a little debate please

[donsu]

the subject has come up here and there lately of the radical left or crazy left.

we all agree that the radical right is fascist/religiously insane but what the heck on the radical left can match that?

some on the right would say pro choice was radical or gay marriage was radical. It's not.

so just what is the radical left and is there such a thing as a radical left?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. Yes there is

I'm it.

[shoelace414]

6. the radical left

is a few people that meet and protest.

the radical right is a few people that meet and run the country.

[whistle]

2. How much crazier is the radical right? Look what they are doing

[TlalocW]

3. The only radical left I can think of

Is the small majority of environmentalists/animal rights people who attack others wearing fur coats by throwing paint on them. Nothing to equal the number and variety of nutjobs on the right though.

TlalocW

[Demit]

4. The radical left is a name for what used to be known as moderate Dems.

[JohnnyRingo]

9. I think you hit on the reality of it right there

When people think Rush and Sean Hannity are middle of the road mainstream common sense, it's obvious that the perspective has been shifted to the right.

A lot

[blondeatlast]

36. Indeed. All this time I thought I was pretty mainstream.

If you'd have told me before that I was a radicla, I would have fallen over laughing at you.

Not any longer...

[trotsky]

5. I have always thought that myself.

Take the looniest loon on the right: I think of a crazed anti-government gun nut living in Idaho who plans on blowing up federal buildings. Or of a radical anti-choice terrorist who kills abortion doctors.

When I think of the looniest loon on the left, I think of a harmless tree-hugging hippie.

Of course you do have the ELF, PETA, and other groups giving the radical left a bad name. But clearly their actions are nothing compared to what the far right is capable of - e.g., Tim McVeigh.

[franmarz]

7. Adding my 2cents to the debate if RT and LF--

If the radicle right is-as you say- Fascist-and the left is -WHAT- I say that the opposite to the radicle right must be a cave dweller, named Casper-Milk-Toast.I have never met a radicle either way-that I could not just ignore or walk away from. But I have met some Left people with very mild opinions, so I guess that would be the very
essence of a radicle left.-somewhat-maybe-perhaps...

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Sure there is

But first I want to say that radicals are frequently correct. A radical leftist might for example want the United States to pay reparations to all of the descendants of slaves. A sound case can be made for that, but it could be seen as a radical proposal. A radical leftist might want the United States to withdraw virtually all of our military forces that are stationed outside our borders back inside our borders. Again, a position with some merit but one that most would call "radical". A radical leftist might enthusiastically embrace what republicans call "class warfare" and propose a drastically more progressive tax system than the one that we have in place, with essential economic and health "rights" guaranteed for all Americans. A solid floor for a standard of living, not merely a "safety net". Etc. etc. etc.

The Republicans redefine moderately liberal positions as "radical" all the time.

[LizMoonstar]

10. I always kind of felt like

radicals on either side were indicated by being willing to harm or kill moderates unprovoked by anything other than their political/lifestyle views.
Yes, there are a lot more RW ones, by that view. But there are some radical PETA'ers and such who would fit.

[donsu]

12. PETA has murdered people??

nt

[LizMoonstar]

14. No. Hence why I indicated 'harm' as well.

I have been threatened by PETA members. Not all of them are like that, but there are a few.

[LizMoonstar]

16. Oh, by the way.

I took this question to mean 'is there anyone on the left that's "scary" like the radical right?'

No offense meant to those of you who consider yourselves radicals for the forces of good - top job.

[donsu]

23. yes, that's what I meant - what on the left would match fascists/reg.insa.

I say our radical left can't compare with the violence of the radical right

[poe]

11. What does the word "radical" mean?

essentially it means "to get to the root of.".. most of what passes for the left is devoid of any penetrating analysis of how to get to an entirely new way of politics preferring to live with the illusion that this life destroying system can be reformed. would you want to if you could? how much energy is spent on the branches of this diseased tree? get to the root.
another thing to consider is how castrated american political dialogue is. this means much which is actually rather sensible like "stop using so much of the world's resources", "don't use a cell phone it's killing children in the congo (google CELL PHONES, COLTAN, AND THE CONGO)", "stop taking vacations in Europe" seems to be waayyyyy out there.
the politics of everyday life.

