The Far Left [split topic]

[marquis_de_sad]

What you're describing is social democracy. It doesn't really make sense to call that "hard left".

[chveik]

yeah I'd bundle that as an element of wealth redistribution and climate change. I'm not sure that all hard-lefties would be totally for the end of capitalism, but a big reigning in of it, more regulation. Not a total state-controlled economy, maybe more Norwegian.

Alas, Corbyn or the Greens never call for the workers to seize the means of production, or at least it isn't in the manifesto. Even Bernie Sanders never called for socialism - although he might have even called himself a socialist.

I'd say there's a strong view that capitalism has gone too far, which would be deemed anticapitalist. More calling for us to lean closer towards socialism, rather than saying that everyone down to the window cleaner should work for the state.

well Corbyn and Sanders are social democrats, which in our increasingly right wing world make them being called "socialists' by pundits. it's a bit more complicated for the Greens because depending on the countries they don't have the same policies but most of them are social democrats too and often don't make the connection between capitalistic oppression and the environmental crisis. by definition the ending of capitalism is the primary goal of "hard leftists". Scandinavian countries are more egalitarian I suppose, but since the economy of Norway is based on oil and gas exportations, its model isn't viable for the planet.

[here4glinner]

What you're describing is social democracy. It doesn't really make sense to call that "hard left".

I Googled hard left and the wikipedia page cites the following people:

"Tony Benn, Derek Hatton, Ken Livingstone, Dennis Skinner and Eric Heffer."

I think these people might've call themselves socialists too, but I don't think they advocated for a full-out socialist economy either. I mean, I'm not opposed to giving socialism a go but I think they still called for a mixed economy, just more socialist than it is now. Maybe 'socialist' is often used to mean 'wants more socialism', and 'capitalist' for 'wants more lasseiz-faire capitalism', but it's all still within the window of a mixed economy. Like even the 'hard right' in the UK might balk at the idea of making the police force or the military privately-owned.

[marquis_de_sad]

The (not very well-written) wiki page says,

Politicians commonly described as being on the hard left of the Labour Party

So in that relative context, sure. But in general hard left/far left politics are usually considered anti-capitalist and some form of communism or anarchism.

[RenegadeScrew]

I love how the far left are simultaneously wanting to establish a Stalinist thought-police state and campaigning to abolish the police.

Yeah if it isn't trolling it's someone who has picked up their knowledge of politics from the dregs of twitter (or something worse). Those far left Stalinist Libertarians......regulating everything and enforcing it on eh...twitter.

There is something worrying about the utter nonsense right-wing political tactics from the US being exported elsewhere quite successfully.  Their old tactics of talking about abortion and guns wouldn't have worked but this new style seems to work.

[pancreas]

The 'abolition of the family' stuff comes originally from the communist manifesto, I believe.

It does sound initially insane, but there are two interesting illustrations:

Firstly there are plenty of tribes with non-nuclear family structures:

Kraho in Brazil (multiple mothers)
Nayar in India (polyandry and visiting husbands)
Various PNG tribes have non-nuclear structures with biological and functional fathers differing and matrilineal households.

Stories of people visiting the tribes and being aghast that no-one knows who the parents of the children are: 'doesn't matter: we take care of all the children'.

Secondly, ostrich parents steal each others eggs and/or chicks, apparently. Strength in numbers or something.

You may have derived a sense of safety from your particular instantiation of the nuclear family, but many who live with abusive parents don't. Anyway, it would be better—would it not—if the state could provide for you, no matter what your situation?

[phantom_power]

It isn't saying abolish families, as evidenced by the "We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children." bit. It just means people look out for each other above and beyond family, trying to create neighbourhoods and a society where there are more links between people than just mum, dad and a couple of kids. That's what it seems like to me at least

[Cold Meat Platter]

I don't think it would be very hard to deliberately score a bullseye on the political compass were you looking to achieve such a thing.
There's still a ludicrous disconnect between the abstraction of even a 2D political affiliation nodule and tart reality.

[pancreas]

Universal Childcare would be as close as you'd need to get.

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

OH MY GOD LOOK AT ALL THE PAEDOPHILIA THAT ISLAM PROMOTES! TRULY ALARMING. THE BIBLE DOESN'T PROMOTE THINGS LIKE THIS.

IN OTHER NEWS, I AM APPARENTLY UNAWARE OF EUROPE'S LENGTHY HISTORY OF MISOGYNY, INFLUENCED IN LARGE PART BY THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANCIENT GREECE AND BY VARIOUS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

[Captain Z]

How do BLM want to fight against "stable family structures" again?

Well, they were throwing bikes at those horses...

[Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse]

Well, they were throwing bikes at those horses...

I love how BLM are "fighting against stable family structures" by trying to boost the extended family, both blood- and community-based, as the new family unit. Such dishonest fucking framing.

