Thesis: the far left is as batshit crazy as the far right

[undeterred]

I got pushed from both sides today and I was surprised to find that it felt pretty much the same!

[Beelzebud]

1. Agreed.

Extremists are extremists. It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum they're on. If you go far right enough, and far left enough, they both meet each other in Crazyland.

[etherealtruth]

12. ...and Crazyland "ain't" pretty. n/t

[Yupster]

26. And you'll hear the same crazy

arguments on both sides.

[glitch]

22. Often they flip when they realize their extreme doesn't work. They only

see black and white, so they don't have a lot of options. When they realize black doesn't work they go white, and vice versa. Very limited.

[JanMichael]

57. Another nice generalization, thanks for nothing.

<searches for middle finger smiley>

[MuseRider]

78. I miss that smilie.

Wish we had it back today. :hi:

[Beelzebud]

92. awwww /me cries

[queenbdem87]

2. They are

I mean I'm a liberal....but some people are so liberal that they are close-minded about it. You should always strive to be as openminded as possible. The difference is that rethugs ARE mostly closeminded whereas most liberals, by the nature of their beliefs, are not.

[JuniperLea]

30. You nailed it... open vs closed minds

If you are so sure of your own beliefs that you cannot even listen to those of others, bat shit crazy is the only thing I can say. Beliefs are beliefs and we are currently still free to have our own. What I'm sick of is having the beliefs of others crammed down my throat.

Stay out of my uterus. Stay out of my bedroom. Don't force my kid to pray. Don't force your God on me.



I could go on and on...

We will cease to be truly free when extremists get their way and force all this crap on us.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

135. I don't entirely agree

about the open vs closed minds thing. I think there's nothing wrong with having a closed mind, provided you've closed it in the right place; I disapprove of left-wing extremists and still more of right-wing extremists not because they are dogmatic, but because they are dogmatic and wrong.

I am perfectly willing to listen to what other people have to say, and indeed have no choice but to do so, short of stuffing cotton wool in my ears and not reading newspapers or watching TV. That doesn't mean that I'm ipse facto willing to change my mind in light of it. Remember that there is nothing new under the sun (well, almost); it's not often that one hears a line of political argument that one hasn't heard before.

[saltpoint]

3. Along one vein of that argument, if you take 'liberal left' to its

farthest manifestation on the spectrum, you get chaos.

If you take "conservative right' to is farthest point, you get tyranny.

Chaos is a bit noisy, but I like those neighbors better than Stalin and Hitler.

[undeterred]

18. I thought so too until today!

[lonestarnot]

47. well what the fuck happened today?

[mitchtv]

82. Yup, nothing like being "dead center"

you get Joementum there

[saltpoint]

91. Speaking of Lieberman, I'm going out on a far limb and predict that

Ned Lamont will win that primary, and that Lieberman WILL run as an Independent, but finish THIRD in the race in November.

The polls say he will retain the seat. I think he's a goner.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. As you go further, liberal and left stop coinciding.

One could argue that e.g. hippies are both very left wing and very liberal, but I don't think there's really such a thing as a left wing liberal extemist, at least not in politically significant numbers.

I would argue that left wing extremists are communists, and are very illiberal - at its extremes left wing thought involves promoting the power of the state.

Liberal extremists are libertarians or anarchists, and are right wing - they want to abolish public services and the like.

If you take liberal to its furthest points you get chaos or tyranny respectively, I think. Left and right only really matter in the middle - the difference between left-wing and right-wing anarchy or left-wing and right-wing dictatorship isn't terribly great.

It's only when you have a functioning state that questions like the provision of public services and the position of the state on social issues, the questions that separate left wing and right wing, become relevant, I think.

[daringthedevil]

144. ...don't know what you mean about "conservative right," but I thought

the absence of any form of government was anarchy.

No matter, both extremes are still bad.

[XanaDUer]

4. Fanatics of all stripes have caused problems

since the dawn of time.

[DanCa]

5. Welcome to my world

I am sorry that you got caught in the middle like that. I get caught oin the cross hairs from both sides sometimes. BTW what is your definition of far left or far right. My definition is when no one will let you have a difference of opinion.

[Gormy Cuss]

11. I agree with your definition.

Intolerance of any difference of opinion is batshit crazy, although when it's someone on the left I am more disappointed than when it's someone on the right.

[undeterred]

20. On one side

far lefties who think that working for a Democrat is just stupid and voting is meaningless (and not because of the Diebold problem)

On the other side far righties who are sure that they are right and everyone else is wrong and can't see through even the most obvious lies or media bias.

[Yollam]

50. I'm a socialist, and I don't think working for a dem is stupid.

But I would not put my energies behind a dem who would ever do something as craven as vote for the IWR. I made an exception and did that once with Kerry and got burned by an establishment candidate with apparently little interest in winning.

There was a time, pre and post WW2 when the democratic party was espousing enough socialist ideas that it was worth supporting on its own merits. Now the only real reason to support it is as a bulwark against the encroaching fascism represented by the GOP. We've sure as hell gotten used to not expecting any actual progress anymore.

[undeterred]

52. And I would vote for a socialist or green

but not if it mean that my vote might make a Republican win instead of a Democrat. I just don't have it in me to campaign for a candidate who cannot possibly win and doesn't really expect to... I want my energy to count towards something that is actually possible. I don't expect everyone else to feel that way, but I wish people would accept that some of us want results. I chose a campaign where the win is not a given, but the win is not impossible. I want to make something happen, not just make a statement.

[Yollam]

54. Well, there you go.

I'm "far left", and I don't disagree with your philosophy at all. Sounds like the people you're having problems with are not so much "far left" as they are just suffering from tunnel vision.

Being "far left" doesn't make a person incapable of pragmatism.

I have a friend who is a longtime marxist-leninist, and even he went out and made an exception and voted for Kerry last time. Needless to say, both of us cast ABB votes. Imagine how poorly Kerry would have done without the ABB voters!

[undeterred]

70. Yeah but there were probably ABK voters too.

I think that disillusionment with a system that offers only two choices is probably universal.