[LizMoonstar]

19. Question:

why stop taking vacations in Europe? I get the first one, googled the second one, but this I can't figure.

[poe]

22. takes too much energy and jets...

are responsible for extraordinary amounts of pollutants that destroy the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. extraordinary. know your watershed. be well.

[Lone_Wolf]

13. The radical left is any group that strives to expand freedoms and equality

... while the radical right and are essentially extreme statists. Who promote inequality and want to limit our freedoms.

[rman]

15. some would argue Stalin was radical Left

but if you look at what Stalin did it had very little to do with Left or Communism. (it isn't for nothing that Trotsky vilified Stalin for being capitalist).
Similar but less clear is Hitler; a "National-Socialist" (hence "Nazi") who facilitated a merger of state and corporate power in Germany.
These people were left only if you judge them exclusivly by their self-ascribed political label (communist / socialist) - but we already knew that Despots lie.

[noiretextatique]

17. great subject., and my answer is a resounding NO

there is no equivalent of the the radical right on the left....none. there are no falwells, robertsons, limgaughs, bushs, etc, on the left with the kind of POWER and access of those on the radical right...none.
it always preplexes me when people say the extremists on both side are the problem, when the reality doeen't reflect that "problem" at all. the real problem is the radical right and its centrist/moderate enablers.

[AuntiBush]

21. Agreed!

Great point!

[Cell Whitman]

18. I think when the REAL "radical' left awakens

the country will know it.

Unfortunately, as you know, the definitions of words have been changed by the cult of conservatism over the last 25 years.

One thing we do know, the radical right is now the WHOLE REPUBLICAN PARTY leadership.

Personally, I think any repub who hasn't stood up and walked away from the RADICAL policies of the child king and Team Thief is a member of the "radical" right. I don't mean a slight word of criticism about a fascist policy here or there, I mean walk away from them. Disown them. Become independent till the right finishes off the country or changes.

That includes people like Olympia Snowe and McCain. You can't sit back and accept what is happening to our country without thinking it is "radical." imho. Did you see the picture of McCain on the plane with Bush during the campaign? McCain looked like an abused spouse coming back for another Bush beating. Bush trashed McCain's wife and McCain apparently liked it. He knows what Bush's leadership is doing to this great nation and he supports it or offers idle criticism, that IS radical.
___

I mean, fact is, this is who they worked with to take power in America, the new right is NOT the product of the "free market of ideas." Read a little of what happened to our great nation in the 80s when the freaks were being trained.

http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

[NotNInch]

42. Thanks for your blogsite . . .

I will check it out.

Great comments too!

[AuntiBush]

20. Depends on how one defines the word, "radical."

If one ascertains "radical" as meaning one that might:

tie self to a very old tree, standing before bulldozers hoping to gain some one's attention to it's destruction, then I know of several professors whom one would deem "radical." In contrast, they're very serene, peace loving folks.

stopping in downtown traffic to save a baby bird from being run-over, which took me all over 3 seconds to do while horns are blowing; hence I might be seen as "radical.

To mean, the word "radical" is used to define something someone is doing, that someone else does not agree with or understand.

My dog barks at things unknown to him. Does that make the Halloween trick-or-treater kids, or the new pizza delivery guy "radical?"

[noiretextatique]

25. in constructing the enemy

the right has done an excellent job of constructing boogeymen to justify its regressive and radical agenda. with affirmative action, for example, their goal was never to FIX it, but to eliminate it...except for the business as usual type of affirmative action, e.g., legacy admissions. likewise with abortion: they created HYSTERIA about abuse of the the current law, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the current law is actually being abused, hence the continuing hysteria.
gun control, social security, public schools, environmental issues...the formula continues to work for them.