[QDRPHNC]

Stories of people visiting the tribes and being aghast that no-one knows who the parents of the children are: 'doesn't matter: we take care of all the children'.

That sort of situation must be really good for lessening the odds for / impact of abusive parenting. Like there might be adults who are pricks to the kids, but they get outweighed by the good ones.

Vonnegut said something about that, paraphrasing, two parents and two kids is not a family, it's an extremely fragile survival unit.

I think people who have a problem with even the ideas of dismantling the police or getting rid of the notion of a nuclear family are generally bit ignorant, that all systems have evolved somewhat arbitrarily.

[Psmith]

All the left are wrong even more wrong than the right.
The right think capitalism is good and the left think it's bad but can make it good.Both wrong but the left more wrong.

[Paul Calf]

wat

[lazyhour]

Re the concept of "defund the police" - I was pretty shocked when I first heard the phrase as it sounded too radical to me. So, I investigated it and it actually makes perfect sense as a concept.

As I understand it, the police (already chronically underfunded in this country at least) are being called upon to do more and more community/social stuff that shouldn't really be their responsibility. So instead of continually expanding police responsibility and power, we should simplify and reduce what the police do, and invest instead in supportive social programmes to improve the situation for underprivileged people, especially younger people, thus (in theory) leading to less crime, fewer at-risk people, and happier lives for all.

Does that sound like a far-left concept to people? Genuine question.

[thugler]

Re the concept of "defund the police" - I was pretty shocked when I first heard the phrase as it sounded too radical to me. So, I investigated it and it actually makes perfect sense as a concept.

As I understand it, the police (already chronically underfunded in this country at least) are being called upon to do more and more community/social stuff that shouldn't really be their responsibility. So instead of continually expanding police responsibility and power, we should simplify and reduce what the police do, and invest instead in supportive social programmes to improve the situation for underprivileged people, especially younger people, thus (in theory) leading to less crime, fewer at-risk people, and happier lives for all.

Does that sound like a far-left concept to people? Genuine question.

It doesn't sound like a particularly new concept except the name, which has proven to turn many people off and think it's a ridiculous 'get rid of the police and everything will be fine' idea.

It's basically properly funding social services, mental health education etc. (I would personally go further and start decriminalisation of drugs) Which were all policies the left (not necessarily far left) was advocating before that. No surprise this allows for less police presence. The parts about drastically changing the structure of police are also important as the whole police/criminal justice system (at the very least in the US) clearly needs a rethink.

[Flouncer]

It's perfectly practical and shouldn't be considered a loony left idea, but the accompanying social programme stuff goes against the right wing small government ethic, and the gammons balk at anything that might actually help people of a group they don't like, even if it would directly benefit them.

"I don't want my tax money going towards drug addicts!"
"Yeah but mate, if you invest in these sort of programmes people get help so there are less drug addicts out there to break into your shed and nick your Flymo for smack money."
"I DON'T CARE I WANT THE SYSTEM TO BE AS SELF-DEFEATINGLY PUNITIVE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!!!"

[thugler]

It's perfectly practical and shouldn't be considered a loony left idea, but the accompanying social programme stuff goes against the right wing small government ethic, and the gammons balk at anything that might actually help people of a group they don't like, even if it would directly benefit them.

"I don't want my tax money going towards drug addicts!"
"Yeah but mate, if you invest in these sort of programmes people get help so there are less drug addicts out there to break into your shed and nick your Flymo for smack money."
"I DON'T CARE I WANT THE SYSTEM TO BE AS SELF-DEFEATINGLY PUNITIVE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE!!!"

Very true. This is why it needs to be presented with the features of it that are most palatable. Thus don't call it 'defund the police'. Refer to crime prevention or investment in education/social programs as the headline issue. I would accept that in the US with the insane budgets the police have at the expense of everything else that's a more sensible name. 

[Flouncer]

This is the left's problem a lot of the time... I'm an IWW member. Quite often on their social media you'll get stuff saying "ABOLISH PRISONS!" and it always makes me roll my eyes. I just think, mate, that shouldn't be your opening gambit. To most people that's effectively going to translate as, "FREE ALL RAPISTS AND PEODOS!" Bit of a hard sell.

[thugler]

This is the left's problem a lot of the time... I'm an IWW member. Quite often on their social media you'll get stuff saying "ABOLISH PRISONS!" and it always makes me roll my eyes. I just think, mate, that shouldn't be your opening gambit. To most people that's effectively going to translate as, "FREE ALL RAPISTS AND PEODOS!" Bit of a hard sell.

Exactly. This is something that annoys me with it always being suggested that the left hates/disrespects the military, when in reality they want less military personnel getting maimed/killed in shitty pointless wars, and properly cared for when they come home with horrendous psychological damage. Someone actually told me they decided to vote tory (despite agreeing with every labour policy) because they thought 'Corbyn doesn't really respect the military and wants to get rid of the army and i come from a military family'. It boggles the mind how people can get things so utterly backwards.

