Yes I am one of the far left and I am proud of it

At one time the idea that slavery should be ended was a far left position.

At one time the thought that blacks should be able to go to the same schools as whites was considered a far left position.

At one time the idea that women should have the right to vote was considered a far left position.

At one time the idea that people should have the right to form a union was considered a far left position.

At one time the idea that we should not have went to war with Vietnam was considered a far left position.

At one time the idea that we should not have gone to war with Iraq was considered a far left position.

At one time the idea that we should replace oil with renewable energy was considered a far left position.

History has proven the left correct again and again, lets not run from who we are lets embrace our beliefs. I am proud to be a part of the far left.

"Far left" just means equality, justice, fairness, reason, common sense, humanity... I, too, am proud to be "far left"!

:yourock:

Far right=ditto-heads. The choice is so obvious if you have a brain and those pesky little thoughts running through it!!!!

eom

Left Leaning left coast left-wing checking in! :hippie:

Time to go shop at the Leftorium!

is considered "leftist" or "radical."

Consider me a far leftist too. :)

of accusations, lots of distraction, but no debate. It's almost as if they were not really working for change. Hmm.

Sorry everyone isn't just like you.

The wonderful thing about the Far Left is that they don't expect everyone to be the same.

You appear to have some simmering rage and animosity toward a lot of Dems. So do I, but for very different reasons, so i can relate.

But you moderates haven't done squat to get us anything in 6 years. Your "make nice" policy (so you can feel all comfy cozy with your conservative white male friends? Just askin, I dunno what your motives are) have done absolutely NOTHING to bring about any change. That nice centrist position you hold in the middle of the road is going to get all of us run over.

But hey, at least you aren't a radical, huh? At least you're "normal." :rofl:

"The wonderful thing about the Far Left is that they don't expect everyone to be the same."
Hey, it isn't moderates like me starting all these threads calling for party purges and condemning this person or that (usually a well-known and respected Democrat cruising toward re-election) because he or she isn't a "true Democrat." And just try dissenting even slightly in one of the far left's circle jerks and watch the ugly little lynch mob turn and attack.

"you moderates haven't done squat "
Bullshit.

Hell, tell me what you've done in the last 10.

As far as purging Dems, if they suck they gotta go. To stand by a candidate simply because they have a certain letter by their name is a repuke tactic.

And have you seen any of the McKinney threads lately? Oh, sure. Go read one of those and tell me how much loyalty you moderates have for Dems. Talk about some condemnation.

You're so correct. Irony is something, isn't it?

What isn't wonderful is a party growing cobwebs on its ass because of cowards who wouldn't fight their own way out of a paper bag.

"To stand by a candidate simply because they have a certain letter by their name is a repuke tactic."
It's called party loyalty. Get over your chilidsh self.

"have you seen any of the McKinney threads lately?"
The ones where the far left are exhibiting blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy. They're a huge fucking laugh.

So basically, you make any statement you like with no facts to back it up and then insult me or anyone who asks for those facts?

And you slam McKinney yet claim to desire party loyalty?

Sorry. You've lost me. This is a discussion board, but you refuse to discuss issues.

Lots of luck with that :silly:

"Sorry. You've lost me."
Good riddance, then.

Funny you get such a thrill out of dismissing people. Sounds like a person perched on a jewel-encrusted throne somewhere. Are you a little king waving off his lowly subjects?

Sounds that way to me.

Must be awesome to be MrBenchley :silly:



Peace.

"Must be awesome to be MrBenchley"
Must be pathetic to have nothing to say but that.

"Sounds like a person perched on a jewel-encrusted throne somewhere. Are you a little king waving off his lowly subjects?"

I have activated the "I" option there. DU is just no place for nap-deprived toddlers or little kings, whichever case that one is.

Hope your weekend is awersome :)

I'm seeking out those great MONO re-issues on LP- I have the 1st one.

Buddy Holly is best in MONO- doncha agree?

If you float by bhg's humble little farm, you may hear Ol Buddy crooning through the trees.

Sometimes his music just suits, knowhatImean?

I've only got remastered Stereo CD's but someday I'll have some MONO re-ssues, too.

ANY Buddy is better than NO Buddy!

:toast: Cheers!

Isn't it interesting that history has almost always proven that the left was, well, right? Too bad the other side has the better PR machine.

Although historically speaking abolitionism was primarily a cause of evangelical Christians at the time. But your point is correct...

Back then evangelicals were more concerned with helping the poor and disadvantaged as the Bible suggests they should be. Gay marriage and abortion were not even hardly thought about. And it was not just evangelicals, the Quakers had a huge influence and if you look at the core principles of the Quaker they are certainly principles that are shared by most leftists even if they are not religious.

However evangelicals were more concerned with vices such as drinking and gambling that they thought led to degradation, than they were about helping the poor. As you point out fundamentalism was not yet part of the lexicon, and in fact evangelicals were also against religious education in Public schools...my how things change. Evangelcialism and the market economy grew at the same time, with growing wealth seen as approval by God. Left and right really had no meaning back then.

Yes they were also concerned with vices as you point out, although alcohol and gambling have never really been partisan issues there have been supporters and opponents of both on each end of the spectrum. But there were many who truly were more concerned about helping the disadvantaged, and they are the ones who really pushed for abolition.

I am not suggesting that all evangelicals were leftists at that time, certainly that is not the case. What I am suggesting is that the idea that slavery should be abolished was a leftist position at that time, they may have used different words than left or right to describe political positions at that time but using todays standards it was certainly a position that was at the far left end of political opinion in the early years of this nations history.