[me b zola]

75. Thanks, Yollam

When I hear people talk about the "far left", what I believe they are speaking about are particular people, not any established ideology. I see some people take some ideas to the limits on this board, but often those same people's entire philosophy fits well into the mainstream. For the most part we are individual thinkers who come from a leftist perspective. I've seen "moderates" who's tunnel vision and vile baffles the mind.

[undeterred]

94. I was talking about particular people who I work with on some things

but not on others. On issues we can be almost completely of one heart on mind. When it comes to candidates and political parties, however, its as though we are from different planets: it isn't that we have different values so much as radically different strategies for achieving those values.

I think it is possible for people who are in different political parties to want the same things.

I hope someday soon people in all political parties will want to provide universal access to health care. We may have different reasons for wanting it (its humane, its good for business) but what matters most is that we achieve it.

For me its about realizing shared values or getting closer to those. Its the outcome that matters.

[Yupster]

28. My litmus test is

when you say that you've been reading that Japan has been really having trouble with an aging population recently, and the response is either...

1) Bleeping lying Bush is gonna solve that problem by killing us all, or

2) Liberal baby killers must be happy now,

you know you're talking to an extremist and you're wasting your time.

[Ladyhawk]

83. Yeah, no kidding.

I found some of those people in the local peace group and it makes me hesitant to be very active. :( Certain people were trying to tell me how to conduct my life: "You shouldn't watch violent movies...you shouldn't play violent video games." I finally got tired of it, told one of them to shut up, that I was going to watch the movies I wanted to watch and play the games I wanted to play. It wasn't fucking hurting anyone.

I escaped fundamentalist Christianity and was enjoying the freedom of making my own choices. No crazy left wingers are going to take that away from me!

What it comes down to is dogma: Telling everyone how they must conduct their personal lives. The far right does it. The far left does it. Obviously, we have to decide where one person's rights stop and another person's begin. The smoking debate is an example of this. But a nanny government run by either extreme would be no fun.

That's my say.

[MichiganVote]

6. Agree

[wookie294]

7. Define "far left" n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

14. exactly

so tired of hearing that term batted about

far left.....like, say Kucinich?

[undeterred]

39. far left=

Not even remotely willing to consider having anything to do with the Democratic Party because its thoroughly corrupt and way too conservative. All of it. Even Kucinich, Feingold, Conyers.

[immoderate]

85. It's a personality problem, not a political problem.

Doesn't sound like the person's politics take the real world into consideration. It's mental.

--IMM

[jsamuel]

105. That's not far left, that is insanity

[LWolf]

136. I know some really great people who fit that description.

One of them is my son. My position doesn't go quite that far. I'll support a great candidate or a great rep, regardless of what party they hail from. I have some sympathy with the "corrupt" part, and would change "conservative" to "corporate."

I also see a mirror effect between the 2 major parties. The extremes they are willing to go to in order to "beat" the other party, the willingness to put party before issues...I see this on both sides of that fence. Probably why, while I'm a Democrat by registration, I'm an independent by inclination.

I really think the best road to take for the Democratic Party is to openly acknowledge that they don't represent the far left, and that the far left is probably justified in sending their dollars and votes elsewhere. It's the tension created when left-leaning democrats, independents, and even 3rd party members are pressured to "get in line" because the Democratic Party is the "only choice" to defeat the neocons that leads to your frustration. "Get in line" means leave what you think and believe behind, and embrace someone that doesn't represent your position. Then, when the Democrats don't "win," they can blame all those left leaning people who didn't vote
D. It's an attitude of entitlement; entitled to the leftist vote even if we don't represent them. Who wouldn't resent that?

[LWolf]

137. Or, conversely,

the party could move to the left to embrace all those they've left behind in the swing to the right. Either way, it's the party's choice, and they ought to understand and accept the consequences of their choices.

Meanwhile, I'm thankful to those on the left who represent, to me, true opposition to corporate fundamentalist America.

[Cleita]

8. I thought the far left were commies.

What's your version?

[mike_c]

9. Hey! I resemble that remark....

eom

[JohnKleeb]

10. I know how you feel

I am not a big fna of extremeism. The most important thing I've learned is if you want progress you have to have an open mind.

[Xipe Totec]

13. It takes two wings to fly

otherwise, you just go around in circles.

:evilgrin:

[cynatnite]

19. Writing that one down

Good one.

[Xipe Totec]

27. .

Thanks!

:blush:

[Big Kahuna]

15. Thesis: All people who make sweeping generalizations

oh nevermind.

[undeterred]

113. All people make sweeping generalizations

at some time or other. Especially when too tired and crabby to write a more thoughtful post (yes I am the OP!) :hi:

[Chomp]

16. It's not left and right.

It's open-minded and close-minded.

It doesn't matter if you are extreme left/right as long as you are critical, honest and open-minded.

[Azathoth]

17. The political spectrum is a circle, not a line

Travel far enough in one direction, and you arrive at the same point as people traveling from the other direction. People on either extreme end of the political spectrum have the same disregard for logic and reason, the same authoritarian need to crush all who disagree with them or are less extreme than them, and the same conviction that they, despite being on the extreme fringe, somehow represent the political opinions of the majority of the population.

[The2ndWheel]

24. Huh?

If it's a circle, how can there be an extreme end to the spectrum? Mr. Orwell, is that you?

People at the extreme middle of the political spectrum have the same disregard for logic and reason, the same authoritarian need to crush all who disagree with them or are less moderate than them, and the same conviction that they, despite being in the extreme middle, somehow represent the political opinions of the majority of the population.

Couldn't that work? If there is a political line, and you're right in the middle, is that representing the "majority" opinion? Does anyone own the "majority" opinion? Everyone is a little different.

[frankenforpres]

25. maybe even more complex

there are at minimum, two axes: economic issues, social issues. then health issues are probably a combination of those (so there is some overlap)


i dont know what far right/left is. id rather be a pragmatist, but id even hedge on that.

[Odin2005]

44. No, it's a 3-D-demensional chart, not a circle.

You have a statist vs. anti-statist (big government vs. small government) axis, an economic left-right axis, and a social liberal vs. social conservative axis.