[saltpoint]

24. It's an interesting question that may not have an exact answer.

The nutcases arguing from the radical fringe right -- the Judge Roy Moore nutcases, for example -- are ardent in wanting to establish a theocratic fascism.

Radical left groups don't seem nearly as power-hungry. Their fervor seems to spring from their wish that water and air be drinkable and breathable, or that women have autonomy over their own bodies, or that glbt people may love each other without discrimination or violence. Etc.

I would say the Far Right wants power to reflect a rigid morality and the radical left wants change to affect justice, whether economic, sexual, environmental, or legal.

[blondeatlast]

37. True; the quest for power is decidedly unequal. nt

[rman]

26. depends on how you define "radical"

If "radical" just means "very different than mainstream", then there certainly is a radical left (as much as there is a radical right).

What about corporate accountability to the point of corporations being servants of society (as opposed to the other way around)?

Or, media without corporate influence, as in publicly funded, publicly controlled and no commercials.

That's pretty radical, though i don't think there's anything wrong with it.

[welshTerrier2]

27. here's an example ... do you think this is crazy ???

i'm confident i get very little support, even on DU, when i call for 100% caps on wealth and income ... these caps would be applied to any amount of wealth that would allow any individual or corporation to wield excessive power in our government ... many here, even on the far left, still believe in some form of what they call meritocracy which apparently is considered one of the virtues of capitalism ... i get called all kinds of interesting names when i propose this idea ...

but let's dig a little deeper to explore the reason for the proposal and exactly how i present it before labeling my arguments, and me, the "crazy left" ... those predisposed to label before they listen often miss some of the critical details ...

here's how i make the case for my "radical left" position:

1. in no way is the country ready for this idea at this time ... we have, for too long, been inundated with pro-capitalist, pro-free market propaganda ... job one would require a very long process of education really laying the groundwork for this proposal ...

2. and what exactly is the groundwork? it consists of two basic themes ... interestingly enough, i find many agree with at least one of these themes ... and my approach to the second is predicated on the failure of the alternatives that must be tried as a "first remedy" ...

Theme 1: we are losing (or have lost) our democracy to "big money" ... mega-corporations and their major stockholders wield an inappropriate and disproportionate amount of influence, or even control, over our democratic institutions ... money should not be able to buy privileged access to the government ...

Theme 2: it is my belief that no control short of outright restriction will succeed in protecting our institutions ... HOWEVER, tempering measures like campaign finance reform, public financing of campaigns, restrictions on paid and corporate supported lobbying, increased disclosure requirements for lobbyists and other remedies MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE TO WORK BEFORE trying the more draconian measures I believe will ultimately be necessary ...

The bottom line is that we cannot allow a privileged, monied class to buy our democracy under any circumstances ... any remedy should seek to provide the greatest possible freedom and flexibility to every American ... but in the end, if we are unable to provide a government that acts in the best interests of ALL its citizens, there should be no limit to the remedies we seek ...

Is this "crazy left"? is there something fundamentally too ideological about setting the absolute protection of our democracy as our most fundamental objective? Not in my view ... but the labels go flying nevertheless ... just because a view is way outside the mainstream or not currently politically viable does not make it crazy ...

it's one thing to strongly disagree with the views I presented here; it's something else to fail to understand the goals being sought and to disrespect the efforts made to present achieving them in a logical manner ... the disrespect embodied in labeling such discourse as "crazy" does a great disservice to those who envision a better world and take the time to present their ideas ...

[donsu]

29. you are not violent like the far right and you are not crazy to put forth

an idea that might help and not harm america. things new start with a thought, idea and develope or not from there.

so to my thinking you are no match for facist/religiously insanism.