He was an abolitionist as well. Consider Lecture #43 "On Slavery in Massachussets", from this site:
http://www.walden.org/institute/thoreau/life/Lecturing/43_Lecture.htm
A few things are apparent:
(a) He handed himself to his ideals unquestioningly,
(b) He saw that a moral society was the ultimate goal.
Great man, he allowed himself to be changed by the world around him.

:kick:

Minnesotan here. I couldn't or wouldn't have said it any better.

GASP/SHOCK/AWE

Green Party traitor!

....you go my friend! I couldn't agree with you more! And for the record, I am far-left on many issues. I am also what would have been conservative on others, at a different time in history, but the right-wing has pushed the bar so far their direction, that I am actually a centrist left of center, which makes NO sense to even me....LOL!!

GREAT OBSERVATIONS!!

And I am a little late but.....

WELCOME TO DU!!!!

What wacky ideas do you guys have coming down the pike?

My god it is radical to think that we should care for people rather than watch them die a slow death.

And it certainly is radical to think we should do something to stop global warming before the coasts flood.

I am sure people are going to think we were absolutely crazy for that one in the future.

:sarcasm:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

because Bob Boudelang ridicules my ideological kinfolk.

:D

When was this?

Over 20 Senators voted against the Iraq War Resolution. The U.S. Senate isn't exactly a hotbed of far left activity.

Go figure.

The corporate media aired virtually no anti-war voices in the run up to the war, and they constantly mocked anyone who criticized the idea.

Was there opposition from people who would not normally be considered far left? Absolutely. Yet the media portrayal of the opposition amounted to a smear of the far left.

Admittedly the Iraq war example was not as good as the other examples I made, but I don't think it is over the line either considering the media portrayal of the anti-war movement.

Opposing the war may have been far left on CNN but out here in the real world it was and still is a pretty mainstream view.

Also remember that the U.S. is an ideological outlier. Self-styled "far leftists" in the U.S. all too often fancy themselves as being radicals because they support things which are completely mainstream in other Western Democracies. This only helps the GOP and DUers like "Ignored" try to marginalize their views.

For example, people who support single-payer universal healthcare aren't at the edge of the ideological contiuum. It's sadists who think that it's acceptable that children should go without healthcare who are the real extremists.

Certainly what gets dismissed as the far left here in the US is actually very mainstream not only in other parts of the world, but right here in the United States.

People generally oppose the war, they support Bush's impeachment, and they support Universal Health care. Yet these are all considered far left positions, despite the fact that huge percentages support them.

In many ways the far left position is the moderate position, but it is never portrayed that way. I am saying don't let them dismiss us, if they want to call us far left then we should embrace that label because there is not anything wrong with the left and there never has been.

I also might add........

At one time the idea that the good Christian George Bush LIED to the American people (and the whole world) in his State of the Union Address was considered a far left kooky idea.

At one time the idea that the S.H. didn't have WMD was considered a far left kooky idea.

At one time the idea that the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen was considered a far left kooky idea.


Maybe in the future the idea that MIHOP or LIHOP won't be a far left kooky idea.

But enough...if we mentioned them all we'd be reading all night.

lines; "for example is not proof."

Tradable emissions markets for pollution have been perhaps the most successful (cost wise and politically) method for reduction of pollution yet it was considered to be a right wing approach. This just goes to say even for doing something that is of greater value to people on the left, sometimes approaches that are not positions of those on the left do well. In fact if you look at the difference between Denmark and France, much of the difference in their success is not associated with where on the political spectrum an idea comes from but rather the ability to successfully implement programs that suit their goals.

From an economic standpoint replacing oil with renewable energy is just starting to become viable despite a great deal of money being put toward finding other alternative methods. At the time when this was first thought of, trying to replace oil with renewable energy would have been prohibitively costly. The materials and construction techniques just were not there to make it viable.

.

Quite left...and quite right!

Proud to be a member of the far left.

is that moderate Dems don't seem to believe they need the FULL spectrum of Democrats in order to win.

WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE.

Alienating good, solid, voting Dems simply because their rhetoric stings your mainstream little ears, and just so you can look "normal" to the RW is political suicide.

The right wing embraces their radicals. They know that vote is sacrosanct if they want to win.

Too many moderate Dems, on the other hand, are always eager to disparage and disenfranchise their "radicals." Again, comfort in their (usually) white maleness is far more desirable than winning a silly election.

The Party has ALWAYS been big enough for all of us.

And moderates didn't win jack shit playing nice or abandoning the far left and kneeling down for the evangelicals. THEY'VE LOST OVER AND OVER AND OVER with that tactic.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and yet expect a different result. This suggests that some of our moderates are COMPLETELY insane.

It's not moderates starting threads announcing they're not supporting the Democratic party...nor is it moderates screaming for party purges or sticking up for the fuckwits in the Green party.

But it is funny as hell to see you play the race card so utterly ineptly.

At one time the idea that slavery should be ended was a far left position.

Slavery was abolished under the Lincoln Administration.

At one time the thought that blacks should be able to go to the same schools as whites was considered a far left position.

The Brown vs. Board of Education decision happened during when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President.

At one time the idea that women should have the right to vote was considered a far left position.

Womens' suffrage happened in the USA in 1920, the same year that Warren G. Harding was elected President.

At one time the idea that people should have the right to form a union was considered a far left position.

OK, Theodore Roosevelt was a true Progressive. The AFL-CIO was founded in 1912.

At one time the idea that we should not have went to war with Vietnam was considered a far left position

And the President who pulled us out of Vietnam was Richard Milhouse Nixon.

