Because what the US considers left (universal health care, helping the poor, school lunches and affordable education) is considered middle of the road normal stuff in Europe and other developed countries.
Even the historical, biggest right wing party in Denmark would not remove any of the things you mentioned, except school lunches.
As a proud American wingnut, I vehemently denounce these so-called "benefits" that you claim are merely considered middle-of-the-road in other parts of the world. Let us break it down for the sake of argument.
First off, Universal Health Care is nothing more than a government-controlled monopoly on healthcare services. This is the first step toward socialized medicine, which has proven to be detrimental to the medical industry worldwide. In the name of equality, doctors will no longer strive to excel in their fields, as their paychecks will not reflect their efforts. The result? A decline in quality of care, longer wait times, and diminishing innovation in the field. This is how the slippery slope begins!
Next on your list is 'helping the poor.' While this sounds like a noble cause, it must be understood that government intervention is neither necessary nor effective when it comes to uplifting individuals out of poverty. It's time we stop enabling dependence on handouts. Instead, we should promote personal responsibility and self-reliance—core American values, after all. Only by standing on one's own two feet can a person truly gain an appreciation for life's hardships, and ultimately, its rewards.
Moving onto school lunches, let us examine our Founding Fathers' vision for the country. They cherished individual freedom above all else. By providing free meals to students, we're essentially stifling entrepreneurship by removing the incentive for young people to start businesses that could potentially provide lunch services to schools. Additionally, such measures only serve to deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. Why should children who are fortunate enough to receive these free lunches continue working hard if they know they'll always be provided for?
Last but not least, affordable education is nothing more than a clever Trojan horse for communist brainwashing. When the cost of higher education is reduced, the barriers to entry for subversive ideologies also decrease. We cannot sit idly by while our youth are corrupted with socialist propaganda. In fact, the price tag of college tuition serves as a natural selection process that ensures only those who value their education will pursue it, consequently maintaining the quality of graduates entering the workforce.
In conclusion, I implore you to reconsider your support for these so-called "middle of the road" concepts. These policies may sound pleasant in theory, but make no mistake; they're merely disguised stepping stones toward a godless society where individuals cease to think or act independently. The American Dream would die a slow and painful death under this system. First, free lunches, next COMMUNISM!
This hurts to read.
I know it's satire, but this is like... 5% more satirical than actual beliefs on the topic at some points. The helping the poor section in particular.
I guess the downvoters either didn't get the joke, or completely agree with what you typed and noticed the sarcasm. 🤷🏻♂️
I'm tempted to downvote because the "parody" is also literally what a lot of people on the right literally think. There's zero difference between this comment written in jest and the same comment written totally honestly. That means this potentially spreads that idea, however absurd it sounds to us.
In the end I didn't downvote because I think if people are here they probably understand how stupid it is for it to be serious. If this were Reddit I would probably downvote because odds are some right-wing idiots would think it agrees with them and see the upvotes as confirmation of their ideas.
This post is more reasonable and well written than plenty of stuff I have seen from actual right wingers. I worry when people cosplay too hard, sometimes it becomes real.
A lot of people have left-leaning economic views ( tax the rich ) but there's basically no political or media representation of those views. ( because the rich run the media and government )
Easy: even if you vote for Bernie that's still at best center-left. The US just really, really leans right overall: there's center-right (democrats) and far-right (republicans) and that's about it.
You guys are so afraid of socialism no party dares venture the true left.
Americans being afraid of socialism is proof that propaganda works. It's literally for the people.
As does decades of systematically defunding education. The decades of leaded gas/paint by prior generations probably weren't helping...
Joe Biden is now the Nickelback /Big Bang Theory of Presidents.
There's nothing really bad about him, nothing really great, but they've been told to hate on him, so that's what they'll do.
Ill hate his fucking guts as long as I live for his handling of Israel and Gaza
Fair enough.
I think your statement is true in a purely national sense. We've had better but we've had worse. Globally, he's majorly dropped the ball and caused too much suffering to ignore.
the genocide doesnt count?
nothing really bad about him
Uh, except his racism? FFS, we can demand better.
Here in Czechia, we had socialism a few decades ago. Pretty much everyone old enough to remember it hates it.
Socialism is not a 'one thing' . It's a concept as a whole. You can have good or bad socialism and everything in between.
The world is far more nuanced than that.
Do you have working examples of good socialism?
I'll give some examples of great implementations of socialism that drives welfare in today's democracies, as I personally believe that socialism can't exist without democracy, as it's one of the core values of the concept, that's it's controlled by the people.
One of socialisms ultimate goals are also equality, which my examples will show.
Free education
UBI if you get fired
UBI for old people
UBI for students
Free health care (duh)
Free dental (normally only till age of 18 today)
Basic insurance paid by the government
These are just the big ones that really helps to make sure that very few people are actually poor and are getting desperate because of it.
Also, it's always important to say that socialism and capitalism are NOT mutually exclusive. It's perfectly normal to have all these concepts from socialism in a capitalist country.
I think we can agree that a country with 100% capitalism or socialism is not the best way to go.
Good explanation. Just one nit to pick over word choice: “Capitalism” is not a synonym for “free market”.
Capitalism is a separate ideology that champions (even romanticizes) the acquisition and hoarding of wealth at all costs. It leads to trusts, monopolies, stifling of competition and, eventually, the death of the free market.
In other words: Socialism and free markets are compatible. Socialism and Capitalism are not.
And a good chunk of our parties are now far far right.
Added bonus: it's not just socialism that we're afraid of. We fear tons of things now. We've become a nation of fear and boiling hate under the hood and it's truly toxic.
Yes, I've been working to leave for a few years now. My children shouldn't have to grow up in a culture of barely surviving, anxiety & fearful people scrabbling over scraps left to us by the ultra wealthy.
I left 6 years ago and don't regret it for a minute.
Where did you move to?
Netherlands
Because the American left would be considered right wing in most of the world.
The Democrats would be the conservative party in my country. The Republicans would be watched by law enforcement for fascistic tendencies, or already outright illegal.
Which country?
Germany. We learned our lessons about fascism. The US didn't, and if they don't get their acts together, they soon will. Then may God help us all.
and yet we both have a significant problem with neo-nazis and right wing fascism.
and its because, despite laws and common sense, media goes easy on them and gives them a soft hand.
Didn't the CDU dominate Germany for decades? Christian Democrats are much more socially conservative than the American Democratic party. Weird flex, not okay.
CDU is center-right.
I would not rate the German CDU as more conservative than the US Democrats, at least not significantly.
It's really as simple as this. The left in countries like the UK and Ireland would be radical to the US.
Yeah, I know, so I was expressing empathy to the oberton commenter.
Because there is no party available to elect, who care for the workers/people.
You have a system that is designed to take money from the poor and lower class and give it to the rich. You don't have proper workers rights, spend about twice the amount for healthcare compared to an European person and get substantially less out of it. People work more than 40h/week in more than one job and can't make ends meet... There are vast rural parts that look more like a third world country. Everything is made for commerce and nobody cares for LGBT people or women unless there's some money or publicity in it.
And you have about 2 parties who both participate and stand for that scheme.
I agree. In my opinion there are two huge dominating factors.
First is the almost ubiquitous winner-takes-all election structure in the US, leading to the two party system. There is, bar none, no fair competition in US government at a level high enough to matter.
Second, the lack of term limits allows certain people in certain positions to perpetuate momentum. In part this happens by hand picking successors through brute-force out funding the competition (in part due to the economic disparity that others in this thread have mentioned).
Sure. Also silly tactics like Gerrymandering need to stop.
I'm not sure if these are the most pressing topics.
I think for one lobbyism needs to go for good. It's deeply undemocratic to give people money and then they'll pass your laws. And not the ones that'd benefit the people who elected them.
Maybe the members of the senate should be exchanged. Seems to me they're playing kindergarten games all day, blocking everything instead of doing their job.
And media is a big part if a democracy. And the media situation in the US seems beyond bad. People need actual information to make good decisions who to elect. Not a show filled with emotion where two old men compete against each orher like in a staged wrestling match.
And you need more parties. And they need to get like 10-15% of the votes. For example a party addressing the young people who complain that they never can afford to buy a house like their parents were still able to buy. A party catering to the people who don't live in the big cities. The farmers and rural people with different needs. A party who stands for the lower class people, the workers. Maybe something green, repairing the power grid in Texas and adding some more solar in the sunny south to the oil.
Because liberals are just center of right. If you go too far left things become better for workers and not the ruling shit heads.
Lol
what happens when you go far left??
my last interaction with them convinced me they aren't any different from the alt right.