[Mr_Simnock]

That sort of situation must be really good for lessening the odds for / impact of abusive parenting. Like there might be adults who are pricks to the kids, but they get outweighed by the good ones.

Vonnegut said something about that, paraphrasing, two parents and two kids is not a family, it's an extremely fragile survival unit.

I think people who have a problem with even the ideas of dismantling the police or getting rid of the notion of a nuclear family are generally bit ignorant, that all systems have evolved somewhat arbitrarily.

vonnegut was talking out of his arse on that one, what a psued coment if ever there was one. I mean they can be fragile survival units (fucking lol) but come on most are fine

[Barry Admin]

Think he was on to something tbh:

According to recent divorce statistics, 42% of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce.

[Buelligan]

vonnegut was talking out of his arse on that one, what a psued coment if ever there was one. I mean they can be fragile survival units (fucking lol) but come on most are fine

According to whom?

Exactly. This is something that annoys me with it always being suggested that the left hates/disrespects the military, when in reality they want less military personnel getting maimed/killed in shitty pointless wars, and properly cared for when they come home with horrendous psychological damage. Someone actually told me they decided to vote tory (despite agreeing with every labour policy) because they thought 'Corbyn doesn't really respect the military and wants to get rid of the army and i come from a military family'. It boggles the mind how people can get things so utterly backwards.

What's the point of the military?

[Flouncer]

What's the point of the military?

Well say you've got a nice, happy socialist country. The country next door isn't so nice, though. They're a bit fashy, in fact. What do you think is going to happen there if you haven't got a military? When they invade are you going to ask them nicely to go away and respect your borders? You've got to have some military otherwise someone is going to come along and brutally do you over. No state in history has been able to maintain itself without a military. It's fair enough to say we should have a military that is geared towards defense rather than attack, but to say we shouldn't have one at all is a bit mental.

[Bernice]

Costa Rica, a more prosperous nation than any of its immediate neighbours, hasn't had a military for over 70 years.

EDIT: Probably not fair to call Costa Rica more prosperous than Panama. But it certainly is compared to Central America as a whole, as well as enjoying probably the highest level of political stability in the region.

Second edit: Apparently Panama also bplished its standing army in 1990.

[Paul Calf]

psued coment

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

[Buelligan]

Well say you've got a nice, happy socialist country. The country next door isn't so nice, though. They're a bit fashy, in fact. What do you think is going to happen there if you haven't got a military? When they invade are you going to ask them nicely to go away and respect your borders? You've got to have some military otherwise someone is going to come along and brutally do you over. No state in history has been able to maintain itself without a military. It's fair enough to say we should have a military that is geared towards defense rather than attack, but to say we shouldn't have one at all is a bit mental.

Uhuh.  I think we're just doing it wrong.  Why do people want other people's shit?  Give all the shit away, give everyone enough to eat, turn ownership wealth into something despised and giving wealth (in terms of produce and work and other forms of support) into the highest indicator of social standing. 

We need violence to prop up and protect a system which is screwing us.  I think that's fairly insane.

[honeychile]

Probably not fair to call Costa Rica more prosperous than Panama. But it certainly is compared to Central America as a whole, as well as enjoying probably the highest level of political stability in the region.

It may well be fair - Costa Rica's not as rich on a gross level, but has less poverty and more universal distribution of what wealth it does have. There's certainly an argument there about what constitutes prosperity.

Worth bearing in mind too that Panama itself abolished its standing army and left in tact something resembling a bare bones defence capability.

[Flouncer]

Costa Rica, a more prosperous nation than any of its immediate neighbours, hasn't had a military for over 70 years.

EDIT: Probably not fair to call Costa Rica more prosperous than Panama. But it certainly is compared to Central America as a whole, as well as enjoying probably the highest level of political stability in the region.

Second edit: Apparently Panama also bplished its standing army in 1990.

No state in history has been able to maintain itself without a military.

That was a bit of an assumption on my part! A brief bit of Wiki research shows that there are indeed some states without their own military, but they mostly seem to be protectorates of some other country, part of some international defense agreement, or simply so small as to make having one impractical.

Uhuh.  I think we're just doing it wrong.  Why do people want other people's shit?  Give all the shit away, give everyone enough to eat, turn ownership wealth into something despised and giving wealth (in terms of produce and work and other forms of support) into the highest indicator of social standing. 

We need violence to prop up and protect a system which is screwing us.  I think that's fairly insane.

I do agree with your sentiments Buellers. I think it's just a question of the order you want to do things in, and by saying stuff like "abolish prisons/the military/whatever," the left are often shooting themselves in the foot because no matter how well founded these ideas might be in context, if someone on the outside doesn't fully understand that (often quite convoluted) context you're going to sound like a nutter. We should be focusing on basic core stuff that people can see would benefit them.