US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

If they’d been conservatives, they’d have shown respect to Charlie Kirk and his family. But even if they’d been satirising a lefties death (and I wouldn’t classify what Kimmel said as “satire”) then most likely the satirists would have worked for Fox and it’s unlikely (though not impossible) they’d be sacked.

I think this is just the machinations of a big corporation doing the maths, and moving Kimmel on. They’d have the strength and power - and willingness - to publicise anything improper from Trump.

They may even still blame Trump, but only if they want to shift the blame and make themselves victims in getting rid of Kimmel. If they wanted Kimmel to stay, he’d be a cause celebre, and they’d keep him…

Personally, I agree with @Federberg that it's damaging free speech.

 

[Kieran]

Personally, I agree with @Federberg that it's damaging free speech.

I definitely agree with that, for different reasons than you do..

 

[Moxie]

I definitely agree with that, for different reasons than you do..

I'd like to hear what your reasons are, and why you think they're different from mine.

To be clear, I don't think either one of those comics was sacked for one remark. (And I definitely don't think they were fired for poor ratings.) I think they were fired a) because Trump/Carr put pressure out there, which the corporate execs caved to, because b) they have huge business interests on the line, and they need Carr's approval, meaning they need to be in good with Trump, because Carr totally toes the Trump line.

In any case, guys who have been popular for years for comedy and satire have been silenced because they criticize Trump. He doesn't like to be criticized. They criticized Democratic presidents, too.

 

[Kieran]

I'd like to hear what your reasons are, and why you think they're different from mine.

To be clear, I don't think either one of those comics was sacked for one remark. (And I definitely don't think they were fired for poor ratings.) I think they were fired a) because Trump/Carr put pressure out there, which the corporate execs caved to, because b) they have huge business interests on the line, and they need Carr's approval, meaning they need to be in good with Trump, because Carr totally toes the Trump line.

In any case, guys who have been popular for years for comedy and satire have been silenced because they criticize Trump. He doesn't like to be criticized. They criticized Democratic presidents, too.

I don’t believe those corporations are pushovers, I think actually the opposite, that they’d use any suggestion of overreach and pressures from the White House in the most public way possible to get ratings and favour with viewers, while also trying to harm the president. There’s no way in this great culture war that’s happening that they’d buckle to a few busy Trumpisms about a huge star like Kimmel. Think about it, you have Democrats on CNN blaming Trump, there’s nothing atypical about that. They blame Trump for everything, no matter what he does. But they could really have kept Kimmel in his job and still blamed Trump for interference.

So I think with his contract ending in May and his ratings being lower, the execs cynically used this opportunity to shaft him, and this is why it’s a bad day for free speech.

 

[Moxie]

I don’t believe those corporations are pushovers, I think actually the opposite, that they’d use any suggestion of overreach and pressures from the White House in the most public way possible to get ratings and favour with viewers, while also trying to harm the president.

I actually do believe they are afraid that their big deals won't go through, if they piss off the President and therefore, the head of the FCC, who decides on their deals. They are not going to get ratings out of this, or surely not enough to say so. And how do you see this as harming the President? That's an interesting take.

There’s no way in this great culture war that’s happening that they’d buckle to a few busy Trumpisms about a huge star like Kimmel.

You seem to have missed the great "buckling" from universities and law firms, and yes, big media corporations. The winds have shifted, and they're all afraid.

Think about it, you have Democrats on CNN blaming Trump, there’s nothing atypical about that. They blame Trump for everything, no matter what he does. But they could really have kept Kimmel in his job and still blamed Trump for interference.

I don't agree with your take on CNN, but that has nothing to do with ABC or CBS. Remember that Kimmel isn't shit-canned yet. Just suspended. But his network has nothing to do with CNN.

So I think with his contract ending in May and his ratings being lower, the execs cynically used this opportunity to shaft him, and this is why it’s a bad day for free speech.

Maybe it's about his contract ending, but then it's a business decision, and not about free speech. I still don't see how you're connecting it to free speech. You seem to be connecting it all to corporate choice. I can see that you are loathe to agree with me that Trump and Carr are overstepping, and stifling free speech, and twisting yourself in knots to make it different. But I don't see where you are championing free speech in any of this argument.

 

[Kieran]

I actually do believe they are afraid that their big deals won't go through, if they piss off the President and therefore, the head of the FCC, who decides on their deals. They are not going to get ratings out of this, or surely not enough to say so. And how do you see this as harming the President? That's an interesting take.