There is a stark difference in the means with which the two groups engage in acts of extremism. In a study evaluating Left-Wing and Right-Wing domestic extremism between 1994 and 2020, there was one fatality as the result of Left-Wing extremism, versus 329 fatalities resulting from Far Right extremism in that 25 year period. [5]
The Far-Right movement is the oldest and most deadly form of domestic terrorism in the United States, and The Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism found that the Far-Right is responsible for 98% of extremist murders in the U.S. [24] Furthermore, for nearly every year since 2011, Far-Right terrorist attacks/plots have accounted for over half of all terror attacks/plots in the United States. [21]
In the U.S., Right-Wing extremism was responsible for two-thirds of all failed, foiled, or successful terror attacks in 2019, and was responsible for 90% of attacks in the first half of 2020 alone. [21] Since 2013, Far-Right extremism has been responsible for more terror attacks/plots than the Left-Wing, ethnonationalism, or religiously motivated attacks/plots. [21]
These are excerpts from a blog post of mine, but I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from it.
so,same shit different pile??
Did you read any of that?
I did,it compared right wing extermism to left wing extremism. one had more death than the other but extremism nonetheless...hence same shit different pile.
or are you suggesting being a left wing extremist is the better option than say being in the middle ground...because death??
One death from left wing extremism in 25 years, versus 329 from the right, 32900% more. To say that this is the "same shit" is clearly absurd. We aren't discussing the merits of the middle ground. You seem to be suggesting that just because something is labelled as "extremist" it is automatically bad, regardless of what it actually is or what harm it causes.
one extreme isn't exactly better than the other. they are extremes and should be regarded as such.
left extremism does not represent good neither does it represent evil,same goes for right wing extremism.
what i find interesting is people seem to think left wing extremism is the ONLY way to go,ignoring the fact that left wing extremism also practice discrimination, ostracism,bigotry and racism,not that much different from right wing extremism.
Who all is arguing in support of Left-Wing extremism? Other than select instances, most users on lemmy do not by any means support tankies. I for one can't stand them.
They can be just as out of touch with reality as a MAGA extremist, but to say both sides are the same is blatantly false. Far-Right extremism is spreading across the globe and it threatens and takes lives and destroys family systems.
i agree far right extremism is destroying lives and family system. the abolishment of roe vs wade have already proven very clearly what happens when right wing nutjobs run amok.
we also clearly seen how devastating it can be for children as young as 5 to be on hormones treatment because their woke parents thinks their kid is trans.
same extremism same kind of outcome.not one is better than the other.how do people simply think left wing extremism is inherently better or not the same as right wing extremism is beyond me.
"I agree, this fascist ploy that removed fundamental rights from dozens of millions of women is dangeroous! But have you considered this scenario I imagined that impacted nobody irl? Totally the same!"
Left wing extremism is better because it's morally correct.
sure thing buddy,whatever floats your boat😊
Extremes are all relative, no? The political views that are centrist today would be extreme 100 years ago. Just saying they're extreme and therefore bad is a weak argument.
Sure there are bigots on both sides, there are bigots outside the extremes too. There are centrist bigots! There, now I've shown that extremism is just the same as centrism... Obviously that doesn't work, though, does it? You can't just pick one thing that happens and say "well everyone does this so they're all the same"... Does it happen to the same degree? What are it's consequences?
I think you'll find significantly more racism, sexism, etc on the right... Far right extenists are literal Nazis and white supremacists! Feminism, the civil rights movement, pride movement, etc, are all left-aligned... Extremist leftists sometimes lose sight of one aspect of this, but they so obviously aren't the same as literal fucking Nazis!
you sound like a leftist apologist now.
you don't need to be a leftist nazi to be an actual nazi,the same as the right.
what i also find interesting is leftist seemed to use the same reasoning to justify their extremism,not that much different from the right. no justification is enough on either side be be a nazi or behave like one.
as far as i can tell:
the right is consistently crazy.
the left has been getting consistently crazier.
What are you talking about? Nazism is a fundamentally right-aligned ideology, how can you argue otherwise? You can invent definitions of what "left" or "right" means to suit you if you want, but why bother saying anything if you're going to make up the meanings of words?
Can you tell me what a "leftist" is? Or what they might want for the world? Can you tell me what a Nazi is? And then why you think there are parallels?
I just don't believe that anyone who understands what these words mean would think they are alike.
so left wing extremists aren't bigots, don't discriminate, don't spread hate or behave exactly like a nazi would???
a left wing extremist will behave exactly like their right wing counterparts. they exhibit behaviours just like those right wing nutjobs.
you call right wing extremist nazis,i agree. i call left wing extremists nazis in disguise.
If you can understand that extremism isn't inherently good or bad, what matters is what's correct, why do you have to lie and pretend the left supports racism, discriminatuon, ostracism, and bigotry when the extreme left combats those as foundation?
This is a mind-numbing take only possible by a privledged person who has never spoken to a leftist, only heard about them through Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro.
so far,the leftist are here calling me a rightoid,transphobe,homophobe signs of what right wing extremists does.
so you tell me.
You are right-wing, so that's true. You've also been repeating LibsOfTikTok-style lies about the left "transing kids," which is debunked nonsense, and is in fact transphobic to peddle. I haven't seen any homophobia from you yet, but the other 2 are correct.
Extremism is not good or bad, just like being in the middle is not good or bad either. What matters is what's correct.
For example, between being pro-fascism and anti-fascism, anti-fascism is both extreme and correct.
sure,if that's what you think is correct.
i am sure when you preach that being gay is God's intention,i am sure Christians and Muslim will agree that correct.
don't forget to label me a homophobe if that's what it is now.
I don't preach, I'm not religious. You're now putting words directly in my mouth because that's all you've done from the start: lie about fake leftists that hurt your feelings.
When you go far left, you have ideologies like Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism, all ideologies that oppose unjust hierarchy and advocate for the good of all.
The far-right is completely different from the far-left, because the far-right has ideologies like fascism and feudalism. This is an inherently violent, reactionary position found to uphold the status quo, ie the division of power, via absolute measures.
These are not the same.
This simply means you're either a liberal or a fascist.
Also: you guys messed up the colors for the parties, red is for left leaning parties, blue is for right leaning. But I guess that is just the US being the US, like temperature, weight and distance units.
I guess because they switched positions a long while ago.
Wait, Reps used to be left of Dems?
The Republican party was Lincoln's party. Look at were they stand now.
For 30 years it was the same way as the UK, based on the system. It wasn't until Gore v Dubya that the NYT printed it in colour with red being republican. The reason? Both red and republican start with R.... They really knew their audience!
Other people have already posted good answers so I just want to add a couple things.
If you want a very simple, concrete example: Healthcare. It depends on how you count, but more than half the world's countries have some sort of free or low cost public healthcare, whereas in the US, the richest country in the history of countries, that's presented as radical left wing kooky unrealistic communist Bernie idea. This isn't an example of a left-wing policy that we won't adopt, but of what in much of the world is a normal public service that we can't adopt because anti-socialism in this country is so malignant and metastasized that it can be weaponized against things that are just considered normal public services almost like roads in other countries.
A true left wing would support not just things like healthcare, but advocate for an economic system in which workers have control over their jobs, not the bosses. That is completely absent.
Also, this meme:
It's glib, but it's not wrong. Both parties routinely support American militarism abroad. Antimilitarism in favor of internationalism has been a corner stone for the left since the left began.
in my world, that's called same shit different pile.
also,while i am no right wing supporter, i constantly run into leftist who wouldn't hesitate to brand me a phobe of their convenience ,none of the right leaning people i interacted with does this... anecdotal i know.
Yeah, but no one lives in your world but you. In the real world, you're so hilariously off the mark.
i constantly run into leftist who wouldn't hesitate to brand me a phobe of their convenience ,none of the right leaning people i interacted with does this... anecdotal i know.
Maybe the leftist has a point because you actually align with the right? Crazy, I know, but I've seen this argument play out irl more than once with some rightoids that loved to pretend their politics weren't right aligned.
If the party I vote for in Germany would be one in the US they probably would be banned for being communists or something like that while here they're a widely accepted part of the goverment.
Lol, and it's not even our leftest party :D
Good choice though
It doesn't feel like a good choice, just the least bad one
Doesn't sound that different from the US's Green Party, honestly.
Because all the true is gone.
There's no leftist party, nothing Socialist in the least. The furthest "left" you go is the DNC, which is liberal, and therefore right wing. The furthest right you go is the GOP, which is fascist.
A few years ago I would have agreed with this statement. But lately, I've seen a change described in several press articles and news pieces. The younger generations in the US demand true social justice and aren't afraid to say they're socialists, against capitalism or consumerism.
It's a burgeoning revolution of course, since the establishment is still in control of traditional political parties. But this crack in the old broken system could bring about positive change in the long run. At least I hope so.
Compared to the rest of the first world countries, our farthest left candidates are relatively moderate.
If one were to gather political parties from around the world and sort them as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning, one could do so. However when it came time to compare the left-leaning parties of other developed nations with the left-leaning parties of the united states, it would quickly become apparent that the "most-left" party in the united states aligns with center-right and far-right parties of other developed nations. So, doing such analysis you quickly come to realize that the united states has no true left-wing party. We have conservative and conservative-light. It should also be noted that the conservative party in the united states is much further right than most other developed nations.
Also, remember, right-left is a duopoly, much like Pepsi and Coke. There are so many more dimensions to politics than right-left, there's a thousand different parties for every ideology. For more info on this, check out the podcast linked at the end. Support ranked choice voting if you want to take steps to end this duopoly. What do you have to lose? Entrenched life-long, un-removeable politicians. What do you have to gain? Choice. Variety. More direct democratic representation and politicians that better reflect their voter's interests.