[Azathoth]

71. You're missing the point, it's not about one ideology or another

I understand the type of diagram you're describing, but it's not what I was referring to. I'm talking about the fundamental attitude and mindset of people who carry idealogy of any sort to extremes. The political spectrum I'm describing is a general one which has pragmatism/relativism/rationalism in the middle and extremism/dogmatism on the two ends.

Take Al Qaida and, say, the Weather Underground for example. Generally, most people would agree that these two groups are on extreme opposite ends of the left-right political spectrum (communist revolutionary vs. radical fundamentalist), yet their attitudes, their behavior, their tactics, and even many of their words and statements are very similiar. As people move further to the extreme left or right -- whether economically, socially, or both -- they begin to adopt the same mindset and attitudes as those moving to the extreme in the opposite direction. They sacrifice reason for ideology and they develop a strong need to stamp out opposing views. I've met some people who fancy themselves militant socialist/Trotskyist revolutionaries, and from my experience they are every bit as arrogant, authoritarian, and close-minded as militant fascists and right wing fundamentalists.

[Marie26]

48. Is the meeting point totalitarianism? nt

[Azathoth]

84. In my experience most extremists are totalitarian to one degree or another

The inability to see or consider other points of view, the inability to compromise, and the need to place ideological orthodoxy above everything else usually leads to totalitarianism of one sort or another. I wouldn't necessarily say that totalitarianism is where the two ends of the spectrum meet; I would say that the more ideologically extreme a person becomes, the more they tend toward a totalitarian mentality.

[sutz12]

114. Yes...look at WWII

Germany vs Soviets. Far right (fascists) vs Far left (communists).

At the end of the day, there isn't much to like about either one. Both can be vicious dictatorships.

[Marie26]

118. And both employed

almost the same exact methods to support their opposite ideologies. It's weird how it becomes difficult to tell the difference.

[JanMichael]

58. That's such an old and batshit saying.

I shouldn't even bother to type this but you're mistaken.

It's too fuckin' simplistic to take seriously.

[Azathoth]

76. Thank you for proving my point

I didn't post a PhD thesis, I posted a quick musing that holds true in many instances. Judging from your angry and hypersensitive reaction, I'm gonna assume that I've hit a nerve and that you are simply reinforcing my initial point that the more extreme a person is idealogically, the more dismissive and intolerant they are of people with opposing views.

[wickerwoman]

99. My irony cup runneth over.

You're posting on a thread calling far-lefties "batshit crazy" while simultaneously claiming that they are "dismissive and intolerant of people with opposing views." Meanwhile, posters are claiming that "far-lefties are so pig-headed and set in their opinions, I'm not going to listen to/talk to them any more!"

People of every political stripe can be assholes. Liberals belive in liberty. The extreme of liberty is not tyranny- no matter how many crackerjack slogans you quote.

[Azathoth]

100. I didn't call anyone "batshit crazy"

I merely pointed out that far-lefties and far-righties have a lot more in common than they want to admit.

Liberals believe in liberty. The extreme of liberty is not tyranny-

The extreme of just about anything is usually not a good thing. Sacrificing reason and pragmatism for ideological orthodoxy is never a good idea.

no matter how many crackerjack slogans you quote.

Ah yes, nothing like a petty, dismissive retort. The written equivalent of trying to spit on someone's shoes in order to win an argument...

[Marie26]

121. Isn't communism the

extreme end of liberalism? Communism isn't particularly tolerant or free. But the real extreme of "liberty" is not tyranny - it's anarchy. Society can't function w/o some kind of order. And where a vaccum of anarchy exists, it seems to usually create an authoritarian regime to re-establish order. (Like the French or Russian revolutions.)

[meow2u3]

133. The extreme of liberty is LICENSE

License is totally unbridled freedom, to the point where the exercise of liberty has become so out of hand that the licentious don't care who they step on, as long as they "express themselves."

The trick is to find where freedom ends and license begins, and the best barometer is: your right to swing ends where my nose begins. or your right to express yourself ends where I will definitely be lied to, threatened, or otherwise endangered.

[Marie26]

119. How is it wrong? nt

[BlooInBloo]

21. Ahhhh.... moral equivalence yet again....

Tweety would be proud....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. As an Anarchist, I find most political "moderates" extreme.

They find it easy to justify war, violence, racism, misogyny, exploitation of the poor, corruption in politics, capitalism, and inhumanity in the name of "moderation".

[sheelz]

89. You got that right!

:applause: :applause:

[entanglement]

106. Being a moderate is like being half-mad. Better than being mad,

of course, but not really how you'd like to be.

[SmokingJacket]

29. The thing is, you need the extremes to define the center.

If there WERE no "extreme leftists" as we know them, but the most left people we had were, say, Hillary... then the middle would be somewhere over Orrin Hatch.

If the right keeps pulling to the right, and we just keep weakening and inching rightward TOO, then were all basically Republican.

I suppose I'm saying I value the "crazy left" because it balances the crazy right -- in fact, I wish there were more of them so they'd make my brand of liberalism look positively mainstream. And they are much kinder, gentler people as a rule, certain communist guerillas excepted.

[leeroysphitz]

31. It's called a bell curve, you can find examples of it throughout

the universe...

[Yollam]

32. There is essentially no "far left" in the US.

A "Far Left" would concern itself with goals like more egalitarian distribution of wealth, a more social-democratic form of government, strengthening of working people's movements, etc. - if not being outright communist.

The people you're probably talking about are probably not leftists, but conspiracy theorists or PC zealots, or animal rights fanatics, or any number of other US groups that are often labelled as "far left", even though they do not oppose the existing US right-wing predatory capitalist model of government.

I wish there was a "far left" in America. If there was, I might not have been so eager to leave.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. I agree. He needs to explain what he's referring to by "far left" nt

[undeterred]

97. I'm a she not a he!

Someone wrote this to me today:

"The longer people on the left continue living under the spell of the Democrats, the longer we will continue on the current trajectory, towards totalitarianism. This government cannot be reformed. Only the threat of mass uprising and revolution can seriously force even the most minimal of changes...If voting could change anything, it would be illegal."