If they were to loudly claim that the president is going beyond his powers, that might harm the president. I just do not see a big media company like this going down so easy.

What I’m saying about CNN is that a Democrat politician Eric Salwell was on it blaming Trump and sounding off, which is par for the course. They would blame Trump if he cured cancer. There is so much of the media that is left leaning that there’d be uproar everywhere if there was proof that Trump was actually guilty of overstepping the mark.

I think a large part of why Kimmel got into trouble was the misinformation, where he claimed the shooter was Maga.

Maybe it's about his contract ending, but then it's a business decision, and not about free speech. I still don't see how you're connecting it to free speech. You seem to be connecting it all to corporate choice. I can see that you are loathe to agree with me that Trump and Carr are overstepping, and stifling free speech, and twisting yourself in knots to make it different. But I don't see where you are championing free speech in any of this argument.

The danger to free speech comes into it if Kimmel’s channel are cynically using this FCC ruling try get rid of him, that’s a threat to free speech. Imagine a person more vulnerable than Kimmel in their position might not want to say what they feel like saying in case their bosses use it against them…

 

[Moxie]

If they were to loudly claim that the president is going beyond his powers, that might harm the president. I just do not see a big media company like this going down so easy.

Many are loudly claiming that the president is going beyond his powers. That is the point.

What I’m saying about CNN is that a Democrat politician Eric Salwell was on it blaming Trump and sounding off, which is par for the course. They would blame Trump if he cured cancer. There is so much of the media that is left leaning that there’d be uproar everywhere if there was proof that Trump was actually guilty of overstepping the mark.

I have no idea who Eric Salwell is, so it rather disturbs me that you do. That tends to mean that the right-wing sites that you frequent have a beef against him. Just tell me what it is.

You know what, Trump actually got the Covid vaccine on the fast track, and we've all given him credit for it. It's not actually the cure for cancer, but it was very useful for the common good, so don't tell me he doesn't get credit.

In terms of "over-stepping the mark," if you mean trying to consolidate executive power, I think he is. That's part of what I'm telling you. And it's a dangerous thing. And the Supreme Court is complicit.

I think a large part of why Kimmel got into trouble was the misinformation, where he claimed the shooter was Maga.

He didn't claim that, at all. He said the Republicans were doing everything the could to make it not that. That was when we didn't know. And he wasn't wrong in what he said. It was a very brief comment, and you yourself said it didn't mean much. From there, he just went off on lampooning how Trump "mourned" by talking about the ballroom he was building. He's giving him a hard time. That's what comedians do.. And Trump DID go on and on about his ballroom.

The danger to free speech comes into it if Kimmel’s channel are cynically using this FCC ruling try get rid of him, that’s a threat to free speech. Imagine a person more vulnerable than Kimmel in their position might not want to say what they feel like saying in case their bosses use it against them…

The danger to free speech is that Trump and Carr are pressuring the execs to silence him, and Colbert. You are turning yourself inside out not to say it's the administration that's silencing them. If the corporations are using the fear of the FCC to silence him, it's the same thing. It's censorship. If, as you claim, they were just using all of this as an excuse to fire them for not providing enough revenue, that's a business decision and has nothing to do with speech. Which is it?

But, yeah, imagine being more vulnerable than Colbert or Kimmel. Colbert is still on the air, and free to speak his mind. But, yes, what if you're a comedian, or a satirist, or a writer, or a journalist and he see this happen to the more powerful? You might pull your punches. And if there's not a corporation involved, your fear is of the administration, right?

 

[Kieran]

Many are loudly claiming that the president is going beyond his powers. That is the point.

I have no idea who Eric Salwell is, so it rather disturbs me that you do. That tends to mean that the right-wing sites that you frequent have a beef against him. Just tell me what it is.

You know what, Trump actually got the Covid vaccine on the fast track, and we've all given him credit for it. It's not actually the cure for cancer, but it was very useful for the common good, so don't tell me he doesn't get credit.

In terms of "over-stepping the mark," if you mean trying to consolidate executive power, I think he is. That's part of what I'm telling you. And it's a dangerous thing. And the Supreme Court is complicit.

He didn't claim that, at all. He said the Republicans were doing everything the could to make it not that. That was when we didn't know. And he wasn't wrong in what he said. It was a very brief comment, and you yourself said it didn't mean much. From there, he just went off on lampooning how Trump "mourned" by talking about the ballroom he was building. He's giving him a hard time. That's what comedians do.. And Trump DID go on and on about his ballroom.

