From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Far-left as edited by Republiproud (Talk | contribs) at 03:18, October 24, 2022. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Far-left refers to the extreme position on the Left side of the political spectrum that is collectivist, intolerant, advocates big government through totalitarianism (although in some cases, far-leftists also advocate complete anarchy), fascism, totalitarianism, single party advocacy, and anti-democratic ideals. It is represented through movements such Progressivism, Marxism and Cultural Marxism, and Democratic Socialism.

Far-leftist groups often adopt names that are oxymoronic and contradictory, such as National Socialism, Antifascist, or Democratic Socialism.

Internecine warfare

The far-left is noted for internecine war.[1] Due to its anti-democratic, technocratic and elitist ideals, competition within the far left to claim the mantle as the vanguard of the revolutionary elite leads them to label each other, and anyone who opposes their singular group, as "fascist" or "right wing."[2]

Sectarian disputes are common among far-leftist groups. Usually the larger group will claim the label as preeminent among leftists; when competing groups move right-ward toward the center in search of moderates, they are labeled Nazi, fascist, and racist by the dominant far left group. This has the chilling effect of driving members out of competing groups, and a dampening effect on new recruits. The hope is to enlarge the base of the dominant group.[3]

This is not to say they are incapable of forging coalitions, which they often do, sometimes among disparate groups with absurd-sounding names – Environmentalists Against the War, or Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.). ANSWER is one of the most dangerous and despicable racist organizations in the United States, known for its violent and anarchist elements.[4]

Forming these groups, and forging these alliances, is what the job of an "organizer" is.


Far leftists oppose free speech, gun rights, freedom of religion, fair elections and sovereignty. Fundamentally, they oppose democracy and human rights.

While far left language and rhetoric is deceptively couched in terms such as "democracy," "human rights," "equality," etc., using Marxist dialectics, words, ideas, historical eras, philosophical concepts, and broad worldviews are twisted to mean whatever they want them to mean, to serve the immediate purpose of the self-appointed elites - which is to obtain power for themselves and destroy their enemies, both real and imagined.

Far leftists tend to think of themselves as "intellectual" and "enlightened," and above the fray of ordinary political discussion, negotiation, and compromise. They approach their non-democratic task to "save humanity" from itself by promoting themselves as technocrats, bureaucrats, organizers, agitators, activists and elites with missionary zeal.


Envy is perhaps the main driving motivation behind far left ideology, envy of persons or institutions which have obtained social status and political power by merit or inheritance. They possess a desire for other people's wealth coupled with a lust for power. Far leftists consider the only thing resembling justice on this Earth is having themselves in power, not through fair elections, but by deception or violence. Besides envy, another driving motivation behind far left ideology is a love of carnage and chaos for its own sake. This can be seen with Karl Marx openly advocating in various letters that, once the Marxists are at the helm, they not only are obliged to reenact Robespierre's Reign of Terror, but also make it even more of a bloodbath, as well as Michel Foucault openly advocating that the left when taking power should be a violent, dictatorial, and bloody power to its enemies, and even advocate for September Massacres-style "popular justice" (i.e., lynchings), as well as General Trudeau and Commander Louis Grignon both advocated during the Vendee massacre that "everyone they met was to be immediately killed, even if they were Republicans".

Democracy and popular consensus is not part of far left ideology (barring Mobocracy and mob rule). Among Democratic Socialists, for example, the core value is said to be, to develop a consensus among themselves how to govern society. However, this principle is subject to change with the next historical whim or crisis.

Immanent critique and political correctness

Through the use of immanent critique, the more intellectual far leftists target opponents. Immanent critique is defined as
" a method of discussing culture which aims to locate contradictions in society's rules and systems....The purpose ....is the detection of societal contradictions which suggest possibilities for emancipatory social change.... It highlights the gaps between what something stands for and what is being done in actual terms. Immanent critique tries to find contradictions and indirectly provide alternatives, without constructing an entirely new theory."[5]
From this is born the ostracism of political correctness.

Nevermind that purveyors of these idea-less theories themselves are caught up in the same hypocrisy, hold the same bigoted views and are guilty of the same actions as the people they target. It is "us versus them," the enlightened few against the powers that be and the unwashed masses, who are all bigots and hypocrites until they bow before their new revolutionary masters.

And the intellectual masters of this revolutionary thought turn a blind eye to the violence of their less-intellectual followers, who join the movement because "it's the hip thing to do." Justification of violence is necessary to any revolutionary movement that does not respect the ballot box and free speech.

And the aim is always the same, put themselves in power without any guiding principles and only historically discredited theories to lead them.

See also