General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat would you describe as being the most EXTREME Left wing position?
Would it be "Gun Control" which is really only Safety Concerns, or Would it be "Pro-Choice" which says abortion is acceptable and legal. Would it be Pollution Control, (antic drilling, anti-coal burning,) I hear all the time how the Left has such EXTREME positions, but for the life of me I don't know what those might be. However I am about as far left as one could get, so what some might see as Extreme, I see as common sense.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's just a measure of where most people are. If Americans were ready for these things, they'd vote for a Congress/President and Governors/state reps that would pass them.
Most Americans accept some regulation to save the environment - that is how we came to have the EPA. Most accept some regulation of business. But not socialist, with government controlling it all.
Most Americans are pro-choice, so that cannot be extreme. Many states now allow gay marriage and so that's not extreme.
The left here is not extreme in their opinions. It's their demands, and expectation that politicians will vote for things their constituents are not in favor of.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Such as "I am in favor of X"
It becomes extreme, in my opinion, when people go beyond that to say/think
"I am in favor of X, and people who are not in favor of X are idiots, a-holes, or some other type of defective and I cannot even talk to them or listen to them."
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--and "free" trade agreements, and deregulation of Wall Street. Do you have evidence that significant numbers of Americans support these things?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It depends on the district. Or they might be OK with chaining the CPI calculation method, or OK with it if it gets something else. If they were a district that wanted no changes, they'd have elected a progressive who would never agree to them, even as part of a bargain.
Face it these representatives have motive to do what they think their constituents want. If everyone wanted single payer, then it would be easy to get a majority that would consider it. IMO many Americans are afraid of all that, so hopefully the ACA will lessen that fear and concern. The whole government-can-do-no-right thing is affecting everyone, and the left contributes to it just as much as the right.
eridani
(51,907 posts)YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Not what they actually want.
Public opinion is notoriously unreliable, particularly in a country like the USA.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were achieved?
Were those who supported it and demanded Civil Rights for everyone, EXTREME? Should they have just kept quiet about it until it miraculously, all be itself, became NOT EXTREME?
What you are saying makes ZERO sense. You are saying that people should be quiet about issues as long as they are not accepted by a majority, and UNTIL that happens.
So everyone who speaks out about injustices and wrong policies that are harmful to this country is 'extreme'.
So who will decide when it's okay to demand what is right for all of the people?
We've had an awful lot of 'extremists' in this country throughout its history according to your assessment.
Consider me an extremist and a proud one, certainly I have been called that when I support Gay Marriage and was told 'the time is not right', by some on the 'Left' and called an 'extremist' by both the Right and 'moderates' on the Left.
Now I'm an extremist on SS, on Foreign Policy, on Education, on The Environment, on holding Criminals no matter how wealthy, accountable.
Which issues is it okay to talk about without falling into your extremist category.
You seem to be saying that the people should follow the Party and just wait until something is okay with the Party.
Lol, if people had done that, we would still be living in the 18th Century on women's and minority issues.
MLK was quite the extremist, wasn't he?
treestar
(82,383 posts)a majority. So we have to keep working at it (rather than ranting at elected officials for not having done it already).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)courage to speak out. Ranting? Is that what you call demanding that our elected officials work for US? I'll keep on ranting and hopefuly so will many more until, eg we are certain they understand that there will be political consequences for any Dem who votes to cut SS.
I thought it was called activism without which there would be no progress at all, and there hasn't been nearly enough of it which is why it HAS taken so long to get what should have been easy in any country claiming to be a democracy.
It is the 'extremists' who finally get things done, no thanks to the naysayers with their weasel words and actions in support of politicians rather than people, such as : 'it's not the right time' etc. If those saying 'it's not the right time' had joined the extremists instead of excusing bigotry being prolonged, that time would have come sooner.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Or anything that resembles that.
At bottom, it's always about the money.
hunter
(38,337 posts)We have every right to tax entities and individuals, to take the money back to prevent the very wealthy classes from buying politicians, hoarding it in financial schemes that do not contribute to the Common Good, and otherwise use the money in ways that are harmful to society.