I'll agree with that.

Are you giving sum total of these accomplishments to these presidents? I'll assure you that many, many people worked to bring these changes about before they were law.

Or are you merely saying that these presidents happened to be in office when these changes occurred?

And remember this: the "liberal" moniker was not affixed as a true pejorative til the '80's.

Before that, there was much bi-partisan effort in our government. People might have differed over values and objectives but Dems and Repukes tended to work together for the good of the NATION and HER PEOPLE.

Today, the Repukes work for Pharm companies, Halliburton, and foreign wealthy.

As is generally applicable to both credit and blame assigned to past Presidents.

I would credit Nixon personally with establishing trade with the Peoples' Republic of China (about which not everyone is happy). But Reagan just happened to be there when the Soviet Union dissolved.

My point is that today's Left cannot really take full credit for any of those ideas either. Without contributions and assent from other points of view, those important evolutions could never have occurred.

Before that, there was much bi-partisan effort in our government. People might have differed over values and objectives but Dems and Repukes tended to work together for the good of the NATION and HER PEOPLE.

Precisely, and that is where we need to go once again.

BUT you cannot deny that the ideas of women voting, freeing slaves, blah blah blah were - at the core - radical, far left ideas at inception. It took a lot of poking and prodding to get "conservatives" to budge on these issues.

In Britain, women suffragettes broke windows and burned buildings and made a general nuisance of themselves. Only AFTER WWI, when women took over the jobs of absent men, did the government realize that they were unfairly blocking women's vote.

Every example you gave came out of protests and pamphlets and incerceration. Were you alive during Viet Nam? I was, and I can tell you it was the Pinko Commie Leftists who protested.

So, the OP is correct despite the fact that republicans held the highest office when these victories were achieved.

As for working together, take a look at how cooperative Repukes have been toward ANY Dem bill introduced. The numbers are not good, and it isn't going to get any better until the "radicals" make enough of a stink - as they did against slavery, prohibition, equal rights - to make Congress stand up and notice. And even then, given our whore media, it doesn't look so good.

It will take a majority of Dems in Congress to win any victories now, and we NEED TO WHIP UP THE BASE to get MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE. Denying the vast numbers of gay people, feminists, environmentalists, etc their place in this party IS pushing people to third parties.

Political suicide, i promise you.

nm

At the polls today, we accidentally locked ourselves out of the car. See, part of the key has broken off in the ignition and the clicker was in the car.

There was a reason for this, though. My son came and pried the car open and I got to be sure he voted. He works two jobs and has a new reggae band, so I was afraid he might not find time to get back in our direction to cast his ballot.

This also meant we sat in the precinct waiting for him to arrive, and we saw two folks hesitate when asked to choose a party for the primary. The first, a neighbor, said very sheepishly, "Republican, I guess." So did the second guy. It was hard to hear. They didn't really seem too thrilled about voting Repuke, but since Dems around here just try to be Repuke Lite, why not just vote for the real thing?

What got to me was knowing that there are so many people in our precinct who might vote Dem if we could mobilize them with a new message. There is a VAST untapped reserve of new voters, but these folks will either not vote or try a third party. I hear it over and over : "They're all the same."

Democrats need to get guts and get real and stop trying to "be the same."

Now I live outside my former county - the one that covers most of the mountain and always votes Dem. I am on the outskirts of a Repuke county that stretches down into the valley and has the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse, so i am glad to add to the Dems here, bet how wonderful it would be if I could go into that county and find all the non-hypocrite Christians, the disenfranchised, the GLBT, those who care about the environment, the single mothers, those who want peace and an end to war.

But what can i tell them? "Our Dem candidates are JUST like the Repukes! They don't support working people or gay marriage or abortion rights and in fact will vote these away if it is politically expedient. But vote for them anyway!!!!!"

Sorry, but i can't carry that message. Gimme something new to carry and I will spread it far and wide. :hi:

My Mennonite ancestors were staunch abolitionists from the get-go, and there is no way you can hang a "radical leftist" tag on them. They opposed slavery on moral grounds based on their implementation of Christianity; the same reason they were and are today staunch pacifists.

I was born in 1958 and remember Vietnam well. Many moderates including both Republicans and Democrats were opposed to our involvement. It was easy to hang the Pinko label on anyone who opposed the war because the excuse for our being there was to stop the spread of world Communism. Don't you remember the Roman Catholic Church being opposed to the war? Thomas Merton? The Berrigans? That is hardly a Marxist mob, though the involvement of the left is undeniable.

I do agree that we need a big tent, otherwise our prospects are dim.

First off, I just wanted to say how pleasant our discussion has been.

Sometimes around here it's like Romper Room on acid.

Now, to the cigar....I agree that folks who are to the right of the spectrum often join in on the cause, just as some evangelicals have joined the environmentalists in calling for accountability to the planet.

Environmentalists, and their concerns, are still considered to reside in the far left area, however.

At any rate, I believe the OP is merely trying to express the fact that many changes in society - the ones that benefit the little guy over the big guy, that afford more rights to more people, that seek to undo superstition and prejudice - are changes that are initially viewed as radical and usually radical left.


Your last comment is so true. We need all of us.

Have a great day, slackmaster :hi:

:hi:

Rancor sucks.

"Slavery was abolished under the Lincoln Administration."

True but the abolitionist movement started LONG before Lincoln.

"The Brown vs. Board of Education decision happened during when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President."

