Question for Liberals: What does a left wing extremist look like to you?

It's easy for all of us to point out what we think an extremist looks like on the other side of the aisle. And it usually varies from person to person. But it's not always so easy to define what an extremist looks like on our own side. Because in doing this, we must recognize that there is such a thing as too far that someone can go in our direction. And that we are not willing to go that far because we recognize it as destructive, dangerous, or crazy.

Personally, as a conservative, I've thought about this a bit. And I would say a right wing extremist to me would be either someone wanting to impose a legitimate Christian-based theocracy that abolishes the First Amendment or someone who is a complete and total anarchist. Think of a libertarian type who doesn't want any laws at all.

So I'm curious about something. Liberals and leftists like to call themselves "progressive." Because they are always progressing forward. But this has some very disturbing implications if you really stop to think about it. If the goal of the leftist is to always keep moving forward....... and the only direction they believe to be forward is leftward..... then by default, wouldn't that make them all extremists? Because they may disagree on the pace with which to move, but they almost all seem to agree that an indefinite march in one specific direction is the focus and not any kind of concrete, measurable end goal.

So I'd really like to hear the thoughts of some liberals on this. What is your personal definition of a left wing extremist? How far left is too far left for you?

 

If you accept that too far right is fascism then too far left is communism. That is the most extreme in my opinion.

The line where too extreme begins is hard to identify. I think that when you begin to tell people how to live, in your example it would be behavior and beliefs expected in a theocratic system, you've stepped over the line.

 

The radical left consists of people who want to abolish capitalism. The radical part of the radical left thinks that Stalin and Mao did nothing wrong. The radical part of those people are the ones that like Pol Pot.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA
That about crosses the line.
And compared to far right, conservatives an libertarians...I'd still be on the left side in a debate.
Both extreme though.

 

I'm a liberal and I think all ideas are on the table except for a very few. I'd even go along with violence if my legitimate issues have been ignored for too long. Of course, 'legitimate' and 'too long' are always open for debate, but I don't think many folks are going to argue that Adams, Jefferson and Washington were too liberal or extreme or violent.

 

I don't believe there's any mention of capitalism in the Constitution. Or the stock market. Or hedge funds. Or derivatives. Can't abolish what ain't there.

 

As to which party has grown far more extreme: I've never seen Liberals advocate abolishing capitalism from their politicians, but I do see Conservatives administer religious litmus tests for theirs.

 

You do realize that violence works both ways?

 

Now that is an interesting thread.
I don't think I'm more than slightly left-leaning these days, but allow me to chime in.

My definition of an extremist would be someone who supports a political ideology that only a minority of people would feel comfortable with and that can thus be only enforced against bitter resistance.

On the left I guess the line is somewhere along where anti-capitalism starts. Communism - definitely extremist.

I've actually met some people who thought like this. And of course they were pretty extreme.
That's the whole problem with extremists, most of them never fully realize the implications of what they support.

 

Of course. I also realize that the oppressed have always won.

 

Their agenda was created by REPUBLICAN Teddy Roosevelt.

 

Teddy left the REPUBLICANS behind in the 19th century. Which is, for the most part, where they still reside.

 

Laughable and not even remotely true. It also depends upon what you mean by oppressed.

 

Funny how today you are called "left wing" "liberal" or even "terrorist" for harboring such views.

A century ago one was called a Republican for doing so.

 

There's no mention of gay marriage either. Or welfare. Or abortions. Or obamacare

 

There are mentions of providing for the General Welfare. First sentence, I believe. Still no mention of capitalism. Or anything approximating it.

 

In a nutshell, people who support, encourage, or use violence in furtherance of their agenda, including destruction of property are the ones I consider extremists, left or right.

 

You didn't really answer the question. You just kind of danced around it. I asked for specifics. Give me a specific example of something that you would consider too far left for you. You said there were very few ideas that were off the table for you. So share with me one of those ideas here that you would not support or would be strongly opposed to.

For what it's worth, I do find it interesting that you hinted at the eventual use of violence (not force but violence) before you listed anything specific that you wouldn't do. Forgive me for calling you out here, but this does make you seem like one of the people I referenced in my OP. Like someone who really sees nothing leftward as being too extreme. And doesn't even see anything wrong with using any means necessary to achieve it.

Again, if I'm wrong, show me why. I want specifics here.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked what specifically is too far left for you. What would you consider a left wing extremist position?

I'm not trying to taunt you guys here, but I do think it's interesting that you're not being more direct with your responses. If I'm inferring the wrong things here from your replies, then show me why. Be specific.

If you truly don't believe yourself to be extremist, then you have nothing to lose by being honest here.

So let me see if I understand this. You don't see any specific issues or positions on the left as being too far off the table? For example, hypothetically, if the political left were to take up pedophile's rights over the next 50-100 years and include them as a new identity politics victim group, you would be okay with or would possibly support this as long as it was not done in a violent manner?

Again, this is purely a hypothetical. I'm using it to test how soundly you believe what you've just said. If violence is the only thing that defines an extremist to you, then shouldn't you technically not consider that an extremist position?

 

Being off the deep end politically into kook land doesn't make you an extremist in my book. There are people far closer to politically mainstream that I consider extremist because they support, encourage, or use violence, for example the NRA types who are always clammering on about how the government needs to be overthrown or what they will do when the government comes for their guns. Politically, the second amendment is a mainstream issue, but they take it to a whole different level. On the left, someone who wants to stop a resort isn't an extremist, but someone who wants to stop a resort by burning it down is. There is a difference between holding a position and wanting to resort to violence to achieve it in my book.

 

But if the goal is actually to empower women as far and as much as possible, then Feminism does describe the Liberal mentality:

 

I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Why don't you go first by telling us you personal definition of a right wing extremist.

 

This is a good thread topic. A similar topic with right-wing extremists as well would be a good topic to go along with it.

I would have to guess a left-wing extremist would probably be fanatical about the environment, or animals. Opposed to corporations but having no problem with government doing the same wrongs they would accuse corporations of doing. Perhaps anti-religion as well, although that's not something you'd have to be a lefty to be.

I think the mark of an extremist, any extremist, is the inability to compromise or recognize the necessity of it.

 

As a pragmatist, I am amused by the fixation some have with their ubiquitous "Liberals!" and "Leftists!" that they define to fit their agenda.

Is there a time we should call a halt to progress? I'll let you know when we gat there.

Are Muslim or Christian extremists who would impose theocratic rule on America any better or worse that atheistic extremists who would impose atheocratic rule on America?

Who am I to judge?

They all sound equally repellent to me.

 

I am not sure how you saw fit that my post was the natural segue to that particular topic, but as with any issue, there are people who will always take up the torch and run screaming at full speed toward the absurd whether the issue is legitimate, popular, or neither. Feminism is no exception.