The danger to free speech is that Trump and Carr are pressuring the execs to silence him, and Colbert. You are turning yourself inside out not to say it's the administration that's silencing them. If the corporations are using the fear of the FCC to silence him, it's the same thing. It's censorship. If, as you claim, they were just using all of this as an excuse to fire them for not providing enough revenue, that's a business decision and has nothing to do with speech. Which is it?

But, yeah, imagine being more vulnerable than Colbert or Kimmel. Colbert is still on the air, and free to speak his mind. But, yes, what if you're a comedian, or a satirist, or a writer, or a journalist and he see this happen to the more powerful? You might pull your punches. And if there's not a corporation involved, your fear is of the administration, right?

Not necessarily. Your fear might be of your employer using the controversy as an excuse you get rid of you. And I’m not saying that “the corporations are using the fear of the FCC to silence him” - I’m saying they could claim that, to get rid of him, though they might not fear the ruling even slightly.

That’s a threat to free speech because it undermines employees.

As for the FCC ruling, and what Kimmel said, please remember that I told you that I didn’t have any issue with what he said. Even when he mentioned Maga, I see nothing wrong with anything he said, and at no stage am I defending the ruling, nor am I “turning [myself] inside out not to say it's the administration that's silencing them”: it could be that they are, or it could be that the FCC is overstepping anyway to keep Trump happy.

Maybe I’m trying too hard to be objective and tease out the other possible answers to the question, until more is known? If it’s the case that Trump is exerting excessive pressure on the FCC to get people fired, I’ll condemn it as strongly as you. But a bunch of people with TDS claiming he did, that’s not proof.

We all know that that a US government can exert pressure on media companies to do their dirty business and work for the government: we lived through covid.

I misspelt his name, it’s Eric Swalwell, but don’t be too disturbed I know his name, he was on CNN. As for me frequenting right wing sites with a beef against anyone, that’s hilarious. CNN is left wing.

 

[Moxie]

Not necessarily. Your fear might be of your employer using the controversy as an excuse you get rid of you. And I’m not saying that “the corporations are using the fear of the FCC to silence him” - I’m saying they could claim that, to get rid of him, though they might not fear the ruling even slightly.

That’s a threat to free speech because it undermines employees.

As for the FCC ruling, and what Kimmel said, please remember that I told you that I didn’t have any issue with what he said. Even when he mentioned Maga, I see nothing wrong with anything he said, and at no stage am I defending the ruling, nor am I “turning [myself] inside out not to say it's the administration that's silencing them”: it could be that they are, or it could be that the FCC is overstepping anyway to keep Trump happy.

Maybe I’m trying too hard to be objective and tease out the other possible answers to the question, until more is known? If it’s the case that Trump is exerting excessive pressure on the FCC to get people fired, I’ll condemn it as strongly as you. But a bunch of people with TDS claiming he did, that’s not proof.

We all know that that a US government can exert pressure on media companies to do their dirty business and work for the government: we lived through covid.

I misspelt his name, it’s Eric Swalwell, but don’t be too disturbed I know his name, he was on CNN. As for me frequenting right wing sites with a beef against anyone, that’s hilarious. CNN is left wing.

FYI, the corporations CAN'T say that Colbert/Kimmel are being cancelled/suspended over fear of FCC retribution, because that would be in violation of their freedom of speech rights, as you rightly say, and they could get sued for that. Unless there's a stipulation in their contracts, but I doubt either one would have agreed to anything less than the freedom to say what they wanted, within FCC guidelines. They probably can't be sued for calling it a business decision. I heard that explained today.

Comedians can push at the edges of good taste, it is true. But that's still protected speech. Trump is working hard to eliminate speech he disagrees with, especially where it criticizes him. And he's been bullying universities, law firms, media companies, and entire cities to push his agenda. It has some entities cowed, and they're rolling over to it. I think that's a dangerous thing.

 

[Moxie]

This is the latest from Trae Crowther on the Charlie Kirk assassination. He bills himself as the Liberal Redneck. I think he's funny. At least he is trying to take the temperature down. If you can be bothered, watch past the ad for the VPN he's touting. It was @britbox who ever first put me on to VPN's. Wonder how he'd rate this one.