Again you are leaving out the history before Brown vs. Board of Education, but this time you are even misrepresenting Eisenhower's role in that decision. He was not happy with Chief Justice Warren over that decision, and in fact he said appointing Warren to the court was the worst decision he ever made. To give him credit for Brown Vs. Board of Education shows a great deal of ignorance to history.


"Womens' suffrage happened in the USA in 1920, the same year that Warren G. Harding was elected President."

Again it absurd to give Harding credit for the woman's suffrage movement. When did you see him standing with the women outside the White House calling for their right to vote?

"OK, Theodore Roosevelt was a true Progressive. The AFL-CIO was founded in 1912."

Again Theodore Roosevelt does not deserve all the credit for the movement to give people the right to organize.

"And the President who pulled us out of Vietnam was Richard Milhouse Nixon."

Again true, but to imply Nixon was against Vietnam from the start is absolutely absurd making this the most laughable of all your statements. Believe me Nixon and the opponents of the Vietnam war did not get along.

Those movements were able to come to fruition during times where the left was anything but in power. The same electorate that put Harding in office also saw fit to recognize the right of women to participate. Justice Warren certainly qualified as left of center, but the country as a whole was anything but.

Of course abolitionism started a long time before Lincoln. I have ancestors who preached it hundreds of years earlier. They were not leftists, and for the left to claim abolition as their idea is absurd.

by what started out as the "far left." And then when we (yes, WE) won over the public and outrage forced their hand, the powerful embraced our ideas, and then rewrote the history books to say, "Look what we have done for you, you little people. Praise us, praise your freedom-loving leaders!"

Imagine the original "far-leftists" who believed that people shouldn't be taxed unless they were represented in the government! Extremists! They even engaged in vandalism and destruction of property by diguising themselves as native americans and throwing English tea into the water.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS THE FAR LEFT. LOOK AT YOURSELVES! GOD, YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL!

We have some work cut out for us. Their protests are more effective than the over-18 protests and they deserve a say in their future.

I am now and always have been a PROUD Left-Wing Liberal.

TC

Great post.

as opposed to "left," or "liberal?"

In other words, how do you define "FAR-left," and what views on current issues make you "FAR-left," as different from "left" or "liberal?"

Socialized medicine

Money, religion and politics - the three should never meet. No money in religion, no religion in politics, and no money in politics, and vice-versa for all of those.

Civil rights take precedent over making a profit.

Gays already have the right to marry and to have sex with each other - the right wing's just trying to take it away.

Nationalism is wrong. You should care for every human, no matter what country they're in.

The build up of the military is wrong. There is no justifiable reason for spending so much on defense. That money should be spent on social programs. (I was in the Marines for 8 years, and I'm still saying this.) We should still have a military force, but only enough to protect the US, not to try to project our will upon the Earth. Read "War Is A Racket" by Smedley Butler (another former Marine, who the Marine Corps considers to be one of the greatest Marines of all time): http://www.veteransforpeace.org/war_is_a_racket_033103.htm

Amassing too much wealth by one individual or business entity is wrong. There should be limits on it. Nobody deserves to be a multi-billionaire....I don't care what they did. The exceptions to that might be Gandhi, MLK, Malcolm X, and Nelson Mandela. However, those individuals who would actually deserve it, would eschew that kind of wealth, because it is wrong.

Education up to a college level should be free and available to everybody in the world.

The poor should have equal access to the political system, health care, food, and education as the rich do. Money shouldn't have any bearing on any of that.

Global warming is a dire and imminent threat. Something needs to be done now.

Colonialism is wrong. It seems like an antiquated term, but it's still happening today. Nowadays it's called "free trade."

The "War On Drugs" is wrong. It creates a criminal element.

The ends don't justify the means....I don't care what the ends are.

________

Those are some basics that most of us on the far left believe. Here are some more that I personally believe, that may or may not be representative of the far left, but I'm sure are largely not held by the majority of Americans:

Lending money at an interest is wrong. An interest based and growth based economy like ours was a great idea when there was room on the planet to grow. However, we've ran out of space now, and a growth based economy will only lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It will soon become unsustainable. It's cowboy economics in a spaceship environment. Check out this lecture by Dr. Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder:
http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram
The funny thing is that lending money at an interest is against Christianity (as well as Islam). It's specifically forbidden in the Bible several times. Still the fundies think that the USA is a Christian nation, and rail against homosexuality like it's the end of the world, but it's barely mentioned in the Bible (certainly much less than usury). The only time Jesus got mad was at the money lenders in the temple.

Economic inequality is wrong. A child in Africa should have the same opportunity to live happily as my kids will. For instance, a kid born in Somalia today is in a world of shit. He/she could be an outstanding individual, but there is almost 0 chance he will live a life as comfortable as I do in the states. The only way he might achieve some sort of liberation or economic success is to join the bad guys, and amass power through despicable acts of violence and greed. If he tries to lead his life in peace, he'll either be dead or broke. Compare that to gw bush: He stumbled his whole life and constantly made incorrect decisions. However, the wealth, power, and influence of his family has prompted him to be the most powerful man in the world. He's a horrible human being, and he'll life comfortably the rest of his life. Some poor kid in Africa could be a saint, and he'll never achieve so much, no matter what he does. That's just wrong. I'd be willing to take a hit in my standard of living so that others can be helped, but I'm sure very few others would agree with me or willing to do the same.

I believe everybody has a right to a place to live, and a job (even if it's just minimum wage). If the private sector won't hire them, then the government should hire them to work on civil projects.

