|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Far left
Comment[edit]
Do you think it's fitting to place this under language? Samstr (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- You mean the category? It's been steered toward language-oriented topics for some time by User:Smerdis of Tlön; things vaguely considered as "terms" go in Category:Jargon now.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Some questions to far leftist people[edit]
As I understood from your discourses, your ultimate goal consist on the abolition of all form of social hierarchy (sex, gender, race, sexual preferences, cultural, abilities, age, species, ecology and so on), so you are usually willing on analysing and deconstructing the power relations and opressions inside our societies, in order to put them out of business. However, this leaves me with some questions: - Have you tried to investigate the roots of all those hierarchies? I know some of them appeared from others (racism as a mixture between classism, xenophobia an religious intolerance) but, why did the first one appeared? I want to know if somebody has any idea besides these two options?:
- Rousseau-Engels-Diamond-Harari theory: "It all starts during the neolithical revolution, which led to the emergence of private property and, therefore, social stratification and hierarchies". I don´t know if this is true or not, but, anyways, is it possible to achieve leftists targets under the existence of a civilization? If not, then I was right in pointing out Anarcho-Primitivism as the ultimate goal of far-left thoughts. Nonetheless, why the agricultural revolution happenned in so many isolated places? If we manage to get everybody worldwide to that ideal primitive state, how to avoid another agricultural revolution? Without solid records (such as written documents), any evidence of past "mistakes" would be ultimately erased, setting us again at the start milestone.
- Naturalistic hypothesis: "Always have been (proceed to gunpoint the astronaut)" So... if hierarchies have existed since the emergence of the Homo Sapiens (if not before), is it even possible to get rid of them? The existence of tribes with a supossed strong egalitarianism doesn´t mean anything, as our hierarchical societies had to come from somewhere (sincerely, I don´t think they appeared randomly), and those societies tend to impose their values to other tribes via imperialism and expansionism... That´s it, the definitive revolution would be universal or wouldn´t be at all.
To summarize, in abstence of Ad Hoc arguments and special pleadings, what´s even the point of fighting and unwinnable and doomed battle for total equiality and social justice? Have humans got free will anyways?
- One of your political targets consist on reach total equality. However, in which consist such equality? With recpect to what reference model? I can´t see much success in your movement if being dirty poor is the final goal... Somebody may point out that they mean actually "equity" or may want to include non-human species, which make the question even harder... Which are the necessities of anybody? Who set them without hoarding tendencies? How can we manage to get equality between any living form, when nature is a zero-sum game? (I mean, if an species thrives, other lose: Any fruit eaten would have saved any creature from starvation)
PD: Searching the origin of opression DOESN´T PROMOTE AN STATUS-QUO DISCOURSE TO JUSTIFY THEM Nitrato de Chile (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Nitrato de Chile
- @Nitrato de Chile You're criticizing a strawman. Most leftists are not interested in equality of outcome, and the ones that are are children and/or morons. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This article ignores the libertarian-authoritarian axis[edit]
I think, in terms of the "directions" of the polcomp: up and down are just as relevant as left to right. I find articles on political science that forget these basic axioms to be of dubious quality at best. I don't say this because I am a libsoc, I say this because this article is shit as it stands right now and could be a lot better (and I'm too lazy to do a substantial rewrite). Vee (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Why is this even split from political spectrum (though that article should be split too, really annoying amount of redirects to this page) --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 05:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Never cared for the term "far"-left anyway. "Far"-left. As if it were the leftist equivalent of the fascists. You can disagree with the movements described as "far-left" all you want, but to say they fundamentally do not differ from the political and economic system of fascism is a ridiculously asinine claim--April Chat? 07:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Any similarities between authoritarian "socialist" states and authoritarian "fascist" states can be safely attributed to them being, you know, authoritarian regimes who only use ideology as an excuse for power. I do think comparing anarchism to fascism is a false equivalency, and even many of the Marxist currents aren't authoritarian. There is a reason horseshoe theory is considered fringe by actual political scientists after all. It's a gross oversimplification at best, and a bastardization of the political spectrum at worst. Heh, even hardcore Marxism-Leninism is expressed differently than fascism once you peel away the superficial similarities and look at the underlying power structures and what props them up. I'd still oppose both either way, but I'm not gonna resort to strawmen to do so. Vee (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway, this is off-topic bitching to the point of my OP: that the article completely ignores some of the basic axioms of political science by pretending the polspec is a straight line, and not the convoluted, messy thing it actually is. Vee (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- The left-to-right spectrum is not necessarily meaningless but you are correct in that it is very hard to combine many ideologies into one category ("far-left"). Mutualism, for instance .. deviates quite a lot from other anarchisms (regarding the market question).--April Chat? 14:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway, this is off-topic bitching to the point of my OP: that the article completely ignores some of the basic axioms of political science by pretending the polspec is a straight line, and not the convoluted, messy thing it actually is. Vee (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Any similarities between authoritarian "socialist" states and authoritarian "fascist" states can be safely attributed to them being, you know, authoritarian regimes who only use ideology as an excuse for power. I do think comparing anarchism to fascism is a false equivalency, and even many of the Marxist currents aren't authoritarian. There is a reason horseshoe theory is considered fringe by actual political scientists after all. It's a gross oversimplification at best, and a bastardization of the political spectrum at worst. Heh, even hardcore Marxism-Leninism is expressed differently than fascism once you peel away the superficial similarities and look at the underlying power structures and what props them up. I'd still oppose both either way, but I'm not gonna resort to strawmen to do so. Vee (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Never cared for the term "far"-left anyway. "Far"-left. As if it were the leftist equivalent of the fascists. You can disagree with the movements described as "far-left" all you want, but to say they fundamentally do not differ from the political and economic system of fascism is a ridiculously asinine claim--April Chat? 07:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
[edit]
Mutualism, market anarchism and socialism etc come to mind. I'm pretty sure those ideologies don't reject the usage of currency. Vee (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- Of the mutualists I met they do not consider themselves "left" though they don't consider themselves "right" either (and they probably wouldn't use the label "centrist" either). Quite a few of them consider themselves "post-left". I would probably class mutualism on the very bottom of the political compass just a bit left of center. Market socialism is probably around a similar area to democratic socialism imo (I would class it to the left of it though). I think the farther left you go the farther away from market economics you get. Market socialism is probably just the cusp of abolishing private property relation without abolishing markets; though arguably the Bakunin anarcho-collectivism still holds something quite similar to but not quite a market system.- Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- @OnlySortaDumb I'm aware of that. However, I was questioning @AprilIsTrying's content. I saw fit to include mutualism within that because mutualism is an anarchist school of thought, so I included it as per what the article considers "far-left". Vee (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)