 

[Kieran]

FYI, the corporations CAN'T say that Colbert/Kimmel are being cancelled/suspended over fear of FCC retribution, because that would be in violation of their freedom of speech rights, as you rightly say, and they could get sued for that. Unless there's a stipulation in their contracts, but I doubt either one would have agreed to anything less than the freedom to say what they wanted, within FCC guidelines. They probably can't be sued for calling it a business decision. I heard that explained today.

Comedians can push at the edges of good taste, it is true. But that's still protected speech. Trump is working hard to eliminate speech he disagrees with, especially where it criticizes him. And he's been bullying universities, law firms, media companies, and entire cities to push his agenda. It has some entities cowed, and they're rolling over to it. I think that's a dangerous thing.

If he’s doing that, it’s wrong. Let’s wait and see, I’m not convinced that that’s the case with Kimmel.

But bear this in mind, your country has been like this for a long time, bullying people to say what crazy people on the fringes want them to say. Bullying scientists and the public during covid, with social media companies doing the governments dirty work of ruining people. That, we do know. You live in a place that doesn’t use mirrors.

As for Charlie Kirk, did you get the chance to watch any of his videos?

 

[britbox]

This is the latest from Trae Crowther on the Charlie Kirk assassination. He bills himself as the Liberal Redneck. I think he's funny. At least he is trying to take the temperature down. If you can be bothered, watch past the ad for the VPN he's touting. It was @britbox who ever first put me on to VPN's. Wonder how he'd rate this one.

I like the way he's dissecting some of the stuff that's going on... and in a style that two sides could find plenty of common ground with, sit down and chew the fat over a couple of afternoon beers or a glass of wine.

Let's put the term "sides" in a quotes, as he's nailed the fact that there is an oligarchy using ancient "Divide and Conquer" techniques to keep the mass populace at each others throats. At the end of the day, if you deep dive on corporate control mechanisms - it doesn't take long to figure out that CNN and Fox are ultimately controlled by the same people... Blackrock, State Street and Vanguard, and they in turn own each other and can be sourced back to a handful of bankers.

All we have to do is break our programming... kind of like when the hosts broke Westworld in the TV show.

 

[Jelenafan]

I don’t believe those corporations are pushovers, I think actually the opposite, that they’d use any suggestion of overreach and pressures from the White House in the most public way possible to get ratings and favour with viewers, while also trying to harm the president. There’s no way in this great culture war that’s happening that they’d buckle to a few busy Trumpisms about a huge star like Kimmel. Think about it, you have Democrats on CNN blaming Trump, there’s nothing atypical about that. They blame Trump for everything, no matter what he does. But they could really have kept Kimmel in his job and still blamed Trump for interference.

So I think with his contract ending in May and his ratings being lower, the execs cynically used this opportunity to shaft him, and this is why it’s a bad day for free speech.

Really Kieran,

FCC chief rips the night show host’s comments and ABC conveniently puts him on suspension but they are not related.

 

[Moxie]

If he’s doing that, it’s wrong. Let’s wait and see, I’m not convinced that that’s the case with Kimmel.

Let me try to be clearer: Brendan Carr, head of the FCC, threatened ABC and its affiliate stations with pulling their licenses. When he said, "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way," that was read loud and clear. The affiliates began to yank Kimmel, so ABC, the parent, just suspended him. That is about free speech. Even Ted Cruz, (Republican of Texas, as you know,) has said this is dangerous.

But bear this in mind, your country has been like this for a long time, bullying people to say what crazy people on the fringes want them to say. Bullying scientists and the public during covid, with social media companies doing the governments dirty work of ruining people. That, we do know. You live in a place that doesn’t use mirrors.

If you think Trump's way of doing the business of politics bears any resemblance to politics of the past, I don't know what to say. He has gutted basically every branch of government. Where has installed sycophants, and otherwise, left them threadbare of the actually capable bureaucrats who used to run them. This stripped down government is barely functioning in what is supposed to do for the people of the US. He is defying laws, and daring the rest of us to fight him in court. He's counting on his stack Supreme Court to back him. I've never seen anything like this in my life.

As for Charlie Kirk, did you get the chance to watch any of his videos?

Not beyond what has been posted here. I'm looking for a "starter" suggestion. Do you watch him? Can you suggest one that might involve my interests?

 

[Kieran]

Let me try to be clearer: Brendan Carr, head of the FCC, threatened ABC and its affiliate stations with pulling their licenses. When he said, "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way," that was read loud and clear. The affiliates began to yank Kimmel, so ABC, the parent, just suspended him. That is about free speech. Even Ted Cruz, (Republican of Texas, as you know,) has said this is dangerous.