Money should be created and spread around among the ordinary classes of society for the benefit of all, for the creation of good jobs for ordinary people, and generous welfare for children, the unemployed and unemployable, and the elderly. Then it ought to be taxed from the wealthy before it has a chance to become scummy and corrupt, or cause inflation.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Money and property are social fictions, and when they fail to serve societies ends then can and should be rearranged. Justifications of Capitalism are always couched in terms of the public good, but as soon as that is done, all that shit is thrown over the side and it's a dog-eat-dog war of snout in the trough.
North Carolina Knigh
(39 posts)Then why should anyone work one minute more than the next person? Raise taxes, fine, have usage charges, good. But to say that what I earn from work should be shared with all makes no sense.
hunter
(38,337 posts)People who don't share, people who calculate a price for everything, are nasty.
People who share the wealth or talent they have are the wealthiest people in the world.
I'm not saying anyone should work for free. Work is work. Hard stressful work deserves better pay, but probably at some multiple less than twenty for any ordinary labor. No single human does the work of twenty ordinary people. Yep, I don't think the CEO of a corporation should take home no more than twenty times what the lowest paid employee makes. (Steve Jobs and Chinese electronics assemblers included...)
Great wealth is good fortune at best, criminal at worst. People who find themselves in a position of great wealth or power have ethical obligations greater than ordinary workers. If they cannot share, if they cannot be generous, then it is society's obligation to relieve them of their money hoard for our own protection.
I do not respect wealth, I think the majority of uber-wealthy people are corrupt or utterly clueless about the nature of human society.
North Carolina Knigh
(39 posts)But if a doctor knew up front what their limits of pay wild be, would they go too even years of schooling extra? You could calculate every job in the world that way and it becomes very dangerous.
hunter
(38,337 posts)I'd rather have a doctor who was in it for the satisfaction of helping people and earning a comfortable living than a doctor who was seeking to become very wealthy.
In any case there are people who seek certain professions for altruistic reasons (teachers, nurses, primary care physicians), people who make the world a better place, who are often screwed over by our current economic system.
Many primary care physicians in the U.S.A. have become ordinary employees living under the thumb of MBAs, insurance companies, and other fat rat bastards of finance who have no medical training.
Amazingly in the U.S.A. many very wealthy people get crappy, expensive, and grotesquely inappropriate medical care because they are treated by predatory medical professionals who are in it for the money. Look what often happens to celebrities... doctors who suggest appropriate care get dumped for doctors who will delude themselves and provide inappropriate and even unethical care for money.
Many of the best medical and teaching professionals I've met work in impoverished communities in harsh conditions and don't earn nearly as much money as they might make in an affluent or wealthy community.
MagnumUK
(37 posts)...if it can be called that, is probably best summed up by the likes of British MP George Galloway. His Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Zionist stance is pretty extreme even to some leftists.
He is actually full of common sense. Those that don't see that are full of shit & right wing sycophants.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Advocating not for fixing problems with capitalism, but instead advocating for its complete demise.
That would be the most extreme left wing position.
kydo
(2,679 posts)Not fixing capitalism but pushing for its demise. In its extreme the left would be chaos, but that's at the most extreme. Just like the most extreme right would be more of a totalitarian fascist ridged rule.
Every thing to the extreme does become distorted. And we are seeing it start to play out on the right with baggers. Baggers are not the extreme right yet. They can still go further right. And that's the scary part.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its really missing from this post! We hang on tooth and nail to hear what you can regurgitate from Websters!
Lock up the wimmen and child folk. Dem anarchists are abouts!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)No offense... but extreme positions don't appear extreme to the extreme.