I think the "War On Terror" is wrong. You can't fix a broken leg by hitting it with a hammer. You have to hit terrorism at the roots - poverty and economic inequality. The "foot soldiers" of the terrorist movement and sympathizers act as they do because they see no other course of action or they've been greatly wronged. Let's give them another way out that's non-violent, I'm sure they'd take it if it was a fair deal. We should still bring justice to those who commit these acts, but not demonize and collectively punish the populations of the people who live around them. Our policies are either too reactive or too destructive to end terrorism.

___

I could go on for a lot longer, but the post is getting too long already. The main point is that all humans deserve basic rights and equal opportunity to be happy.

How's that different -- especially as "shoulds" and "right/wrongs," from "left," "liberal," or "Democrat?"

Yes many of those coincide with moderate Democratic views, but many go much further.

Very few Democrats holding public office support those views. Some hold views that are the polar opposite.

How many Dems in office mention socialized medicine, housing and a job for everybody as a right, the end of corporate person-hood,the end of nationalism (not one politician will touch that), willingly lowering our standard of living in America so that others may live better, severely cutting the defense budget, or ending the war on drugs? Only a few have touched any of those points, and I don't think any of them have supported all of those points.

How many Dems in office rail against the evils of credit card companies, banks, and other money lending organizations? There's a few against predatory lending practices...yes, but not against the practice of lending money at an interest as a whole.

That's the difference between the far left liberals and the moderate Democrats. You asked anybody to name some far left points, and I did.

If we're talking about the MSM, definitely -- we're all "fringe, netroots, radicals, extremists, loonies," etc...

If we're talking about Democratic politicians in office, I've said many times: they are in positions of cutting deals, making bargains, getting funding, and getting re-elected. They have to meet the demands of their CONSTITUENTS and THAT is where we wield our power -- at the roots. In our backyards. At the water-coolers, at block-parties, even subtly in business meetings (Husb is expert at that). (And in the checks we write.)

If we're talking about people on DU, proclaiming "radical leftist" views is hardly novel -- in fact, it's become embarrassing to me. It's easy to claim as a label, but scratch the surface and get down to two things -- issues and effectiveness -- and it breaks down quickly. On issues, so-called "leftists" embrace rightwing positions (and then we get into arguments about what they insist SHOULD be "progressive"); and on effectiveness, the whole fight is LOST when people throw so-called "leftist" tantrums and withdraw support for the fight as it IS, with idealistic fits over what SHOULD be.

(We can't get to what SHOULD be without dealing first with what IS.)

Compromise is essential in maintaining any form of non-totalitarian government. You can't take even a small group of people and have them agree on everything...much less a nation. However, there are some things that just can't be bargained on (at least in my opinion). Many of the republican-lite Dems will work out deals way too quickly or make deals that are just as bad as having done nothing at all (like their so-called compromise on the filibuster). Sometimes a boycott is necessary. There are certain issues that we should never compromise on.

However, you bring up an excellent point about getting funded and re-elected. That's the main problem. The whole system is corrupted because you have to kowtow to monied interests to be elected. There's no way a poor person can ever be a senator or president - no matter how great the person is, no matter how great his or hers ideas are. I'm sure none on DU disagree with this point - even moderates.

I would like to bring up one point. To me there is a difference between far left and radical left. First of all, if a "leftist" espouses right wing viewpoints repeatedly, then he or she is no leftist. They are only taking the name. A far left person (IMHO) doesn't want to force his viewpoint on anyone. I don't want anybody to believe in what I believe in just because I say so or made them so. Instead I would rather show others why I think that we can make a better world, and convince them by presenting facts, reasoned discussion, and an alternative way of thinking about the world. Except with the most hardened of right wingers, I can usually present an argument that will convince them or at least make them understand that there are valid viewpoints out there other than their own (and thus finding a common ground to build on later). I've been in the Marine Corps and received medals, I've been in incarcerated for things that I did and did not do, I was once wealthy, I've been completely broke and nearly homeless, I've been an altar boy, I've been a hedonist, I've been a felon, I've been a Chess champion, I've squandered so many opportunities in my life that were served up to me on a silver platter, I made a new life just when it looked like there was no way out of my situation, I used to enjoy taking life-threatening risks on at least a weekly basis, and now I'm a father with three kids and live a mostly boring, uneventful suburban life. The one thing that I can say I do have is that I've got perspective...that I can understand where the other guy/gal is coming from - and I won't try to judge them. Like the conservative reverend who eschewed politics, I'd rather have power under people, not power over them. If I can't convince the opposite side that they're wrong, then that's okay...we'll just agree to disagree. IMHO that's the difference between me, a guy on the far left, and radical leftist. A radical leftist will try to force his view on others, when all else fails. The ends will justify the means.

However, again, there are just certain things you can't compromise on. I'm first and foremost a human - every man and woman are my brothers and sisters, regardless of race, creed, nationality, or political viepoint - then after that I'm a liberal, then politically I'm a Democrat. At one time the Republican party was the liberal party and the Democratic party was the conservative party. Somewhere along the line they switched positions. If they switch again...I'm not switching with them. I support the candidate who supports the majority of the causes I believe are right.

The politicians who can stand up loudest are often those whose constituencies are strongly in their court, backing them. We need to make our voices heard (and money felt), but we ALSO need to impact others' views, one by one; get THEM out to vote; influence THEIR contributions, etc. That's how to change politicians.

It's also a reason I do not share the common view that congressional and gubernatorial positions are "President School." As another astute DUer put it, they are "where they get their strings attached." (Nothing against our good Democrats in office -- that's just the nature of the beast.)

