There is effectively no 'far left' in the US

[Questerr]

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.

And “criminals” would be defined by those same rich feudal lords. For instance including things like “advocates for democracy” or “civil rights activists” or “union organizers”. The rich in unregulated capitalists would have their household men-at-arms, sorry I have to use @aociswundumho preferred PC term “private security companies”, kill such “criminals”.

 

[joluoto]

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.

They have a website:
https://www.workers.org/

That is Worker's World, a site which is run by the Worker's World Party, a American Marxist- Leninist party founded back in 1959. Just because they are very few, doesn't mean they are none.

 

[Craig234]

They have a website:

OK, now if you read my post, you'll see I said that there are some of that type, and commented on them and asked the reader to say what their policies are.

 

[btthegreat]

In an American context, I don't see the 'far left' as inherently undemocratic. I think the term can refer to undemocratic (communist vanguardist) and democratic (Green/socialist) left wing ideologues. Now if we are talking about 'radical left wing', we are definitely discussing an undemocratic leftish group which either uses force or coercion to gain or maintain political power. The ideological tape measures in Europe, Asia and South America use different labels and measure things quite differently.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

<SARC>What you don't realize is that it is **A*M*E*R*I*C*A** that sets the definitions and that the rest of the world is simply out of step.</SARC>

 

[vanceen]

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.

Interesting idea.

It's true that regulations invite more regulations. That's partly because some regulations are successful in reining in abuses of laissez-faire capitalism. If a little is good, more is better, right? And also, of course, regulators have full time jobs and naturally seek something else to regulate to justify their positions.

On the other hand, the alternative is no regulations at all on capitalism. That is impossible. For capitalism to work at all, markets have to be as free as practically possible, and it's regulations that prevent collusion, monopolies, and other phenomena that destroy free markets.

So while agreeing that we have to be cautious about over-regulation, some regulation is essential for capitalism to continue to exist.

And while "some" regulation might tend to lead to "more" regulation, it's not impossible to limit the growth of excessive regulation.

 

[aociswundumho]

On the other hand, the alternative is no regulations at all on capitalism. That is impossible. For capitalism to work at all, markets have to be as free as practically possible, and it's regulations that prevent collusion, monopolies, and other phenomena that destroy free markets.

Except it's in the most regulated markets where we find the most monopolies, oligopolies, and labor cartels. The US healthcare market is a perfect example. I can't think of any other market in the US where producers and workers are better protected from competition, and the result is extremely high prices.

 

[Ikari]

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.

MAGA sure seems to be running the Maoist route.

 

[vanceen]

Except it's in the most regulated markets where we find the most monopolies, oligopolies, and labor cartels. The US healthcare market is a perfect example. I can't think of any other market in the US where producers and workers are better protected from competition, and the result is extremely high prices.

Health care in the US is not a free market by any description. Pricing is completely opaque to the end-user, in fact it usually isn't known before the service is rendered. Prices are set by bizarre dances between service providers and insurance companies, not by supply and demand. And I'll agree that medical insurance is over-regulated, preventing competition across state lines.

I point out that I agreed that over-regulation isn't good. My main point is that zero regulation means that there is no barrier at all to anti-competitive collusion and monopolies. Capitalism can't function without relatively free markets, which can't exist without a certain amount of regulation.

 

[Michael Cole]

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

Regulation is in the Constitution. Long before Marx birth.

 

[Lisa]

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.

The progressive left in the US are centrists is most modern countries. Supposedly radial Bernie is a plan vanilla social democrat in the vein of FDR or even Eisenhower. .

 

[CaughtInThe]

What's funny is Obama, Biden and Harris are all pretty moderate but the FAR RIGHT/FAR RIGHT MEDIA/ASSHOLES scream that they're the most far left commies in the history of forever.

 

[Michael Cole]

Except it's in the most regulated markets where we find the most monopolies, oligopolies, and labor cartels. The US healthcare market is a perfect example. I can't think of any other market in the US where producers and workers are better protected from competition, and the result is extremely high prices.

People's lives shouldn't be left to the whims of the market.

 

[Michael Cole]

The OP mentions communism specifically, but there is a social left, as well.

There are many billionaires who support equal rights. Many who have said they could afford to pay more taxes. Are these high-octane capitalists on the left?

 

[aociswundumho]

My main point is that zero regulation means that there is no barrier at all to anti-competitive collusion and monopolies.

No, you've got it exactly backwards.

Suppose we had a free market in auto manufacturing across the entire USA. Explain how one auto manufacturer could prevent others in the entire country from making and selling cars, without government regulation.

Capitalism can't function without relatively free markets, which can't exist without a certain amount of regulation.

Here's a real-world example of a thriving market with no monopolies, and no regulation.

 

[aociswundumho]

People's lives shouldn't be left to the whims of the market.

They already are. No one in the developed world is forced to produce food. Instead, food is produced voluntarily, for profit, in order to feed 8 billion people. Only in countries which remove the profit motive do we see mass starvation.

 

[Michael Cole]

They already are. No one in the developed world is forced to produce food. Instead, food is produced voluntarily, for profit, in order to feed 8 billion people. Only in countries which remove the profit motive do we see mass starvation.

Healthcare. Stay focused.

 

[Michael Cole]

No, you've got it exactly backwards.

Suppose we had a free market in auto manufacturing across the entire USA. Explain how one auto manufacturer could prevent others in the entire country from making and selling cars, without government regulation.



Here's a real-world example of a thriving market with no monopolies, and no regulation.

Should there be any regulations on who can do open heart surgery and who can't?

 

[aociswundumho]

Healthcare. Stay focused.

So when you wrote this:

People's lives shouldn't be left to the whims of the market.

... you only meant it for healthcare and not anything else we need to survive?

Food, shelter, and energy, without which most of us would die, are perfectly fine to be "left to the whims of the market"?

Is that your position?

 

[Mach]

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?

You just agreed with him, but appear to believe you refuted him.

You just wrote that feudal lords use their troops to ensure their peasant workers remain productive, which enriches the feudal lord and helps his rule. That's literally in the feudal lords best interest, and he controls the troops, which aligns with what Queterr wrote.

And the implication to contrast that is also wrong...because when the feudal lord's loving nephew murders a peasant out of anger at losing a bet, is he held to account but this noble lord who so diligently and harshly punishes criminals as you claim? Of course, not, because as Questerr wrote, they will back the feudal lords interest over the interests of the common or "rule of law".

 

[aociswundumho]

Should there be any regulations on who can do open heart surgery and who can't?

No.

If you're an adult, and you consent to having your mechanic brother-in-law cut open your chest, then have at it.

 

[Lutherf]

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.

Of course they don't say it. They just do all the stuff that will take us that direction and then they'll call it "Kamunism" or something else that the people will celebrate...until they end up standing in bread lines and waiting for their loved ones to be released from the re-education camps.

 

[Mach]

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.

People should differentiate:

1. Bad government - single party/person rule (totalitarian, dictator, etc.)
2. Left-wing beliefs/structure in the international, broadest sense
3. left-wing beliefs/structure in American politics, which are classically liberal, and are diametrically opposed to #1

Republicans flirt more with #1 than liberals in America, so in that sense compared to Stalin they are more alike...

Far left in the American politics contest is not "Stalinism". I agree with the end of your post:

"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."

But let's be fair, single party/totalitarianism was on the rise globally under the guise of "communism/socialism" (real or a lie, it matters not), and America felt under threat by this both in terms of losing Democracy, and in terms of the rich/powerful losing their power...)
Do they apply in this same way today? As you wrote, no...not so much in America. When we talk about mainstream far-left politics, it's more like what you wrote.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

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.

I would go further and say that there isn't even a left in the United States. Take our arguably most left leaning political official, Bernie Sanders. When compared in an international context, the man is a centrist, slightly left of center if that. There is no actual left in the US today at all.

 

[Gozaburo]

You just agreed with him, but appear to believe you refuted him.

You just wrote that feudal lords use their troops to ensure their peasant workers remain productive, which enriches the feudal lord and helps his rule. That's literally in the feudal lords best interest, and he controls the troops, which aligns with what Queterr wrote.

And the implication to contrast that is also wrong...because when the feudal lord's loving nephew murders a peasant out of anger at losing a bet, is he held to account but this noble lord who so diligently and harshly punishes criminals as you claim? Of course, not, because as Questerr wrote, they will back the feudal lords interest over the interests of the common or "rule of law".

You watch too many movies. Of course it is true that friends and family of the feudal lord -- the elite or noble class -- play by a different set of rules than the peasantry. But that has been true throughout human history, regardless of the system of governance. It's a myth that it was common for nobility to be go out and crassly be wantonly violent against their subjects -- the concept of a noblesse oblige was real and adhered to. A disaffected peasant and merchant class will be inclined to endorse a rival faction of elites, which isn't in the best interest of the lord if he wishes to maintain sovereignty. Again, it doesn't serve the lord to employ Mad Max style resource hoarding if it's within their ability to do so... sans famine, etc.

People seem to forget that concepts like human rights, democracy, and rule of law didn't come from illiterate peasants -- they came from elite intellectuals and rulers who desired to improve social stability in a way that was both self-interested and to the benefit of the peasantry. In a functioning society the relationship between the peasantry and elite is symbiotic, not parasitic.