Politics is about power structures. Both of America's parties support the same structure, capitalism.
@return2ozma@lemmy.world One way to think about "the left" is that it values freedom from domination. Who in the US is fighting to reduce the level of domination we experience in important areas of life (health care, education, food, housing to name a few)? Should we really have to pay and put ourselves into debt--thereby becoming dominated--to go to school, live somewhere, or maintain our health? Even the so-called left in the US supports this arrangement generally; at best they fight over the details, not the structure itself.
It also funnels down to freedom from bureaucracy too. Look at how hard it is in many places to legally build a non-fancy home on your own property. Endless restrictions, regulations, permits and inspections. Nobody is trying to free us from this.
Right! And the US Democratic party seems to be obsessed with means testing, so that many times when there is government assistance available people who need it are forced to subject themselves to intrusive surveillance, frequent paperwork and sometimes shifting requirements, etc. It's rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs, let alone make substantive moves to change it.
It’s rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs
Do you know anyone on disability / social security?
Yes.
I think there's value in what you're calling attention to.
"Freedom" vs "domination" though has nothing to do with the left or right of a government (in theory). You're actually referring to libertarianism vs authoritarianism, which is (again, in theory) independent from economic structure.
@genie@lemmy.world I did not draw a dichotomy nor make a universal definition. I stated that the left is concerned with freedom from domination, which is undeniably true. What else do words like "equality" and "equity" mean? I did not state or suggest that this was the only concern, but it's clearly an important one.
I didn't say that you did?
I respectfully disagree that "the left is concerned with freedom from domination" is "undeniably true". I think there's a lot of room for debate here that you're frankly not interested in.
I am definitely not interested in being condescended to, that's for sure, so bye.
Nah bud. you can't separate social theory from economic theory in general terms. They are one and the same. How your currency is used and controlled and by who for what is social theory.
They are related (in practice) but I disagree that they're one "and" the same. Freedom from domination can exist in the left or the right.
Demonizing the views that you don't hold as inherently opposed to freedom is how the US got to this point in this awful no spectrum of views two party system in the first place.
(By the way, just noticed your username. How're'ya'now bud?)
Oh yah know
Freedom from domination cannot exist in the right, as domination is the method by which production occurs. The right must whitewash domination, clean it, yet still use it, to operate.
Are you suggesting that there is no production without domination?
No, not at all. I'm suggesting that when production is directed by an owner class, the worker class is dominated. If the workers collectively or individually own the means of production, there is no domination.
On that point I'm with you! It's painfully obvious in today's wealth disparity in the US.
Where it breaks down for me is your argument that it's only possible to have a dominating dynamic in a right wing regime. Would you really argue that the CCP does not impose a dominating dynamic over the people of China?
My point was more that the right is necessarily dominating, while the left is conditionally so. The original point was that either side could be dominating or not, and I disagree with that, only the left has the chance to not be dominating because it's a requirement for the right.
No. Capitalism, feudalism, monarchism, and so forth are built on domination, ie hierarchy, while leftist structures such as Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism advocate collective ownership so as to combat this.
The reason that type of left is ignored because it's dumber than libertarianism. At least the mirror of it realizes someone has to pay for it (perhaps those want to use it), and just doesn't like the coercive mandate. You, though, both don't want to be coerced AND think it all oughtta be free because....forcing people to give you free shit is not being dominated? "I want to be a lazy bully" isn't the intellectual flex you think it is.
@John_McMurray@lemmy.world Thank you for supplying the "someone has to pay for it" canard, which is one of many reasons the US doesn't have a functional left politics. Neoclassical economics brain poisoning.
You have never once engaged honestly with what a leftist believes.
I've never ate horseshit either.
Really? How'd it get in your mouth then, for you to spit it everywhere?
Is this what passes for clever in your mind?
I chuckled a bit when I wrote it.
Two-party voting systems babyyyyyy
See also: the UK, most ex-British colonies
Keep it polite people. 🙂
It's simple really : the US left is liberal, thus it is not truly the left.
If "they" would provide a definition of "true left" then maybe we can discuss it. Otherwise, it's so impossibly vague, who could possibly answer this question?
It is not difficult to infer the intent behind what they mean and answer the question, but that would require some effort.
It is much easier to pedantically critique word choice. That requires no effort.
I will help you. When an object X is "true X", that usually means the same base item X, with greater magnitude, so "true X" would be a X-leaning political philosophy with a greater magnitude. So taking left-wing policies for example, it could be paid maternity and paternity leave, worker's rights, a social safety net, yearly vacation days, and such. In this limited example, the united states has none of these policies enforced on a national level. These are policies that would be included in even center-left politics. So it could be said that the united states has no "true left" because the policies enacted most frequently represent mostly right or far-right ideology. Tax cuts for corporations, slashing of retirement funds, removal of protection for the environment, etc.
The use of this "true left" terms in american politics is especially prescient because the liberal party, if removed from the united states and placed into any other political environment, would be a right-wing party. Basically, the liberal party in the united states isn't left-leaning if we look at global standards. It is a center-right or right-wing neoliberalism at best. Thus folks in the united states often say that there is no "true-left" party.
Hope this helps.
Leftism is about being egalitarian. Everyone is equal, power is shared equally, and that equality is protected. There many very different paths and approaches to this conceptually. @stembolts@programming.dev gave a great overview of some basic specific policies below.
Rightism is about consolidation of power. Since power and wealth are inextricably linked (two sides of the same coin, as it were), the defining feature of Rightism is hoarding of wealth and entrenchment of power.
Looking at our two major parties, their platforms, their policies, and their behavior as organizations, it’s easy to tell that neither meets the definition of Leftist.
What parties in which countries would you consider true leftist?
Because they're idiots that haven't bothered to pay attention.
What is the left to you? Does a major party that wins election advocates and brings bills for this platform on a national united scale?
Who are "they"? This is the first time I've ever heard that statement.
"they" is commonly used and understood as being a general reference to 'people', whether a specific area (politics) or society.
Ah ok, I'll rephrase the question: Which "people" are saying this? This is the first time I've ever heard that statement.
I've said it before, and many others on discussion forums who are not from the US but have knowledge of the system and its characters.
The left in the US are doing the best they can with what they have. This kind of "holier than thou" elitism from abroad does nothing to help the situation.
It isn't elitism or such an attitude to point it out.
I used to live in the US but I'm not from there. Am I allowed an opinion on something which has wider ranging consequences?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make it any less judgemental or snobbish though.
That's my opinion anyway
On the other side, the US thinks it has a left yet, as this comment encapsulates, to most of us outside of the country, it clearly does not. It's not snobbish to point it out, it's factual.
Not everyone is entitled to an opinion, that's why we don't put up with racists and Nazis.
Ah, so not only are you claiming some kind of imagined moral victory over people you've clearly never met, you're also claiming that Europe is free of racists and Nazis??? Lol that was a good troll dude, you really had me going for a while there 🤣🤣🤣
Weird how you create such things in your head to attribute to me. Free of? No, but racism gets you arrested and ostracised.
What leftist party is there in the US that is centered around some form of Socialism that controls any meaningful amount of the State?
That's only a meaningful question if the only "true Left" is a Leftist political party that is centered around some form of Socialism that controls a meaningful amount of a State.
Not necessarily. A Syndicalist or otherwise Anarchist-derivative party doesn't exist either, and no similar coalition exists on the ground with widespread impact on the Capitalist status-quo, yet.
I really hope you're not trying to insinuate that the DNC are somehow left wing.
I've never heard this before. The US has "left" and "right" like everyone else, not that I don't consider those terms entirely based on imaginary association. I always found it intriguing "left and right" is a scale but policies themselves are seen as binary. Just because the "left" does not come across as represented in this particular culture does not silence them, at least not at the moment.
This is because there is no true left in the US.
The American left has moved so much towards the right that it is mostly centre to right
You say that as if there aren't people of every political view in almost every country and/or that the US is weeding them out. What the representation trends say do not speak for whether there has always existed those of viewpoints further down a scale. Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, both appreciated and not, can be found scattered across US traditional history and coloring the geography of some of the fifty states, such as parts of New York and Vermont and in Louisiana where Huey Long was once a governor who fell just short of being considered Communist. There is indeed a community in the US that one might call "the true left", even if the people who end up elected are generic politicians. It sounds much like the "non-Roman-pagan philosophies didn't exist in Rome" view.
Because "there is no true left" is a lot shorter than "while individuals with strong left-wing ideologies exist in the US, the current political power structure leaves them almost full disenfranchised, forcing them to either vote for right-wing parties or forego their vote" is really not very catchy.
I mean, the US is a democratic republic, the whole point is that the most resonating choice for ruler becomes the ruler... that a section of the political sphere wouldn't become the one represented by the ruler is nothing striking and nothing to be ashamed of. Equally there being "no true right" is a common shortener because nobody in office ever advocated (true) Fascism beyond what could be found trending in other political crowds at certain times in history.
the whole point is that the most resonating choice for ruler becomes the ruler...
