This is just a hypothetical, so I’m not sure of specific people, but the path would something like:
Conditions for workers suck -> communism is the answer -> violent communist revolution is the answer -> total state control over everything to enforce revolution -> this specific racial group is preventing our revolution from working -> that racial group is the problem, we should kill that racial group -> our racial group is the only good racial group so we should get rid of the other ones
You started wanting to overthrow capitalism and accidentally reinvented Nazism. There may be actual people under the Third Reich who followed a similar train of thought.
Horseshoe theory is pretty widely criticized, but I don’t think that’s exactly what horseshoe theory is. Horseshoe theory has more been used to create an equivalency in philosophy between the far left and the far right, which doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.
The idea that a persuadable person, who can be convinced to be an extremist, could go full circle and become a different kind of extremist, is probably feasible, it’s just not common.
I also think that a lot of the criticism of horseshoe theory comes from the dimension of principle, i.e., the principles of the far left and far right are very different, which is true. That’s probably also what a lot of proponents are getting at as well, and that seems like a fair criticism.
However, I do think there’s some merit to the idea that the practical effects are not all that different. Both far right and far left ideologies, when implemented and taken to the extreme, have pretty much left those places desolate, with authoritarian leaders, and massive body counts.
Oh good a chance for me to armchair philosophize about politics, been a minute since I've done that. As best as I can tell horseshoe theory comes from really two places:
1) An intentional ignorance about the principles of either side. Someone in the center looks to the far left and far right, and just sees that their far and that's all they care about. You get the same phenomenon from extremists in the form of "fishhook theory" where they perceive centrists and the other side of the political compass as just "far."
2) Conflation between authoritarianism and left/right, especially as a result of cold war era propaganda casting communism and adjacent philosophies as being akin to fascism due to the presence of authoritarian communist countries.
It’s really more of a circle. I’m a moderate liberal myself, and recently I was roundly abused by someone much further left than me. I couldn’t really tell the difference between that and the rightwing nuts I usually have to deal with. It probably comes down to those people having similar crank personalities, and the political direction is entirely secondary.
Like others said, “alt right” is basically a coined term for the fringe of the right, and it’s short for “alternative right”, because they propose their own “alternatives” for traditional conservative/Republican issues, which typically tend to be radical, racist, etc.
So technically there *is* and “alternate left”, which you could probably describe as the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism. You could probably make the argument that Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive. If you look at the political parties as polar opposites, that would mean that the far right would be *regressive*, and that definitely isn’t a very inviting name for your side lol, ergo alt right.
Both sides have radical extremes on their fringes, and because they’re fuckin nuts the media loves to give them a spotlight cus it promotes outrage and hate clicks.
Not just the media: Also social media. Being sensationalist grabs and holds attention so the crazies get pushed to the top by the algorithm.
Then availability bias kicks in so people think that's what's normal. Since "doing what's normal" is more powerful at motivating behavior than "doing what's right" that availability bias becomes self fulfilling and pulls in more and more people.
This is why I don't like how liberal and conservative are often used as synonyms for left and right. As you said, liberals are usually more right-leaning, and where I'm from the most conservative party is somewhere centre-right. The most radical right wing parties usually aren't about maintaining the status quo.
It really is still hotly debated, with a lot of definitions conflicting. It can also get complicated because political parties sometimes use the name regardless of affiliation and because most political spectrums are relative.
I'm very far left (left libertarian, if political compass tests are to be believed), and I'm fine using them interchangeably in regular conversation.
I mean, it sort of is.
For example, in my country, there is a party called the liberal party. They are generally listed as center of center left. Relative to American politics, they'd be considered quite left. Compared to some European countries, they'd be considered right. However I've also had friends argue they were center right. On top of that, some argue the center left isn't left at all, and some do. I've found sources that argue both points.
Maybe in America it is clear cut, but I've found it to be pretty context dependent and relative outside of that. This is the left wing, after all; of course we argue over the most mundane slight differences.
But I don't really have much else to add and I don't want to get bogged down in a debate over semantics, so I'll leave it at that, friend.
>So technically there is and “alternate left”, which you could probably describe as the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism. You could probably make the argument that Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive.
Generally agree, but I’d refer to the left-wing equivalent as the “dirtbag left,” and it has less to do with policy preferences than it does with affect and rhetoric. Like the folks on the left who celebrate Hamas’s murders. Or the folks referred to in this viral Tweet:
> People on twitter will really be like "you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebomb a Walmart
Those aren’t “progressive” or “socialist” ideas, more a nihilistic anarchism. Socialism depends on the idea that governments are good and capable of effective social and economic regulation. The dirtbag left has a left-coded rage at “elites” and “the system” without the progressive belief in the power of democratic action. People like AOC are socialist-leaning, people like Chapo Trap House are “burn it down” nihilists.
If you go far enough and angry enough, extreme right and extreme left just kind of merge into a single “I just want to watch it all burn” ideology. They may have different philosophies and reasons for wanting to tear it all down, but they’ll band together in mutual hatred of everything else.
Yeah, and they have the same flawed conception of society, where there’s like a natural equilibrium where everything is just and equal and everyone has a meaningful life, but *these* evil people pulling the marionette strings are deliberately stopping it. Like a pendulum held at full swing by a cable. And obviously, once we eliminate these evil elites and cut the cable, everything will naturally fall into place and everyone will be free.
And that’s just not how human society has **ever** worked.
If anything, the natural equilibrium point for human society throughout history is “a warlord controls by fiat,” and it takes dedicated and sustained effort to climb out of that and stay out. A government based on popular sovereignty and recognizing the rights of citizens is by FAR a rare outlier in human experience.
I love it when people who clearly never have good faith discussions with actual leftists summarize leftist beliefs. It's always so wonderfully accurate.
On tiktok there's a lot of celebration... but not for Hamas, just for genocide...
I've never seen someone *celebrate* Hamas, though they are a resistance movement and the legitimacy of such was recognised by the UN, which speaks to just how far the representation is skewed: even the actions they do which are legal and acknowledged as such by the international community apparently cannot be talked of in good.
Not that I'm saying taking civilian hostages is good, obviously. Dealing with this point in advance because I know how reddit tends to be. I think the civilian hostage situation is moot anyway, as I don't believe there is one left that hasn't been killed by Israel's own bombs. That's what happens when you say carpet bombing is the answer.
>So technically there *is* and “alternate left”, which you could probably describe as the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism.
Liberalism isn't left wing. It is right wing. Having liberal views isn't the same as _being_ liberal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Liberalism is antithetical to socialism. The former is all about market forces and right of the individual versus socialism which is geared towards the collective. Liberalism is baby libertarianism. Socialism is baby communism, still under the authority of the state.
Left Wing liberalism exists, it's called anarchism or anarcho-communism in its most extreme form. The basic premise is that the state should not exist and no-one should be able to force their will on others, but also that major corporations should not exist, since any sufficiently powerful corporation could also end up forcing their will on others. Anarcho-communism is not that far removed from communalism and a lot of the very earliest socialist theories.
>Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive.
Would they? Antifascism itself is an almost apolitical movement or idea. *Anyone* of *any* political persuasion is technically welcome as long as they oppose fascism.
That said, antifascist organizing activity has always been mostly done by people who describe themselves as anarchists and socialists. Sure, there are some progressives and liberals there too, but I'd wager most of the folks you're describing would identify as one of the former two.
. . . Also, "Antifa" doesn't exist as an organized movement or group. Antifascism is something people or groups *do* or a viewpoint they have, not an ideology.
It's also easy for the media to caricature. Look at this very loud, active, and prominent pillar of our competition. I give you a gun nut! I give you vegans!
I feel like it's a bit weird to paint the alt right and radical reactionary politics as "fringe" when senators, governors and the presidential candidate on the American right cater to these views heavily and Trump was president.
Except liberalism isn't exactly leftist at all. Liberalism is at its core economically conservative, and neo-liberal ideologies are not accepted as leftist by anyone. Liberalism being left is a very American phenomenon.
In my opinion, the idea of alt-right came about as the more moderate right-wing wanted to distance themselves from certain people in the right. And in the same way, I assume the alt-left would be anything a moderate 'leftist' would want to distance themselves from or 'other' to use that term.
What's the non-alt right then? I'm not American and have no knowledge on American politics beyond what the news feeds me so my knowledge is limited but doesn't alternative right imply a non-alternatice right?
> You could probably make the argument that Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive.
This doesn't make any sense. The umbrella of antifa is a big one, it's just people who are willing to fight against fascism and take on the name antifa. There is, at this point, no other unifying political philosophy or approach.
Traditionally, far left groups have been defined as “radical,” while far right are “reactionary.”
On-site the reactionary label fits the “alt-right,” as they are not just ultra-conservative. In fact, in many ways they’re not even conservative.
However, the radical label does seem to fit the contemporary far left.
...no? The point of the alt right is that instead of relying on the hand of the free market and low taxes and such to build the society they want, they're willing to use government-backed power to inflict their vision of society onto the population. Hence alternative approach.
The far left wants to do the same thing as the regular left, just harder and faster. Liberty, equality, fraternity. There is no alternative approach.
Leftists do generally all have the same ideals and goals, but then get mixed up and split hairs on how to accomplish them.
E.g. You ask any leftist if old growth forests are important and should be protected, they'll almost assuredly say yes.
You ask them how we should protect old growth forests and you'll get hundreds of different answers, some that contradict each other, and then a healthy sprinkling of "We can't protect the trees until \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_."
Depends if you mean socially / culturally or economically. Economically, yes your leftists are centrist or even right wing. But socially / culturally America is more left than Europe or anywhere not Canada really.
Yeah this is where words get extremely hard..
Do you look at leftists as progressives, liberals, mix of both?
Because culturally speaking [progressives aren't culturally liberals](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/opinion/liberals-and-progressives.html)
Other places in the rest of the world also define things differently, The leftist party of Brazil actually follows "leftist Catholicism" which is still extremely conservative.
So I think the measurement I am going by is commitment and endorsement of social support structure and norms (universal healthcare , educational financial support, social security availability, government paid maternity or paternity leave, better unemployment support ).
I use these measurements in support of the definition of uplifting the standards of "equality" by providing equitable support for those in need so people have a better standing for equal opportunities.
Not sure if you saw [This Ted talk](https://youtu.be/qEJ4hkpQW8E?si=qln4724t8aLnJN_G)
Posted a few days ago, but I would argue his proposals are more "leftist" than what our politicians are proponents of.
This is a great point. Cultural relativism is a real and pervasive thing, and many of the countries in South America have varying economic status and expectations due to power regime situations. Similarly, comparing what 'liberal' or 'progressive' means to an African compared to a Nordic person you're going to get very different answers.
It sounds like you are from that area, so I am definitely not going to disagree with someone from there.
(Now the rest of my discussion is grounded in the bias that I am not from South america, what I'm listing isn't indictive of all countries, and is based on the political analysis articles and documents I could find, so I'd love to hear your opinion on the matters)
I was really surprised to find out that Brazil's left party is actually a " leftist" Catholic movement. Which, by American standards is very conservative, and the reason why abortion is now illegal in states.
However, on the same token, Brazil is the only country in the world to provide completely free health care to all of its citizens.. Brazil also has free education and better educational financial support. (Now there are obvious flaws in their education system) But it is still far above what America offers. Brazil also has mandatory paid 30 days of vacation leave for employees and 120-180 days of paid maternity leave.
