They had nothing better to do than draw up lists of heretics and excommunicate them.
Luckily, the organization I'm currently involved with (the SRA), while hilariously disorganized, is firmly Left.
EDIT: but i guess for you guys it might be more single-payor healthcare and reasonable taxation in which case, yeah, some things haven't changed :)
Compare that to the US with a mandatory rehiring after taking unpaid maternity (only) leave of up to 12 weeks, a complex healthcare system which causes people to go into debt, expensive college costing tens of thousands a semester, 0 (yes zero) vacation time by law, etc.
(I should note that some states goes further than that, but it's very dependent on the state and the most liberal example might be California's generous 6-week paternity policy.)
Anyone advocating any of the economic policies from Sweden I described in the US would be described in the same breath as Bernie Sanders and Fidel Castro.
For example, Danish or Norwegian immigration rules would be a perfect fit for any R president, perhaps even too strict.
What you mention used to be a typical left-wing agenda, but is increasingly being utterly forgotten by the younger generations of left-wing politicians.
I'm sorry, but what?
Within the party, they've promoted universal basic income (marxisim), state healthcare, universal education, etc. It's almost completely authoritarian marxist.
They're far left of most of Europe in terms of social policy (LGBTQ+ rights, abortion, drugs, etc) and economic (complete universal education, health, payments, work, etc)
If that's center-left what is left, exactly?
The Democrat Party is only "far left" if you believe their wildest election rhetoric and don't judge them on their actions. To call them authoritarian marxist is ridiculous when they fail time and time again to reign in corporate power and are financially beholden to that same power.
No, it doesn't, at least if you are talking about general elections since the failure of Clinton's reforms in the 1990s. Since then, it's talked about moderate mitigations of the problem of massive gaps in the healthcare system, or, more recently, simply about not continuing dismantling past progress on that issue.
Marxism - attempt to remove classes from society
The Marxism is being implemented through high taxes and redistribution of wealth via services centrally administered via government.
That seems to meet the definition.
Yes, people who support these policies are authoritarian Marxists. I'm not disparaging it, it just is what it is.
The U.S. is authoritarian and largely Marxist.
> The idea that you'd have to be a Marxist to want to centralize health insurance to reduce costs so people don't go bankrupt paying for medical care is simply propaganda.
Not propaganda, it is by definition what it is. It's not really arguable. The propaganda are the opinions on whether or not it's good. There's a fair argument it's good to make centralized healthcare, there's a fair argument against.
If I was rich and wanted to take over a local government, I would channel my efforts toward dividing people on everything except economic class. Yeah, you're both poor and live in squalor next to the train tracks, but you're different races! How could you possibly get along!
IMO, most of the culture was a distraction from what really matters. People are up in arms on TV over who can claim to be a woman, but meanwhile, the concentration of wealth and economic power and worse than even the guided age.
If the bottom 50% of the population (economically) united on JUST this topic, they would see massive change - better structured education, housing, health, etc.
Instead we get what I call "hand grenades" that distract and mean almost nothing - like another biological male smashing records in a female sport and wanting to keep the medals.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there's a pattern to which peoples' issues are considered mainstream (i.e. they affect "us all") and which group's issues are considered divisive and a "distraction". But if you're in a marginalized minority group, those "distractions" may be your biggest problems every day. "Not yet" is practically the same as "no" and some folks are tired of waiting, so if you want unity you've got to build it by acknowledging those problems and support those people. Otherwise "unity" always comes at the expense of the same people.
Perfect for manipulation, extremely potent as a union buster or to kill movements like occupy wallstreet.
I think part of the issue is no one agrees on what causes it. Status-quo left says not enough taxes and social spending. SQ right says immigration, geo-arbing, and taxes too high.
Imo we actually need to be talking about interest rate interventionism, but good luck getting people to care about cash flow valuation denominators.
People — of all backgrounds — only want a stable comfortable life where they can pursue their interests and goals.
Identity/race politics are just a distraction to keep the low/middle class fighting amongst themselves while the upper classes rake in unprecedented amounts of wealth.
I believe that individuals are complex and unique and deserve to be treated as individuals instead of a member of an identity group.