Advocating the destruction of capitalism may be right or wrong... but it is extreme.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)99.9% of the time homo sapiens have walked the earth, they have done so without the help of Capitalism to dictate their production (provided you could even argue production was in fact occurring as we know it for most of that time). To argue for a state that 99.9% of humans experienced may be far shy of the extreme you are characterizing it as.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason#Revolutionary_impact.23Festival_of_Reason
Actually, as an agnostic, I'm kind of intrigued by the Cult of Reason. It's like a formalist humanism; it would of course be as antagonistic to modern Humanism (it's largely incompatible with the 2002 Amsterdam Declaration) as it is to religion but it's an interesting antagonism: Can Humanism endure the existence of a humanism that does not value all human rights equally, nor value democracy, discounts ethics as artifice and is rigidly dogmatic.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... used by DINOs as an excuse for being turncoats and sellouts.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)You can find extremism for every idea and system invented by man. The left is not exempt from it either.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... was called MAINSTREAM Democratic values before OUR party was invaded by Republican Lite Turd Way pretenders.
Bullpucks that, Skiddie.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 08:27 AM - Edit history (1)
there need to be some actual face-to-face conversations taking place in lieu of the divination and ready labelling flung about by anonymous posters on the intertubes.
hehehe
I really like that, it fits you, even though you are so extreme that you don't realize how extreme you are - and Skiddies.....wake up and smell your own bullshit.
Cuz the rest of us smell it....pee ewwwwwwwwwwwwww
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I am referring too. Attack and use meaningless labels. An anonymous hit from the ether.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)but that does not mean there are not people who are extreme, for example anyone that would kill children for a cause. Granted, America never had a Biader-menhof style terrorist group, (maybe the Weathermen, perhaps), but to quote John lennon "if you are thinking about destruction, you can just count me out."
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Again they extreme is on the right.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Right. On.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)You see this "fringe left" framing every time there's protest over the president stepping to the right.
randr
(12,417 posts)How would you have stopped Hitler?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)randr
(12,417 posts)as Hitler rose to power. Many American corporate interests had no taste for fucking with the monster.
Every war since then has been in the interests of the MIC.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)overthrow of the capitalist system and establishing a socialist state would be an left-wing extremist position.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)At least according to many of the talking heads on Sunday morning TV "entitlement reform" AKA - "moderate" cuts to Social Security and Medicare is being blocked by the "far left" who oppose cuts and the far right who want to cut too much or eliminate the programs altogether.
LuvNewcastle
(16,860 posts)They've been playing that con game for a long time. They'll keep doing it as long as Americans fall for it.
agent46
(1,262 posts)These positions are only "extreme" from the propaganda frame of corporate fascism and the security state as the American political center.
I think the platform would be something like this:
(how to do all this is still up for lively discussion)
Free progressive public education for all to the post doctorate level
Affordable comprehensive healthcare for all
Strong worker advocate unions, local small industry and worker owned corporations for a positive industrial/economic model
Responsive, well funded public health and emergency services
Foreign policy emphasizing peace, diplomacy, crisis resolution, military for defense only
Pull back empire from all the military occupations
Retool arms industry in swords to plowshares program using defense budget
Massive National Works project to get everyone back on the job using and learning new skills to bring America into the 21st century
Investment in new science and technology that advances the common wealth and good
A transparent, accountable and verifiable voting system and government
Publicly funded elections
Regulation of congressional lobbying
Fair and simple tax system
Tax churches
Reverse corporate personhood and money as free speech
What did I miss?
Most extreme?
End the Empire. Bring it home.
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)But I would add Gun control, does that make me an extremist ?
No DUplicitous DUpe
(2,994 posts)I approve of you list!
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)My personal additions: bring NASA back to its former glory, expand support for children that won't depend on parental income, free birth control for both genders, and robust funding for the arts and artists.
But what I do I know, I'm a dirty Red.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Take gun control; the spectrum would, probably, begin at background checks, pass through magazine restrictions followed by mechanism limits, into a complete domestic ban, onto a complete ban on manufacture, and attempts to ban international trade in guns. Moderates would probably be happy with the first three but would recognise the damaging effects of moving towards later stages.
Pro-choice is fine but infamously can move into areas of population and genetic control and all with the best of intentions.
Pollution/environmental control is another area where reasonable controls can rapidly become less than practicable especially where the jobs of your compatriots are affected.
