[briandear]

Just a curiousity, is “far left” and “liberal” even related? Seems like the far left and far right are two sides to the same totalitarian coin. Liberal implies a respect for the freedom of individuals while “far left” puts the collective over the rights of the individual. The word liberal has lost its meaning. The far left (and far right) is incompatible with freedom. Cases in point: Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union. The far left closer to fascism than liberalism.

http://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/fascism-is-far-left...

[kmonsen]

I think parent uses far left like far left in US politics or average European, not like Venezuela or Soviet Union. The latter two were of course incompatible to freedom just as the extreme right. I do believe that the "almost far left" are much more compatible with freedom (think Sanders on steroids) than the "almost far right" (I guess current GOP?).

It could be that this is just incidental in that the public are currently more aligned with what the left wants so the right currently has to be anti-freedom if it wants to get elected. If public opinion shifts drastically maybe DNC would resort to trying to restrict voters instead of encouraging them?

[a13n]

It seems "left" and "right" can be used differently in different countries / times. In the US today, left is synonymous for liberal (typically democrat), and right for conservative (republican).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_s...

[SyneRyder]

You might like the website The Political Compass, a quiz/self-test where authoritarian / libertarian are on a separate axis from the typical left / right of economic planning. It at least shows the lack of nuance in trying to reduce all politics to a single "left & right" dimension - and that by doing so, we ignore ways where both "sides" may actually share common views.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Cyphase]

Probably inspired by the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_Smallest_Political_Q...

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

[isostatic]

It's also rather biased in questioning

[nyolfen]

in the US, the left uses liberal institutions because being far left is tolerated by liberal society in a way that being far right is not

[lostlogin]

Could you clarify - are you saying that being far right isn’t tolerated in the US? Or that being far right isn’t tolerated by liberal society in the US?

[nyolfen]

the latter

[lumberjack]

Traditionally there are three political groups: conservatives, liberals and socialists.

"Far-left" falls under socialism, along with anarchism and communism. The idea that ties them together is this concept of trying to fight against and eliminate some hierarchy in society. Often times, wealth inequality. There is no such thing in the US.

To say that you are a liberal far-left is indeed a misuse of terminology.

Fascism falls under conservatism along with monarchism and any other traditionalist or reactionary political ideology. Standing opposed to "the left", the chief idea that ties all these ideologies together is that some hierarchal structures are beneficial to society.

Interesting to note that Republicanism is a liberal ideology, not a conservative one. Liberalism is a much more well defined ideology than the other two. Briefly speaking: "all men are created equal" (hence Republicanism), small government and free markets and capitalism.

[dragonwriter]

> Traditionally there are three political groups: conservatives, liberals and socialists.

That's not even approximately correct. There are a lot more groups than that, and those aren't even on the same conceptual level.

> "Far-left" falls under socialism, along with anarchism and communism.

Socialism is one of many leftist ideologies. Communism is, yes, a subset of socialism; OTOH, anarchism is not a subset of socialism (anarchism is a distinct ideology.)

> > The idea that ties them together is this concept of trying to fight against and eliminate some hierarchy in society. Often times, wealth inequality. There is no such thing in the US.

The first part is not horrendously inaccurate but not really useful correct, either.

I don't know if you are trying to say that the far left, socialism, anarchism, communism, social heirarchies, or wealth inequality doesn't exist in the US, but, in any case...no.

> Fascism falls under conservatism along with monarchism and any other traditionalist or reactionary political ideology.

Reactionary ideologies have the same relationship to conservatism as radical or far-left ideologies have to liberalism.

> Interesting to note that Republicanism is a liberal ideology, not a conservative one.

Small-r republicanism is an ideology that is neither inherently liberal nor conservative, though the most common modern form is liberal. Big-R Republicanism J's just attachment to an American political party that doesn't have a single clear ideology but covers a range of liberal to reactionary ideologies.

> Liberalism is a much more well defined ideology than the other two.

Socialism is, while still a fairly broad umbrella, both more specific and better defined than liberalism.

> Briefly speaking: "all men are created equal"

That doesn't actually differentiate it from socialism, nor is this really essential to liberalism (a belief that all men are created equal undergirds some liberalism, but isn't essential to liberalism; another basis is that equallegal treatment allows people to reach the different positions appropriate for different inherent worth.)

> (hence Republicanism)

Neither Republicanism nor republicanism is inherently attached to an egalitarian ideology.

[brbrodude]

If you actually tried studying these topics instead of going behind shallow propaganda, you'd see how misguided you are. But actually liberals are not leftists, there's no left in USA.

[frabbit]

I don't think they are related.

The Left is generally in favor of socialism of some sort: common ownership of the important stuff.

The Right has two wings: fascists and the sneaky, slippery moralizers known as Liberals. Liberals are content to wring their hands about minorities while reaping the benefits of very violent, command economies which extract wealth from the poorest (including within the USA). Their obfuscation of the true nature of capitalism and relatively less appalling public statements on minorities helps to keep a lid on things. Fascism only becomes overtly necessary when capitalism is having a periodic crisis and Liberal lies are not cutting it any more.

So, in short, no, nothing to do with each other.