Far left - US/UK definition

As you can see in another thread, we Americans don't do political discussions very well. What passes for political discussion are phrases and words that are vague at best, or can take on a wide variety of meanings. Orwell invented the term duckspeak to describe this: the slogans are designed to sound good, and to be repeated with a minimul of thought.There are people on the far left here in the U.S. -- and, hey, I'm one of them! -- but in general "far left" is a term that is usually used by the extreme right to label any opposing view.As far as the BBC and The Guardian goes, as long as those two media outlets don't blindly accept the American right's agenda, they will be labeled as "far left".

Hello, Faith.I'm just calling it as I see it. I have never seen anyone on the right use words "liberal" or "left" in any understandable way, except as a label for opinions and positions they don't agree with.Now, if you want to, you can try to tell us what you mean by "liberal" or "leftist". You can try to explain what you think the "leftist" ideology is, but so far everyone who has tried has only presented a crude caricature rather than a thoughtful description that is conducive to discussion.Or, I suppose that you can try to define a "liberal" by presenting a list of positions and opinions that a "liberal" supposedly has. That seems to be the usual way people think about liberals and conservatives in this country. However, just presenting a list doesn't really shed any light on how a supposed liberal thinks, or why she holds the opinions that she does.

Hello again, Faith.

quote:

---

I don't expect a list to be definitive, simply a way of making clear to people exactly what we are referring to when we call something right or leftist. What I think is NOT useful is broad definitions, such as "liberals care about people" and "conservatives are racists."

---

I agree that such broad definitions are not useful, especially since they either tend to be caricatures or worded in such a way as to be misleading. But that is why a longer discussion is useful in beginning to understand these matters. The different positions and opinions on various matters are not simple divided into "left" and "right" at random; a set of positions that are grouped together as "left" because of some sort of coherent point of view that is shared by most people labeled as "leftists", and similarly for right wing opinions. One can give, I suppose, a brief meaning of this leftist point of view, as well as the right wing one, but a deeper understanding of what it really means would require a more sophisticated conversation than merely trading sound bites.-

quote:

---

Why individuals hold the views they do isn't of much interest to me either, at least in this context.

---

A pity. I am very interested in what people think and why. That is the primary reason I take part in these discussion boards.--

quote:

---

A dominant stance critical of the war in Iraq is certainly one indicator of a liberal/leftist frame of reference from my point of view; likewise a dominant stance critical of Israel.

---

I agree that these are good indicators of whether one is on the "left" or "right". But clearly these are not a definition of what it means to be on the left. In fact, there are a few on the left who would disagree with these points, as well as a few on the right who share these criticisms, so there must be some deeper point of view or ideology that marks one as "left" or "right", even if the particular individual will interpret it differently when it comes to real world events.-- You state:

quote:

---

This impression of yours is in fact exactly why it would be good to try to be more specific.

---

Which may, in fact, be a good way to start the conversation if you are interested. I can give you my definition of "right" and let you respond to it, or I can give you my definition of "left" and allow you to respond to that. Or you can give me your definition of one or both of these terms, to which I will respond. Whichever way you feel more confortable.

quote:

---

The trouble is that this thread is barreling right along and may in fact reach "witching hour" before bobbins even returns to note that it's taken off. I'm already discouraged with the apparent lack of interest of so many in clarifying anything.

---

This is why I singled you out for a conversation -- any serious discussion will have to involve ignoring most of the other, er, "contributions" being made and focus mainly on one or two individuals with whom one wants to communicate. I am willing and capable of ignoring everyone else in this thread if they prove to be a distraction.A pity, though, that you are not up to it yet. I'll keep checking this thread to see if you've changed your mind (or if anyone else is interested in a more enlightening conversation that is currently occurring) -- or to see if you decide to start a new thread.

Hi, Ringo.Ted Turner is considered "liberal" here in the US, and as an American left-winger I will agree that he seems to be a liberal. Since liberals are considered part of the "left", that will make him a left-leaning.But perhaps we have a different characterization of what is "left". If we just say that "left" and "right" should be measured with respect to the average opinion in the society, then, compared to the average American, Ted Turner is probably rather centrist rather than left.But if "left" means something in terms of motivations and beliefs, then it may be appropriate to label Turner as "left".

quote:

---

Unfortunately, we can't seem to agree on what "left" means in terms of ideas.

---

Heh. That's what I was hoping for when this thread began (and the previous one as well). Even if there were no agreement, it would be interesting to find out just what people think when they self-identify as "left" vs "right". I foresee another attempt at a PNT when this thread finally runs its course.

Hello, Faith.Although your post wasn't a reply to me, it does include a part of a quote from my so I am taking the liberty of responding.

quote:

---

Turner is associated with certain ideas I consider leftist that were identified in my post, and probably many others that weren't identified.

---

Again, it is all very well and good to determine that some ideas are leftist and others are from the right, but I don't find a simple classification of individual items to be very interesting -- at least not unless the are evidence of some sort of deeper pattern. In other words, what I would be interested in is why people find some views as left and why people categorize some views as right.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 23-Jul-2005 11:26 PM

Hi, Ringo.

quote:

---

Actually, this discussion would never happen among Canadians. We discuss specific issues and/or policies - usually with reference to the political parties' official stances.

---

Well, we really aren't discussing specific issues here. We are (I think) discussing what particular people use as the organizing principles in forming their conclusions and opinions (as well as determining the reliability of their information sources).That said, it is very true that here in the US, we are not very adept at engaging in thoughtful, well-reasoned discussions regarding political or social issues. Labels like "left" are "right" are mainly used to distinguished "true" ideas from "false" ones without having to actually dig into their logical and factual merits -- a task that Americans are, in general, neither educated enough nor well enough informed to perform.

quote:

---

My point is that we (in Canada) don't use left/right labels as "organizing principles".

---

Nor was my point that anyone uses labels as "organizing principles". What I was hoping for in this thread was a discussion of what are the organizing principles that people label "left" and "right".

*shrug*

quote:

---

I am not familiar with them but just found out that they were connected with the Communist movement in America in the early part of the 20th Century.

---

Actually, the IWW was an anarchist organization. While I personally don't like to split hairs between anarchist and communist, it is very different from Communist (with a big C).

If you mean that they sometimes collaborated with the Communists, then that wouldn't be surprising -- they were both on the far left (oops -- sorry Ringo, there's that word again!) and were both committed to organizing labor.However, internally there was a disagreement as the the overall goals and methods. The more Marxist faction, represented by De Leon, who advocated working in tandem with the socialist parties, eventually left, and the IWW was led by the more anarchistic faction who favored direct action (strikes, boycotts, and taking direct control of the workplace).

I still think Steve may be a troll. I mean, come on, his posts are so comically bad that I can't help but think that he's doing it on purpose.

quote:

---

She found it amazing that when she asked if an idividual should have a right to own a grenade launcher that not only do I favor that right, I own one.

---

Just to show how one should be careful as to what labels mean, I'm someone on the left who doesn't have much use for gun control.

I should also point out that an important aspect of the left, an almost defining characteristic, is a distrust of authority. It has always appeared somewhat strange to me that those who the most vocal of abuse of power will then allow the state to maintain its monopoly on lethal violence.