The most extreme left positions probably impact the freedom of the individual as much as extreme right positions.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)It's a completely straw-bogeyman dreamed up by right-wingers.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)that danger occurs when the power of choice over people's bodies belongs to the State, any State than can tell you you can not do X can also tell you that you must do X. The choice should remain with the individual, not with the State. That is why the issue is 'reproductive choice' not simply 'right to abortion'. It is a many faceted individual human right, to control what one does with one's own body.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)although the realisation of that was mainly right wing. Now add in liberal positions on AGW and pollution and there is a definite danger especially as extreme governments on both ends of the political spectrum can become very authoritarian.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)In the US, those would probably be considered extreme left positions to the ruling class and their politicians
polichick
(37,152 posts)for RepubliCons.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Abolition, women's rights, labor rights, civil liberties, civil rights, etc, we're all considered radical and extreme. Even Independence from Britain was achieved by "extremists" until achieved. In every case, the "moderates" claimed the victory.
What is now considered extreme will someday become conventional wisdom and the "moderates" will claim victory again.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)penultimate
(1,110 posts)I kids kids... Isn't there an actual distinction between personal property and private property?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)making was against home ownership.
Owning a home is elitist ...
So you are probably right, it was a "no private property" argument, focused on "personal" home ownership.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)That's really the only thing I care about in this world.
I used to 'hang out' on a communist geared message board, and that was a pretty common argument made(obviously) Even though I didn't agree with everything they said, I enjoyed talking/debating with them before the site died.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I doubt even the most extreme leftist/collectivist type would be opposed to people owning, say, CD players. And even if they were, no one else would take them seriously.
DireStrike
(6,452 posts)The point is the societal context. If somebody else were to take something that you were using currently (but didn't own), you could just go to the distribution center and get another.
Of course JoePhilly points out another problem with this argument via the infamous toothbrush argument. Just because there is no legal basis preventing you from doing something doesn't mean that a) anyone will WANT to do that, and b) there is no social pressure preventing one from doing that. For example, and I am not a lawyer, but there doesn't seem to be any law forbidding you from using, or attempting to use, a public bathroom urinal or stall that someone else is currently using. Yet this behavior would never occur, and 99% of people would rate it as poor behavior.
Public ownership of all houses (and cars) would be more complex and probably require at least some regulation. Certain locations would be more desirable; you wouldn't want people to come and take "your" house while you were at dinner, and just the logistical difficulty of moving (even if you could replace everything in a few days, it would be quite a hassle) make this much more complex than a simple proclamation of common ownership. Yet some do make this argument without the nuances, and it's quite annoying.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Non-capitalist, non-corporate, non-business/factory modeled public education.
Closing economic gaps: Labor standards, and labor unions. A living wage.
Taxing the top to close those gaps.
Getting out of the business of empire and focusing on domestic needs.
Expanding SS.
So many more, all directed at benefiting the 99%.
In the U.S. anyway, which doesn't really have a noticeable extreme left wing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)We are sadly bereft of embarrassing left wing bomb throwing pistol wavers who aren't afraid to die. All we want to do is dance.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)While it's true that the "left" leaning party in this country does advocate gun control, I reserve the left/right paradigm for economic issues.
I support state control of all natural resources (the extraction, and profits).
I support a single payer health care system.
I support the EFCA.
I support a 12/dollar an hour minimum wage.
I support 480 days of paid maternity leave for mothers.
There are a lot more.
I'm not really all that far to the left on an international scale. But on an American scale? I'm a commie.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)include:
Socialized medicine
Slashing the big war budget
Taxing the rich
Jailing banksters and seizing their assets
Breaking up monopolies
Expanding SS
ETC
2banon
(7,321 posts)but I'm in hurry.. so let's fast forward to "extremists are like those anti-war protesters in the 60's". or those that were demanding Single Payer instead of the corporate give away to Insurance Corps, etc. etc.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)pacifism (all wars are bad), ban all guns, ban all corporations, ban cars in order to get everyone to bike or use public transit, ban plastic bags, no personal property, top tax rates higher than 90%, no more TV or radio commercials, and mandatory food stamp program for those who are in the top 2% tax bracket for one month every year.
on point
(2,506 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)The current mode of thought says that it is scandalous and disgusting - almost inhuman - to seek to collectively provide for and protect the weakest among us.
boom
Phentex
(16,334 posts)Says this atheist! Most ideas that allow us to help those in need are considered too far left, imo.
