There is effectively no 'far left' in the US

Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

If you look very hard, way past the 1% level, you can find a few people here and there who support something they call 'communism', but what is even what they support? It's nothing like the aforementioned regimes, it's something different and far less bad (or do I daresay possible good).

I wonder when is the last time anyone here actually listened to anything so-called communists advocate, especially their critics, rather than just making up straw men to lie about people they want to attack.

I've said for a long time that communism has essentially no purpose in American political discussion but to derail honest discussion. Since I still see it get brought up, it's time for a reminder there is essentially no "far left", much less bogeyman "communism", in the US. What is CALLED the furthest 'left' is essentially classic, American, non-oligarchic politics with more moderate inequality, democracy, and concern for the public interest.

Craig234 said:

Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of people who are Stalinists. They believe Stalin was basically a good guy who did what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.

Craig234 said:

It's nothing like the aforementioned regimes, it's something different and far less bad (or do I daresay possible good).

Click to expand...

You can only get there with perfect people and perfect people don't exist. Your entire ideology is about giving the state lots and lots of power and that's never going to turn out well.

Craig234 said:

Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

If you look very hard, way past the 1% level, you can find a few people here and there who support something they call 'communism', but what is even what they support? It's nothing like the aforementioned regimes, it's something different and far less bad (or do I daresay possible good).

I wonder when is the last time anyone here actually listened to anything so-called communists advocate, especially their critics, rather than just making up straw men to lie about people they want to attack.

I've said for a long time that communism has essentially no purpose in American political discussion but to derail honest discussion. Since I still see it get brought up, it's time for a reminder there is essentially no "far left", much less bogeyman "communism", in the US. What is CALLED the furthest 'left' is essentially classic, American, non-oligarchic politics with more moderate inequality, democracy, and concern for the public interest.

Click to expand...

Heck, even Bernie could not get more than a few votes.

aociswundumho said:

There are a lot of people who are Stalinists. They believe Stalin was basically a good guy who did what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.



(You can only get there with perfect people and perfect people don't exist. Your entire ideology is about giving the state lots and lots of power and that's never going to turn out well.)

Click to expand...

There was another guy, Che, his likeness was on t shirts and eventually worn by people who knew nothing more than his name. But he wasn't Stalin. Most people use his name along with the worst in history and the rest don't know who he was. Nobody loves Stalin.

Yes, that's correct. There is no competitive left wing option that compares with the rest of the first world.

Craig234 said:

Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Please explain the difference between these dictatorships and trumpism for which quite a few would vote for.

aociswundumho said:

There are a lot of people who are Stalinists. They believe Stalin was basically a good guy who did what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.

Click to expand...

Where do you hear them.

Provide quotes.

Craig234 said:

Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

If you look very hard, way past the 1% level, you can find a few people here and there who support something they call 'communism', but what is even what they support? It's nothing like the aforementioned regimes, it's something different and far less bad (or do I daresay possible good).

I wonder when is the last time anyone here actually listened to anything so-called communists advocate, especially their critics, rather than just making up straw men to lie about people they want to attack.

I've said for a long time that communism has essentially no purpose in American political discussion but to derail honest discussion. Since I still see it get brought up, it's time for a reminder there is essentially no "far left", much less bogeyman "communism", in the US. What is CALLED the furthest 'left' is essentially classic, American, non-oligarchic politics with more moderate inequality, democracy, and concern for the public interest.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are. But, contrary to the propaganda of the ignorant right-wing-nuts, none of them are in the Democratic Party. The left actually still has leftist political parties, and those ideologues vote for them whenever they can make it on the ballot. Conversely, the far right has no effective far right parties, so they all vote in the Republican Party.

There is no politically active Fascist party, Nazi Party, Military Junta Party, Christian Right Party, Monarchist Party, etc, so they all default to the GOP. At least none that ever gets on the ballot. But it's worth remembering that in the 2000 election, Al Gore lost the State of Florida by 537 votes, thus losing the presidential election, but the Socialist Workers Party pulled 1,800 votes for their own candidate, James E. Harris, in Florida that year - more than 3 times the votes needed for Gore to win.

If the political "far left" had voted Democrat that year, Bush the Lesser would never have become president.

aociswundumho said:

There are a lot of people who are Stalinists. They believe Stalin was basically a good guy who did what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.

Click to expand...

What??? Who?

aociswundumho said:

You can only get there with perfect people and perfect people don't exist. Your entire ideology is about giving the state lots and lots of power and that's never going to turn out well.

Click to expand...

aociswundumho said:

There are a lot of people who are Stalinists. They believe Stalin was basically a good guy who did what he had to do under very difficult circumstances.



You can only get there with perfect people and perfect people don't exist. Your entire ideology is about giving the state lots and lots of power and that's never going to turn out well.

Click to expand...

Define “a lot”. There are significantly less Stalinist in America than actual admitted Nazis.

This is kind of a “duh” topic.

The Democrats are Center-Right Neoliberal Capitalist Moderates. Even the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party are Center-Left at most. They still support capitalism, they just want it regulated.

Political Leftism is Anti-Capitalist. There is no Far Left in America.

Questerr said:

Define “a lot”. There are significantly less Stalinist in America than actual admitted Nazis.

Click to expand...

Sounds plausible to me. I still consider that to be "a lot", in this context.

Questerr said:

They still support capitalism, they just want it regulated.

Click to expand...

Which turns into socialism. The verb regulate literally means "to control".

aociswundumho said:

Sounds plausible to me. I still consider that to be "a lot", in this context.

Click to expand...

It really isn’t. Stalinists in America are functionally non-existent.

aociswundumho said:

Which turns into socialism. The verb regulate literally means "to control".

Click to expand...

So then you have to admit that “socialism” is successful given the record of countries with regulated capitalism all over the world.

aociswundumho said:

Sounds plausible to me. I still consider that to be "a lot", in this context.

Click to expand...

So...how many?

Who are they, where are they?

EnchantedMuggle said:

So...how many?

Who are they, where are they?

Click to expand...

I can name a handful of them, Caleb Maupin and the members of the “Center for Political Innovation” for instance, but they really are non-entities.

Craig234 said:

Can anyone point me to one American who says they want the US to adopt Stalinism? To adopt Maosim? To even adopt Castroism? One. Single. American? I don't think so.

If you look very hard, way past the 1% level, you can find a few people here and there who support something they call 'communism', but what is even what they support? It's nothing like the aforementioned regimes, it's something different and far less bad (or do I daresay possible good).

I wonder when is the last time anyone here actually listened to anything so-called communists advocate, especially their critics, rather than just making up straw men to lie about people they want to attack.

I've said for a long time that communism has essentially no purpose in American political discussion but to derail honest discussion. Since I still see it get brought up, it's time for a reminder there is essentially no "far left", much less bogeyman "communism", in the US. What is CALLED the furthest 'left' is essentially classic, American, non-oligarchic politics with more moderate inequality, democracy, and concern for the public interest.

Click to expand...

Modern progressive leftism doesn't really have a lot in common with the red movements of the 20th century. Stalinists and Maoists (if they ran today) would be called anti-democratic, backwards, military dictatorships and (probably) be equated more with right wing ideals than left wing ideals and be mocked by progressives.

Fundamentally communism was a pragmatic and ruthless ideology that was utilized to industrialize agricultural economies. It's no surprise that now post-industrialization, countries like China and Russia have progressed into systems of governance that represent something more akin to European Fascism or National Socialism. Right wingers calling contemporary leftists "Stalinists" are brain damaged and politically illiterate.

It is more accurate to say that modern progressive leftism doesn't really intuitively fit in the left/right dichotomy neatly. In terms of social liberalism, they're one of the most radical political factions in human history. Few, if any, political movements have been so militant about dismantling traditional social norms and encouraging this dogma of social liberation from all institutional and traditional constraints. It's counter-intuitive because although modern social progressivism was inspired by West coast academics like Marcuse and Adorno (critical theory, neomarxism), what has truly enabled social liberalism is unfettered American capitalism and global neoliberalism. The type of social politics we see today are only possible because capitalism -- by seeking profit as an imperative -- has ruthlessly dismantled any form of social hierarchy which infringes on the profit imperative and limits producers and consumers. Traditional conceptions of gender, family, folk, etc. have all been dismantled or reorganized to serve the interest of short term capital, regardless of the implications it might have for long term social stability.

It's kind of funny and paradoxical when you think about it. Many progressive leftists detest capitalism, even though it has probably been the #1 enabler of progressive social advancement. Many right wingers worship capitalism, even though it has probably been the #1 dismantler of traditional social norms and perennial hierarchies.

Questerr said:

So then you have to admit that “socialism” is successful given the record of countries with regulated capitalism all over the world.

Click to expand...

No, in fact they are all on a path towards collapse. The most dysfunctional industries are those most controlled by the state.

aociswundumho said:

No, in fact they are all on a path towards collapse. The most dysfunctional industries are those most controlled by the state.

Click to expand...

Really? How close are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, pretty much all of Europe, and the United States to collapsing?

Questerr said:

Really? How close are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, pretty much all of Europe, and the United States to collapsing?

Click to expand...

Still a long time. I said heading in that direction, because under "regulated capitalism" the regulations never stop coming. No one can disagree with that.

aociswundumho said:

Still a long time. I said heading in that direction, because under "regulated capitalism" the regulations never stop coming. No one can disagree with that.

Click to expand...

Longer or shorter than the amount of time it would take unregulated capitalism to turn into feudalism?

Questerr said:

Longer or shorter than the amount of time it would take unregulated capitalism to turn into feudalism?

Click to expand...

How could it? According to uncle Karl, it's feudalism that leads to capitalism, and capitalism leads to socialism.

aociswundumho said:

How could it? According to uncle Karl, it's feudalism that leads to capitalism, and capitalism leads to socialism.

Click to expand...

When government also exists. In the absence of government, the rich will use their wealth to privatize what was state power to protect their wealth and privilege. Police will become their household troops just like the feudal lords of old n

Questerr said:

When government also exists. In the absence of government, the rich will use their wealth to privatize what was state power to protect their wealth and privilege. Police will become their household troops just like the feudal lords of old n

Click to expand...

Laughable take.

Contrary to apparently popular belief, most feudal lords worked extremely diligently to harshly punish criminals in their era. Peasants aren't productive if they're constantly being murdered, raped, robbed, etc. It doesn't make sense to just let the peasantry devour each other for multiple reasons. What good is ruling a kingdom of ashes?

We should believe a post-capitalist feudalism (wouldn't ever happen, btw) would operate much the same way. People who live in fear tend to be bad producers and consumers and that is the lifeblood of the capitalist economy.