[welshTerrier2]

30. exactly ...

i find that any push for "socialism", any strong anti-war position even if it's rooted in the fundamental knowledge that the "military approach" has failed in Iraq and even calls to make the Democratic Party's platform open via referendum to every single Democrat is labeled as extremism by far too many ... exactly what does the "underground" party of our community's name really mean ???

i'll tell you what i really view as "crazy extremism": the statement someone on DU made to me a few days ago that there's no room for morality in politics ... they said it's all about winning and that staking out positions is wrong because it inevitably turns people off ...

frankly, i've more than had my fill of this "win at any cost" kind of thinking ... our beliefs need not be rigid, but we must stand for some greater purpose than merely winning elections ... and I believe, when we show the courage of our convictions, we will become the majority party once again ...

[Debs]

31. Great Post

I agree

[Cell Whitman]

32. nice post, brings Roosevelt's war austerity program to mind.

the disrespect embodied in labeling such discourse as "crazy" does a great disservice to those who envision a better world and take the time to present their ideas.

Excellent point.

Your post brought to mind Roosevelt's austerity program when people sacrificed for the good of the country during war. I know our economics are not the same today and I don't agree with comparing the two "wars" but if the repugs are going to yap about war, what about this?

Roosevelt proposed an after tax income of $25,000. That would be about 300 grand today. How many "patriots" on the right would be willing to go for that to show their support for their country's "war on terror"...AND show they support the troops? Hell, I bet we could have bought some body armor with the cash coming in.

I ran into this while listening to Edward R. Murrow reports from England. Murrow said the Brits weren't too sure about the USA's commitment to the war. They feared our heart wasn't into it. It was a big proposal and I don't have any idea what all was approved but when Roosevelt's plan was announced the Brits were thrilled. They said we Americans didn't do things in "halves." Although they thought we were all rich, rich, rich..in England, only about 100 people made an after tax income of 25 grand at the time.

Here's a quote from Roosevelt's fireside chat 4-28-42
http://www.mhric.org/fdr/chat21.html

The blunt fact is that every single person in the United States is going to be affected by this program. Some of you will be affected more directly by one or two of these restrictive measures, but all of you will be affected indirectly by all of them. Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation? Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes.
....
As I told the Congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."

________

Murrow's report on this from England starts at 8:19 here. (note; you can 'right click' on the player at this link and play in your regular real player for the timer.)
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/radio/15.html

[welshTerrier2]

33. put their money where their mouths are ...

welcome to DU, cell !!! glad to have you with us ... thanks for the historical insight ...

you know, i must confess that i was not quite as "forwarding thinking" as FDR ... my real goal in capping wealth is that i believe big money has abused our democracy ... that's the problem i'm trying to remedy ...

but your point about asking for a greater sacrifice from those able to make one is extremely important ... bush and his tax cutting friends seem to believe that "it's your damned money and the society doesn't have a right to insist that you chip in to help" ...

maybe someday we'll stop sucking up to the wealthy and ask them to help make the country better ... frankly, i think many wealthy people would be happy to honor the request ... bush and his greedy cabal have always appealed to the worst in people ...

[many a good man]

28. Radical means "NOT a tinkering reformer"

In popular jargon nowadays I think anyone who urges any kind of action beyond modest reforms is called "radical." Sweeping, system-changing reforms have been quite rare in American history. Radical movements on the left or right have traditionally been pretty small and powerless. Their only hope has usually been hoping for a gradual watered-down adoption by the centrists.

A radical left may exist now, but its small and unorganized. Most people now can only dream of a return to normalcy, much less hope for the structural changes that can truly transform society.

[okieinpain]

34. peta, no death penalty,

[Cheswick2.0]

48. no death penalty is radical............funny, I call it Christian

silly me.

[trezic]

35. There's a few

They're mostly confined to socialists and communists. And compared to 30-40 years ago, they're really not so radical anymore.

When Bush first announced the war on terror, I couldn't help, literally could not help, asking, "Does this mean we'll be invading Idaho and Montana?"