LeftishBrit
(41,212 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 04:43 AM - Edit history (1)
whereas centre-leftists believe in a mixed economy with an emphasis on public services.
I don't think that even centre-leftists are common in America; and extreme leftists in this sense hardly exist in governments anywhere nowadays, including 'communist' China.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)At least 17 DUers support this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022881616
Alternatively: arrest the Koch Brothers for treason (supported by 36 DUers):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023965660
Revanchist
(1,375 posts)or some of the positions that are posted on the internet. Because you can always find examples of extreme and fringe views that aren't supported by even a large minority of the population. A good example are the posts where people believe we should kick all of the southern states out of the U.S. and build a wall separating those former states from what remains of the union.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)would be the Nanny-staters trying to protect us from everything. Life is always fatal, but sometimes I think they would only be happy when people are living inside bubbles.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'I repeat catch phrases'. What 'bubble'? What's a 'nanny stater'? Who is an example of such a person in public life?
I've only heard that term sputtered by far right wing radio personalities. They also leave it vague and unspecific.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,593 posts)The War Machine....
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)It was a brief thing on DU in '08, and to the site's credit usually received with laughing incredulity. There were a few people in the forums who felt that anyone who could afford to pay their rent or mortgage was too wealthy and needed to be ruinously taxed (I think "ruinously" was their wording).
There's probably sillier things out there (and definitely were in the past, like places where having glasses was a capital crime because it meant you were obviously an aristocrat), but those feel sufficiently divorced from reality that I don't really see them as part of the left-right spectrum at all. "Being able to afford basic living expenses is too rich" is, and is far enough out on the batshit-crazy, stuck-to-the-earth-with-suction-cups-alone end of the spectrum that it probably counts.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Left wing = count all votes
Extremely Left = Vote is a right BBV is illegal
haele
(12,683 posts)Whether or not it's a common sense opinion, if it doesn't "make money", if it challenges people who have made money, or if it's an optimal action or fix that's going to cost something or require expenditure of energy and thought, it's an extreme position.
Haele
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)And education more generally is threatening to the right and therefore subversive.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)granted these are not acceptable in modern American discourse
Living wage (making inroads)
Redistribution of wealth, favoring workers, not capital.
Class War, the true marxist meaning of the phrase. And these are just three that mostly are not in the mainstream.
Americans really do not know what real left is, even if it wiggled in front of you.
A few other positions, that used to be part of the dialogue but no more.
National strike for a slew of labor causes, the last was in the 1950s.
Believe it or not, free education all the way to PhD for qualified students. (But social democracy is way to the left of the American so called left)
And yes, single payer healthcare, which was taken off the table this fast.
Pollution control is not left, it is not right, climate change will soon lose all kinds of political stigma to it.
The other two, culture wars are lovely.
And I am doing more than I usually do on this site anymore, but I will repeat this, Americans for the most part have no idea what real left is.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Nationalizing the banks? Guaranteed minimum income? A 30 hour work week? Overtime as double-time? 90% top marginal tax rates?
What seems inconceivable here is not only discussed elsewhere, but is attainable.
What is considered edgy here is actually common-sense stuff everywhere else in the world.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)The most extreme leftwing position, to me, would be for the abolishment of all private property and forced redistrubtion of wealth equally to all americans while the government takes control of EVERY industry and corporation (including nonessential things like toy manufacturing and sale).
I don't see anyone advocating for that myself.
I'm pretty far left but I am far from advocating that position myself.
My most extreme position is that I think the minimum wage should include a floor wage of $15.00 (adjusted for inflation) and a clause saying that a corporation could not pay any employee less than 1/30th the wage of its highest paid employee. That would shrink the salaries of the CEO making over 300x the wage of their employees while increasing the salaries of everyone on the bottom.