I fear the day when I have to take a side in the identity/race war. In the past 2 years I have noticed that identity/race politics have entered my workplace. Luckily I haven’t had to take a side, but the day I am forced to utter a political incantation is the day I quit my job.
Almost by definition, this means the left is always trying many things (always need the next new thing) and the right is consolidating on what they perceive to be the best of the tried and true.
That being said it isn't a good look to simplify these perspectives as "the left" and "the right" as people do not really act within the confines of those labels.
The right in America understands the left quite well, but many on the left think they're trying "new" things leading to progress while the right wants to keep things the same. This is the understanding of a child and why we have political conflict in the U.S.
The most conservative stalwarts that want things to remain the same in America are government, finance, tech, media, academia and education. The cultural institutions that the left built in the 60s are the ones failing and the ones they want to conserve.
I always thought the American left would really endure / have the advantage long term because of what seemed like a healthier exchange of ideas (free speech support etc).
That has changed it feels like a bit. If you don't support the cause de jour (abolish ice / defund the police / violence at protests) or other orthodoxy there really isn't a place for you.
And despite the talk of love and acceptance, the left really seems to be driven by hate and outrage now more than I remember plus a very healthy dose of hypocrisy. Ie, defund police, unless a poor person shoes up on my doorstep - then I'm calling!
AOC jetting off to florida in the midst of a massive surge in NY? The irony (she made fun of others jetting off during crisis, and florida is the anti-NY in terms of COVID approach). Newsome and his lobbyist dinner unmasked inside while ordering lockdowns? It's annoying to have such harsh rhetoric from leaders (ie, they promised to destroy any doctor who gave vaccine to anyone but the anointed few) but then relatively unprincipled action by them (they go out and party, dine, get vaccines for themselves).
I'm hoping the next generation has a good take on this.
Sounds like you're talking yourself into giving Nazis a "fair shake". Why would you do that?
Is the claim that the left is being fascist or the right is? Ie, who bum rushes someone off the stage these days - is that a left wing thing or right wing or both?
Is this claim meant to undermine my claim around the extremism now in the left and right?
I believe the current generation has a good take on this: when your identity becomes enmeshed in a political religion, the creation of differences is mandatory to support your vision.
This necessity of finding a cause or something to believe in—the need for baddies and an existential battle of good vs evil—will exist in perpetuity on the left. If there are no baddies, they must be created.
The origin of "the left" in America is a road through the Darwinian origins of Progressivism which, along with its gross support of racial anthropology, believed in a better class of men to administer a society they believed incompetent. It then moved down the meandering corridor of postmodern Marxism in academia which took as an article of faith that dishonesty was required for social change. We're now at the weapons-grade, enriched version of that belief with Wokeness where the adherents privately believe they are better people, qualified to manage society's past ills but then publicly disown the idea when confronted.
Unless the cultural left in America wants to disown over a century of believing they are superior, the orthodoxy is here to stay. There is no difference between Wilsonian progressives and the modern day woke other than transparency and visibility into the worldview.
I would argue this motivates a fair bit of the hard right too. Think of the folks fighting the "murder" of children, they come up with baddies (abortion doctors), take the law into their own hands (bombings etc). Same thing with the "stolen election". I'm not speaking about the merits of either of these issues, just that they serve to drive a similar situation on right.
This has been Christian doctrine for 2000 years: they didn't "come up with it." It's in the Didache, which is a first century document and puts abortion in the same category as pedophilia.
In contrast, there will never be a point where the left stops finding new niche epithets and specialized victims/oppressors because the Hegelian worldview requires it.
A mere 10 years ago, the idea of TERFs or people oppressing others because they didn't include pronouns would be unthinkable. Once that bridge is crossed, more bridges will inevitably need to be created. We live in a world where the left thinks thousands of unarmed black men are killed every year, when the number in 2019 was... 14 [1]
This same worldview thinks that there's a mass of white supremacists seeking to take over the country, and yet, where is the mass number of crimes that we hear about? If they were there, don't you think we'd hear about specific cases on the news, given that literally half of all unarmed black men killed by police made national news?
[1] https://www.manhattan-institute.org/police-black-killings-ho...
I question your assertion that you are "leftist" when you describe progressive thought in dismissive, inflammatory, right-wing terms.