From where I sit, as a Wellstone Progressive who still believes we might be able to accomplish something through the system that exists, that's the "far left".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

103. Sorry to confuse your gender. I never check profiles

However, if we eliminate Democrats, sit down 'cause we're not going to have any lefties in the govt. or anywhere.

[bullimiami]

33. i dont think i know any far left batshit crazies. give me a real esamplw

to figure out what you are talking about.

from my perspective far left is communism, far right is fascism. but these are both economic models and it gets all twisted up with political models. on the left side of political models I would have to say democracy is the pinnacle, majority rule, elected representation. on the right you have totalitarianism.

every permutation is possible. a communist democracy, where all property is owned by the collective and they elect their leaders and make their rules by concensus to a totalitarian fascism, where few dominant political and corporate leaders dictate all.

[Neil Lisst]

34. it's true

There are some posters who roam the board here, howling words like "racist, sexist, xenophobe, corporatist" at people who haven't voted for a Republican for president once in their life.

And they're always either bailing entirely or "voting for the Republican so we can beat them next time with a good candidate we like."

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. What was the issue both sides pushed you about today?

After having lived many years in Europe, it dawned on me that what Americans call right wing is what Europeans call fascism, what Americans call centrist is what Europeans call right wing, and so on. The entire American society leans to the right, which is why Americans consider national health care to be radically left wing. Heck, we even considered Clinton a lefty. So whenever an American refers to the "far left" as crazy, I feel the need to find out why, and on what issue.

[undeterred]

51. Campaigning for a Democrat

Not acceptable to Greens, Socialists, or Republicans!
Right: No reasonable person would choose to work for anyone who is not a Republican.
Left: No reasonable person would work for either a Democrat or a Republican.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. Oh okay. Well, in that case! :-)

See, here's the thing... I've always held the Greens in great esteem. I first held them in great esteem in the province of Galicia, Spain, where they turned waste exhausts back onto the inside of a paper factory, so that the shit they were pouring out into the rivers where people fished, would flow into the paper factory, thereby making it impossible to function. :-)

Then I returned here, and suddenly I was faced with an American Green Party that, instead of doing such courageous acts, was making damned sure a Republican would be elected, by thwarting the efforts of Democrats. The American Greens did this by encouraging others and campaigning for Nader, when they knew full well that the Repugnicans had so much money and power, that we lefties could not afford to run in this race limping with votes going towards someone who wouldn't be elected anyway.

When GW Bush was elected, thanks to the American Greens, I also found out that they had taken contributions from Republicans.

At that point I realized that American Greens were not like the European Greenies. American Greens did not mind one bit putting our country in jeopardy. They did it again when GW Bush ran for a 2nd term.

I would sooner listen to a circus clown discuss politics, than ever have an exchange of words with an American Green.

They make me sick.

Now, the Democrats have their hands tied because this country (unlike Europe) requires a person to be very, very rich, or kiss corporate ass, in order to even run for office. Unless or until this is changed, the lefties in this country will have to kiss corporate ass. This means they will have to remain silent. Those who don't remain silent, get no money to run for office, and will never get elected. This is our situation in the U.S. I think that's why the socialists are a bit P.O.'d. They want the Democrats to speak out, and to magically come up with the mega-millions that are required to run for office, without ever having to resort to corporate donations. We need to change the system and stop wishing for magical things to happen.

[undeterred]

110. Wow, I never knew there were European Greens

I can identify with what you are saying. I moved from Chicago (where Greens would never survive) to Madison WI in 2000 and that was the first time I had ever heard of the Green party. I thought COOL an environmental party. Then I thought what the hell are they doing with Ralph Nader- who I liked very much as a consumer advocate, but whom I would never vote for for president. My view of them is basically the same as yours.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

117. Yes, it was very depressing knowing Greenies campaigned on the side of GOP

Very disheartening.

[Minnesota Libra]

36. I too have found this sad fact to be true and yet neither side sees.......

.....how very similar they truly are.:shrug:

[porphyrian]

37. Given the climate, I would argue that moderation is batshit.

You'd have to be out of your mind not to feel strongly one way or the other in these radical times. Fence-sitting at this point is crazy, cowardly or stupid. Sorry if this comes off as a personal attack, but I identify fairly strongly with the "batshit crazy" far left, even if many of our numbers are too fixated on their own pet interests to tell the difference between another lefty that disagrees with them and a right-winger. Oh well, we've all got our personal El Guapos to face, I suppose.

Edit: omitted "that"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. Not Necessarily Far Left. Just Simply Extremist Wackos On One Side Are As

bad as extremist wackos on the other. Lord knows I've had my back and forths with some extremist wackos here, but it had nothing to do with whether they were far left, somewhat left or middle of the road. Just simply revolved around them being close minded extremist wackos on a certain particular issue ya know?

Disrespectful wackos are disrespectful wackos as much as an orange from california is awfully similar to one from florida. Though there are some differences, overall it still tastes like a damn orange. :)


on edit: Thankfully, for every thousand extremist wackos on the other side, there's only one here.

[sendero]

40. You just now.

... figuring that out? :)

Yes, they are. In particular, the 70's era bunch who bought into all kinds of social bullshit annoy me the most and have cost the Democrats a lot. Because they live in some kind of goofy utopia-cloud and just don't understand the real world at all.

[lonestarnot]

41. What are you talking about? I am by definition extreme left, but am far

from crazy last time I checked LOL.

[baldguy]

43. There is a difference.

The far right has the political power in America that the far left will never have.

And they've got nuclear weapons.

[Marie26]

45. Probably true. nt

[tlsmith1963]

46. Lately...

the far-Right has been worse than the far-Left. I think the neocons & the fundamentalist Christians are the craziest groups at the moment. People on the Right think that liberals are still as "nuts" as they were in the '60s, but liberals have been calming down for years. The far-Right people are the loonies now.

Tammy

[Peace Patriot]

49. I find getting pushed by far right batshit crazy people much harder to

take than getting pushed by far left batshit crazy people, because far right batshit means death for a lot people--from bombs, from starvation, from disease, from pollution, from neglect, and from hopelessness--and far left batshit does not.

It's a real easy choice.