In a practical sense, think of the term "organizing" in the sense of bringing people together to a MASS that wields such weight it can't be resisted. THAT is our task, in my view. If we were fighting the planet Mars, we'd all group together and identify as Earthlings. If we were fighting some other country attacking us, we'd group together and identify as Americans (as most did on 9/11). As it is, here and now, we are fighting the Republican Party. And the immediate task is to get them OUT of POWER, whatever it takes. THEN we can continue to move the pendulum back to the left, advance our views, pressure our representatives who'll actually have the power to DO something about it all...

Again, for the record, I'm "far left" if there IS a "far left," so we have no disagreement on issues here. I'm just sick of the fake "proud lefty" posturing on DU, ESPECIALLY when it seems intolerant of other Democrats, and especially knowing how much of it is either shallow ("right" of Democratic party platform) OR full-circle "left" until it meets the "right" (so-called "Libertarian" views that meet up with the GOP). The label "far-left" does NONE of us any good, imho.

Philosophically, AND practically, it's about joining forces. The divisions on DU, it seems to me, are coming from THIS side -- the "so-called LEFT" (again, "so-called" because I am not at all convinced it's as "left" as it insists on claiming and it gives "left" a bad name, and a bad rep for intolerance). Give me a moderate or even conservative Democrat ANY day over a "Green" or "Independent" who'll effectively keep Republicans in power. That's not about the depth of my convictions -- it's about my zeal for my convictions to actually have impact. There IS no other way right now.

So as a "far-leftist" if you will, I say let's join HANDS with all other Democrats and get this thing rolling. THEN we may someday have the luxury of splitting hairs. Right now, it's "power to the people" and WE have to become "THE PEOPLE."

which isn't always ALL that clear, especially when we're talking about historic events (which is why I'm asking about current events and positions), or when making distinctions between "FAR-left" and just "left" or "liberal."

So I'm asking here: What beliefs or positions do you hold that make you "FAR-left," as opposed to "left" or "liberal?"

You're still not answering my question.

I KNOW what "left/right" is. I'm trying to figure out what it is that DUers who call themselves "far-left" on threads like this believe distinguishes themselves from "left" or "liberal."

It's not a measure of the strength of your convictions to call yourself "far left" or "far right". Those political labels are used to define the most unreasonable policy extremes.

I'm a strong-willed liberal, and so are most of DU. The "far left radical" caricature is something conservatives have spent endless amounts of effort to label us with. Playing into their hands is just dumb, in my opinion.

Then we win. I am far to the left end of the political spectrum, and I am not ashamed of that I just want people to know what that means. Leftist policies that have been executed properly have done great things for this nation, and we should be proud of who we are.

Martin Luther King Jr. was by any reasonable standard on the far left end of the political spectrum. I don't think people think about him that way, but when you look at the positions he took they were certainly far left for their time especially. If you look at what he was saying in the last couple years of his life especially dealing with war and poverty he was a radical. I am proud to be in his company, and I think all of us leftists should be.

If we let the right define the far left as being wacky and we run from that label then they win because we are running from our values. If we embrace the label and say we are proud to be leftists and then tell people the reasons why we are proud, then we can show people we aren't so crazy after all.

He also preached inclusion and tolerance; diversity and equality; respect and community.

I think it behooves our party to do the same.

As it happens, I'm a Socialist at heart -- BUT, the term "Far-Left" as a fashion label makes my skin crawl. I see nothing from the "far-left" here that actually defines "far-left" as separate from left, liberal, or even mainstream Democratic. And in general, I just think labels are superficial.

I think, as I've said elsewhere, this comes down to a sophomoric view based on emotions. Whoever "FEELS" it most, is the most "left;" whoever's most outspoken, is the most "left." Thus even conservative Democrats who are outspoken against BushCo are accepted as "left," while liberals who walk the line of their constituent support are "Dinos." (The fact is, they're POLITICIANS and that carries its own conflicts, compromises, wheeling and dealing and funding and etc...)

I'm just seeing this neo-romantic nostalgia for the 60s and a level of pseudo-militance as a new "far-left" and it's silly, it makes the the politics of leftists and/or liberals seem silly, and it's counter-productive when it divides our party along false, pretentious lines. It's more about posturing than politics, imho.

CHANGE comes from within -- within this party. And if ANYthing is "left" or "liberal," it's embracing diversity, respecting differences, and ACTING FOR CHANGE, putting our own egos aside for the benefit of the COMMON GOOD. That doesn't mean we can't act to move the party leftward, but first, the party needs some POWER back, and we have to face the fact that not everyone thinks as we do.

These labels -- as IF anybody's all upset at so-called "far-left" positions here -- is just SELF-conscious, in my view. I wish I could post a great big "CONGRATULATIONS -- NOW LET'S MOVE ON" and get it the hell over with!!! Instead, it's continual self-congratulations for nothing in particular except proud defense against imaginary persecution.

As I see it, nobody's attacking our positions -- they're attacking the self-righteous, self-pitying, narrow-minded, selfish so-called "purity" of people here who CLAIM to be "lefties." There's nothing "far-left," in my view, about setting up walls, or going behind them to throw tantrums, baiting others to come pleading with concessions and candy. Let's grow up, get real, get past the labels, and make this about our community as an effective party, not self-congratulations over our own lefter-than-thou superiority.

I don't think anything in my post suggested putting up walls. I never said anything about myself being superior to others, and I find it rude that just because you disagree with me you put all these words I never said into my mouth.