Do you actually believe that the political establishment/ruling class of this country has ever "resonated" with the majority of people?
At least in recent times, there is much more evidence to the contrary.
To an extent. They might artificially thrust some people into the game, and the system is clunky, but as far as votes go when votes are offered, they are listened to. If the person in charge was a cheat, it would technically prove my point even more, because it would imply it's not a true game of representation and that those of us who may be considered adherents to "left" streams of thought are on more street corners than the "they're a demographic minority" view might suggest.
The only options people have to vote on are what are offered to them. The problem is, that in the US, you need money to become an option. That money comes mainly from corporations. Corporations won't back a left wing party or politician.
I can name several examples to the contrary. Google is the most successful business in the entire nation, and they've been 100% consecutively in favor of "left" choices, often even promoting logo imagery of people whom a decade ago would be considered radicals. Don't forget corporations in the modern era have sacrificed face to make completely meaningless changes to their marketing that they knew would put them in the path of the opposition to cancel culture (Aunt Jemima, Budweiser, etc.). The idea that corporations don't have at least a little sense of "left" is false.
Nothing Google does or supports is actually a leftist anything. You're making the same mistake all Americans make - buying into the propaganda that left/right is about social permissiveness. It's actually an economic spectrum, and every meaningful company or organization is either far right, or extreme right.
Google and other major corporations will try garner goodwill by supporting ideas that they want people to think of them as. Its the same with pride support and green washing.
If you as an American ( I assume) believe that Google is positioned to the left, l'd say you basically proove the point of there not being a left in the US
Even though Google knows it's facing backlash for said views? It's been a decade and they still flagship "left" streams of thought, posting videos about them on YouTube every two instances, typically with the comments/ratings disabled as a defense mechanism. What is that garnering? On at least three occasions they had a Google doodle of people who outright celebrated terrorism and 9/11 as steps in the right direction. Definitely not typical PR.
On at least three occasions they had a Google doodle of people who outright celebrated terrorism and 9/11 as steps in the right direction. Definitely not typical PR
Could you share exambles of these?
Also could you link to the youtube videos of them promoting left orientated thought and actions?
I'm not so sure. The US sure is a democratic republic by 18th century standards. But you still retain that system that makes someone win the presidency who doesn't have the absolute majority of votes. And some of the states don't really count in the campaigns since it's obvious if they're blue or red.
I've watched too much George Carlin. I think the system with the two parties is more to give you the illusion of having a choice. Same with the theoretical availability of 'left' individuals.
And I mean we have enough examples of systems suppressing people. A theoretical possibility doesn't help if there's no real choice. And you can keep the masses uneducated and occupied with lots of work so they don't have time to get to power. I think that's some of the dynamics in the USA that keep the system as is. Also, Putin also was elected somewhat democratically. It's just that he got rid of his opposition. And the USA is more or less doing a similar thing. Just that they provide the people with a second choice, some illusion of choice that gives the people something to keep busy arguing about. In practice they both are a slightly different hue of the same color.
So on the paper, it's a democratic system and you'd be correct arguing with me. In practice it's deliberately set up in a way that votes can't change anything of substance.
Even if it's a clunky system, what I meant is it's still an evened out system, equally fluid for everyone even if some of that fluidity manifests more often for some than others. It should also be remembered the US is a nation where the leadership is not the whole of control. To those whose complaint here is that things seem preselected against their wishes (and against mine, I want to stress I'm not implying I disagree with them policy-wise), there is still at least some element of choice before things are narrowed down to the two choices. The US is not using a "loud/might makes right" approach at the moment, just a bumpy process, which sets it apart from Russia for example which is arguably de facto quasi-feudalist.
It isn't evened out for everyone. That's like saying "now taxes are a flat 100k each year and it's correct because it sucks for everyone". When a milionaire (a party with a following) wouldn't care, someone who is starting out (and could for instance gain 5% of the vote in this election) would get dumpstered and prevented from gaining more votes next election, since they'd be "on the board" and people would see them
When I say evened out, I mean in indication of the fact there's a difference between having a voice (which everyone has the same amount of), everyone having differing levels of being able to have a voice, and being heard or unheard, as well as a difference between being dismissed on a fair/honest or relatively fair/honest basis (as in they're overshadowed according to fair rules) and being dismissed unfairly as a result of certain people being prioritized by means that would rig the game. "Wealth is a prerequisite to power" isn't the whole story and misrepresents the complexity of the process which in turn would allow more of a chance for everyone than that. Some past members of the government (of all roles, senator, governor, etc.) have been incredibly poor and largely disconnected from any wealth structure.
You wrote all that to say "politicians bad" and haven't related to anything said above. The fact of the matter is - US isn't a democracy. A choice between two parties with "no chance of anyone else winning" isn't a democracy. Especially since both sides are basically the same.
How so?
What do you mean how so. Compare political parties in Europe, or the state of workers rights etc.
I don't think it's an evened out system. It's that on paper. I think we can agree on that. But the proper question is: Is that paper worth anything, anymore?
And is it evened out? What percentage of their salaries do lower class people pay for taxes and healtcare and the infrastructure? What percentage is it for rich people? Is there lobbyism being the biggest influence on what gets decided in politics? Who can afford that and gets their itches scratched? The big companies or the rural population? And do they even get some audience in the TV news shows, their voices heard?
As another reply said, when I say evened out, I mean in indication of the fact there’s a difference between having a voice (which everyone has the same amount of), everyone having differing levels of being able to have a voice, and being heard or unheard, as well as a difference between being dismissed on a fair/honest or relatively fair/honest basis (as in they’re overshadowed according to fair rules) and being dismissed unfairly as a result of certain people being prioritized by means that would rig the game. Certain things do surpass lobbyists, which I do acknowledge is a large force, but which, if it were the largest influence on politics, I'm sure would in turn surpass any meaning to any discussion on the two party system, another thing which I acknowledge might affect the gears (but not the outcome, if enough people of a certain opinion so willed, which is my point) of the government. There are many avenues around each blockage.
Yeah, what I mean is, sure there are some specific counterexamples far and in between. But if it weren't for the pharma lobby, you'd spend $8.000 on healthcare instead of $14.000 per year. And you'd live 2-3 years longer on average. I think 99.9% of the population would gladly accept that. But it ruins some of the business model of the 0.1% who get to make the decisions. It'll never happen in the USA because it's just on the paper that the people decide. And some of them aren't even educated enough to do so. Same thing with school shootings and other things people regularly complain about.
Sure individuals exist! I am even sure that many would vote for the left if they could. But because the US political system is what it is, they can't vote for a politician or party that will represent their ideology.
Hence, there is no left in the US even though people might actually want it to be.
they can’t vote for a politician or party that will represent their ideology.
Says who? Nobody can guarantee they'll succeed, but everyone can be guaranteed an honest vote. We're not living in the Hollywood Blacklist era anymore. I've seen Marxist mayors win mayoral seats.
I think that we keep misunderstanding each other and i can't figure out if its intentional. I am pretty sure that this is about the two party system and none of them being on the left
I thought the gist was about the supposed deterrence of potential "left" aspects of American culture as present in the individuals, which is mutually exclusive from the situation in the American leadership (especially if they don't fully represent the people, which I don't disagree with), especially if they aren't the only positions of influence.
There is a similar discussion in Mexico... you have the leadership which is historically "left" while the grand majority of the population is historically "right", all before they get mixed up with America's "left" because that's the association they have when you run into debates about closed or open borders. Several EU countries come to mind as well, many have locked-in systems that contrast with the people. The two parties in Canada (because most countries have two parties) are both significantly more "left" that the people, but nobody there is saying there's "no true right", so why do we say America has "no true left"?
Were they genuinely Marxist? Or did people just call them Marxist because they had more liberal policies than the norm for the area? Liberalism ≠ socialism, and socialism ≠ Marxism.
Some did identify as Marxist. Not sure how to square that with what counts "as objectively Marxist" since political labels tend to act as a sum of the policies. If a nation that's canonically supposed to be "Marxist" has a policy out of place, is it "not Marxist", as opposed to two, three, four, etc.? Without a doubt many nations in the fold of Marx were more unbecoming of Marx himself that the towns I'm thinking of.
What the OP's question is referring to is whether or not there is an organized political movement of any real size or structure that represents leftist ideology (which at minimum I describe as anti capitalist). In the 2 major parties, there is not. Full stop. Of the lesser parties which have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting real power? Probably not. Greens bad Dem Soc are not explicitly anti capitalist as far as I'm aware.
There are certainly what might be called organized political movements of that kind, even if they aren't at the top of their game, which like I said resembles the Roman analogy I gave. There will always seem to be something that sticks to the leadership, something that sticks to certain commoners, and things that are unlike either one to do. It's a democratic republic, there will always be the unsung people, this isn't striking or anything to be ashamed of. All have different supposed degrees of conceptualizations of capital, which isn't uncommon even in Marxist countries, many of which retain some aspects of that policy sphere, something I say in connection to where I mention how intrigued I am that "left and right" is a scale while each individual policy is built on "yes" or "no". You may have heard the common adage "China is becoming more capitalist while America is becoming more socialist", and the American Democrat Party was in fact in one of the Communist Internationals if I'm correct.