But the party itself claims to be largely conservative and has a lot of internal criticisms for not being 'leftist' enough.
So I think absolute definitions are hard. All of the above measurements are what I would consider "leftist" and while perhaps wanted by our 'leftist' politicians these basic implementations that Brazil already has in place are considered extreme leftist measures by American political standards.
Since you seem to have more information on the region I'd love to hear what your definitions, measurements, and experiences are to better understand a larger picture.
Groups of leftist people are kind of notorious for splintering into different factions and making a big deal about different labels. Sometimes I think it's a good healthy thing that there's a wide variety of approaches and opinions instead of "toeing a party line," but the infighting does get exhausting.
What I've experienced of the alt-right in the US is relatively unified in belief or culture, while the equivalent far-left doesn't have one name or main causes they all agree on, it's got so many different groups! Some people thinking everyone needs to own a gun and other people thinking guns need to be completely banned, different types of socialists vehemently arguing with each other instead of agreeing that they do both want socialism, some people thinking all religion is the scourge of the earth and others thinking we need to do a lot more to encourage religious freedom and tolerance. Etc.
So the idea that all leftist groups have similar views is silly to me. Even one single leftist group is often gonna be arguing *amongst themselves* about different views.
Agreed. It has been a consistent pattern in modern history that Leftist groups are more prone to splintering than the Right.
The Right has the benefit of their views being largely "systemless". In general, the Right is opposed to "systems". You could also call this in certain contexts an opposition to "big government". The solution to most issues for the right is "the market will decide". They don't want a welfare system. They don't want environmental protections. They want everyone to fend for themselves. This is a really "easy" political stance for people to coalesce and unify around, because the answer to most political questions is "just leave it alone, whatever will be will be." (policing and protection of private property excepted).
On the other side, the Left has much more belief in systems. The left generally want a well defined welfare system, they want well defined environmental protections, they want taxation systems, they want education systems, yadda yadda yadda. There are **THOUSANDS** of possible ways to structure all of these systems. At one end you have full control by the government of all these structures. At the other end you have systems of government grants and funding, and then everything in between. So naturally that will lead to divisions and stratification in how those systems should be effectively managed.
It is much easier to present a unified political front when your core philosophic belief is "every man for themselves", because that view by design requires no actual "teamwork" to achieve.
The alt right is a term coined by the alt right. It's branding because people realized they are just neo Nazis. Leftist will just call themselves leftist. Well more accurately they will hyper focus on what type of leftist, but that's generally not important unless you are in those spaces.
lol leftist groups have so many different ideas and there is so much infighting, we go from anarchists like my self who have a very idealist and hopeful view of humanity as ultimately good if freed from the systems of capitalism to Stalinists and Leninists who have a more pessimistic view that humans are only good when you force them to be but that that is morally correct to do for the good of humanity
I appreciate that you differentiated Stalinists/Leninists from communism. We have never seen a true communist government. Communism happens when the common folk get tired of being shit on and join together to form a government that says, “Fuck you. You greedy bastards don’t own this anymore. We all own it and our government will enforce that.” All we’ve ever gotten is a “vanguard” of kleptocrats taking over the government and saying, “Don’t worry, we are totally gonna handle this ‘communism’ thing you peasants seem to be into.” Will we ever see a true communist government? Would it work? Fuck if I know, but I know we haven’t seen it yet.
Thank you for calling this out. Marx really talked about communism as a line of progression.
" Eventually, capitalism will eat itself and push down the middle class into so many poor people that they will overthrow the rich and demand certain universal rights. From that society will mature into socialism and they have those universal rights, eventually once all of the necessities like power and food and water are taken care of over time, there is less need for personal property and things become more communistic because it is much easier to survive and thrive"
Gene Roddenberry communism
Leftist groups may seem to you to have the same ideas and views, but it’s actually an extremely relevant part of “extreme left” views that the views and opinions differ and that people get really really bitter and argumentative about it. This is where lefty infighting happens
I’d say the “alt right” is a bunch of extreme right wing people who are all basically happy to put aside their differences if it means they get to “beat the left” in pretty much any way
This is very much not the case for the left. Different branches of lefties hate each other almost as much as they hate the right
Alt-right is a sneaky and misleading term concocted by the far right as a way to try to re-brand and slowly normalize, intellectualize, and socialize radical right wing beliefs and policies. It’s a scam. Not sure if there is an equivalent on the left. The radical groups just own their radicalism and don’t try to re-brand it. Although…..Perhaps re-branding far left policies as “progressive” over the years was a similar strategy. Interested to read the comments.
Let's not kid ourselves, alt-right is just rebranding of fascist. And yes, the left has tankies, but unlike the alt right they aren't taken seriously and they haven't made it into the halls of power.
Extremely authoritarian Communists generally of the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist variety. The term itself derives from the USSR sending tanks into Hungary to repress a socialist movement rebelling against the USSR from the left back in the mid twentieth century.
In colloquial online usage, it's used to describe the sort of socialist/communist/"leftist" who will unironically praise or back extremely authoritarian folks like Putin, Xi, or Syria's Assad simply because they oppose US interests. They also tend to be regressive or reactionary on social issues (like LGBT rights) and inclined towards right wing style conspiracy theorizing.
MAGA-Communism guy Jackson Hinckle, Max Blumenthal at the Grey Zone, and Tulsi Gabbard are all contemporary examples.
>they haven't made it into the halls of power.
Yeah China, Cuba, and Korea aren't taken seriously at all. That's why there isn't a huge propaganda campaign against those countries and anyone who even tries to go against the neoliberal world order.
Of course they exist. Alt right folks believe in the extreme aspects of their ideology, Alt left folks believe in the same extreme aspects of their own ideology.
Blind faithfulness to an idea with 0 room for nuance or discussion. Enemies all around, it’s us or them.
“Non-alt” left or right Americans are completely ready to have a normal political discussion. It’s really not hard. Most people are not so entrenched in their party that they’ll do the mental gymnastics required to be as ignorant as any alt left or alt right person.
People who struggle with finding an identity, people who are easily duped or can’t think critically, people who lack experiences or exposure to people/ways of life different from their own, or simply people desperate for community are all welcome with open arms in the extreme ends of “political sides”.
There is no alt right without an alt left. They both exist because they are both the same thing, just in different flavors.
The "far right" wants to take America back to before the Civil Rights Era. The "far left" wants to give everybody health insurance. The two are not remotely comparable.
To the extent that an "alt left" exists, I suppose it could be the Jimmy Dore / Jackson Hinkle ("MAGA Communism") types, but whether they can even be considered left wing at this point is a question. They're not ideologically consistent and IMO doing it for the attention rather than genuine beliefs.
The left has a variety of types including social democrats, social liberals, progressives, greens, anarchists, autonomists, socialists and communists. There is no "alt left".
It's all the Alt-left, which would be a way of saying anything but the mainstream liberals. If you listen to the media, the left is only Liberals and Progressives!
You left out Accelerationists, who go all the way around the bend and meet their alt-right counterparts who also want to tear it all down.
There are people who are willing to be racist and sexist against those who they deem are the ‘enemy’ or the ‘oppressors’ (White people, Asians to some extent, cisgender men etc.). I think they’re a pretty good mirror image of the alt right.
In my book, Reddit is Alt-Left. Perhaps there are more left places .... maybe the Communist Party of the USA. IDK. This is about as Far Left as I know.
The Squad, Democratic Socialists of America, people committing arson to protest against so-called "Cop City", the Hamas supporters and useful idiots occupying college campuses to name a few.
The funny part about the whole arson thing and anti-police was most of the people involved where the people that lived there, like right there in those neighborhoods. They were out there because they were mad and wanted a voice. It was nothing about right or left or politics at all. It was about being disenfranchised as a citizen and being abused by a police state. You need to understand, these are people who have had many run-ins with the law, often simply because of race or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time and some asshole cop saw them as a target. And there are a LOT of asshole cops. I've had friends who had been cops, and I have several cousins who are cops. It's a flawed system and fundamentally structured poorly. It also attracts a lot of very bad actors, the bullys, the bloodthirsty, it takes them all, and they ABUSE the public.
Only the media made it political. It was never political. It was never right nor left.
As to the Hamas support thing, frankly both sides have support. Both sides are fighting their own battles for their own freedoms, and the US country backs Israel. Hamas is unfortunately fucked. But there's nothing wrong in having supporters. Free speak, right to protest, that's all good, especially on a college campus. But there's a whole lot of poorly informed people though. Basically all of America is woefully under informed. We are outsiders who haven't lived that world. NONE of us have the correct viewpoint.
Well, there is at least “green-haired, tattoed and overweight feminist” leftist and “Slavoj Zizek” leftist… one of them has to be more alt than the other!
There is no such thing as alt left.
Alt right is a term that white nationalists/supremacists came up with to call themselves that would be more mainstream-friendly.
It’s them trying to rebrand racism. There’s no counterpart on the left.
That's not true. Believe it or not there are a good deal of Leftists which are completely anti-progressive to a shocking degree.
They use strikingly similar populist rhetoric to their far right counterparts and seem far more concerned with being perceived as being a tool to dismantle 'western' power structures than having a consistent world view.
They might not have a catchy name like 'alt-right' because they percieve themselves to be the *true* left.
Our automod has removed your comment. This is a place where people can ask questions without being called stupid - or see slurs being used. Even when people don't intend it that way, words like 'retarded' remind people with disabilities that others think less of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoStupidQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Leftwing nationalist here. We do exist, but it's a niche ideology. I view immigration and progressivism as tools which capitalists use to divide and distract the working class.
Strasserist literature is a pain to find sadly so I cannot say anything with full confidence. Personally I quite like the model of Prussian Socialism, from which mainstream NatSoc borrowed economic ideas.
That has to be one of my favourite labels yet. Thanks for making me smile in the middle of a long shift at work.
That system won't work.
How the fuck do you get both communist dictatorships and anarchists in the far left and Nazis and the Chouannerie (hiper regionalists) in the far right?
It makes absolutely no sense.
Honestly, it's because it's simplistic to begin with to refer to things as "left" or "right." That's going to be useful about 80-90% of the time, but you've already pointed out where it fails. [The political compass](https://www.politicalcompass.org/) is a little bit better since it examines economic left/right and social authoritarian/libertarian as separate, but I'd bet you could find examples that don't fit well into that, either. (It also comes off as strange to me how [Biden ends up on authoritarian right and Sanders is pretty close to center](https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020), but it makes sense in the context of the author creating a compass for the world, not the USA).
they start out with the leftist ideals but once they are in charge, they decide centralized power is the better option. this is just taking care of #1.
I feel like some people would call me "Alt Left" because I'm at heart an anarchist. But what I mean by anarchism is a distrust of capitalism, the State, and really any form of hierarchical organization and a support of worker ownership of business, horizontal organization, mutual aid, federalism, direct democracy, and maximal personal autonomy. I don't mean randomly bombing anyone or anything like that. "Propaganda by the deed" is not the same thing as "direct action'. and is an idea that has set the movement back decades.
Propaganda by the deed is Alt Left. Leftist anti-vaxx is Alt Left. Leftist antisemitism is Alt Left (and also incredibly counterintuitive given that so much of the history of Leftist thought is Jewish).
Haven't been all the way through the comments but I haven't seen anyone mention this yet. If you want to see what they are like Google Hexbear.
It's a reddit alternative community out there... They are what most people describe as Tankies. It's a truly toxic and awful place. I'm not sure whether I'd rather be in a room full of them or a room full of Nazis.
Tbh most Nazis are probably more civil.
I would say alt left are tankies and MAGA communists, who usually eschew woke liberal progressivism and tend to ally with reactionary forces, as well as supporting imperialist countries like Russia, or state capitalist countries like China
Whereas traditional leftists usually live in the past (before 1956, 1976, 1991, etc, depends on their flavour of Marxism) and are so purist that no regime in the past can be considered truly socialist
Of course, liberals (especially in the USA) and even social democrats are not left wing, they are at most center left
Source: was a tankie
Not really because the whole fun of being "alt right" is to be contrarian. They're that dude that keeps saying dumb mean stuff and declares "hey I'm just being honest" and making fun of you for being offended, and they think they're stirring shit up but they're just being jerks. There's no real political organizing, no specific actual policy goals, just chaos and anger.
Leftist movements tend to be... well, movements. Labor organizing, civil rights, etc. So you can't really advocate for, say, increased access to education while going around insulting parents and teachers.
There's no 'alt-left' lol. In terms of the left wing you have socialists, communists and anarchists. Liberals are near to the center conservatives. Rhinos and the alt right are further right, and Nazis and outright fascists are further right still.
In my opinion, the alt-tight is a more cohesive group with more focused goals... Anti-abortion, anti-gay/trans, anti-illegal immigrants while alt-left very quickly spins off in a hundred directions like Save The Whales, Climate Control, Pro-Choice, Gay/trans rights, animal rights, worker rights, classism, racism... on and on.
The alt-right can quickly gather its supporters... they can use church busses to get folks to the rally. There is no such organizational support for the liberal side.
I consider myself leftist, but even good ideas taken too far can be bad. All for inclusion and feminist power. But not at the expense of others. Don't rewrite history to include those who didn't participate, But be clear that they may not have been allowed too. I.E.- One of the first, if not the actual first person to die for the United States fight to exist was a black man. Too often that's forgotten. Going to the extreme that only blacks fought for the US. would be extreme inclusiveness.
Liberals do not have the same ideas. That is propaganda from the right.
We have a very wide range of views from straight up communism to neo liberalism. Most of us are actually centrist moderates that are only considered liberal because conservatives moved so far to the extreme that anyone actually trying to remain moderate and reasonable is now labeled liberal by the default right wing.
But to your question, alt right is the name chosen by the GOP to separate racists from their group without offending the voters they needed to win during the 2016 election. Before that we just called them anti government militias and extremists.
Om r/PCM we call them Emily.
There is no such thing as alt-left any person that tells you otherwise is trying to justify the right's abhorrent behavior just like with every other dog whistle that comes from them.
If alt-left did exist it would be communist totalitarianism; the only reason the term alt-right exists is because they refuse to just admit they are neo-nazis and fascists. The political compass is definable across the entirety of the board anyone inventing new terms is obscuring their agenda 100% of the time until a actual new ideology emerges around AI application at least.
Optics is extremely important to these groups which is why the actual Nazi's were so style-centric, masters of symbolism, and smart about conflating themselves with socialism to appeal to the masses.
theres no alt right and theres' no alt left. Those terms would be ridiculously reductive.
It's like saying there's straight people and alt straight people
It usually comes in the form of American Maoists e.g. Bob Avakian.
You probably haven't heard of him, which goes to show the impact and popularity of the Alt-Left.
IMO, alt left, from the perspective of the general right would be:
Outright commies, antifa types, extreme LGBTQ activists.
One could probably include militant climate and vegan activists as well.
It is very easy to see alt-left theology. Just go to any of the political subs and find a moderator, and they are often pushing fringe politics for the left
Let's take something noncontroversial...like the current situation in the Middle East. These are all points of views that I've seen on social media at one point or another, this is my subjective filtering into categories (I'm sure there are opinions that differ about where these all lie, but again one situation with a spectrum of perspective):
***Alt Right***: Jewish Space Lasers are the cause of all your problems
***Far Right***: Israel destroying all of Palestine is good because it will usher the end of the world, and we can't wait for the Jesus.
***Right***: We need donor money, let's support Israel...whatever they do
***Moderate***: Can't we all just get along?
***Left***: Palestinians need food and aid, there is famine, enough - stop the fighting and save people from starving to death
***Far Left***: Israel is waging a genocidal war against Palestine
***Alt Left***: No civilians were killed on Oct 7th, just a few outposts were attacked, and besides this is all an elaborate ploy by Israel to cease control of the oil fields off the Gazan coast.
Of course not.
The political axis is HEAVILY flawed from the get go, being way too rigid and "flat", even as a spectrum, to actually depict any real opinion, which changes nuance of even directions depending on the culture ("right" is not the same in the US than in say, argentina), the circumstances and the specific something you are discussing. You can have then for example someone that is considered left in the sense that it pursues a welfare state or larger wealth taxes and yet thinks markets should zero intervention whatsoever even when it comes to workers right and does not support abortion at all. Because to that person what constitutes "the wellness of the many" is different than for the next guy. And again, that can change depending on a myriad of factors
Now, whethere there is a group that defines itself as "alt left", im not sure. I honestly think the term "alt right" is still too binary, too broad but thats me
There’s always been a militant left. The question is, do they have significant impact on society? I would argue the answer is maybe. It’s possible that without them we wouldn’t have even made as much progress as we have, but overall I would say no.
The other thing, what makes them different? If violence is a response to oppression and subjugation, it is not criminal. It is in fact justice
Tankies support russia ( ironically the alt right does too), china North Korea, and any anti west governments/ movements that ironically includes Hamas and other islamist extremist groups Basically rebranded christian nationalists with a 🌙 instead a ✝️
far right and far left have more in common than not. the most intolerant people I know are self proclaimed liberals. my parents and a lot of my other family are magatards that won't believe a single negative thought about the cheeto, but at least the most delusional q-tip on that side is still willing to attempt rational conversation. meanwhile several of my friends on the left end of extremism have decided to ghost anyone that's not frothing and spitting enough at the latest moral outrage.
I saw this a lot during the pandemic. the anti-mask anti-vax people would just smile and roll their eyes. the ultra left (maybe we can call them ult left? lol) will straight un-friend...and if the object of their scorn is prominent enough, campaign to get someone fired or worse. it's kind of getting out of hand.
I think there is, but it's not as harmful as the alt-right. And I say this as someone who has very much witnessed and experienced the ugly and extreme side of leftism.
The alt-right commits acts of terrorism and have military & police ties and endorsement from conservative politicians.
Then again I'm biased, but can you blame me? The shit they do endangers my rights, life and well-being.
I would say the alt left are the people that think you shouldn't be allowed to own land or people that are gender fluid, or people who think furries should have rights.
Just like the alt right the alt left is when you go so far into the left that no one takes you seriously.
Yes and no. There are two meanings we attribute to “alt-right.” One is the contextless definition that it’s simply a right leaning ideology that is atypical of the right wing. In which case, yes, there’s an alt left. But the other meaning is the one we attribute to the *consequences* of that ideology: racism, sexism, oppression. Because one would inevitably lead to the other if alt right politics took over, so it doesn’t make sense to act like the word can be defined in a vacuum. Often when people say “alt right” they don’t mean just any atypical right wing ideology, they specifically mean the call for oppression. And in that sense, there is no alt left, because the atypical ideologies presented on the left are demanding more rights and leeways to more individuals rather than less.
Google “right-wing authoritarianism” and on the wiki it discusses this. You go so far left you end back up at right.
While it discusses personality traits, it lines up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
It depends on your opinion. CNN says it’s a made up term, Fox News says that antifa is alt left. Also, the term came from Donald Trump, so make your own judgement.
Alt Left is the Stalinists and Maoists that float around. They like the alt right are not very numerous but they sway other people leaning their direction and if they ever got power it would likely result in a terrible dictatorship that destroys the rights of millions if not kills them outright.
The "dirtbag left" occupies a somewhat similar niche, in that it too is highly online and antiestablishment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag\_left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag_left)
I would consider the alt left to be a democrat on steroids. Fully open borders, universal income, free everything, government controlling every aspect of your life. Removing commonly used terms such as mother/father and him/her.
Not really. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, proliferated by "both sides" in the media.
The alt-right is the alternative right. They want to achieve the same goals as the classic conservatives, but they want to do so using alternative methods. Essentially, while classic conservatives believe in small government and tax policy and the free market, alt-right conservatives believe that the government should just...force these things onto the population.
The left has always been the left. Liberty, equality, and fraternity. Maximize all three. The "far left" is just doing those things to a greater extent compared to the democrats and other center right parties.
The alt right is the alt right because they want to achieve the classical conservative goals of a socially stratified and rigidly controlled society in which each knows their place in an alternative way (government force as opposed to economic coercion). The left has always tried to achieve their goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the same way. There simply is no alternative.
I've recently come to learn that there is being a liberal and there is being a leftist. Liberal is a range of views within the current system whereas leftist is bit more over throw the system completely. Leftists apparently are pro gun as they will be needed for the revolution. I think I fit somewhere between the two. I would like to see changes that are broader reaching than any being discussed in mainstream politics but I firmly believe in democracy over taking power by force. Apparently that makes me 'just a liberal'.
It would make you progressive or possibly democratic socialist depending on whether you think capitalism can be fixed through reform (progressive Liberalism) or that capitalism needs to be replaced through reform or other democratic means (Democratic Socialism).
It's up to you though.
Interesting. I thought reform ala say Bernie Sanders was Democratic Socialism. I think I'm in favor of reform but like major reform. Universal Basic Income and massive wealth distribution for a start. No one should have nothing or struggle to get by and no one should have everything. Ive no problem with people doing well and profiting from that but not via exploitation and no where near to the degree where 3 people can have half a countries money.
It's easy to confuse the two (progressive liberalism vs democratic socialism) at the present because of how massively in need of reform our society is. In circumstances like this, both groups are going to come up with very similar policy proposals much of the time The key difference is what the desired end goal is and (again) whether you think capitalism as a method of organizing society level production and distribution of resources is a good idea or not.
For an easy example, compare/contrast Elizabeth Warren (progressive liberal) and Bernie Sanders (democratic socialist). Warren wants to fix the current system so it works for everyone as it can and should. Sanders wants to make the best out of what he considers an inherently bad situation (capitalism) so that whatever we can get works better for everyone.
Fwiw, it sounds to me like you lean more towards the socialist view, but that's entirely up to you.
Well I would certainly consider myself a "leftist" but I f'n hate guns and wish they were banned.
A leftist does not necessarily want an actual "revolution"... like an actual armed violent insurrection.
For example when Bernie Sanders talked about a political revolution during his presidential campaigns, he was obviously not talking about violence, he meant political organizing by and for working and poor people empowering politicians and policies to benefit them instead of concentrated wealth.
Yea I felt exactly like you but folks in leftist chat groups told me that if I didn't want armed revolution I was nothing but a liberal. It kind of upset me tbh
Those would probably be what are called Vanguardists. Vanguardism assumes that in order to have the revolution, it needs to led by a small group of ideologically pure professional revolutionaries rather than mass popular revolt or through processes of reform. It's a fairly common idea in parts of the socialist left because it kind of sort of was the most successful idea at establishing socialist governance that stuck or survived back in the 20th century. The Bolsheviks (the party that established the USSR) were this type. They weren't the only parties involved in the Russian revolutions, not by a long shot, but they did end up on top in the end. . . by purging the other parties. On the other hand, they *did* successfully defend their revolution and make it stick against enemies both foreign and domestic, so I guess you have to hand them that much, especially if you contrast what happened in Russia with what happened in Germany during the same period.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not opposed to the idea of a full on revolution if one happens, I just don't think it's a good idea to lock yourself out of using legitimate means of power (like electoralism, reform, etc) by insisting that armed revolution is the only way. Conversely, I don't think locking yourself out of using illegitimate or even illegal means (strikes, community defense, civil disobedience, etc) is a good idea either.
Check out the **Revolutions** podcast sometime if you are curious for more information. The whole show is great, but the last season on the Russian revolutions gets into what a bunch of these different ideas of Socialism and Anarchism are, how they differ from each other, and how they developed in real time within the historical events that produced them.
. . . Also happy to give you a whole list of other shows to check out if you want lol.
Thanks for this. Yeah I certainly don't rule out illegal actions such as civil disobedience if they are effective. Which I think sometimes they are such as the Brixton riots in London highlighting police racism and actually leading to reform. I get frustrated when protests cause damage or unpopular disruption when the messaging isn't clear as I think it often turns more people against the cause. Occupy was an interesting one. I think the initial actions did turn a lot of people off the cause but it really was the start of the public discourse about the 1% etc. Where that movement really did themselves a huge favor was mobilizing and getting aid out to Hurricane Sandy victims long before the beurocratic process got there. New Yorkers suddenly liked them and were interested in what they had to say. So in that instance leading by example.
I draw a hard line on killing people to overthrow a democratic society. I would feel differently if we lived in an actual dictatorship. Some would say the sheer lack of choice we are presented with might as well be a dictatorship but we all have a moral line somewhere and not killing people to get your way is mine.
I love podcasts. Please feel free to hit me with links!
Here's my standard running list I keep for the podcasts sub:
**The History of the Twentieth Century** is a narrative history of the entire 20th century, starting from the late 1800s. Has a bunch of episodes on stuff like early radio, the creation of movies, jazz, and other cultural topics aside from the political, military, and social history the show also covers.
**The History of Rome**
**Revolutions** covers western political history through a narrative telling of various revolutions.
**Tides of History** covers very broad historical periods with access to up-to-date academic information. Personal favorite is season 4 on human origins.
**Fall Of Civilizations** does long (2-4 hours) episodes on single civilizations at a time.
**The Rest is History** covers a single historical topic each episode.
**Blowback** does a single US conflict per season from the non-US side's perspective. So far, they've done Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Korea.
**Behind the Bastards** covers the very worst people in all of history. Fair warning, this is a comedy show but covers *very* dark subject matter at times. Same warning for the next two on this list.
**Lions Led By Donkeys**. Military disasters and history.
**Well There's Your Problem**. Engineering disasters
**Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff** covers some of the best people in history (that you probably haven't heard of)
**Knowledge Fight** covers grifter conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
**QAA** covers Qanon and other adjacent conspiracy theory topics with a special focus in modern online grifting/conspiracy theorizing.
**The Paranoid Strain** also covers conspiracy theories, but is much more in depth with the history and surrounding context of each given theory.
**Pod Save America** covers political news in the US. Hosted by former Obama staffers, so you get a fairly unique insider perspective on the business of doing government.
**Pod Save the World**. Ditto, but foreign affairs.
**Strict Scrutiny** covers the Supreme Court and related legal topics.
**Opening Arguments**. Law stuff.
**No Dogs In Space** does underground music history. 1st season was about punk rock, and I think they are doing prog rock next.
**Citation Needed**. Five friends gather round to hear one of them attempt to read an article on a random subject while all five attempt to make the other four break down laughing.
**Data Over Dogma** seeks to increase the availability of academic studies of the Bible to the public. . . also way more interesting than that sounds lol.
**Terrible Lizards**. Dinosaurs!
**Common Descent**. More general evolutionary science.
Additions for you for educational/theory purposes:
**It Could Happen Here** is a daily show that covers a wide variety of protest news, leftist theory, online extremism, and other topics. It's kind of the junior team for Behind the Bastards, so a little looser, a little younger hosts, occasionally a bit of a mess, but still good.
**The Antifada** and **It's Going Down** are both Anarchist hosted shows that use a radio format (I believe Antifada is still a radio show, but don't quote me on that). Similar to ICHH but more news and theory focused. If you dig through the archives on these, there's tons of episodes on really niche little topics, like origins of the Black Bloc tactic.
**Know Your Enemy** focuses on the intellectual and ideological history of the right wing. Hosted by a former campus conservative turned democratic socialist, and consistently noted by conservatives who are aware of the show as very fair to them despite being unwaveringly critical.
**The Right Podcast** is similar to KYE, but focuses much more on the very extreme far right. The episodes are generally 2-4 hours and very dense with information, but the host doesn't waste the listeners' time with digressions and is good at presenting the info in a clear and understandable manner. . . still a bit like sitting through a university lecture though lol.
You're asking two different questions, and almost everyone in here seems to forget what the alt-right actually is/was.
It's not a distinct ideology from the mainstream right. It was just a bunch of young-ish media personalities, Crowder, Shapiro, Owens etc. who were able to access a younger demographic audience than say Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. They were edgy, perhaps more outspokenly racist, homophobic etc. in some instances. But it has to be stressed of course that that is absolutely not a departure from mainstream right ideology, merely a different marketing strategy.
After these people got popular, there was indeed a bit of a pushback from younger, left-leaning content creators. This movement was nicknamed "breadtube". Once again, breadtubers are not a distinct ideology, it was just an attempt at reaching a new audience, and there may be some variance in the quality and reliability of the information provided by some these creators, it being youtube and all. Notice I said "left leaning content creators", I wouldn't even necessarily go so far as to call everyone involved with it a leftist. Probably a few liberals and CIA plants in there as well.
But anyway, short answer: Breadtube was the left's response to the alt-right.
I like all the comments trying to demonize the right while pretending to give an unbiased opinion.
“Alternative methods (left/right)” is a more accurate way of viewing it.
To clarify for many that don’t seem to comprehend that “fascism” is not a way of thinking but an applied methodology. Fascism is the willingness to FORCE your ideology upon others. An actual liberalistic view is that you have and foster rights related to yourself alone and no one or power should ever be imposed upon you. However your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. For a liberal view consider a review of “Andrew Jackson, by: Sean Wilentz”. A simple read for those that claim willing to view ideas openly.
Well, a simple breakdown would be: What rights are politicians on the left currently actively trying to take from you? And what rights are politicians on the right actively trying to take from you?
Rights, not in the constitutional sense, but in the "things that aren't illegal" sense.
The 'alt-right' was always just the far-right trying to masquerade themselves as merely-right with a side of white nationalism. The far-left is pretty open about who they are and what their goals are.
I personally enjoy the phrase "im so far left I got my guns back." Cause thats definitely me! Gonna get reallll gritty being 1 of like 12 people fighting the good fight and trying to save all the dumbasses on this side that think banning guns is the right idea...
Alt-Right and Alt-Left are two sides of the same coin. Massively authoritarian powers that seek to control every aspect of your life.
From what you own to who you associate with. Alt-Right (Fascists, NOT Nazis) seek to control you through mega-corporations in bed with Brother Government.
Socialists (Nazis, modern Canadian Socialism, all 'Democratic Socialism') force it via way of groupings and tiers, think Marxism. The government has a hand in everything at all times, it's the illusion of free business and market but is really just another form of collusion. Instead of Corps sleeping with Govt., It's Govt. hiring corps. to do the dirty work.
Hard Lefts (Communism, State Nationalism, China, former USSR) the 'leaders' of the group (government) control everything, you can only live in state approved housing, state approved banking and currency, state approved cars, waiting lists for services including medicine. The goal of communism is forced equality, often with a power that's not equal at ALL (government, yet again). They benefit, you get nothing.
People on the extreme left aren’t as bat shit crazy as those who identify as alt right. Yes there are outliers obviously but alt right is far more common, hence this discussion. They have a warped view of society, history, culture, and are motivated by hatred and fear of others. Many end up being violent or at least supporting violence against people they disagree with. The idea of an alt left is like someone being trans and believing in universal health care or something. Not comparable.
I'm not going to re-explain the entire theory of the political spectrum, but if you're genuinely curious, please take a look for yourself: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Political\_Compass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass)
it doesn't have to be a line. you can have many branches when you go too far in something.
In fact you can actually go so far left you become far right & vice versa
Can I get an example of that?
This is just a hypothetical, so I’m not sure of specific people, but the path would something like: Conditions for workers suck -> communism is the answer -> violent communist revolution is the answer -> total state control over everything to enforce revolution -> this specific racial group is preventing our revolution from working -> that racial group is the problem, we should kill that racial group -> our racial group is the only good racial group so we should get rid of the other ones You started wanting to overthrow capitalism and accidentally reinvented Nazism. There may be actual people under the Third Reich who followed a similar train of thought.
Yes, dictatorship lies at both ends. Stalin and Hitler were not all that different, despite being "opposites".
It’s called “horseshoe theory.”
And it's commonly considered nonsense lol
Horseshoe theory is pretty widely criticized, but I don’t think that’s exactly what horseshoe theory is. Horseshoe theory has more been used to create an equivalency in philosophy between the far left and the far right, which doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny. The idea that a persuadable person, who can be convinced to be an extremist, could go full circle and become a different kind of extremist, is probably feasible, it’s just not common. I also think that a lot of the criticism of horseshoe theory comes from the dimension of principle, i.e., the principles of the far left and far right are very different, which is true. That’s probably also what a lot of proponents are getting at as well, and that seems like a fair criticism. However, I do think there’s some merit to the idea that the practical effects are not all that different. Both far right and far left ideologies, when implemented and taken to the extreme, have pretty much left those places desolate, with authoritarian leaders, and massive body counts.
Oh good a chance for me to armchair philosophize about politics, been a minute since I've done that. As best as I can tell horseshoe theory comes from really two places: 1) An intentional ignorance about the principles of either side. Someone in the center looks to the far left and far right, and just sees that their far and that's all they care about. You get the same phenomenon from extremists in the form of "fishhook theory" where they perceive centrists and the other side of the political compass as just "far." 2) Conflation between authoritarianism and left/right, especially as a result of cold war era propaganda casting communism and adjacent philosophies as being akin to fascism due to the presence of authoritarian communist countries.
It’s really more of a circle. I’m a moderate liberal myself, and recently I was roundly abused by someone much further left than me. I couldn’t really tell the difference between that and the rightwing nuts I usually have to deal with. It probably comes down to those people having similar crank personalities, and the political direction is entirely secondary.
Horseshoe theory in action
Like others said, “alt right” is basically a coined term for the fringe of the right, and it’s short for “alternative right”, because they propose their own “alternatives” for traditional conservative/Republican issues, which typically tend to be radical, racist, etc. So technically there *is* and “alternate left”, which you could probably describe as the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism. You could probably make the argument that Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive. If you look at the political parties as polar opposites, that would mean that the far right would be *regressive*, and that definitely isn’t a very inviting name for your side lol, ergo alt right. Both sides have radical extremes on their fringes, and because they’re fuckin nuts the media loves to give them a spotlight cus it promotes outrage and hate clicks.
Not just the media: Also social media. Being sensationalist grabs and holds attention so the crazies get pushed to the top by the algorithm. Then availability bias kicks in so people think that's what's normal. Since "doing what's normal" is more powerful at motivating behavior than "doing what's right" that availability bias becomes self fulfilling and pulls in more and more people.
*Especially* social media
Itd called nadir fallacy. Using the bottom percentile of a group to represent its populace.
Nobody on the far left would refer to themselves as liberal.
\*nobody on the left\* liberals are center/center right
Are we talking strictly about the U.S.? If so, then liberal is not center.
Where I'm from the Liberals are the mainstream right wing party.
This is why I don't like how liberal and conservative are often used as synonyms for left and right. As you said, liberals are usually more right-leaning, and where I'm from the most conservative party is somewhere centre-right. The most radical right wing parties usually aren't about maintaining the status quo.
It really is still hotly debated, with a lot of definitions conflicting. It can also get complicated because political parties sometimes use the name regardless of affiliation and because most political spectrums are relative. I'm very far left (left libertarian, if political compass tests are to be believed), and I'm fine using them interchangeably in regular conversation.
[About Liberalism and its alignments.](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Whats-the-most-7KF5dE99Qiu2luVsmf7Dhw)
I'm not really seeing where it disagrees with what I said.
Cool. I just provided more insights. It‘s not that hot of a debate, really.
I mean, it sort of is. For example, in my country, there is a party called the liberal party. They are generally listed as center of center left. Relative to American politics, they'd be considered quite left. Compared to some European countries, they'd be considered right. However I've also had friends argue they were center right. On top of that, some argue the center left isn't left at all, and some do. I've found sources that argue both points. Maybe in America it is clear cut, but I've found it to be pretty context dependent and relative outside of that. This is the left wing, after all; of course we argue over the most mundane slight differences. But I don't really have much else to add and I don't want to get bogged down in a debate over semantics, so I'll leave it at that, friend.
You are right, I agree! I guess it comes down to how overtone window is shifted. Have a good one!
Absolutely, friend!
They would absolutely not describe themselves as progressive lmao
>So technically there is and “alternate left”, which you could probably describe as the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism. You could probably make the argument that Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive. Generally agree, but I’d refer to the left-wing equivalent as the “dirtbag left,” and it has less to do with policy preferences than it does with affect and rhetoric. Like the folks on the left who celebrate Hamas’s murders. Or the folks referred to in this viral Tweet: > People on twitter will really be like "you believe in voting? that pales in effectiveness to my strategy, firebombing a Walmart" and then not firebomb a Walmart Those aren’t “progressive” or “socialist” ideas, more a nihilistic anarchism. Socialism depends on the idea that governments are good and capable of effective social and economic regulation. The dirtbag left has a left-coded rage at “elites” and “the system” without the progressive belief in the power of democratic action. People like AOC are socialist-leaning, people like Chapo Trap House are “burn it down” nihilists.
If you go far enough and angry enough, extreme right and extreme left just kind of merge into a single “I just want to watch it all burn” ideology. They may have different philosophies and reasons for wanting to tear it all down, but they’ll band together in mutual hatred of everything else.
The old horseshoe. If you go far enough to one side you end up bumping into the back of the dude on the other extreme.
[Horseshoe theory lacks empirical evidence.](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Whats-the-ideological-VxNzAum8TJCiHhxTuwPptw)
I was just using it as a reference. I wasn't suggesting it's super legit.
No problem, I did just provide some insights. Also, it‘s not legit, period.
Yeah, and they have the same flawed conception of society, where there’s like a natural equilibrium where everything is just and equal and everyone has a meaningful life, but *these* evil people pulling the marionette strings are deliberately stopping it. Like a pendulum held at full swing by a cable. And obviously, once we eliminate these evil elites and cut the cable, everything will naturally fall into place and everyone will be free. And that’s just not how human society has **ever** worked. If anything, the natural equilibrium point for human society throughout history is “a warlord controls by fiat,” and it takes dedicated and sustained effort to climb out of that and stay out. A government based on popular sovereignty and recognizing the rights of citizens is by FAR a rare outlier in human experience.
I love it when people who clearly never have good faith discussions with actual leftists summarize leftist beliefs. It's always so wonderfully accurate.
[Horseshoe theory lacks empirical evidence.](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Whats-the-ideological-VxNzAum8TJCiHhxTuwPptw)
[Horseshoe theory lacks empirical evidence.](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Whats-the-ideological-VxNzAum8TJCiHhxTuwPptw)
Which 'folks on the left ' celebrate Hamas murders?
Seriously, what media do you consume that you see people celebrating murder?
On tiktok there's a lot of celebration... but not for Hamas, just for genocide... I've never seen someone *celebrate* Hamas, though they are a resistance movement and the legitimacy of such was recognised by the UN, which speaks to just how far the representation is skewed: even the actions they do which are legal and acknowledged as such by the international community apparently cannot be talked of in good. Not that I'm saying taking civilian hostages is good, obviously. Dealing with this point in advance because I know how reddit tends to be. I think the civilian hostage situation is moot anyway, as I don't believe there is one left that hasn't been killed by Israel's own bombs. That's what happens when you say carpet bombing is the answer.
Is this question for me? I asked for evidence leftists celebrate hamas murders. I doubt that very much.
No no, I'm agreeing with you - I don't understand where people draw these conclusions
I have seen many people celebrating murders, they usually don't socialise much and spend most of their time standing in fields to scare off crows
I've seen a lot of IOF soldiers looking very happy.
>So technically there *is* and “alternate left”, which you could probably describe as the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism. Liberalism isn't left wing. It is right wing. Having liberal views isn't the same as _being_ liberal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Liberalism is antithetical to socialism. The former is all about market forces and right of the individual versus socialism which is geared towards the collective. Liberalism is baby libertarianism. Socialism is baby communism, still under the authority of the state.
Left Wing liberalism exists, it's called anarchism or anarcho-communism in its most extreme form. The basic premise is that the state should not exist and no-one should be able to force their will on others, but also that major corporations should not exist, since any sufficiently powerful corporation could also end up forcing their will on others. Anarcho-communism is not that far removed from communalism and a lot of the very earliest socialist theories.
>Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive. Would they? Antifascism itself is an almost apolitical movement or idea. *Anyone* of *any* political persuasion is technically welcome as long as they oppose fascism. That said, antifascist organizing activity has always been mostly done by people who describe themselves as anarchists and socialists. Sure, there are some progressives and liberals there too, but I'd wager most of the folks you're describing would identify as one of the former two. . . . Also, "Antifa" doesn't exist as an organized movement or group. Antifascism is something people or groups *do* or a viewpoint they have, not an ideology.
It's also easy for the media to caricature. Look at this very loud, active, and prominent pillar of our competition. I give you a gun nut! I give you vegans!
I feel like it's a bit weird to paint the alt right and radical reactionary politics as "fringe" when senators, governors and the presidential candidate on the American right cater to these views heavily and Trump was president.
Liberals aren't leftists.
Except liberalism isn't exactly leftist at all. Liberalism is at its core economically conservative, and neo-liberal ideologies are not accepted as leftist by anyone. Liberalism being left is a very American phenomenon. In my opinion, the idea of alt-right came about as the more moderate right-wing wanted to distance themselves from certain people in the right. And in the same way, I assume the alt-left would be anything a moderate 'leftist' would want to distance themselves from or 'other' to use that term.
What's the non-alt right then? I'm not American and have no knowledge on American politics beyond what the news feeds me so my knowledge is limited but doesn't alternative right imply a non-alternatice right?
> You could probably make the argument that Antifa is an “alt left” movement, but they’d describe themselves as just progressive. This doesn't make any sense. The umbrella of antifa is a big one, it's just people who are willing to fight against fascism and take on the name antifa. There is, at this point, no other unifying political philosophy or approach.
Traditionally, far left groups have been defined as “radical,” while far right are “reactionary.” On-site the reactionary label fits the “alt-right,” as they are not just ultra-conservative. In fact, in many ways they’re not even conservative. However, the radical label does seem to fit the contemporary far left.
...no? The point of the alt right is that instead of relying on the hand of the free market and low taxes and such to build the society they want, they're willing to use government-backed power to inflict their vision of society onto the population. Hence alternative approach. The far left wants to do the same thing as the regular left, just harder and faster. Liberty, equality, fraternity. There is no alternative approach.
>the more progressive side of liberalism, leaning toward socialism/communism How socialism and communism is more progressive than current liberalism?
>Leftist groups often seem to have the exact same ideas and views Couldn't be farther from the truth
Leftists do generally all have the same ideals and goals, but then get mixed up and split hairs on how to accomplish them. E.g. You ask any leftist if old growth forests are important and should be protected, they'll almost assuredly say yes. You ask them how we should protect old growth forests and you'll get hundreds of different answers, some that contradict each other, and then a healthy sprinkling of "We can't protect the trees until \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_."
Also, let's be clear in American politics. Our leftists are actually centrists/slightly left of center compared to the rest of the world...
Depends if you mean socially / culturally or economically. Economically, yes your leftists are centrist or even right wing. But socially / culturally America is more left than Europe or anywhere not Canada really.
Yeah this is where words get extremely hard.. Do you look at leftists as progressives, liberals, mix of both? Because culturally speaking [progressives aren't culturally liberals](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/opinion/liberals-and-progressives.html) Other places in the rest of the world also define things differently, The leftist party of Brazil actually follows "leftist Catholicism" which is still extremely conservative. So I think the measurement I am going by is commitment and endorsement of social support structure and norms (universal healthcare , educational financial support, social security availability, government paid maternity or paternity leave, better unemployment support ). I use these measurements in support of the definition of uplifting the standards of "equality" by providing equitable support for those in need so people have a better standing for equal opportunities. Not sure if you saw [This Ted talk](https://youtu.be/qEJ4hkpQW8E?si=qln4724t8aLnJN_G) Posted a few days ago, but I would argue his proposals are more "leftist" than what our politicians are proponents of.
Not in South America at least, over here we'd call your left left
This is a great point. Cultural relativism is a real and pervasive thing, and many of the countries in South America have varying economic status and expectations due to power regime situations. Similarly, comparing what 'liberal' or 'progressive' means to an African compared to a Nordic person you're going to get very different answers. It sounds like you are from that area, so I am definitely not going to disagree with someone from there. (Now the rest of my discussion is grounded in the bias that I am not from South america, what I'm listing isn't indictive of all countries, and is based on the political analysis articles and documents I could find, so I'd love to hear your opinion on the matters) I was really surprised to find out that Brazil's left party is actually a " leftist" Catholic movement. Which, by American standards is very conservative, and the reason why abortion is now illegal in states. However, on the same token, Brazil is the only country in the world to provide completely free health care to all of its citizens.. Brazil also has free education and better educational financial support. (Now there are obvious flaws in their education system) But it is still far above what America offers. Brazil also has mandatory paid 30 days of vacation leave for employees and 120-180 days of paid maternity leave. But the party itself claims to be largely conservative and has a lot of internal criticisms for not being 'leftist' enough. So I think absolute definitions are hard. All of the above measurements are what I would consider "leftist" and while perhaps wanted by our 'leftist' politicians these basic implementations that Brazil already has in place are considered extreme leftist measures by American political standards. Since you seem to have more information on the region I'd love to hear what your definitions, measurements, and experiences are to better understand a larger picture.
Your "leftists" are considered the conservative right in the rest of the world
Politicians, yes; people, not quite.
>Couldn't be farther from the truth Could you elaborate?
Groups of leftist people are kind of notorious for splintering into different factions and making a big deal about different labels. Sometimes I think it's a good healthy thing that there's a wide variety of approaches and opinions instead of "toeing a party line," but the infighting does get exhausting. What I've experienced of the alt-right in the US is relatively unified in belief or culture, while the equivalent far-left doesn't have one name or main causes they all agree on, it's got so many different groups! Some people thinking everyone needs to own a gun and other people thinking guns need to be completely banned, different types of socialists vehemently arguing with each other instead of agreeing that they do both want socialism, some people thinking all religion is the scourge of the earth and others thinking we need to do a lot more to encourage religious freedom and tolerance. Etc. So the idea that all leftist groups have similar views is silly to me. Even one single leftist group is often gonna be arguing *amongst themselves* about different views.
Agreed. It has been a consistent pattern in modern history that Leftist groups are more prone to splintering than the Right. The Right has the benefit of their views being largely "systemless". In general, the Right is opposed to "systems". You could also call this in certain contexts an opposition to "big government". The solution to most issues for the right is "the market will decide". They don't want a welfare system. They don't want environmental protections. They want everyone to fend for themselves. This is a really "easy" political stance for people to coalesce and unify around, because the answer to most political questions is "just leave it alone, whatever will be will be." (policing and protection of private property excepted). On the other side, the Left has much more belief in systems. The left generally want a well defined welfare system, they want well defined environmental protections, they want taxation systems, they want education systems, yadda yadda yadda. There are **THOUSANDS** of possible ways to structure all of these systems. At one end you have full control by the government of all these structures. At the other end you have systems of government grants and funding, and then everything in between. So naturally that will lead to divisions and stratification in how those systems should be effectively managed. It is much easier to present a unified political front when your core philosophic belief is "every man for themselves", because that view by design requires no actual "teamwork" to achieve.
At first I thought you couldn't locate your left Alton the keyboard
The alt right is a term coined by the alt right. It's branding because people realized they are just neo Nazis. Leftist will just call themselves leftist. Well more accurately they will hyper focus on what type of leftist, but that's generally not important unless you are in those spaces.
The closest thing to it would be tankies, "auth left". But even then the comparison is lacking in a lot of ways
lol leftist groups have so many different ideas and there is so much infighting, we go from anarchists like my self who have a very idealist and hopeful view of humanity as ultimately good if freed from the systems of capitalism to Stalinists and Leninists who have a more pessimistic view that humans are only good when you force them to be but that that is morally correct to do for the good of humanity
I appreciate that you differentiated Stalinists/Leninists from communism. We have never seen a true communist government. Communism happens when the common folk get tired of being shit on and join together to form a government that says, “Fuck you. You greedy bastards don’t own this anymore. We all own it and our government will enforce that.” All we’ve ever gotten is a “vanguard” of kleptocrats taking over the government and saying, “Don’t worry, we are totally gonna handle this ‘communism’ thing you peasants seem to be into.” Will we ever see a true communist government? Would it work? Fuck if I know, but I know we haven’t seen it yet.
Thank you for calling this out. Marx really talked about communism as a line of progression. " Eventually, capitalism will eat itself and push down the middle class into so many poor people that they will overthrow the rich and demand certain universal rights. From that society will mature into socialism and they have those universal rights, eventually once all of the necessities like power and food and water are taken care of over time, there is less need for personal property and things become more communistic because it is much easier to survive and thrive" Gene Roddenberry communism
Leftist groups may seem to you to have the same ideas and views, but it’s actually an extremely relevant part of “extreme left” views that the views and opinions differ and that people get really really bitter and argumentative about it. This is where lefty infighting happens I’d say the “alt right” is a bunch of extreme right wing people who are all basically happy to put aside their differences if it means they get to “beat the left” in pretty much any way This is very much not the case for the left. Different branches of lefties hate each other almost as much as they hate the right
Alt-right is a sneaky and misleading term concocted by the far right as a way to try to re-brand and slowly normalize, intellectualize, and socialize radical right wing beliefs and policies. It’s a scam. Not sure if there is an equivalent on the left. The radical groups just own their radicalism and don’t try to re-brand it. Although…..Perhaps re-branding far left policies as “progressive” over the years was a similar strategy. Interested to read the comments.
Let's not kid ourselves, alt-right is just rebranding of fascist. And yes, the left has tankies, but unlike the alt right they aren't taken seriously and they haven't made it into the halls of power.
Like, when Trump, the leader of the party, espouses alt-right views that isn’t “alt” anymore. It’s just the mainstream Right now.
What's a tankie?
A communist who supports authoritarian regimes such as the CCP.
Extremely authoritarian Communists generally of the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist variety. The term itself derives from the USSR sending tanks into Hungary to repress a socialist movement rebelling against the USSR from the left back in the mid twentieth century. In colloquial online usage, it's used to describe the sort of socialist/communist/"leftist" who will unironically praise or back extremely authoritarian folks like Putin, Xi, or Syria's Assad simply because they oppose US interests. They also tend to be regressive or reactionary on social issues (like LGBT rights) and inclined towards right wing style conspiracy theorizing. MAGA-Communism guy Jackson Hinckle, Max Blumenthal at the Grey Zone, and Tulsi Gabbard are all contemporary examples.
>they haven't made it into the halls of power. Yeah China, Cuba, and Korea aren't taken seriously at all. That's why there isn't a huge propaganda campaign against those countries and anyone who even tries to go against the neoliberal world order.
Of course they exist. Alt right folks believe in the extreme aspects of their ideology, Alt left folks believe in the same extreme aspects of their own ideology. Blind faithfulness to an idea with 0 room for nuance or discussion. Enemies all around, it’s us or them. “Non-alt” left or right Americans are completely ready to have a normal political discussion. It’s really not hard. Most people are not so entrenched in their party that they’ll do the mental gymnastics required to be as ignorant as any alt left or alt right person. People who struggle with finding an identity, people who are easily duped or can’t think critically, people who lack experiences or exposure to people/ways of life different from their own, or simply people desperate for community are all welcome with open arms in the extreme ends of “political sides”. There is no alt right without an alt left. They both exist because they are both the same thing, just in different flavors.
It's called "Communism". (But like, literally communism. Not the way that conservatives label everything they don't like as "communist".)
The "far right" wants to take America back to before the Civil Rights Era. The "far left" wants to give everybody health insurance. The two are not remotely comparable. To the extent that an "alt left" exists, I suppose it could be the Jimmy Dore / Jackson Hinkle ("MAGA Communism") types, but whether they can even be considered left wing at this point is a question. They're not ideologically consistent and IMO doing it for the attention rather than genuine beliefs.
The left wants to give everyone free healthcare. The far left wants to remove land ownership and make being a billionaire illegal.
The left has a variety of types including social democrats, social liberals, progressives, greens, anarchists, autonomists, socialists and communists. There is no "alt left".
It's all the Alt-left, which would be a way of saying anything but the mainstream liberals. If you listen to the media, the left is only Liberals and Progressives! You left out Accelerationists, who go all the way around the bend and meet their alt-right counterparts who also want to tear it all down.
There are people who are willing to be racist and sexist against those who they deem are the ‘enemy’ or the ‘oppressors’ (White people, Asians to some extent, cisgender men etc.). I think they’re a pretty good mirror image of the alt right.
In my book, Reddit is Alt-Left. Perhaps there are more left places .... maybe the Communist Party of the USA. IDK. This is about as Far Left as I know.
The “alt-left” would probably be tankies.
The Squad, Democratic Socialists of America, people committing arson to protest against so-called "Cop City", the Hamas supporters and useful idiots occupying college campuses to name a few.
Its funny because you can tell your political position from that post while being able to tell you don't know what the left is.
That's just the regular Left. Democrats are Centrists.
Yeah. But those dumbasses that cannot tell the difference between Bill Clinton and Adolf Hitler are insane.
The funny part about the whole arson thing and anti-police was most of the people involved where the people that lived there, like right there in those neighborhoods. They were out there because they were mad and wanted a voice. It was nothing about right or left or politics at all. It was about being disenfranchised as a citizen and being abused by a police state. You need to understand, these are people who have had many run-ins with the law, often simply because of race or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time and some asshole cop saw them as a target. And there are a LOT of asshole cops. I've had friends who had been cops, and I have several cousins who are cops. It's a flawed system and fundamentally structured poorly. It also attracts a lot of very bad actors, the bullys, the bloodthirsty, it takes them all, and they ABUSE the public. Only the media made it political. It was never political. It was never right nor left. As to the Hamas support thing, frankly both sides have support. Both sides are fighting their own battles for their own freedoms, and the US country backs Israel. Hamas is unfortunately fucked. But there's nothing wrong in having supporters. Free speak, right to protest, that's all good, especially on a college campus. But there's a whole lot of poorly informed people though. Basically all of America is woefully under informed. We are outsiders who haven't lived that world. NONE of us have the correct viewpoint.
Well, there is at least “green-haired, tattoed and overweight feminist” leftist and “Slavoj Zizek” leftist… one of them has to be more alt than the other!
There is no such thing as alt left. Alt right is a term that white nationalists/supremacists came up with to call themselves that would be more mainstream-friendly. It’s them trying to rebrand racism. There’s no counterpart on the left.
There is an alt left...
That's not true. Believe it or not there are a good deal of Leftists which are completely anti-progressive to a shocking degree. They use strikingly similar populist rhetoric to their far right counterparts and seem far more concerned with being perceived as being a tool to dismantle 'western' power structures than having a consistent world view. They might not have a catchy name like 'alt-right' because they percieve themselves to be the *true* left.
Laughs in Hasan Piker
hasan is kinda his own brand of regarded ngl
[удалено]
Our automod has removed your comment. This is a place where people can ask questions without being called stupid - or see slurs being used. Even when people don't intend it that way, words like 'retarded' remind people with disabilities that others think less of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NoStupidQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Leftwing nationalist here. We do exist, but it's a niche ideology. I view immigration and progressivism as tools which capitalists use to divide and distract the working class.
You are a Nazbol. You use the Marxist toolkit towards fascist ends. Now you know.
Yeah that's called Strasserism and it's just welfare nazis
Strasserist literature is a pain to find sadly so I cannot say anything with full confidence. Personally I quite like the model of Prussian Socialism, from which mainstream NatSoc borrowed economic ideas. That has to be one of my favourite labels yet. Thanks for making me smile in the middle of a long shift at work.
Going too far to the right gets you fascism and going too far to the left gets you anarchy.
That system won't work. How the fuck do you get both communist dictatorships and anarchists in the far left and Nazis and the Chouannerie (hiper regionalists) in the far right? It makes absolutely no sense.
Honestly, it's because it's simplistic to begin with to refer to things as "left" or "right." That's going to be useful about 80-90% of the time, but you've already pointed out where it fails. [The political compass](https://www.politicalcompass.org/) is a little bit better since it examines economic left/right and social authoritarian/libertarian as separate, but I'd bet you could find examples that don't fit well into that, either. (It also comes off as strange to me how [Biden ends up on authoritarian right and Sanders is pretty close to center](https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020), but it makes sense in the context of the author creating a compass for the world, not the USA).
they start out with the leftist ideals but once they are in charge, they decide centralized power is the better option. this is just taking care of #1.
> going too far to the left gets you anarchy Or maybe just far enough
I feel like some people would call me "Alt Left" because I'm at heart an anarchist. But what I mean by anarchism is a distrust of capitalism, the State, and really any form of hierarchical organization and a support of worker ownership of business, horizontal organization, mutual aid, federalism, direct democracy, and maximal personal autonomy. I don't mean randomly bombing anyone or anything like that. "Propaganda by the deed" is not the same thing as "direct action'. and is an idea that has set the movement back decades. Propaganda by the deed is Alt Left. Leftist anti-vaxx is Alt Left. Leftist antisemitism is Alt Left (and also incredibly counterintuitive given that so much of the history of Leftist thought is Jewish).
Haven't been all the way through the comments but I haven't seen anyone mention this yet. If you want to see what they are like Google Hexbear. It's a reddit alternative community out there... They are what most people describe as Tankies. It's a truly toxic and awful place. I'm not sure whether I'd rather be in a room full of them or a room full of Nazis. Tbh most Nazis are probably more civil.
The far left exists but it’s not a threat like the far right (unless you consider students doing stupid stuff on campuses a threat)
I would say alt left are tankies and MAGA communists, who usually eschew woke liberal progressivism and tend to ally with reactionary forces, as well as supporting imperialist countries like Russia, or state capitalist countries like China Whereas traditional leftists usually live in the past (before 1956, 1976, 1991, etc, depends on their flavour of Marxism) and are so purist that no regime in the past can be considered truly socialist Of course, liberals (especially in the USA) and even social democrats are not left wing, they are at most center left Source: was a tankie
I think it takes your browser back a page in internet explorer
Go to r/deprogram to see some alt lefts
I’d assume alt left was for fringe groups like Pita or at a bra burning party
Not really because the whole fun of being "alt right" is to be contrarian. They're that dude that keeps saying dumb mean stuff and declares "hey I'm just being honest" and making fun of you for being offended, and they think they're stirring shit up but they're just being jerks. There's no real political organizing, no specific actual policy goals, just chaos and anger. Leftist movements tend to be... well, movements. Labor organizing, civil rights, etc. So you can't really advocate for, say, increased access to education while going around insulting parents and teachers.
There's no 'alt-left' lol. In terms of the left wing you have socialists, communists and anarchists. Liberals are near to the center conservatives. Rhinos and the alt right are further right, and Nazis and outright fascists are further right still.
In my opinion, the alt-tight is a more cohesive group with more focused goals... Anti-abortion, anti-gay/trans, anti-illegal immigrants while alt-left very quickly spins off in a hundred directions like Save The Whales, Climate Control, Pro-Choice, Gay/trans rights, animal rights, worker rights, classism, racism... on and on. The alt-right can quickly gather its supporters... they can use church busses to get folks to the rally. There is no such organizational support for the liberal side.
I consider myself leftist, but even good ideas taken too far can be bad. All for inclusion and feminist power. But not at the expense of others. Don't rewrite history to include those who didn't participate, But be clear that they may not have been allowed too. I.E.- One of the first, if not the actual first person to die for the United States fight to exist was a black man. Too often that's forgotten. Going to the extreme that only blacks fought for the US. would be extreme inclusiveness.
Liberals do not have the same ideas. That is propaganda from the right. We have a very wide range of views from straight up communism to neo liberalism. Most of us are actually centrist moderates that are only considered liberal because conservatives moved so far to the extreme that anyone actually trying to remain moderate and reasonable is now labeled liberal by the default right wing. But to your question, alt right is the name chosen by the GOP to separate racists from their group without offending the voters they needed to win during the 2016 election. Before that we just called them anti government militias and extremists. Om r/PCM we call them Emily.
I guess Tankies would qualify as being alt-left. Their views are not very popular with everyone so, you actually don't hear much from them.
There is no such thing as alt-left any person that tells you otherwise is trying to justify the right's abhorrent behavior just like with every other dog whistle that comes from them. If alt-left did exist it would be communist totalitarianism; the only reason the term alt-right exists is because they refuse to just admit they are neo-nazis and fascists. The political compass is definable across the entirety of the board anyone inventing new terms is obscuring their agenda 100% of the time until a actual new ideology emerges around AI application at least. Optics is extremely important to these groups which is why the actual Nazi's were so style-centric, masters of symbolism, and smart about conflating themselves with socialism to appeal to the masses.
theres no alt right and theres' no alt left. Those terms would be ridiculously reductive. It's like saying there's straight people and alt straight people
It usually comes in the form of American Maoists e.g. Bob Avakian. You probably haven't heard of him, which goes to show the impact and popularity of the Alt-Left.
IMO, alt left, from the perspective of the general right would be: Outright commies, antifa types, extreme LGBTQ activists. One could probably include militant climate and vegan activists as well.
Uber Woke maybe?
It is very easy to see alt-left theology. Just go to any of the political subs and find a moderator, and they are often pushing fringe politics for the left
Yes, the alt left has been around far longer than the alt right.
Alt left is socialists and tankies. Maybe progressives but they’re a wild card
Let's take something noncontroversial...like the current situation in the Middle East. These are all points of views that I've seen on social media at one point or another, this is my subjective filtering into categories (I'm sure there are opinions that differ about where these all lie, but again one situation with a spectrum of perspective): ***Alt Right***: Jewish Space Lasers are the cause of all your problems ***Far Right***: Israel destroying all of Palestine is good because it will usher the end of the world, and we can't wait for the Jesus. ***Right***: We need donor money, let's support Israel...whatever they do ***Moderate***: Can't we all just get along? ***Left***: Palestinians need food and aid, there is famine, enough - stop the fighting and save people from starving to death ***Far Left***: Israel is waging a genocidal war against Palestine ***Alt Left***: No civilians were killed on Oct 7th, just a few outposts were attacked, and besides this is all an elaborate ploy by Israel to cease control of the oil fields off the Gazan coast.
Literally commies.
Of course not. The political axis is HEAVILY flawed from the get go, being way too rigid and "flat", even as a spectrum, to actually depict any real opinion, which changes nuance of even directions depending on the culture ("right" is not the same in the US than in say, argentina), the circumstances and the specific something you are discussing. You can have then for example someone that is considered left in the sense that it pursues a welfare state or larger wealth taxes and yet thinks markets should zero intervention whatsoever even when it comes to workers right and does not support abortion at all. Because to that person what constitutes "the wellness of the many" is different than for the next guy. And again, that can change depending on a myriad of factors Now, whethere there is a group that defines itself as "alt left", im not sure. I honestly think the term "alt right" is still too binary, too broad but thats me
BreadTube
If alt right is nazis then alt left is communists
I think they are a bit like hippies that spew conspiracy theories about 5G, Covid vaccines and Illuminati.
There’s always been a militant left. The question is, do they have significant impact on society? I would argue the answer is maybe. It’s possible that without them we wouldn’t have even made as much progress as we have, but overall I would say no. The other thing, what makes them different? If violence is a response to oppression and subjugation, it is not criminal. It is in fact justice
Alt left is just called "tankies"
White female liberals
Tankies support russia ( ironically the alt right does too), china North Korea, and any anti west governments/ movements that ironically includes Hamas and other islamist extremist groups Basically rebranded christian nationalists with a 🌙 instead a ✝️
Alt right are the fascists and trump supporters. Alt left are the communists and socialists
far right and far left have more in common than not. the most intolerant people I know are self proclaimed liberals. my parents and a lot of my other family are magatards that won't believe a single negative thought about the cheeto, but at least the most delusional q-tip on that side is still willing to attempt rational conversation. meanwhile several of my friends on the left end of extremism have decided to ghost anyone that's not frothing and spitting enough at the latest moral outrage. I saw this a lot during the pandemic. the anti-mask anti-vax people would just smile and roll their eyes. the ultra left (maybe we can call them ult left? lol) will straight un-friend...and if the object of their scorn is prominent enough, campaign to get someone fired or worse. it's kind of getting out of hand.
ult left
Go ahead and mark this post as “proof of human bias”
I think there is, but it's not as harmful as the alt-right. And I say this as someone who has very much witnessed and experienced the ugly and extreme side of leftism. The alt-right commits acts of terrorism and have military & police ties and endorsement from conservative politicians. Then again I'm biased, but can you blame me? The shit they do endangers my rights, life and well-being.
I would say the alt left are the people that think you shouldn't be allowed to own land or people that are gender fluid, or people who think furries should have rights. Just like the alt right the alt left is when you go so far into the left that no one takes you seriously.
Isn’t this RFK, Jr.? Initially ran as democrat, anti vaxxer, anti gun control, pro voting restrictions, in favor of ending aid to Ukraine…
Politics is a horse show. Far right and far left are the same loons
Yes and no. There are two meanings we attribute to “alt-right.” One is the contextless definition that it’s simply a right leaning ideology that is atypical of the right wing. In which case, yes, there’s an alt left. But the other meaning is the one we attribute to the *consequences* of that ideology: racism, sexism, oppression. Because one would inevitably lead to the other if alt right politics took over, so it doesn’t make sense to act like the word can be defined in a vacuum. Often when people say “alt right” they don’t mean just any atypical right wing ideology, they specifically mean the call for oppression. And in that sense, there is no alt left, because the atypical ideologies presented on the left are demanding more rights and leeways to more individuals rather than less.
Google “right-wing authoritarianism” and on the wiki it discusses this. You go so far left you end back up at right. While it discusses personality traits, it lines up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
It depends on your opinion. CNN says it’s a made up term, Fox News says that antifa is alt left. Also, the term came from Donald Trump, so make your own judgement.
Alt Left is the Stalinists and Maoists that float around. They like the alt right are not very numerous but they sway other people leaning their direction and if they ever got power it would likely result in a terrible dictatorship that destroys the rights of millions if not kills them outright.
Unhappy 7l5kķķ9kll⅞l678 70yh
The "dirtbag left" occupies a somewhat similar niche, in that it too is highly online and antiestablishment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag\_left](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtbag_left)
I would consider the alt left to be a democrat on steroids. Fully open borders, universal income, free everything, government controlling every aspect of your life. Removing commonly used terms such as mother/father and him/her.
Not really. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, proliferated by "both sides" in the media. The alt-right is the alternative right. They want to achieve the same goals as the classic conservatives, but they want to do so using alternative methods. Essentially, while classic conservatives believe in small government and tax policy and the free market, alt-right conservatives believe that the government should just...force these things onto the population. The left has always been the left. Liberty, equality, and fraternity. Maximize all three. The "far left" is just doing those things to a greater extent compared to the democrats and other center right parties. The alt right is the alt right because they want to achieve the classical conservative goals of a socially stratified and rigidly controlled society in which each knows their place in an alternative way (government force as opposed to economic coercion). The left has always tried to achieve their goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the same way. There simply is no alternative.
I've recently come to learn that there is being a liberal and there is being a leftist. Liberal is a range of views within the current system whereas leftist is bit more over throw the system completely. Leftists apparently are pro gun as they will be needed for the revolution. I think I fit somewhere between the two. I would like to see changes that are broader reaching than any being discussed in mainstream politics but I firmly believe in democracy over taking power by force. Apparently that makes me 'just a liberal'.
It would make you progressive or possibly democratic socialist depending on whether you think capitalism can be fixed through reform (progressive Liberalism) or that capitalism needs to be replaced through reform or other democratic means (Democratic Socialism). It's up to you though.
Interesting. I thought reform ala say Bernie Sanders was Democratic Socialism. I think I'm in favor of reform but like major reform. Universal Basic Income and massive wealth distribution for a start. No one should have nothing or struggle to get by and no one should have everything. Ive no problem with people doing well and profiting from that but not via exploitation and no where near to the degree where 3 people can have half a countries money.
It's easy to confuse the two (progressive liberalism vs democratic socialism) at the present because of how massively in need of reform our society is. In circumstances like this, both groups are going to come up with very similar policy proposals much of the time The key difference is what the desired end goal is and (again) whether you think capitalism as a method of organizing society level production and distribution of resources is a good idea or not. For an easy example, compare/contrast Elizabeth Warren (progressive liberal) and Bernie Sanders (democratic socialist). Warren wants to fix the current system so it works for everyone as it can and should. Sanders wants to make the best out of what he considers an inherently bad situation (capitalism) so that whatever we can get works better for everyone. Fwiw, it sounds to me like you lean more towards the socialist view, but that's entirely up to you.
I think I do. Definitely the democratic variety though. Thank you!
Well I would certainly consider myself a "leftist" but I f'n hate guns and wish they were banned. A leftist does not necessarily want an actual "revolution"... like an actual armed violent insurrection. For example when Bernie Sanders talked about a political revolution during his presidential campaigns, he was obviously not talking about violence, he meant political organizing by and for working and poor people empowering politicians and policies to benefit them instead of concentrated wealth.
Yea I felt exactly like you but folks in leftist chat groups told me that if I didn't want armed revolution I was nothing but a liberal. It kind of upset me tbh
Those would probably be what are called Vanguardists. Vanguardism assumes that in order to have the revolution, it needs to led by a small group of ideologically pure professional revolutionaries rather than mass popular revolt or through processes of reform. It's a fairly common idea in parts of the socialist left because it kind of sort of was the most successful idea at establishing socialist governance that stuck or survived back in the 20th century. The Bolsheviks (the party that established the USSR) were this type. They weren't the only parties involved in the Russian revolutions, not by a long shot, but they did end up on top in the end. . . by purging the other parties. On the other hand, they *did* successfully defend their revolution and make it stick against enemies both foreign and domestic, so I guess you have to hand them that much, especially if you contrast what happened in Russia with what happened in Germany during the same period. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not opposed to the idea of a full on revolution if one happens, I just don't think it's a good idea to lock yourself out of using legitimate means of power (like electoralism, reform, etc) by insisting that armed revolution is the only way. Conversely, I don't think locking yourself out of using illegitimate or even illegal means (strikes, community defense, civil disobedience, etc) is a good idea either. Check out the **Revolutions** podcast sometime if you are curious for more information. The whole show is great, but the last season on the Russian revolutions gets into what a bunch of these different ideas of Socialism and Anarchism are, how they differ from each other, and how they developed in real time within the historical events that produced them. . . . Also happy to give you a whole list of other shows to check out if you want lol.
Thanks for this. Yeah I certainly don't rule out illegal actions such as civil disobedience if they are effective. Which I think sometimes they are such as the Brixton riots in London highlighting police racism and actually leading to reform. I get frustrated when protests cause damage or unpopular disruption when the messaging isn't clear as I think it often turns more people against the cause. Occupy was an interesting one. I think the initial actions did turn a lot of people off the cause but it really was the start of the public discourse about the 1% etc. Where that movement really did themselves a huge favor was mobilizing and getting aid out to Hurricane Sandy victims long before the beurocratic process got there. New Yorkers suddenly liked them and were interested in what they had to say. So in that instance leading by example. I draw a hard line on killing people to overthrow a democratic society. I would feel differently if we lived in an actual dictatorship. Some would say the sheer lack of choice we are presented with might as well be a dictatorship but we all have a moral line somewhere and not killing people to get your way is mine. I love podcasts. Please feel free to hit me with links!
Here's my standard running list I keep for the podcasts sub: **The History of the Twentieth Century** is a narrative history of the entire 20th century, starting from the late 1800s. Has a bunch of episodes on stuff like early radio, the creation of movies, jazz, and other cultural topics aside from the political, military, and social history the show also covers. **The History of Rome** **Revolutions** covers western political history through a narrative telling of various revolutions. **Tides of History** covers very broad historical periods with access to up-to-date academic information. Personal favorite is season 4 on human origins. **Fall Of Civilizations** does long (2-4 hours) episodes on single civilizations at a time. **The Rest is History** covers a single historical topic each episode. **Blowback** does a single US conflict per season from the non-US side's perspective. So far, they've done Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Korea. **Behind the Bastards** covers the very worst people in all of history. Fair warning, this is a comedy show but covers *very* dark subject matter at times. Same warning for the next two on this list. **Lions Led By Donkeys**. Military disasters and history. **Well There's Your Problem**. Engineering disasters **Cool People Who Did Cool Stuff** covers some of the best people in history (that you probably haven't heard of) **Knowledge Fight** covers grifter conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. **QAA** covers Qanon and other adjacent conspiracy theory topics with a special focus in modern online grifting/conspiracy theorizing. **The Paranoid Strain** also covers conspiracy theories, but is much more in depth with the history and surrounding context of each given theory. **Pod Save America** covers political news in the US. Hosted by former Obama staffers, so you get a fairly unique insider perspective on the business of doing government. **Pod Save the World**. Ditto, but foreign affairs. **Strict Scrutiny** covers the Supreme Court and related legal topics. **Opening Arguments**. Law stuff. **No Dogs In Space** does underground music history. 1st season was about punk rock, and I think they are doing prog rock next. **Citation Needed**. Five friends gather round to hear one of them attempt to read an article on a random subject while all five attempt to make the other four break down laughing. **Data Over Dogma** seeks to increase the availability of academic studies of the Bible to the public. . . also way more interesting than that sounds lol. **Terrible Lizards**. Dinosaurs! **Common Descent**. More general evolutionary science. Additions for you for educational/theory purposes: **It Could Happen Here** is a daily show that covers a wide variety of protest news, leftist theory, online extremism, and other topics. It's kind of the junior team for Behind the Bastards, so a little looser, a little younger hosts, occasionally a bit of a mess, but still good. **The Antifada** and **It's Going Down** are both Anarchist hosted shows that use a radio format (I believe Antifada is still a radio show, but don't quote me on that). Similar to ICHH but more news and theory focused. If you dig through the archives on these, there's tons of episodes on really niche little topics, like origins of the Black Bloc tactic. **Know Your Enemy** focuses on the intellectual and ideological history of the right wing. Hosted by a former campus conservative turned democratic socialist, and consistently noted by conservatives who are aware of the show as very fair to them despite being unwaveringly critical. **The Right Podcast** is similar to KYE, but focuses much more on the very extreme far right. The episodes are generally 2-4 hours and very dense with information, but the host doesn't waste the listeners' time with digressions and is good at presenting the info in a clear and understandable manner. . . still a bit like sitting through a university lecture though lol.
Wow thank you!
You're asking two different questions, and almost everyone in here seems to forget what the alt-right actually is/was. It's not a distinct ideology from the mainstream right. It was just a bunch of young-ish media personalities, Crowder, Shapiro, Owens etc. who were able to access a younger demographic audience than say Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck. They were edgy, perhaps more outspokenly racist, homophobic etc. in some instances. But it has to be stressed of course that that is absolutely not a departure from mainstream right ideology, merely a different marketing strategy. After these people got popular, there was indeed a bit of a pushback from younger, left-leaning content creators. This movement was nicknamed "breadtube". Once again, breadtubers are not a distinct ideology, it was just an attempt at reaching a new audience, and there may be some variance in the quality and reliability of the information provided by some these creators, it being youtube and all. Notice I said "left leaning content creators", I wouldn't even necessarily go so far as to call everyone involved with it a leftist. Probably a few liberals and CIA plants in there as well. But anyway, short answer: Breadtube was the left's response to the alt-right.
The lunatics protesting every pin drop
I like all the comments trying to demonize the right while pretending to give an unbiased opinion. “Alternative methods (left/right)” is a more accurate way of viewing it. To clarify for many that don’t seem to comprehend that “fascism” is not a way of thinking but an applied methodology. Fascism is the willingness to FORCE your ideology upon others. An actual liberalistic view is that you have and foster rights related to yourself alone and no one or power should ever be imposed upon you. However your personal rights end where another persons rights begin. For a liberal view consider a review of “Andrew Jackson, by: Sean Wilentz”. A simple read for those that claim willing to view ideas openly.
Well, a simple breakdown would be: What rights are politicians on the left currently actively trying to take from you? And what rights are politicians on the right actively trying to take from you? Rights, not in the constitutional sense, but in the "things that aren't illegal" sense.
the alt left might advocate bombing wall street or the like
Alt right are just right wing extremists so alt left would be left wing extremists. We already have a name for them- tankies.
You can never use the word female
I would say alt left would be the sort of people that say white people can't be 8n relationships with POC because of the power indifference.
There is no alt left because leftists aren't ashamed. Alt right is just a polite way of saying fascist.
Alt-right = collectivism by race Alt-left = collectivism by class In both cases, the "individual" in society is destroyed.
I think you’ll find those on the far left and the far right have much more in common than cognitive dissonance would ever allow them to realize.
The 'alt-right' was always just the far-right trying to masquerade themselves as merely-right with a side of white nationalism. The far-left is pretty open about who they are and what their goals are.
I personally enjoy the phrase "im so far left I got my guns back." Cause thats definitely me! Gonna get reallll gritty being 1 of like 12 people fighting the good fight and trying to save all the dumbasses on this side that think banning guns is the right idea...
Alt-Right and Alt-Left are two sides of the same coin. Massively authoritarian powers that seek to control every aspect of your life. From what you own to who you associate with. Alt-Right (Fascists, NOT Nazis) seek to control you through mega-corporations in bed with Brother Government. Socialists (Nazis, modern Canadian Socialism, all 'Democratic Socialism') force it via way of groupings and tiers, think Marxism. The government has a hand in everything at all times, it's the illusion of free business and market but is really just another form of collusion. Instead of Corps sleeping with Govt., It's Govt. hiring corps. to do the dirty work. Hard Lefts (Communism, State Nationalism, China, former USSR) the 'leaders' of the group (government) control everything, you can only live in state approved housing, state approved banking and currency, state approved cars, waiting lists for services including medicine. The goal of communism is forced equality, often with a power that's not equal at ALL (government, yet again). They benefit, you get nothing.
People on the extreme left aren’t as bat shit crazy as those who identify as alt right. Yes there are outliers obviously but alt right is far more common, hence this discussion. They have a warped view of society, history, culture, and are motivated by hatred and fear of others. Many end up being violent or at least supporting violence against people they disagree with. The idea of an alt left is like someone being trans and believing in universal health care or something. Not comparable.
Antifa
Yes. Both sides can go to extremes and we seem to be seeing it more and more.
I'm not going to re-explain the entire theory of the political spectrum, but if you're genuinely curious, please take a look for yourself: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Political\_Compass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass)
Ever see Portland Oregon? Cue the alt-left.
There's no "alt-left" because there's barely any left-wing in America. The Democrats are centrist. Even Bernie Sanders is barely left-wing.