We are not setting up walls, although it is true we don't want people like Joe Lieberman saying they represent us because they don't represent us. We do not want to shut people out of the debate, we just want to make it clear we disagree with them. I don't see what is so wrong about that.

I don't think I am superior to anything else, I am for equality. That is why I cited Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King was for equality and inclusiveness, but he also spoke out when he thought something was wrong.

I do find it interesting that in a post where you are complaining about setting up walls and inclusiveness you rip apart people who call themselves radicals or leftists. I sense a bit of hypocrisy here. All I said in my OP was that I was proud to be a leftist, then you insult me and say I am setting up walls but it is obvious who is really setting up the walls by shutting me out simply for saying I am far left.

from the "left," or "liberal," or just "Democratic?"

HOW are you different from an "un-far left," or from "liberals," or "progressives?"

IS anyone persecuting you here for your views, such that you need to take a Brave Stance on DU and stand up to proclaim you're a proud part of the "Far-Left?"

MLK "also spoke out when he thought something was wrong." What's wrong?

"I do find it interesting that in a post where you are complaining about setting up walls and inclusiveness you rip apart people who call themselves radicals or leftists." Not at all. I call myself one. I just don't feel a need to wear it on my sleeve, shout it from the rooftops, or proclaim it as if I were in a battle with Democrats of different stripes.

"...shutting me out simply for saying I am far left." I'm not shutting you out -- I'm not for shutting ANYbody out. I'd have the same reaction to similar posts from other points of view, except it'd be more "radical" and daring on DU for someone to post "Yes I'm a Moderate and proud of it" than to claim some sort of rebellious pride in being "far-left."

(And, having scratched the surface in the past, I think a lot of what lays claim to "far-left" here ISN'T at all, on many issues -- it's just a fashionable costume, which makes us all look ridiculous.)

In sum: The LABELS get us NOWHERE; proclaiming how wonderfully, proudly "far-left" we are seems silly at best and counter-productive at worst; and if you want to discuss your issues, discuss your issues. I think you'd find less opposition here than you think, especially if you leave off the labels given to all sides.

"Then why do you feel a need to distinguish the "far left" from the "left," or "liberal," or just "Democratic?"

Because that is where I feel I stand, why should I water down my words to please you?

Skipping ahead a bit you said "In sum: The LABELS get us NOWHERE; proclaiming how wonderfully, proudly "far-left" we are seems silly at best and counter-productive at worst; and if you want to discuss your issues, discuss your issues. I think you'd find less opposition here than you think, especially if you leave off the labels given to all sides."

So why did you suggest it was ok for me to just say "left" "liberal" or "Democratic"? Aren't those labels as well?

"IS anyone persecuting you here for your views, such that you need to take a Brave Stance on DU and stand up to proclaim you're a proud part of the "Far-Left?"

I never claimed this post was a brave post, and I never meant it as an act of bravery. You act like you can read my mind on what my intentions were for the post. You are wrong.

"MLK "also spoke out when he thought something was wrong." What's wrong?"

Are you honestly suggesting nothing is wrong in George Bush's America?

I could go on with all your logical fallicies, but I don't have time.

"Then why do you feel a need to distinguish the "far left" from the "left," or "liberal," or just "Democratic?"

Because that is where I feel I stand, why should I water down my words to please you?

Well, should I start a thread that says, "I wipe my ass?" That's what I do, but I don't see the purpose of proclaiming it. I don't see the purpose of posting where I feel I stand politically, either.

Skipping ahead a bit you said "In sum: The LABELS get us NOWHERE; proclaiming how wonderfully, proudly "far-left" we are seems silly at best and counter-productive at worst; and if you want to discuss your issues, discuss your issues. I think you'd find less opposition here than you think, especially if you leave off the labels given to all sides."

So why did you suggest it was ok for me to just say "left" "liberal" or "Democratic"? Aren't those labels as well?

That's not what I said. I asked what distinguishes "far-left" from left, liberal, or Democratic.

"IS anyone persecuting you here for your views, such that you need to take a Brave Stance on DU and stand up to proclaim you're a proud part of the "Far-Left?"

I never claimed this post was a brave post, and I never meant it as an act of bravery. You act like you can read my mind on what my intentions were for the post. You are wrong.

Okay. Please explain why you felt a need to proclaim your "far-leftiness" here. Did you think regular old, not-far leftists, or liberals, or progressives, or moderates, or unlabeled people might feel "less left," and if so, what's that mean? Does it mean they don't embrace your principles as strongly, or wouldn't have supported the things you mentioned in their time, or what?

"MLK "also spoke out when he thought something was wrong." What's wrong?"

Are you honestly suggesting nothing is wrong in George Bush's America?

Not at all. As I said, MLK spoke of inclusion, tolerance, diversity, acceptance, equality, etc... You replied that he spoke out when something was wrong. Is something wrong on DU?

Perhaps your post was meant to address so-called "mainstream" views of Democrats, in which case I misunderstood. But I think we need to be careful with labels on a board that embraces all stripes of Democrats, including those who do not identify themselves as "far-left," as that's become a point of contention here.

(As I posted elsewhere in this thread, I identify as a Socialist at heart -- but chest-thumping proclamations of "leftism" here ring hollow and embarrass me. So if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I still think labels should be handled carefully, and don't mean much here anyway.)

Look at the examples I have used in my post, they are today very mainstream. I believe that once people get a chance to hear leftist ideas they will see that they are really pretty common sense. I believe that there is nothing wrong with being left, and I believe people should proclaim it. I think by the very act of posting your views on DU you are doing the same thing I am, you are expressing where you stand.