Because what the US considers left (universal health care, helping the poor, school lunches and affordable education) is considered middle of the road normal stuff in Europe and other developed countries.
Even the historical, biggest right wing party in Denmark would not remove any of the things you mentioned, except school lunches.
As a proud American wingnut, I vehemently denounce these so-called "benefits" that you claim are merely considered middle-of-the-road in other parts of the world. Let us break it down for the sake of argument.
First off, Universal Health Care is nothing more than a government-controlled monopoly on healthcare services. This is the first step toward socialized medicine, which has proven to be detrimental to the medical industry worldwide. In the name of equality, doctors will no longer strive to excel in their fields, as their paychecks will not reflect their efforts. The result? A decline in quality of care, longer wait times, and diminishing innovation in the field. This is how the slippery slope begins!
Next on your list is 'helping the poor.' While this sounds like a noble cause, it must be understood that government intervention is neither necessary nor effective when it comes to uplifting individuals out of poverty. It's time we stop enabling dependence on handouts. Instead, we should promote personal responsibility and self-reliance—core American values, after all. Only by standing on one's own two feet can a person truly gain an appreciation for life's hardships, and ultimately, its rewards.
Moving onto school lunches, let us examine our Founding Fathers' vision for the country. They cherished individual freedom above all else. By providing free meals to students, we're essentially stifling entrepreneurship by removing the incentive for young people to start businesses that could potentially provide lunch services to schools. Additionally, such measures only serve to deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots. Why should children who are fortunate enough to receive these free lunches continue working hard if they know they'll always be provided for?
Last but not least, affordable education is nothing more than a clever Trojan horse for communist brainwashing. When the cost of higher education is reduced, the barriers to entry for subversive ideologies also decrease. We cannot sit idly by while our youth are corrupted with socialist propaganda. In fact, the price tag of college tuition serves as a natural selection process that ensures only those who value their education will pursue it, consequently maintaining the quality of graduates entering the workforce.
In conclusion, I implore you to reconsider your support for these so-called "middle of the road" concepts. These policies may sound pleasant in theory, but make no mistake; they're merely disguised stepping stones toward a godless society where individuals cease to think or act independently. The American Dream would die a slow and painful death under this system. First, free lunches, next COMMUNISM!
This hurts to read.
I know it's satire, but this is like... 5% more satirical than actual beliefs on the topic at some points. The helping the poor section in particular.
I guess the downvoters either didn't get the joke, or completely agree with what you typed and noticed the sarcasm. 🤷🏻♂️
I'm tempted to downvote because the "parody" is also literally what a lot of people on the right literally think. There's zero difference between this comment written in jest and the same comment written totally honestly. That means this potentially spreads that idea, however absurd it sounds to us.
In the end I didn't downvote because I think if people are here they probably understand how stupid it is for it to be serious. If this were Reddit I would probably downvote because odds are some right-wing idiots would think it agrees with them and see the upvotes as confirmation of their ideas.
This post is more reasonable and well written than plenty of stuff I have seen from actual right wingers. I worry when people cosplay too hard, sometimes it becomes real.
A lot of people have left-leaning economic views ( tax the rich ) but there's basically no political or media representation of those views. ( because the rich run the media and government )
Easy: even if you vote for Bernie that's still at best center-left. The US just really, really leans right overall: there's center-right (democrats) and far-right (republicans) and that's about it.
You guys are so afraid of socialism no party dares venture the true left.
Americans being afraid of socialism is proof that propaganda works. It's literally for the people.
As does decades of systematically defunding education. The decades of leaded gas/paint by prior generations probably weren't helping...
Joe Biden is now the Nickelback /Big Bang Theory of Presidents.
There's nothing really bad about him, nothing really great, but they've been told to hate on him, so that's what they'll do.
Ill hate his fucking guts as long as I live for his handling of Israel and Gaza
Fair enough.
I think your statement is true in a purely national sense. We've had better but we've had worse. Globally, he's majorly dropped the ball and caused too much suffering to ignore.
the genocide doesnt count?
Uh, except his racism? FFS, we can demand better.
Here in Czechia, we had socialism a few decades ago. Pretty much everyone old enough to remember it hates it.
Socialism is not a 'one thing' . It's a concept as a whole. You can have good or bad socialism and everything in between.
The world is far more nuanced than that.
Do you have working examples of good socialism?
I'll give some examples of great implementations of socialism that drives welfare in today's democracies, as I personally believe that socialism can't exist without democracy, as it's one of the core values of the concept, that's it's controlled by the people.
One of socialisms ultimate goals are also equality, which my examples will show.
These are just the big ones that really helps to make sure that very few people are actually poor and are getting desperate because of it.
Also, it's always important to say that socialism and capitalism are NOT mutually exclusive. It's perfectly normal to have all these concepts from socialism in a capitalist country.
I think we can agree that a country with 100% capitalism or socialism is not the best way to go.
Good explanation. Just one nit to pick over word choice: “Capitalism” is not a synonym for “free market”.
Capitalism is a separate ideology that champions (even romanticizes) the acquisition and hoarding of wealth at all costs. It leads to trusts, monopolies, stifling of competition and, eventually, the death of the free market.
In other words: Socialism and free markets are compatible. Socialism and Capitalism are not.
And a good chunk of our parties are now far far right.
Added bonus: it's not just socialism that we're afraid of. We fear tons of things now. We've become a nation of fear and boiling hate under the hood and it's truly toxic.
Yes, I've been working to leave for a few years now. My children shouldn't have to grow up in a culture of barely surviving, anxiety & fearful people scrabbling over scraps left to us by the ultra wealthy.
I left 6 years ago and don't regret it for a minute.
Where did you move to?
Netherlands
Because the American left would be considered right wing in most of the world.
The Democrats would be the conservative party in my country. The Republicans would be watched by law enforcement for fascistic tendencies, or already outright illegal.
Which country?
Germany. We learned our lessons about fascism. The US didn't, and if they don't get their acts together, they soon will. Then may God help us all.
and yet we both have a significant problem with neo-nazis and right wing fascism.
and its because, despite laws and common sense, media goes easy on them and gives them a soft hand.
Didn't the CDU dominate Germany for decades? Christian Democrats are much more socially conservative than the American Democratic party. Weird flex, not okay.
CDU is center-right.
I would not rate the German CDU as more conservative than the US Democrats, at least not significantly.
It's really as simple as this. The left in countries like the UK and Ireland would be radical to the US.
Google the term Overton window
Oberton I think
Happens to the best of us
No, they were right the first time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Yeah, I know, so I was expressing empathy to the oberton commenter.
Because there is no party available to elect, who care for the workers/people.
You have a system that is designed to take money from the poor and lower class and give it to the rich. You don't have proper workers rights, spend about twice the amount for healthcare compared to an European person and get substantially less out of it. People work more than 40h/week in more than one job and can't make ends meet... There are vast rural parts that look more like a third world country. Everything is made for commerce and nobody cares for LGBT people or women unless there's some money or publicity in it.
And you have about 2 parties who both participate and stand for that scheme.
I agree. In my opinion there are two huge dominating factors.
First is the almost ubiquitous winner-takes-all election structure in the US, leading to the two party system. There is, bar none, no fair competition in US government at a level high enough to matter.
Second, the lack of term limits allows certain people in certain positions to perpetuate momentum. In part this happens by hand picking successors through brute-force out funding the competition (in part due to the economic disparity that others in this thread have mentioned).
Sure. Also silly tactics like Gerrymandering need to stop.
I'm not sure if these are the most pressing topics.
I think for one lobbyism needs to go for good. It's deeply undemocratic to give people money and then they'll pass your laws. And not the ones that'd benefit the people who elected them.
Maybe the members of the senate should be exchanged. Seems to me they're playing kindergarten games all day, blocking everything instead of doing their job.
And media is a big part if a democracy. And the media situation in the US seems beyond bad. People need actual information to make good decisions who to elect. Not a show filled with emotion where two old men compete against each orher like in a staged wrestling match.
And you need more parties. And they need to get like 10-15% of the votes. For example a party addressing the young people who complain that they never can afford to buy a house like their parents were still able to buy. A party catering to the people who don't live in the big cities. The farmers and rural people with different needs. A party who stands for the lower class people, the workers. Maybe something green, repairing the power grid in Texas and adding some more solar in the sunny south to the oil.
Because liberals are just center of right. If you go too far left things become better for workers and not the ruling shit heads.
Lol
what happens when you go far left??
my last interaction with them convinced me they aren't any different from the alt right.
Allow me to enlighten you by illustrating how both sides are absolutely not the same
Some highlights:
References
These are excerpts from a blog post of mine, but I have ads turned off and do not benefit in any way from it.
so,same shit different pile??
Did you read any of that?