I also sympathize a lot more with far left batshit crazy people because they don't get a voice in the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, whereas the far right batshit crazy people are given a big trumpet by the corporate news monopolies, way out of proportion to their numbers, thus giving the American people the wrong impression that far right batshit is "mainstream." That unfairness does not sit well with me. I am inclined to be patient with, and to listen to, far left batshit crazy people because I know that some of their craziness comes from quite deliberate, cold, ugly, fascist disempowerment. Whoever the fascists want to silence, marginalize, ridicule and ignore, I want to give a hearing to. I might not stick with them, if they're too hard to talk to, but I always give them a chance. They are also usually a lot better informed than far right batshit crazy people, and far more worth listening to. Sometimes it's just a matter of being bottled up. They have a lot to say. They know a lot. And they are trying to exist--with heads full of knowledge and ideas, and often with passionate, good hearts--in an ugly corporate-created culture that doesn't value discourse, doesn't value knowledge, thinks in three-word sentences like TV dialog squeezed in between commercials, and promotes stupidity. It's hard for some thinking people to communicate, given all this. They have TOO much to say, and little chance to say it. And sometimes the person really is batshit crazy. I am less tolerant of that, depending on the type of craziness it is.

The great social and political thinkers and doers of history were all a little crazy. You have to have at least a touch of madness to, say, imagine that you could liberate India from the British, or end slavery. These were not normal "mainstream" ideas at their inception. In fact, many such ideas were considered batshit crazy. And most great movements were ridiculed from the start--severely ridiculed. And their leaders probably talked too much and were regarded as "pushy." But sometimes "pushy" is pure genius. There was the phrase "uppity women," for instance--meaning women who wanted to vote and wanted equal rights. They were real "pushy," and some of them were probably not a lot of fun to talk to, at certain times in their lives.

I don't much care for this idea that we all have to be "mainstream" in order to be acceptable and valuable, and we all have to please and pander to some theoretical "mainstream" audience of "mainstream" voters with "mainstream" ideas. I find THAT much more enervating than putting up with a lot of "craziness" in order to find the sparks, the gems, the new ideas, that could really change things and fire up the revolution that is so clearly needed.

And I don't much care either for categorizing people along a left to right spectrum. People are much more complex creatures than that. Also the political spectrum in this country, right now, is so skewed by corporate money and influence, that the left really does not exist on that spectrum. It exists in the country. It may even be a majority. But it is not spectrumized. A real left, for instance--a left that is not merely a muddled middle--would be advocating pulling the corporate charters of global corporate predators who are doing harm here and abroad, and/or who are destroying our planet, and seizing their assets for the public good, cutting the military budget by about 90% to a position of true defense (no more discretionary wars, nor more military-industrial albatross on the peoples' back) (--what is it FOR except discretionary wars?)--confiscating and re-distributing land and wealth (say putting a super-tax on the super-rich), forcing banks to forgive great credit card debts that are crushing and killing people. Like that. Truly radical and potentially transformative ideas.

The political spectrum needs to be pulled way over to the left. That's what we need leftist "crazies" for. So, I wonder about categorizing some people as "far left batshit crazy" in this skewed context. I mean, I wonder what that person actually said that pushed Undeterred's buttons. Maybe it wasn't content. But maybe it was. Maybe we need to hear some of those "far left batshit" crazy ideas.

Maybe not. I realize that some people can be truly annoying--whatever their political beliefs. But it's something to think about. Are we worried that they will "give the left a bad name"? (With whom?) Are we posing to our inner selves a "mainstream" that has been shaped within us by corporate media, and thus we become impatient with leftist dialog and ideas that we are afraid won't "sell" in the "mainstream market"? Are WE pulling the spectrum to the right by dismissing "crazy" leftist ideas too easily and not listening? Are we giving off signals to other leftist thinkers telling them that they're crazy, because their ideas are too "far out"?

I remember a very hurtful piece that was written in the Village Voice--with other pieces just like it, scattered around the corporate press--just after the 1999 protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle. The gist of these pieces was that we, the 50,000 protesters in Seattle who shut down the WTO meeting, were all "batshit crazy leftists" whose giant puppets, tie-dyed faces, crazy wigs, stiltwalkers, drummers, colorful signs, and much too large a variety of causes--anti-GMOers, vegetarians, peaceniks, Lesbians, gays, greens, anti-sweatshoppists, anti-Bechtelists, anti-Taco Bellists, anti-Gapists, labor unions, religious human rights groups, and so on and so forth--would never get anything done, were harking back to the past, to the '60s, were outmoded, were useless, were leaderless and just couldn't get with it, in this "age of globalization."

Well, the truth was that we were "the shot heard round the world." We not only shut down the WTO meeting, we contributed significantly to the next thing that happened: a full scale rebellion of third world countries against the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF, that culminated in the WTO meeting in Cancun several years later, and that has since seen a peaceful, democratic, leftist revolution sweep through Latin America, and new alliances developing of small farmers and peasants involving hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We may have been American funky. But we were the most advanced thinkers and activists in the U.S. A. at that time. We were connected to the OUTSIDE world, and knew about, and could feel and understand, this great leftist revolt against Corporate Rule--which is erupting elsewhere in the world, and will probably hit here last.

Those dissing articles puzzled and hurt me. Was I just a wacko? Were we just the dregs of the Great American Globalization Scheme--those who couldn't "get with the program"? The dreamers and outcasts who still wanted equity and justice?

I remember the steel workers during that week of protest--big beefy guys in blue windbreakerss. They could hardly be described as wacko. And the postal workers union workers. And the human rights groups, and religious groups. All marching along side a group of women who had bared their breasts. "Wacko" American diversity. Why homogenize everything? What's wrong with giant puppets?

I struggled over it, because I was still just inside the war profiteering corporate news monopoly delusion that is the U.S. of A. I hadn't yet realized that the Village Voice, and the New York Times, and everything else within the Corporate Directorate, had been so homogenized and packaged and corporatized--and had been so prepped for war profiteering, to cap off globalization profiteering--that not one word they wrote could be trusted any more. I was about to step into the REAL world, where you don't ridicule someone's political beliefs, and marginalize them, and call them wacko and crazy, because they express themselves by baring their breasts, or holding up a giant puppet for two miles. I was entering the REAL America and the REAL world, where people can be fun and different and "crazy" and still be valuable, and still be quite serious about their political beliefs, and in which their political beliefs--and everyone's political beliefs--are relevant. Not just the political beliefs chosen by the Corporate Rulers as serious and relevant. But those CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE.

So I guess you've pushed some of MY buttons, Undeterred. I bristle at labels like "far left batshit crazy." You can call the far rightwingers "batshit crazy" all you want. I won't object. We're stuck with their batshit crazy president--now the "mainstream," according the filthy corrupt corporate press. But I'm not so quick to dismiss any leftists, and knock them off the political spectrum into oblivion.

[MrSlayer]

53. That is an excellent post.

Should be it's own thread. Well done.

[JanMichael]

59. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very well stated and thoughtful.

[undeterred]

63. thanks for your thoughtful answer

in response to my very imprecise statement. Someone farther to the left "pushed my buttons" by telling me that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans- they are all corrupt corporatists. I take exception to the notion that there is no difference between Russ Feingold and Bill Frist, or between Barbara Boxer and Dick Cheney, or John Conyers and Tom Delay. There is "no difference" only if your vision is something like 20: 1000 The Raplh Nader statement, that there is "no difference" between Gore and Bush, still makes me angry, as I cannot imagine two men whose effects on the environment and the Supreme Court could be more different. I don't like the broad brush applied to the Democrats.

I guess I am just sick of all the Democrat bashing and negativity from Greens and Socialists. It undermines whatever positive things they have to offer, when the central message is bashing the party that's closest. It doesn't attract me, it repels me to hear the constant criticism and complaining, as if every candidate in America should be turning themselves inside out trying to please parties they don't even belong to. I'm sick of people who maintain their electoral "purity" at the cost of worse candidates being elected.

And to anyone who bashes Feingold, who is as good as it gets, I say find yourself a therapist to work on why you are so good at looking for the worst in other people.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. I agree. Good post! I love Democrats. nt

[fudge stripe cookays]

66. Bravo!

Very well said, and better than I could have.

fsc

[clyrc]

98. Wow

That was a joy to read.

[Marie26]

124. Wonderful post! nt

[Zenlitened]

138. Well said! I agree, your post should be its own thread.

...far right batshit means death for a lot people--from bombs, from starvation, from disease, from pollution, from neglect, and from hopelessness--and far left batshit does not.

:thumbsup:

[mondo joe]

55. Agreed. And the same streak of irrational, "protect the hive" thought

runs though both, though I hope in at least unequal proportions.

It's a sad thing to see liberals willing to take the same principles (or lack thereof) when it suits them.

[JanMichael]

56. Well I'm a member of the FAR Left and I'm batshit, is that so?

Now that's not very nice now, is it?

[undeterred]

64. Are you talkin' to me?

You socialist, you. :hi:

[JanMichael]

65. Oh my gawd I've been outed!

Oh wait I outed myself years ago here!

But yes I was speaking to you.

I'm not batshit crazy now, am I?

[undeterred]

73. Not as far as I can tell!

I live in a place where we have a full spectrum of lefties.

But I am choosing to work on a campaign in a district where a Dem barely has a chance. So I have Socialists and Greens criticizing me for working for a Dem in a district that is 90% Republican! I would work for a good candidate who was Green or Socialist in a race where they had a reasonable chance. But I can't be so "principled" to say that I won't work for a candidate who is more conservative than I am, yet electable. Its the greatest good outcome that matters in politics, not the philosophical purity you maintain by never getting involved...

I think its crazy to shoot oneself in the foot, to allow a worse outcome because of choosing electoral purity.

[lectrobyte]

60. The middle of the road is much smoother, but as Neil Young says,

you meet much more interesting characters in the ditches.

[JanMichael]

61. It's also full o' dead armadillos.

The middle that is.

[librechik]

86. the left learned long ago that the end does NOT justify the means

I don't think the right will ever learn that.

And that is the key difference between sanity and not.

[LittleClarkie]

62. It probably doesn't REALLY work this way

but sometimes I picture each one going so far over in the political spectrum, that they meet around back. If they'd just turn around, they could shake hands.

[QC]

67. As the French say, "Les extrèmes se touchent." n/t

Fanatics of all kinds are pretty much alike--the same singlemindedness, the same dogmatism, the same tendency toward groupthink, etc.

[flaminbats]

68. not another insult against bats!!

how does defining liberalism as batshit crazy help our cause? Isn't that why we have freepers? Freepers are always attacking liberalism as un-American, opponents of Christ, and as whiners without ideas. Somehow I doubt you would find this type of thread at free-republic or among Republicans.

Perhaps this is why our party is losing...we'll attack any Democrat who dares to embrace liberity..but neocons never attack Bush or Republicans in Congress for growing deficits, allowing illegal immigration, and failing to defend this country on 9/11.

[radio4progressives]

69. You consider this one line screed a thesis?

[gatorboy]

74. Maybe they're the Cliff Notes for the thesis.

But what do I know? I'm batshit crazy! *que daffy duck* hoo! hoohoo hooohoho!!!

[mondo joe]

87. Why not? A thesis is simply an unproved statement put

forward as a premise in an argument.

[undeterred]

93. or maybe its just what you post when you're feeling tired and crabby

I am amazed at the unintended meaning which comes out of a couple of my own sentences. :shrug:

[mondo joe]

95. Aah, it's a thesis.

It meets the definition of a thesis, tired and crabby not withstanding.

B-)

[undeterred]

96. I come up with a lot of theses when I'm tired and crabby

They don't all hold up under the light of day, unfortunately!

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KyuzoGator]

77. I don't ever hear the far left publicly advocating assasinations.

Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter and the rest do it nearly every day.

There might be crazies on both sides...the left is eccentric, the right is dangerous.

[ChristianLibrul]

79. Far left?

I barely consider them "left." What they really are is adolescent wannabe anarchists who think the world is a video game, and if they blow up enough stuff, their enemies will change into decent people. If they ever reach adulthood, they'll realize their actions galvanize their enemies. Remember, the blitz not only didn't break England's morale in the Battle of Britain, it strengthened it. And whenever conquering armies executed villagers, the partisans' resolve only grew stronger.

Terrorist tactics always lose.

[NashVegas]

80. You Say You Want a Revolution Well You Know

Lennon said it best in that song.

I see it not so much as left and right, but authoritarian v anti-authoritarian.

Anyone who claims to have the answers and *demands* you agree with them is batshit crazy.

[pitohui]

81. not as

but it feels the same, agree on that

the lefty ninny who thinks we should all be eating tofu and who cares if growing soybeans (tofu is made from soybeans) is destroying the americas, okay, his bulb is a little dim, but at least he is trying to think, compared to the rightwing effwad who is still back in voodoo economic days and honestly believes in the magical invisible hand relying on information dated abt 1750

[sweetheart]

88. antithesis: the middle is bat-shit insane

Insanity could equally be cowardly political positions that do not
solve anything, much as the vichy dems invited bush in to office,
perhaps its time to abuse the stupid center.

[sheelz]

90. Nicely said, sweetheart!

:hi:

[leftofthedial]

101. define "far"

[GreenArrow]

107. those on the extremes tend to be the leaders

the so-called moderates, the great middle, are so many sheep to be led. It is nearly always those on the extremes who get things accomplished, for good or ill. There is, as they say, a fine line between genius and madness.

[Zhade]

108. Yep, Maoists and Stalinists ARE pretty nutty.

NT!

[entanglement]

109. I hope it's your ignorance and not your malice that's speaking

It isn't those you call the far left who're responsible for the mess we're in right now. Equating the small, unorganized, CONSCIENCE driven left with the powerful fascist thugs calling the shots is REPREHENSIBLE.

[spanone]

111. Batshit Crazy is as Batshit Crazy does.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[alcibiades_mystery]

112. The center is crazier than all of them, though

so there it is. the whole discourse of "left" "right" and "center" is a flaccid invention of the center, for the sole purpose of making itself seem less batshit insane. the center is insane, but really there is no center, just different positions spread out not in a spectrum, but randomly across a field of power. the center is just the batshit crazy position with the most power at any one time. it therefore can pretend to be a non-radical position, when its exercise of power is just as devious and crazy as any other position.

[leftstreet]

127. bingo

:toast:

The center IS the problem

[WildEyedLiberal]

115. Yes. n/t

[AZBlue]

116. Oh yeah!! You got that right!!!!!!!!! (nt)

[hopeisaplace]

120. what exactly is -far left- is what I wonder..someone's far left could be

someone else's moderate.
Actually I'm really curious what would qualify someone as far left.
When someone here posted a survey or something you could fill out to
find out where you fell on the political spectrum, it was helpful.
I think I was exactly in line with the Dalai Lama on views.


edit: clarity

[EstimatedProphet]

122. Define far left

Far left in the US anymore is conservative to a lot of the world

[Marie26]

123. Ideologues, of any side,

are pretty bat-shit crazy. They sort of sound & act the same - while quoting wildly different ideologies.

[nonconformist]

125. Closed minded radicals on either side are nutso. nt

[tom_paine]

126. True enough. But the Crazy Right currently controls EVERYTHING

and what they don't control directly, they control as their kind always have, through bullying and intimidation.

[frustrated_lefty]

128. Neither thinks about what they say.

Stupid knee jerk responses. It gets a bit insane.

[LaPera]

129. Oh how fence sitters simply can't decide which way is up!

Moderates...no real ideology of their own...a mixture of both parties so they vote for the candidate, completely unaware of something called ideology... how would they know which candidate is the best? Certainly they will ALL lie, each will tell their bullshit and try to convince...So then how do these moderates decide? The candidate who spends the most money on ads?...Certainly they are ignorant of ideology, that doesn't even enter their "mind"...and ignorance is blissfully being undecided...Oh how they go swishing through life...which ever way the wind blows...Personally, being of the progressive far left...I simply despise their regressive nature, I detest them -- As if I really give a shit what they think!!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

130. unfortunately there are some wackos who describe Democrats

like Dennis Kucinich or even George McGovern and their supporters as "far left" or even the more insulting term of "fringe".

I'm glad you made it clear that is not who you had in mind.

[symbolman]

131. I've got a problem with those that claim to be democrats

yet work against them, they call themselves progressives and hang with the DEMS Yet trash the Dems in as many varied and subtle ways as possible. Then there are the sites that claim to be left, but are saturated with egos and greed, selling out to the hightest corp bidder to run their sites.

That's one thing I've loved about sites like Buzzflash, no corporate money, they aren't sellouts. (and no, DU is not a 'sell out', responsible ads are where it's at)

At one function we attended they had a board of progressives sitting up on stools all ready to share the secrets of their success, one of them was Wes Boyd, there to talk about MoveOn and their work - granted they were three white (very white, all computer geeks), guys, but they had some very interesting things to say - of course there was and had to be ONE GUY who stood up and complained that there were THREE WHITE GUYS on the stage, that it wasn't fair to other races, genders, etc.. "Where are the black people and the women?" etc. (they were in the audience along with me, people who hadn;t had the skill or luck to rise to the level of say, Wes Boyd, who *I* wanted to hear, to learn to reach many, many more people.. our site Takebackthemedia.com had pulled in 100 million hits that first year, and I wanted to become a force to FIGHT the right, not give them ammo to say I was a fruitcake conspiratorial fool, and be Right about it)

Now, true it's a good idea to have a spectrum, and a certain amount of fairness is expected, but I very nearly stood up and told this guy to shut up and sit the FUCK DOWN. THESE guys had "made it" and wanted to share HOW with ALL of us, and this "every person is a special interest" guy was stealing the show.. there is a point where I will say that it's nice that Tricellia, the Black one legged lesbian is to be protected and respected, but these "white" guys were going to raise the tide that would raise ALL BOATS, and so Hippie dude (yeah I have long hair too) was blowing it, and in a way this is how the progressives BLOW it, they argue about fairness while we are surrounded by WOLVES. THe same guys that bring a plastic spoon to a street fight where the other side has a GUN and is willing to blow your head off and sleep soundly.

There are times when the far left DO need to SHUT UP and let those with less anal impacted issues deal with real time issues and politics.

The other thing I personally am a stickler for is ethics, tho we should steal pages from the right's playbook to use against them, if we use the WHOLE PLAYBOOK then WE are just as bad as they are. We cannot make up tales, stories, editorials that are untrue, or twist what the right OR left say to our own ends.

One more thing, we need to ORGANIZE our websites into one LARGE UNION so that we are more powerful, I've had a plan for that for a long time and want to get together with some of the larger, ethical but tough websites (some of the older ones, which I call the "Original 13 CyberColonies") and fill some of the voids missing so we can lockstep and HAMMER the right, without egos and earnings getting in the way, and it can be done.

We had the Greenie Prez candidate come a talk at our student union in Alaska while I was in college there and I went to listen out of respect, tho since they really don't have the power I accept that we can use some of their ideas for a larger platform.. while he was talking a HYPERLEFTY just had to say it, "What are you going to do about the Whales, man? Cos whales are 'people' too.."

Being a passionate person I wanted to drag that little shit out by the hair and dropkick him off the steps of the student union building (okay, so I have issues leftover from my barfighting days), and I DO respect that whales NEED US to defend them, but DUDE, there's a TIME and a PLACE..

[Vinca]

134. But people on the left have an excuse for being batshit crazy.

By 2009 we'll be strapped to tables getting shock therapy.

[KyuzoGator]

139. When the "far left" starts killing people, I'll be concerned.

Until then, I don't think it's comparable.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

140. When's the last time the U. S. Far Left controlled the....

...U. S. Government?

Answer?: The Far Left has NEVER controlled the U. S. Government, contrary to what the Far Right would have you believe. Hard to demonstrate being "batshit crazy" when you don't get a chance to hold the reins of government, Here's a list:

*Truman: No liberal thinker here. Twice ordered the nuclear bombing of Japan...Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed. Initiated the first actions of the Cold War. The CIA was signed into existence during his second term, and the U. S. spearheaded the formation of NATO...all designed to "contain the Red menace".

*JFK: Was publicly a Cold War Warrior, but was about to begin the first troop withdrawals from Vietnam when he was assassinated. Thwarted the Far Right in their attempts to go to war against Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam.

*LBJ: Politically far to the right of his public persona. He was a leading hawk among those that wished to escalate the war against Vietnam....and did escalate the war in Vietnam soon after he assumed the office of the presidency.

*Carter: You didn't get into Admiral Rickover's nuclear navy unless you held certain basic conservative beliefs. Much maligned as the Chief Executive, but was responsible for the emphasis on smart-bomb technology, and readily agreed to the covert supply of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Army during the Soviet-Afghan War.

*Clinton: Oversaw the best economy in our nation's history, and had good relationships with foreign leaders. Clearly not a liberal in his political thinking...very conservative in a lot of ways. Helped destroy welfare mechanisms that would be very helpful during the current economic upheaval.

{b]On the other hand, how many times has the U. S. Far Right controlled the U. S. Government?

Answer?: How many legally elected presidents has there been since the end of WWII? Every single one of the legally elected GOP presidents since WWII have been Far Right, despite what their supporters might try to tell you. Here's the list:

*Ike: Former commander-in-chief of all allied forces in Europe. Sent the first military advisors to Indo-China.

*Nixon: Prominent participant, along with Reagan and J. Edgar Hoover, in the McCarthy campaign against the so-called "Red Threat". Former VP for Ike and participant in the planning for the Bay of Pigs. Initiated the secret bombing of Cambodia. Spied on his enemies. Authorized break-ins of the homes and offices of prominent antiwar activists, as well as the Democratic Party HQ in the Watergate complex.

*Ford: Don't let the mild manner fool you. He was a commissioner on the Warren Commission that white-washed the investigation of the assassination of JFK...he reported everything to the FBI that was said in closed-door sessions. He was a prominent Cold War Warrior. He was hand-selected to succeed Nixon...and was the first GOP president to never be elected to office.

*Reagan: Clearly a Far Righter. Helped finger fellow actors, producers, and directors as as part of the "Red Threat" during the McCarthy hearings. As president, he was clearly a Far Right hard-liner.

*Bush I: We all know about this guy.

*Bush II: First illegally elected chief executive...twice. We all know where this "batshit crazy" individual is coming from, and he's STILL illegally squatting in the White House.

[rucky]

141. That was vague. n/t

[CornField]

142. Definition of insanity:

Doing things the same way again and again yet expecting different results.

[madokie]

143. Bat shit crazy knows neither left nor right only guano

[Bridget Burke]

145. At this point, the Far Right is more dangerous....

Your Far Left threatens armed revolution, but will probably content themselves with voting for the Never Can Get Elected 3rd Party candidate.

I'm neither plotting revolt nor campaigning for a Pie In the Sky candidate. What specific "far left" policies should I also avoid, so as not to invoke your wrath.

[Sugarcoated]

146. I find this to be true of, not just a large segment of religious people

But athiests and skeptic-types as well. I see a fair amount of what I call fundi-athiests here who seem to want to ram thier beliefs down my throat similar to a fundamental Christian. And I'm not even religious, I just have an opened mind and don't dismiss things reflexively. Extremeism is usually not a good thing in politics or spirituality.

[undeterred]

147. I'm a liberal Christian, used to be the other kind

But my father was an atheist, and he always respected my beliefs. Its amazing the positive effect you can have on someone by respecting their beliefs!

[Sugarcoated]

148. Well that's unusual

at least in my experience with athiests - but how wonderful for you undeterred. And, I know not all athiests are so militant - it just seems so when the "in your face" athiests are what you see and the athiests who are private about their beliefs and don't feel the need to convince people, you don't see them cause they aren't extreme with it, and . . . they don't feel the need to convince people. It's tolerance & respect - it's what, I've always thought, Democrats are all about.

[Rich Hunt]

149. gotta watch out for ...

Those agents provocateurs who seek to thwart REAL change.

There isn't much of a 'far left' these days, just some provocateur loonies as far as I know.

They tried it in the thirties, they tried it in the sixties....surely people are wiser now. Infiltration and provocation is nothing new - remember the Haymarket bomb?