I think many people are afraid of the far left when they shouldn't be, I am trying to show that there is nothing wrong with holding leftist views. I am not trying to voice superiority over anyone else, people with other views have the right to express their views as well. Hell if someone posted a "I am proud to be a far-right Republican" I would at least listen to their reasons why. I would certainly comment asking for some justifications of things, but I will at least listen to them.

I knew I was preaching to the choir for the most part when I posted the OP, I did not mean it as a chest thumping proclamation by any means. But I think many people yourself included are afraid of the term far left because it carries a taboo of extremism. But I really believe the leftist position is not an extremist position. I have seen several people who proclaim to be far-left but are really quite kooky, and don't understand politics very well. That is not the majority of us though, to me being far-left really means that I want change. Big change. I want other people to say they want change as well.

I don't know if you know what the real meaning of the word radical is, but the words Greek meaning is to go to the root of the problem. It does not mean extremist. I am not an extremist, I am a person who sees big problems in this world and thinks the solutions being offered are either too small or nonexistant.

That is why I made my post. Not to divide anyone, not to suggest I was in any way superior, it was simply to express my desire for change.

I believe we need to take steps to end the class system in America. I believe it is wrong that many people work full time and are still not able to make ends meet, while others collect billions off the backs of those very workers. No one should have to live in poverty, and no one should be able to hog up the nations resources for themselves.

I believe that we need to have a massive restructuring of the American transit system to encourage alternative means of transportation and I believe SUVs should be banned for personal use. We need to conserve our natural resources and protect our environment, and we need to set reasonable limits on what people can consume.

I believe that all campaigns should be publicly funded, and we should move to a system of proportional representation in congress.

I believe that we need to provide single-payer universal health care to all our citizens.

I believe we should cut the Pentagon budget in half, and invest that money in repairing the environment health care and education.

There are many other issues as well, but I think you get the point that I am well to the left of pretty much everyone in Congress. Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, and Bernie Sanders come fairly close however.

That being said I think many people hold far left positions without realizing they are far left positions.

except perhaps cutting the Pentagon budget in half, right now... Increased taxes on the top 2% of the wealthiest (including capital gains) and on corporations (including disincentives for outsourcing) would go a long way toward healthcare, education, and transportation as well.

I think many hold basic "left" positions -- even "Democratic" positions -- but feel a need to label themselves as wild-eyed radical far-leftists for some reason.

I was called a radical by a moderate.

It made me examine my own beliefs to see where this attitude from the moderate might have its origins.

And I came to the conclusion that I was not an extremist in any sense I could see, but that to a moderate, I apparently was a radical. There is nothing I can do about that.

I see a great deal of false posturing and cronyism in the Democratic party today which tries to mask as political savvy. It's a zero sum game to these folks, or like trying to rework the same piece of clay without adding anything to it.

There isn't any faith in the people.

These sorts don't even try.

There is nothing sophisticated or constructive in snobbery and laziness.

There is nothing politically savvy about living in denial or taking the other side's position for short-term gain. And please don't try to tell me that my moderate representative has not taken the right's side OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You will only insult yourself trying to pull that off.

The fact is, my moderate rep isn't doing a thing to help me. How should i feel about that?

But the arguments here prove how futile it is to reach folks like you. You've got all the answers, so folks like me should bow out of discussing the issues or even bringing up our own views about ourselves.

Go on and do what you folks have been doing. And good luck with that.

n/t

It just doesn't make sense to be a right-winger. They're too angry and insecure about EVERYTHING. :toast: :toast: :dem:

Now, this is my first post in DU so please go easy on me!

I actually agree 110% with the original post (confession: haven't read all the responses) but I'd also like to put it in context with my own realities and background.

As a native Brit, when I first moved over here in '96 I found it quite difficult to distinguish the right from the left in politics. Clinton may have been relatively to the left in US terms but his policies would not come even close to the definition of "far left" by UK or continental European standards. (Perhaps his behaviour might but that's a whole nother story...let's not go there)

For me the best way to describe the positions by MN Against Bush is with the term "Liberal" which, to me at least, is a little nearer to the middle than "far left" which, oustside America, still has strong socialist and even communist connotations. Although I am sure that there are members of DU who have genuine socialist beliefs my guess is that they are in a minority(?).

In a way this is just semantics but the ability of the Republicans to paint a 'far left' (read 'commie') picture of the democrats is potentially damaging. In the UK it kept the Labour party out of office for a couple of decades until Tony Blair laid claim to the middle ground and marginalised the Conservative party. In my view what is called for here is something similar.

Thankfully it seems that the tide is turning and the ranks are shrinking of those who would dispute that the election of GWB, not once but twice, was a faux pas of humongous proportions which will send waves and ripples into the years and probably decades ahead.

The big open question which remains is who will replace him and will that person have the strength, honesty, integrity and ability to turn things around. To that one I have no answer.

Neil

:toast:

Ironic, huh?

This is a keeper, folks. Along the same lines...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2756808#2756817

I too am proud to be a far left liberal. Some years from now people will also say that the idea that everyone has the right to marry whoever they want was once a far left position. I will be proud to say that I was one of the people who believed that from the start.

At one time attacking "the Zionist oppressors and tyrants" was far left. Thne it turned out that Ned Lamont, the Unknown Millionaire, supported ""the Zionist oppressors and tyrants". Now flying into a rage whenever anyone mentions that Ned Lamont supports "the Zionist oppressors and tyrants" is far left.

At this time trying desperately to spin away the fact that the unpopular and idiotic GreenParty turns out to be a Republican dirty trick is far left.

:patriot: