You're viewing a single thread.
@FenrirIII
That's more like "center left".At least some definition of "Far Left" would be more: "we're gonna get everyone's basic needs meet by exterminating entire social groups because they're impure". It's not the only one, but it's the one that "centrists" would say it's no different from the "far right".
At least some definition of "Far Left" would be more: "we're gonna get everyone's basic needs meet by exterminating entire social groups because they're impure".
What the hell are you talking about? "Exterminatidg entrire social groups because they're impure" sounds very right-wing to me.
Are you trying to peddle some weird horseshoe bullshit?
people will refer to landlords as a 'social group' rather than advocate for anything non-milquetoast its par for the course
Change "impure" for "bourgeoisie", "imperialistic", "exploitative", or some other arbitrary bs
People choose to be exploiters. They do not choose to be born into a class but they do choose their futures.
That would also mean that poor people choose to stay poor. They did not choose to be born into a class, but they do choose their futures.
You're strawmanning again.
How comes?
They didn't say anything about thee poor chosing to be poor.
They literally said that while people are born into a class, they decide their future and whether to stay in that class. I literally quoted it word for word.
They were talking about the exploiter class. The thing about class war is that one class takes the freedom to chose away from the other class.
You're claiming that people chose to be bullied after someone says that being a bully is a choice.
Yeah, you're still talking no sense. What do you mean by "social group"?
Get your strawman out of here.
What do you mean by “social group”?
I didn't use the term "social group" anywhere. Come back when you're sober.
I didn't use the term "social group" anywhere.
Ok, let me rephrase the question, then:
Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren't a part of, if you're going to ignore the context of the conversation? That conversation contained the following, two comments before you entered:
exterminating entire social groups
Come back when you're sober.
No reason to get rude.
Why do you engage in a conversation that you weren’t a part of, if you’re going to ignore the context of the conversation?
You asking me what did I mean by social groups when I didn't mention social groups is "ignoring the context of the conversation". Just admit you were a lil bit drunk and took me for the wrong person.
I think it's fair to assume that you were the one who wrote "social groups".
Even if you didn't yourself say that term: You accepted the terminology, so I'll ask you: how are landlords a "social group" that the "far left" wants to "exterminate".
How about we skip this step and you just tell us your definition of "social groups" and it will turn out that people "far right" want to "exterminate" are social groups, but people "far left" want to "exterminate" aren't social groups (and aren't really fully fledged humans, if you ask me (dehumanizing you enemies is important)).
I'm actually more opposed to the term "exterminate". The far left would actually rather "expropriate" that certain "social group".
To "exterminate a social group" means genocide done by the exterminators. To expropriate the wealthy class usually means that the to be expropriated class shoots first.
But you centrists usually can't tell the difference between violence and expropriation.
Edit: I've been looking through your comments. "I never said 'social groups'! uwu" my ass!
The far left would actually rather “expropriate” that certain “social group”.
Oh, but somehow they ended up exterminating that social group instead of expropriating. Given the experience of the 20th century.
To “exterminate a social group” means genocide done by the exterminators
Yep.
But you centrists usually can’t tell the difference between violence and expropriation.
I'm not a centrist. I'm right-wing. I'm so far right, that I consider nazis to be far left.
@Prunebutt
China? Khmer Rouge in Cambodia?I know the horseshoe theory is problematic, but it's fact that some nominally "left" groups in practice resemble the "far right"; today's China specially in practice resembles more Nazism than Communism.
I don't consider China to be very left. It's a capitalist country. The same goes for other state-capitalist projects.
While there are authoritarian leftists, I think it's wrong to act as if these where the only part of the so-called "far left". How many genocides were committed by anarchists?
There are more figures on the far left than anarchists. You can't just No true Scotsman Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Did those people try to deconstruct existing power structures while in office? That makes them counter revolutionary. The state is counter revolutionary.
You can't abolish maters by using the master's tools.
That's just a No true Scotsman argument. Their (alleged) end goal was the creation of a classless, stateless communist society. They haven't achieved that, and they wouldn't have claimed to have achieved that. But they would've claimed that their crimes were a necessary step towards that goal. You can't just brush aside the people most associated with the "far left" label, regardless of whether or not you personally feel like they are "undeserving" of it.
I didn't think voters had access to "exterminate the rich" type representatives though. I can vote for neoliberal with a dash of mildly left (the Radical Left™)... or GOP which are actually far right.
Tax the rich, restructure police, equality at a snail's pace. That's the far left in reality for voters. Centrists really are bastards.
@mhague
The problem with the US political system is that it's so far skewed to the right that the moderate right Democrats are called "far left", and by hearing "far left" people will associate it with Stalin and Mao...
That’s why there is a political compass. Which is actually a political cube. Which is actually a political tesseract. /s