stupid! - but never did get why their followers allowed them and the "New Democrat" DINOs to slander liberals and progressives (Kucinich and Rumsfeld sharing the same ideals was a disgusting display on the DLC's part).

Now I think I get it: they're afraid, and so they're trying to save their own skin by hoping we "far leftists" go away.

[TahitiNut]

74. That'd be how I'd describe it when not being diplomatic, yes.

We can, however, look at it from another perspective - one that I've not seen expressed on DU.

Lots of people are what I'd call "social democrats" (small 's' small 'd') whose interest and knowledge of substantive issues is rather light. They're not upset at what seems to them as somewhat abstract: equitable income distribution in an economic system, 'tolerance' vs. 'valuing' diversity, labor equity in property, protection of minority liberties in a majoritarian system, etc. They hang their beliefs more on 'go along to get along' and living cooperatively.

There's a "squishy" middle who don't really see a threat - except from those who "just can't get along" and keep making waves.

To be a 'democrat' one must, to a large extent, go along with the majority. It's rather axiomatic. Not so with a fascist. In electoral "winner take all" politics, this is a fundamental disadvantage.


(This all, of course, ignores the property-addicted "democrats" ... which I call DINOs or Quislings.)

[Zhade]

77. Dangerous thinking. Doesn't work with fascists.

The extreme right does not play well with others. These "squishies" may think it'd be best not to make waves (and I really have to say, selling out something like, say, a living wage just to get along is pretty cowardly and self-defeating) but it'll never, ever work with the extreme right.

[TahitiNut]

79. I agree. They regard 'democracy' as an impediment to getting their way.

To get their 'way' they will, however, do anything. The ends justifies the means. Lie. Cheat. Steal. Kill. Younameit.

Stage 1 - Defraud people and play on their basest motives: fear, greed, sloth, anger. This stage is only need to get over that noxious hurdle of 'democracy.' (It helps to corrupt the election systems themselves.)
Stage 2 - Abolish or destroy democratic processes.

Fascism isn't an ideology as much as it's unbounded greed and completely lacking in integrity.

"Gott Mit Uns" is a symbol of fascist hypocrisy.
So is "Compassionate Conservative."

[Kanary]

84. The DLC learned from the RW that fear works.

That's the main reason it's used.

~~channeling Michael Moore's voice~~ "Oooooohhhhhh, I'm a far leftie!"

Kanary, just tired of all labels, and wish people would just try to understand each other...... must be channeling Rodney King now....

[Zhade]

111. The DLC also learned to let corporate cash trump compassion.

I yearn for the long-lost days when Dems helped the poor and underprivileged.

This "fuck you, I got mine" attitude from even some Dems saddens me greatly. When you lose compassion, you lose decency.

[Kanary]

115. Yes, it's lost. It's lost on both sides.

"This "fuck you, I got mine" attitude from even some Dems saddens me greatly. When you lose
compassion, you lose decency."

YEs, it's called sociopathology, and the RW doesn't have the market cornered.

There is plenty right here on DU.

Plenty.

:cry:

Kanary

[Zhade]

116. It sickens me. The DLC has done so much damage.

But they are a symptom of the larger cancer on the American body politic.

I weep with you, my friend.

[Kanary]

117. Just what I needed...... thanks so much.

"I weep with you, my friend."

thanks. that means so much. Wish there was an appropriate emoticon. How 'bout...

:hug:

Let me tell you one reason that means a lot....... Many many years ago, I was listening to a sermon by the Lutheran bishop of South Africa. One of the things he said that so touched me, was, "The only way to comfort a grieving person is to step into their grief, and weep with them."

In all these years, you are the first to "step in".

So, on the one hand, I'm grateful to you, and on the other hand, I'm angry that I live in such a sick country that it has been so many years before I hear it directed to me.

*THAT* is the mark of that cancer of which you speak. And, no, it's not just political. It's everywhere, including right here at Du. Nothing will change until we grok that simple fact.

The bishop didn't say to tell people to "get over it". "You're overreacting". "Quit feeling sorry for yourself, it's not that bad." "Look on the bright side". "Smile and be positive". "There are so many who have it worse."

He didn't say any of those things.

"The only way to comfort a grieving person is to step into their grief and weep with them."

:cry:

Thank you.

This is the closest I've felt to being human in all my time at DU.

:pals:

Kanary

[Zhade]

118. Don't thank me. I should thank you, for not giving up.

It's hard. I can see it in your words. You're extremely courageous not to give up, to ask for people to care, to ask that we work together as a community and not allow ourselves to be lured into the trap of fighting each other instead of the class war being waged on all of us.

I only wish more people heeded that call, and realized we're all in this together.

:hug: Don't give up. That's what they want. You're stronger than them.

[Mike Niendorff]

120. agreed, 100%.

It cracks me up to hear Republicans calling Kerry, or even Ted Kennedy, "far left". They're nowhere near it.


MDN

[digital_monkey]

64. Definately not anyone who supports "Democrats"

"Far Left" is a label that can be applied any individual or group that unequivocally supports the interests of all working people without prejudice, that excludes any authoritarian "Marxist" elements of the Left that seek to enslave their own people, as well as voters who enthusiastically support the corporate-controlled Democratic party that ridiculously masquerades as "People's Party" while catering to moneyed interests.

A perfect example of why the hypocritical Democratic party that has turned its back on the American people:

Kerry Receives 100 Times More in Contributions from GOP Donors than Nader
Center for Responsive Politics Finds: 50,000 Republican-Kerry Contributions vs. 700 Republican-Nader Contributions
$10.7 million for Kerry vs. $111,700 for Nader.

Who is really in bed with Republican fat cats: Ralph Nader or John Kerry? Who is the real independent candidate with the independent message?