[p class=post-sig style=margin-top:0px;text-align:center;]
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)By definition.
Its critique of identity politics and "victimization culture" would be rejected by most leftists here. Yeah, it's that extreme. But it is leftist and it makes very good points.
Now if you're talking about American left wing politics, it's really more center left. The most extreme would maybe be gun control, a full ban on guns or registration for all guns. There's really no other extreme position that at least some on the right would embrace.
Anti-pollution? Well the right wing might shit on the national parks and have stupid ass ideas, but everyone wants their cities clean.
Pro-choice? Let's be realistic, there are so many cases and we all know of them in our immediate circles of right wingers getting the day after pill or getting an abortion for their younger daughter who wasn't educated on contraceptives (or was taught abstinence). It might not be publicly expressed, but it's the reality.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Not that any generic leftie is advocating this. There are not very many socialist party splinter groups these days.
jmowreader
(50,567 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)jmowreader
(50,567 posts)Setting a maximum wage, however, is a very popular position.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)extreme outside DU.
RandiFan1290
(6,256 posts)I was told that was a "left wing" position.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Raising it that high before there is an alternative would be suicide.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)(provided their actual intent isn't to destroy the modern economy)
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)A complex or well read search may find examples.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Then after a few years here I discovered that the self-described moderates here were pro more corporate control of the commons, like public education.
The moderates were also the most vocal about kicking the can down the road with regard to equality and human right.
The moderates advocated more military intervention.
The moderates screamed that abortions shouldn't come out of their own budgets, during the Stupak discussions.
The moderates told me I was lazy for not growing my own food in my apartment when I spoke up about the pain of rising food prices.
Fuck that, I said.
I'm a Communist because I think the positions taken above are terrible. Moderates want to keep capitalism? Well, polls show that more people are supporting socialism every year, so good luck with that.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
dawg
(10,624 posts)In other words, Communism.
A truly moderate, middle-of-the-road system, would be far to the left of where we are right now. (It would even be farther to the left than any system I would advocate, and I'm one of those radical leftist "emo-progs".)
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Since that's not on anybody's agenda...though it'd be nice...I'd say there are no extreme left-wing positions. There are only positions that are more or less palatable to Democrats, liberals and leftists at the personal level.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)what if someone is allergic to cats?
we need to not have the kittens for everyone stance
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)Drale
(7,932 posts)is using violence to get your agenda and economically it means forced land redistribution and nationalization of all industries. The CCP in China before the foundation of the People's Republic is a good example. Once they created a unified Chinese government they took a hard right turn while trying to keep a leftest agenda.
chemp
(730 posts)I support Greepeace.
I do not support firing upon whaling ships.
I support PETA
I do not support pouring paint on other person's property
I support energy conservation and especially in gas milage regulations
I do not support slashing the tires of low-MPH SUV or Hummers.
It all depends upon how "fundamentalist" you are regarding your beliefs.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)is kind of out there; or believing that all heterosexual sex is rape; or that the US government was behind 911.
LiberalArkie
(15,730 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The Libertarian left?
The Anarchist left?
The Socialist left?
The Statists left?
There are many different "left" context all having their own unique "extremes". Many of these "leftist" thought may in fact contradict each other.
ananda
(28,885 posts)nuff said.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)A position I've held my entire life. I realize it's a bit extreme, but human beings are not an endangered species.
Crunchy Frog
(26,679 posts)At least in this country right now.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I also suspect the reason I struggle to understand it is because there is nothing of substance there to understand.
Position X is more "extreme" than position Y? HOW? By HOW MUCH? In what UNITS is this quantity MEASURED? HOW is it measured? What aspects of position X contribute to this extremity? What, in the name all reason, does position X have MORE OF that means it is somehow MORE than position Y?
Extremity is inescapably tied to the idea of quantity. How can political ideas contain a QUANTITY of something?
Typically when I raise these questions people raise their eyebrows and laugh and say it's just a feature of the political vernacular. I boil inside. "That's how you think about it when you're describing it to me", I seethe inwardly, "but that's not how you think about it when you're using it to describe political positions..."