I did,it compared right wing extermism to left wing extremism. one had more death than the other but extremism nonetheless...hence same shit different pile.
or are you suggesting being a left wing extremist is the better option than say being in the middle ground...because death??
One death from left wing extremism in 25 years, versus 329 from the right, 32900% more. To say that this is the "same shit" is clearly absurd. We aren't discussing the merits of the middle ground. You seem to be suggesting that just because something is labelled as "extremist" it is automatically bad, regardless of what it actually is or what harm it causes.
one extreme isn't exactly better than the other. they are extremes and should be regarded as such.
left extremism does not represent good neither does it represent evil,same goes for right wing extremism.
what i find interesting is people seem to think left wing extremism is the ONLY way to go,ignoring the fact that left wing extremism also practice discrimination, ostracism,bigotry and racism,not that much different from right wing extremism.
Who all is arguing in support of Left-Wing extremism? Other than select instances, most users on lemmy do not by any means support tankies. I for one can't stand them.
They can be just as out of touch with reality as a MAGA extremist, but to say both sides are the same is blatantly false. Far-Right extremism is spreading across the globe and it threatens and takes lives and destroys family systems.
i agree far right extremism is destroying lives and family system. the abolishment of roe vs wade have already proven very clearly what happens when right wing nutjobs run amok.
we also clearly seen how devastating it can be for children as young as 5 to be on hormones treatment because their woke parents thinks their kid is trans.
same extremism same kind of outcome.not one is better than the other.how do people simply think left wing extremism is inherently better or not the same as right wing extremism is beyond me.
"I agree, this fascist ploy that removed fundamental rights from dozens of millions of women is dangeroous! But have you considered this scenario I imagined that impacted nobody irl? Totally the same!"
Left wing extremism is better because it's morally correct.
sure thing buddy,whatever floats your boat😊
Extremes are all relative, no? The political views that are centrist today would be extreme 100 years ago. Just saying they're extreme and therefore bad is a weak argument.
Sure there are bigots on both sides, there are bigots outside the extremes too. There are centrist bigots! There, now I've shown that extremism is just the same as centrism... Obviously that doesn't work, though, does it? You can't just pick one thing that happens and say "well everyone does this so they're all the same"... Does it happen to the same degree? What are it's consequences?
I think you'll find significantly more racism, sexism, etc on the right... Far right extenists are literal Nazis and white supremacists! Feminism, the civil rights movement, pride movement, etc, are all left-aligned... Extremist leftists sometimes lose sight of one aspect of this, but they so obviously aren't the same as literal fucking Nazis!
you sound like a leftist apologist now.
you don't need to be a leftist nazi to be an actual nazi,the same as the right.
what i also find interesting is leftist seemed to use the same reasoning to justify their extremism,not that much different from the right. no justification is enough on either side be be a nazi or behave like one.
as far as i can tell:
the right is consistently crazy.
the left has been getting consistently crazier.
What are you talking about? Nazism is a fundamentally right-aligned ideology, how can you argue otherwise? You can invent definitions of what "left" or "right" means to suit you if you want, but why bother saying anything if you're going to make up the meanings of words?
Can you tell me what a "leftist" is? Or what they might want for the world? Can you tell me what a Nazi is? And then why you think there are parallels?
I just don't believe that anyone who understands what these words mean would think they are alike.
so left wing extremists aren't bigots, don't discriminate, don't spread hate or behave exactly like a nazi would???
a left wing extremist will behave exactly like their right wing counterparts. they exhibit behaviours just like those right wing nutjobs.
you call right wing extremist nazis,i agree. i call left wing extremists nazis in disguise.
If you can understand that extremism isn't inherently good or bad, what matters is what's correct, why do you have to lie and pretend the left supports racism, discriminatuon, ostracism, and bigotry when the extreme left combats those as foundation?
This is a mind-numbing take only possible by a privledged person who has never spoken to a leftist, only heard about them through Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Ben Shapiro.
so far,the leftist are here calling me a rightoid,transphobe,homophobe signs of what right wing extremists does.
so you tell me.
You are right-wing, so that's true. You've also been repeating LibsOfTikTok-style lies about the left "transing kids," which is debunked nonsense, and is in fact transphobic to peddle. I haven't seen any homophobia from you yet, but the other 2 are correct.
sure thing buddy if you say so.😊
Extremism is not good or bad, just like being in the middle is not good or bad either. What matters is what's correct.
For example, between being pro-fascism and anti-fascism, anti-fascism is both extreme and correct.
sure,if that's what you think is correct.
i am sure when you preach that being gay is God's intention,i am sure Christians and Muslim will agree that correct.
don't forget to label me a homophobe if that's what it is now.
I don't preach, I'm not religious. You're now putting words directly in my mouth because that's all you've done from the start: lie about fake leftists that hurt your feelings.
now that's putting words in ones mouth!!
No. Completely different and entirely incompatible.
When you go far left, you have ideologies like Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism, all ideologies that oppose unjust hierarchy and advocate for the good of all.
The far-right is completely different from the far-left, because the far-right has ideologies like fascism and feudalism. This is an inherently violent, reactionary position found to uphold the status quo, ie the division of power, via absolute measures.
These are not the same.
This simply means you're either a liberal or a fascist.
This image from 2020 sums it up decently...
https://imgur.com/a/WqMvpo0
Also: you guys messed up the colors for the parties, red is for left leaning parties, blue is for right leaning. But I guess that is just the US being the US, like temperature, weight and distance units.
I guess because they switched positions a long while ago.
Wait, Reps used to be left of Dems?
The Republican party was Lincoln's party. Look at were they stand now.
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
For 30 years it was the same way as the UK, based on the system. It wasn't until Gore v Dubya that the NYT printed it in colour with red being republican. The reason? Both red and republican start with R.... They really knew their audience!
Other people have already posted good answers so I just want to add a couple things.
If you want a very simple, concrete example: Healthcare. It depends on how you count, but more than half the world's countries have some sort of free or low cost public healthcare, whereas in the US, the richest country in the history of countries, that's presented as radical left wing kooky unrealistic communist Bernie idea. This isn't an example of a left-wing policy that we won't adopt, but of what in much of the world is a normal public service that we can't adopt because anti-socialism in this country is so malignant and metastasized that it can be weaponized against things that are just considered normal public services almost like roads in other countries.
A true left wing would support not just things like healthcare, but advocate for an economic system in which workers have control over their jobs, not the bosses. That is completely absent.
Also, this meme:
It's glib, but it's not wrong. Both parties routinely support American militarism abroad. Antimilitarism in favor of internationalism has been a corner stone for the left since the left began.
in my world, that's called same shit different pile.
also,while i am no right wing supporter, i constantly run into leftist who wouldn't hesitate to brand me a phobe of their convenience ,none of the right leaning people i interacted with does this... anecdotal i know.
Yeah, but no one lives in your world but you. In the real world, you're so hilariously off the mark.
Maybe the leftist has a point because you actually align with the right? Crazy, I know, but I've seen this argument play out irl more than once with some rightoids that loved to pretend their politics weren't right aligned.
"I constantly complain about anyone left of Thatcher and have reactionary social views, the people who agree with me don't criticise me. Curious!"
that's a strange observation,given i actually criticise both left and right rather than just the left.
Uh huh, of course.
So it's pronouns right? that's what's got you worked up?
If the party I vote for in Germany would be one in the US they probably would be banned for being communists or something like that while here they're a widely accepted part of the goverment.
Which party is that?
This one
Lol, and it's not even our leftest party :D
Good choice though
It doesn't feel like a good choice, just the least bad one
Doesn't sound that different from the US's Green Party, honestly.
Because all the true is gone.
There's no leftist party, nothing Socialist in the least. The furthest "left" you go is the DNC, which is liberal, and therefore right wing. The furthest right you go is the GOP, which is fascist.
A few years ago I would have agreed with this statement. But lately, I've seen a change described in several press articles and news pieces. The younger generations in the US demand true social justice and aren't afraid to say they're socialists, against capitalism or consumerism. It's a burgeoning revolution of course, since the establishment is still in control of traditional political parties. But this crack in the old broken system could bring about positive change in the long run. At least I hope so.
Compared to the rest of the first world countries, our farthest left candidates are relatively moderate.
If one were to gather political parties from around the world and sort them as left-leaning, center, or right-leaning, one could do so. However when it came time to compare the left-leaning parties of other developed nations with the left-leaning parties of the united states, it would quickly become apparent that the "most-left" party in the united states aligns with center-right and far-right parties of other developed nations. So, doing such analysis you quickly come to realize that the united states has no true left-wing party. We have conservative and conservative-light. It should also be noted that the conservative party in the united states is much further right than most other developed nations.
Also, remember, right-left is a duopoly, much like Pepsi and Coke. There are so many more dimensions to politics than right-left, there's a thousand different parties for every ideology. For more info on this, check out the podcast linked at the end. Support ranked choice voting if you want to take steps to end this duopoly. What do you have to lose? Entrenched life-long, un-removeable politicians. What do you have to gain? Choice. Variety. More direct democratic representation and politicians that better reflect their voter's interests.