[Lefty48197]

38. Militant vegetarians

who want to give equal rights to cows and stuff.

[welshTerrier2]

39. well, not equal rights ...

not at first anyway ... let's just stop killing them ...

we can argue about whether they should have the right to vote later ...

:freak: before you know it, they'll be calling us vegetarians "cow-munists" ...

[poe]

41. where did ya' get the photo? uproarious-want one

[welshTerrier2]

43. how to find the source of any photo on the web

in both IE and Firefox, and perhaps other browsers, if you right click on any photo (anywhere on the web) and choose "Properties", a window pops up with information about the photo ...

one piece of information provided is the photo's "location" ... if you copy the location and then paste it into your browswer's address line, you should see the photo displayed from its source location ...

let me know if you still have questions on how to do this ...

[poe]

44. um, er, what buttons do you push?

me not know lingua franca of the machine messiah aka computer so i'm ignorant about IE, Firefox and how to get to that particular cow-dolphin pic. is there a website i can go to so as to locate origin of photo?

[welshTerrier2]

45. here you go ...

this is the link with a minor exception (see below):

http://jammer.nm.ru/pic/cow/del.and.cow.jpx

just change the last letter from an "x" to a "g" ... had i posted it with the "g", it would have displayed the picture itself rather than the location you're seeking ...

does this help??

[poe]

46. supremo

many thanks, now to find someone with a color printer, blow it up to an 11 by 17 and post in rear window with funky/political caption. great way to become the media, highly recommend it. i am not vegetarian but eat only local meat from local organic farmers and absolutely stay away from cow for reasons of energy-sustainability.
C.O.W.
Conserve Our World

[The Straight Story]

40. The radical left:

Wants to destroy progress and revert the earth back to days of indians, Wants an anarchy in some circles and or to impose a strict government control over what one says and does (ie hate crime laws extended to any speech that is offensive to someone somewhere), feels america is the most evil country ever created on earth, sees mankind as a plague upon the earth (except themselves of course), believes winning is wrong and making something of yourself is bad when so many others are suffering.

The want to destroy homeschooling, get rid of guns, outlaw smoking, except pot, put restrictions on your property more than already exist and your ability to do things like have a yard sale without their permission and government inspection of all items, and on and on and on.

Thing that is nutso? Have someone go over to FR and ask that same question about the left wing. They see the liberals as the ones wanting facism through larger government and more laws (so, if you are a really really left liberal, you want that to an extreme I suppose, hence the above examples).

I did once hear my friend remark (oddly enough at hometown buffet before the election when we were discussing such things): "I don't know, I think libertarians are a mix of the people too far right and too far left from the two parties" - He is libertarian himself, gay, liberal on some things, conservative on others. I think perhaps (though I did not ask at the time) that what he was getting at was that we mostly seem to promote the same goals when talking about things (ie, more freedom, peace, wealth, health, et al) we just have different views on how to reach those goals.

[Yupster]

47. When I think of the Radical Left

I think mostly of the past.

The Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the Unibomber.

Protestors who carried Viet Cong and Khmer Rouge flags around.

On DU the people I consider most radical are those who argue for abortion completely on demand. I've had people tell me that if a woman was one day from giving birth and decided to have an abortion for any reason at all, then that should be completely within her rights. We both agreed that doesn't happen, but I've had people say it should be within the woman's right. In other words, there should be no restriction whatsoever on the Right to Choose. That's the most radical position I've seen here.

[progressiveright]

49. radical left IS radical right

communism and fascism, both end up in the same place through different routes. In one scenario government takes so much control over social and economic life that it basically keeps growing until its the only business and authority that is left. In another one corporations keep growing, merging, and taking control of the government until corporation becomes the government. Both spell the end of democracy. And that is just from the economic standpoint.

[Skittles]

50. radical left is NOT COMMUNISM

get THAT little piece of RNC propaganda OUT YOUR HEAD PRONTO