Washington, DC: Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million dollars donated by Republican donors.

The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use—a line that can’t pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.

But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader/Camejo—$111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie—despite the facts.

The logical question—never asked by any journalist, so the Nader campaign had to—is how many Republican Fat Cats gave how much to Kerry and the Democrats was never asked of the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) by any journalist. So the Nader campaign asked the question the Kerry campaign never wanted asked: Is Kerry in bed with large contributors from the customary hedge their bets Republican campers- how many of them and for how much? If elected, will Kerry give them the access they want due to their donations?

Preliminary CRP results: 50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo campaign. That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader Presidential campaign! These are preliminary results because there are so many that it is too expensive for the Center to review the donations for final results. Maybe an independent media outlet would like to try, rather than continue to repeat the corporate media’s reporting of the malicious Democratic fabrication that the campaign is funded by organized Republicans. We’re waiting for the full story on how the Kerry campaign is funded by the Republicans who play both sides of the two party duopoly.

[Swamp Rat]

89. Don't vote for Bush digital_monkey! He's an alien lizard!

[kiahzero]

91. Were those Republicans trying to help Bush get reelected by helping Kerry?

That's the real problem with Nader's accepting of GOP money - it'd be one thing if the donors were people who really believed in Nader, but they aren't. They're funding Nader as a way to reelect Bush.

But God forbid that simple fact get in the way of your defense of an asshat.

:eyes:

[digital_monkey]

98. how hypocritical...

kiahzero, do you realize you are chiding Nader for accepting GOP money while supporting someone who has accepted MILLIONS in dollars by the same people who support the Republicans? It's a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Also, how do you know the Republicans who have contributed to Nader's campaign are doing it just to get George Bush reelected? Maybe some of them just believe in democracy and feel he has a right to run and be heard just like John Kerry. Did you read the article anyway? Most of the contributions came from people who know Nader and worked with him before. Hardly the sort of people you expect to have evil agendas.

As for Nader being an "asshat"...he is a far more principled, experienced and honest politician than the douchebag you're supporting so I would advise you to use the label where it sticks.

[kiahzero]

99. Um... right.

That's why Citizens for a Sound Economy supported Nader. Because they supported his politics.

:eyes:

I don't know why I bother debating with Nader-loving trolls.

[MisterP]

66. to the left of Francisco Franco?

someone who objects to being beaten and abused?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

72. Other: any opponent that cannot be painted as "far right". nt

[Zhade]

75. Nice answer!

It seems to fit...

I'm surprised how many seem to think that progressives qualify as "far left".

[bemildred]

92. It's worse than that.

They don't think at all or they would realize that the
left/right conservative/liberal dichotomies are bullshit.
About as meaningful as rooting for your highschool. One
example: the biggest spenders in recent history have all
been "conservative" and the most fiscally responsible
"liberals", yet most all people who consider themselves
conservtive claim to advocate fiscal responsibility, "run
government like a business" and bullshit like that. They
don't think at all, like a bunch of lemmings.

[ulysses]

80. a handy epithet. n/t

[morgan2]

82. other

according to main stream discourse, which albiet flawed in the numbers stand point, has the power to shape peoples opinion; it is anyone who thinks capitalism/american imperialism has some flaws.

[kiahzero]

88. Far left is accurately applied to people like Maoists.

Progressives would generally be "left."

Most Democrats are probably "left-of-center."

Moderates/independants are generally "center".

Moderate Republicans are generally "right-of-center."

Republican leadership is generally "right."

Freepers and facists are probably "far right."

At least, that's how I see it.

[Zhade]

103. See, that's what I thought, too.

But to hear some posters on DU, you'd think someone like Wellstone was "far left".

[RichardRay]

93. You're not Far Left if....

If you don't know what the vauguard is or don't think you're part of it, you're not Far Left. If you don't believe in the eventual whithering away of the state you're not Far Left. If you believe in private ownership you're not Far Left. If you believe that overcoming racism and sexism are legitimate of themselves and apart from class struggle you're not Far Left.

Nader isn't Far Left, heck his barely Left at all. He's out there pretty far in some direction, but it's not left.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Gaffey Duck]

100. I use the Gilles Duceppe Standard...

Duceppe is a reformed Maoist who leads the Bloc Quebecois, the 3rd largest party in our Parliament.

He's still very left-wing (moreson than most New Democrats even), and I consider anybody to the left of him to be the far-left.

[camero]

104. Did you ever notice that those who yack about the "far left"

never criticize the right? I've yet to see one post that goes like that.

[Zhade]

106. Yes, in fact I have noticed that.

They tend to post news that is bad about Dems, too - not slanted to the right, but that point out bad things about Dems.

But I'm not saying they're operatives...yet.

[camero]

108. Maybe not bad about Dems but

more along the lines of how the "far left", without a definition, are bad for the party.

[Zhade]

110. Let me clarify that...

I mostly mean that the stories they post are about bad things happening to Dems, and they don't seem all that concerned or upset.

Then, too, there are the times they post stories about Dems going along with some horrible rightwing policy, and again seem to have no issue with it.

It's almost as if they're rubbing DUers' faces in it...

[DBoon]

112. Bob Avakian is far left

http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/avakian.html

People who argue about what Trotsky said and what Stalin did are far left.

People who think their cliques are a revolutionary vanguard are far left.

Most of us on DU are not "far left". You are just reasonable people who believe in good things who have been marginalized by unreasonable, evil people.

[SarahB]

119. Unfortunately

Left in the US is pretty much centrist in the rest of the civilized world. :(

[rman]

123. these days, "far left" is what used to be traditional democratic

but since the Dem party has moved some significant distance over to the Right, what used to be the norm is now - at least in the public perception - a fringe movement.