Freakanomics
Episode 356
America’s Hidden Duopoly
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/
Politics is about power structures. Both of America's parties support the same structure, capitalism.
@return2ozma@lemmy.world One way to think about "the left" is that it values freedom from domination. Who in the US is fighting to reduce the level of domination we experience in important areas of life (health care, education, food, housing to name a few)? Should we really have to pay and put ourselves into debt--thereby becoming dominated--to go to school, live somewhere, or maintain our health? Even the so-called left in the US supports this arrangement generally; at best they fight over the details, not the structure itself.
It also funnels down to freedom from bureaucracy too. Look at how hard it is in many places to legally build a non-fancy home on your own property. Endless restrictions, regulations, permits and inspections. Nobody is trying to free us from this.
Right! And the US Democratic party seems to be obsessed with means testing, so that many times when there is government assistance available people who need it are forced to subject themselves to intrusive surveillance, frequent paperwork and sometimes shifting requirements, etc. It's rare (in my experience) to hear anyone critique this state of affairs, let alone make substantive moves to change it.
Do you know anyone on disability / social security?
Yes.
I think there's value in what you're calling attention to.
"Freedom" vs "domination" though has nothing to do with the left or right of a government (in theory). You're actually referring to libertarianism vs authoritarianism, which is (again, in theory) independent from economic structure.
@genie@lemmy.world I did not draw a dichotomy nor make a universal definition. I stated that the left is concerned with freedom from domination, which is undeniably true. What else do words like "equality" and "equity" mean? I did not state or suggest that this was the only concern, but it's clearly an important one.
I didn't say that you did?
I respectfully disagree that "the left is concerned with freedom from domination" is "undeniably true". I think there's a lot of room for debate here that you're frankly not interested in.
@genie@lemmy.world You don't have any idea what I'm interested in.
I am definitely not interested in being condescended to, that's for sure, so bye.
Nah bud. you can't separate social theory from economic theory in general terms. They are one and the same. How your currency is used and controlled and by who for what is social theory.
They are related (in practice) but I disagree that they're one "and" the same. Freedom from domination can exist in the left or the right.
Demonizing the views that you don't hold as inherently opposed to freedom is how the US got to this point in this awful no spectrum of views two party system in the first place.
(By the way, just noticed your username. How're'ya'now bud?)
Oh yah know
Freedom from domination cannot exist in the right, as domination is the method by which production occurs. The right must whitewash domination, clean it, yet still use it, to operate.
Are you suggesting that there is no production without domination?
No, not at all. I'm suggesting that when production is directed by an owner class, the worker class is dominated. If the workers collectively or individually own the means of production, there is no domination.
On that point I'm with you! It's painfully obvious in today's wealth disparity in the US.
Where it breaks down for me is your argument that it's only possible to have a dominating dynamic in a right wing regime. Would you really argue that the CCP does not impose a dominating dynamic over the people of China?
My point was more that the right is necessarily dominating, while the left is conditionally so. The original point was that either side could be dominating or not, and I disagree with that, only the left has the chance to not be dominating because it's a requirement for the right.
No. Capitalism, feudalism, monarchism, and so forth are built on domination, ie hierarchy, while leftist structures such as Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism advocate collective ownership so as to combat this.
The reason that type of left is ignored because it's dumber than libertarianism. At least the mirror of it realizes someone has to pay for it (perhaps those want to use it), and just doesn't like the coercive mandate. You, though, both don't want to be coerced AND think it all oughtta be free because....forcing people to give you free shit is not being dominated? "I want to be a lazy bully" isn't the intellectual flex you think it is.
@John_McMurray@lemmy.world Thank you for supplying the "someone has to pay for it" canard, which is one of many reasons the US doesn't have a functional left politics. Neoclassical economics brain poisoning.
You have never once engaged honestly with what a leftist believes.
I've never ate horseshit either.
Really? How'd it get in your mouth then, for you to spit it everywhere?
Is this what passes for clever in your mind?
I chuckled a bit when I wrote it.
Two-party voting systems babyyyyyy
See also: the UK, most ex-British colonies
Keep it polite people. 🙂
It's simple really : the US left is liberal, thus it is not truly the left.
If "they" would provide a definition of "true left" then maybe we can discuss it. Otherwise, it's so impossibly vague, who could possibly answer this question?
It is not difficult to infer the intent behind what they mean and answer the question, but that would require some effort.
It is much easier to pedantically critique word choice. That requires no effort.
I will help you. When an object X is "true X", that usually means the same base item X, with greater magnitude, so "true X" would be a X-leaning political philosophy with a greater magnitude. So taking left-wing policies for example, it could be paid maternity and paternity leave, worker's rights, a social safety net, yearly vacation days, and such. In this limited example, the united states has none of these policies enforced on a national level. These are policies that would be included in even center-left politics. So it could be said that the united states has no "true left" because the policies enacted most frequently represent mostly right or far-right ideology. Tax cuts for corporations, slashing of retirement funds, removal of protection for the environment, etc.
The use of this "true left" terms in american politics is especially prescient because the liberal party, if removed from the united states and placed into any other political environment, would be a right-wing party. Basically, the liberal party in the united states isn't left-leaning if we look at global standards. It is a center-right or right-wing neoliberalism at best. Thus folks in the united states often say that there is no "true-left" party.
Hope this helps.
Leftism is about being egalitarian. Everyone is equal, power is shared equally, and that equality is protected. There many very different paths and approaches to this conceptually. @stembolts@programming.dev gave a great overview of some basic specific policies below.
Rightism is about consolidation of power. Since power and wealth are inextricably linked (two sides of the same coin, as it were), the defining feature of Rightism is hoarding of wealth and entrenchment of power.
Looking at our two major parties, their platforms, their policies, and their behavior as organizations, it’s easy to tell that neither meets the definition of Leftist.
What parties in which countries would you consider true leftist?
Because they're idiots that haven't bothered to pay attention.
What is the left to you? Does a major party that wins election advocates and brings bills for this platform on a national united scale?
Who are "they"? This is the first time I've ever heard that statement.
"they" is commonly used and understood as being a general reference to 'people', whether a specific area (politics) or society.
Ah ok, I'll rephrase the question: Which "people" are saying this? This is the first time I've ever heard that statement.
I've said it before, and many others on discussion forums who are not from the US but have knowledge of the system and its characters.
The left in the US are doing the best they can with what they have. This kind of "holier than thou" elitism from abroad does nothing to help the situation.
It isn't elitism or such an attitude to point it out.
I used to live in the US but I'm not from there. Am I allowed an opinion on something which has wider ranging consequences?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make it any less judgemental or snobbish though.
That's my opinion anyway
On the other side, the US thinks it has a left yet, as this comment encapsulates, to most of us outside of the country, it clearly does not. It's not snobbish to point it out, it's factual.
Not everyone is entitled to an opinion, that's why we don't put up with racists and Nazis.
Ah, so not only are you claiming some kind of imagined moral victory over people you've clearly never met, you're also claiming that Europe is free of racists and Nazis??? Lol that was a good troll dude, you really had me going for a while there 🤣🤣🤣
Weird how you create such things in your head to attribute to me. Free of? No, but racism gets you arrested and ostracised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
What leftist party is there in the US that is centered around some form of Socialism that controls any meaningful amount of the State?
That's only a meaningful question if the only "true Left" is a Leftist political party that is centered around some form of Socialism that controls a meaningful amount of a State.
Not necessarily. A Syndicalist or otherwise Anarchist-derivative party doesn't exist either, and no similar coalition exists on the ground with widespread impact on the Capitalist status-quo, yet.
I really hope you're not trying to insinuate that the DNC are somehow left wing.
I've never heard this before. The US has "left" and "right" like everyone else, not that I don't consider those terms entirely based on imaginary association. I always found it intriguing "left and right" is a scale but policies themselves are seen as binary. Just because the "left" does not come across as represented in this particular culture does not silence them, at least not at the moment.
This is because there is no true left in the US.
The American left has moved so much towards the right that it is mostly centre to right
You say that as if there aren't people of every political view in almost every country and/or that the US is weeding them out. What the representation trends say do not speak for whether there has always existed those of viewpoints further down a scale. Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, both appreciated and not, can be found scattered across US traditional history and coloring the geography of some of the fifty states, such as parts of New York and Vermont and in Louisiana where Huey Long was once a governor who fell just short of being considered Communist. There is indeed a community in the US that one might call "the true left", even if the people who end up elected are generic politicians. It sounds much like the "non-Roman-pagan philosophies didn't exist in Rome" view.
Because "there is no true left" is a lot shorter than "while individuals with strong left-wing ideologies exist in the US, the current political power structure leaves them almost full disenfranchised, forcing them to either vote for right-wing parties or forego their vote" is really not very catchy.
I mean, the US is a democratic republic, the whole point is that the most resonating choice for ruler becomes the ruler... that a section of the political sphere wouldn't become the one represented by the ruler is nothing striking and nothing to be ashamed of. Equally there being "no true right" is a common shortener because nobody in office ever advocated (true) Fascism beyond what could be found trending in other political crowds at certain times in history.
Do you actually believe that the political establishment/ruling class of this country has ever "resonated" with the majority of people?
At least in recent times, there is much more evidence to the contrary.
To an extent. They might artificially thrust some people into the game, and the system is clunky, but as far as votes go when votes are offered, they are listened to. If the person in charge was a cheat, it would technically prove my point even more, because it would imply it's not a true game of representation and that those of us who may be considered adherents to "left" streams of thought are on more street corners than the "they're a demographic minority" view might suggest.
The only options people have to vote on are what are offered to them. The problem is, that in the US, you need money to become an option. That money comes mainly from corporations. Corporations won't back a left wing party or politician.
I can name several examples to the contrary. Google is the most successful business in the entire nation, and they've been 100% consecutively in favor of "left" choices, often even promoting logo imagery of people whom a decade ago would be considered radicals. Don't forget corporations in the modern era have sacrificed face to make completely meaningless changes to their marketing that they knew would put them in the path of the opposition to cancel culture (Aunt Jemima, Budweiser, etc.). The idea that corporations don't have at least a little sense of "left" is false.
Nothing Google does or supports is actually a leftist anything. You're making the same mistake all Americans make - buying into the propaganda that left/right is about social permissiveness. It's actually an economic spectrum, and every meaningful company or organization is either far right, or extreme right.
So Marxism isn't left? Alrighty then.
You think Google doodles are advocacy? Yeesh.
Google and other major corporations will try garner goodwill by supporting ideas that they want people to think of them as. Its the same with pride support and green washing.
If you as an American ( I assume) believe that Google is positioned to the left, l'd say you basically proove the point of there not being a left in the US
Even though Google knows it's facing backlash for said views? It's been a decade and they still flagship "left" streams of thought, posting videos about them on YouTube every two instances, typically with the comments/ratings disabled as a defense mechanism. What is that garnering? On at least three occasions they had a Google doodle of people who outright celebrated terrorism and 9/11 as steps in the right direction. Definitely not typical PR.
Could you share exambles of these? Also could you link to the youtube videos of them promoting left orientated thought and actions?
I'm not so sure. The US sure is a democratic republic by 18th century standards. But you still retain that system that makes someone win the presidency who doesn't have the absolute majority of votes. And some of the states don't really count in the campaigns since it's obvious if they're blue or red.
I've watched too much George Carlin. I think the system with the two parties is more to give you the illusion of having a choice. Same with the theoretical availability of 'left' individuals.
And I mean we have enough examples of systems suppressing people. A theoretical possibility doesn't help if there's no real choice. And you can keep the masses uneducated and occupied with lots of work so they don't have time to get to power. I think that's some of the dynamics in the USA that keep the system as is. Also, Putin also was elected somewhat democratically. It's just that he got rid of his opposition. And the USA is more or less doing a similar thing. Just that they provide the people with a second choice, some illusion of choice that gives the people something to keep busy arguing about. In practice they both are a slightly different hue of the same color.
So on the paper, it's a democratic system and you'd be correct arguing with me. In practice it's deliberately set up in a way that votes can't change anything of substance.
Even if it's a clunky system, what I meant is it's still an evened out system, equally fluid for everyone even if some of that fluidity manifests more often for some than others. It should also be remembered the US is a nation where the leadership is not the whole of control. To those whose complaint here is that things seem preselected against their wishes (and against mine, I want to stress I'm not implying I disagree with them policy-wise), there is still at least some element of choice before things are narrowed down to the two choices. The US is not using a "loud/might makes right" approach at the moment, just a bumpy process, which sets it apart from Russia for example which is arguably de facto quasi-feudalist.
It isn't evened out for everyone. That's like saying "now taxes are a flat 100k each year and it's correct because it sucks for everyone". When a milionaire (a party with a following) wouldn't care, someone who is starting out (and could for instance gain 5% of the vote in this election) would get dumpstered and prevented from gaining more votes next election, since they'd be "on the board" and people would see them
When I say evened out, I mean in indication of the fact there's a difference between having a voice (which everyone has the same amount of), everyone having differing levels of being able to have a voice, and being heard or unheard, as well as a difference between being dismissed on a fair/honest or relatively fair/honest basis (as in they're overshadowed according to fair rules) and being dismissed unfairly as a result of certain people being prioritized by means that would rig the game. "Wealth is a prerequisite to power" isn't the whole story and misrepresents the complexity of the process which in turn would allow more of a chance for everyone than that. Some past members of the government (of all roles, senator, governor, etc.) have been incredibly poor and largely disconnected from any wealth structure.
You wrote all that to say "politicians bad" and haven't related to anything said above. The fact of the matter is - US isn't a democracy. A choice between two parties with "no chance of anyone else winning" isn't a democracy. Especially since both sides are basically the same.
How so?
What do you mean how so. Compare political parties in Europe, or the state of workers rights etc.
I don't think it's an evened out system. It's that on paper. I think we can agree on that. But the proper question is: Is that paper worth anything, anymore?
And is it evened out? What percentage of their salaries do lower class people pay for taxes and healtcare and the infrastructure? What percentage is it for rich people? Is there lobbyism being the biggest influence on what gets decided in politics? Who can afford that and gets their itches scratched? The big companies or the rural population? And do they even get some audience in the TV news shows, their voices heard?
As another reply said, when I say evened out, I mean in indication of the fact there’s a difference between having a voice (which everyone has the same amount of), everyone having differing levels of being able to have a voice, and being heard or unheard, as well as a difference between being dismissed on a fair/honest or relatively fair/honest basis (as in they’re overshadowed according to fair rules) and being dismissed unfairly as a result of certain people being prioritized by means that would rig the game. Certain things do surpass lobbyists, which I do acknowledge is a large force, but which, if it were the largest influence on politics, I'm sure would in turn surpass any meaning to any discussion on the two party system, another thing which I acknowledge might affect the gears (but not the outcome, if enough people of a certain opinion so willed, which is my point) of the government. There are many avenues around each blockage.
Yeah, what I mean is, sure there are some specific counterexamples far and in between. But if it weren't for the pharma lobby, you'd spend $8.000 on healthcare instead of $14.000 per year. And you'd live 2-3 years longer on average. I think 99.9% of the population would gladly accept that. But it ruins some of the business model of the 0.1% who get to make the decisions. It'll never happen in the USA because it's just on the paper that the people decide. And some of them aren't even educated enough to do so. Same thing with school shootings and other things people regularly complain about.
Sure individuals exist! I am even sure that many would vote for the left if they could. But because the US political system is what it is, they can't vote for a politician or party that will represent their ideology. Hence, there is no left in the US even though people might actually want it to be.
Says who? Nobody can guarantee they'll succeed, but everyone can be guaranteed an honest vote. We're not living in the Hollywood Blacklist era anymore. I've seen Marxist mayors win mayoral seats.
I think that we keep misunderstanding each other and i can't figure out if its intentional. I am pretty sure that this is about the two party system and none of them being on the left
I thought the gist was about the supposed deterrence of potential "left" aspects of American culture as present in the individuals, which is mutually exclusive from the situation in the American leadership (especially if they don't fully represent the people, which I don't disagree with), especially if they aren't the only positions of influence.
There is a similar discussion in Mexico... you have the leadership which is historically "left" while the grand majority of the population is historically "right", all before they get mixed up with America's "left" because that's the association they have when you run into debates about closed or open borders. Several EU countries come to mind as well, many have locked-in systems that contrast with the people. The two parties in Canada (because most countries have two parties) are both significantly more "left" that the people, but nobody there is saying there's "no true right", so why do we say America has "no true left"?
Were they genuinely Marxist? Or did people just call them Marxist because they had more liberal policies than the norm for the area? Liberalism ≠ socialism, and socialism ≠ Marxism.
Some did identify as Marxist. Not sure how to square that with what counts "as objectively Marxist" since political labels tend to act as a sum of the policies. If a nation that's canonically supposed to be "Marxist" has a policy out of place, is it "not Marxist", as opposed to two, three, four, etc.? Without a doubt many nations in the fold of Marx were more unbecoming of Marx himself that the towns I'm thinking of.
What the OP's question is referring to is whether or not there is an organized political movement of any real size or structure that represents leftist ideology (which at minimum I describe as anti capitalist). In the 2 major parties, there is not. Full stop. Of the lesser parties which have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting real power? Probably not. Greens bad Dem Soc are not explicitly anti capitalist as far as I'm aware.
There are certainly what might be called organized political movements of that kind, even if they aren't at the top of their game, which like I said resembles the Roman analogy I gave. There will always seem to be something that sticks to the leadership, something that sticks to certain commoners, and things that are unlike either one to do. It's a democratic republic, there will always be the unsung people, this isn't striking or anything to be ashamed of. All have different supposed degrees of conceptualizations of capital, which isn't uncommon even in Marxist countries, many of which retain some aspects of that policy sphere, something I say in connection to where I mention how intrigued I am that "left and right" is a scale while each individual policy is built on "yes" or "no". You may have heard the common adage "China is becoming more capitalist while America is becoming more socialist", and the American Democrat Party was in fact in one of the Communist Internationals if I'm correct.