If you think Trump's way of doing the business of politics bears any resemblance to politics of the past, I don't know what to say. He has gutted basically every branch of government. Where has installed sycophants, and otherwise, left them threadbare of the actually capable bureaucrats who used to run them. This stripped down government is barely functioning in what is supposed to do for the people of the US. He is defying laws, and daring the rest of us to fight him in court. He's counting on his stack Supreme Court to back him. I've never seen anything like this in my life.

Not beyond what has been posted here. I'm looking for a "starter" suggestion. Do you watch him? Can you suggest one that might involve my interests?

I mean, I don’t know where you should start, maybe you could take any criticisms you may have heard of him from the left - that he’s racist, white supremacist, sexist, I dunno - and watch what he said in full and ask yourself were you lied to. He’s one of those figures who divides, and almost everyone who paid tributes to him preface their remarks by saying “I didn’t agree with everything he said, but…”

He was polite, patient, acting in good faith, he was imperfect but sharp, well learned on what he’d argued for, and he left school aged 18 and began what is now one of the biggest political movements in America. Died aged 31. Incredibly precocious and daring, there’s a far left wing in America which engaged with him, found common cause with him, and praised him for his willingness to discuss openly and fairly with people who not only disagreed with him but who violently hated him. People queued up at his meetings to take the mic and abuse him, and yet he was still generous and willing to challenge them.

For the rest of the stuff you posted, I tell you endlessly that I don’t like Trump, but I do like the sight of the authoritarian far left whining about losing free speech..

 

[Moxie]

I mean, I don’t know where you should start, maybe you could take any criticisms you may have heard of him from the left - that he’s racist, white supremacist, sexist, I dunno - and watch what he said in full and ask yourself were you lied to. He’s one of those figures who divides, and almost everyone who paid tributes to him preface their remarks by saying “I didn’t agree with everything he said, but…”

He was polite, patient, acting in good faith, he was imperfect but sharp, well learned on what he’d argued for, and he left school aged 18 and began what is now one of the biggest political movements in America. Died aged 31. Incredibly precocious and daring, there’s a far left wing in America which engaged with him, found common cause with him, and praised him for his willingness to discuss openly and fairly with people who not only disagreed with him but who violently hated him. People queued up at his meetings to take the mic and abuse him, and yet he was still generous and willing to challenge them.

For the rest of the stuff you posted, I tell you endlessly that I don’t like Trump, but I do like the sight of the authoritarian far left whining about losing free speech..

I told you I basically didn't even know who he was, so I never felt like I was lied to about him. I'm willing to understand that his heart was in the right place, even if his politics were extreme right. I thought you might have some preference, but, OK.

 

[Kieran]

@Moxie I don’t know much about this bloke Van Jones but I thought this message from him was quite touching and on point from what I’ve seen of Charlie Kirk:

 

[britbox]

I told you I basically didn't even know who he was, so I never felt like I was lied to about him. I'm willing to understand that his heart was in the right place, even if his politics were extreme right. I thought you might have some preference, but, OK.

Could you define what you mean by "extreme right politics" - most people don't seem to be able to when you ask them, so I'd be interested in your definition.

 

[Moxie]

Could you define what you mean by "extreme right politics" - most people don't seem to be able to when you ask them, so I'd be interested in your definition.

Sure, though I'm not sure it's so much a definition as a list of values and beliefs that qualify. I'm not sure how many people you've polled as to how they'd definite it, and why they can't at least tell you what values and beliefs would lean that way. I would say that Christian Nationalism qualifies, because it denies the basic principle of separation of Church and State. If you hold that view, I would say that was extreme right. Likewise, extreme anti-abortion positions, because they tend to be held for religious reasons, and negate individual choice and privacy in the matter. The extreme right leans authoritarian. It tends to the nationalistic, which at its worst promotes racism and white nationalism. It is illiberal in its views on individual freedoms.

Please note, I'm not defining Charlie Kirk's politics, and I'm not talking about the Republican party, per se. You asked me for a definition, but we both know that the extreme right is not one set of tenets, as the extreme left is not, either. I gave you what I consider some qualifying beliefs. I think Charlie Kirk's Christian Natioinalism qualifies him as extreme right. And just because he was willing to hold dialogue, doesn't mean that he didn't hold views that hew strongly to the right. His mission was conversion.

 

[britbox]

Interesting. I ran a couple of questions through an AI which I thought framed things quite well:

What would be your definition of "far right" in relation to politics?

Far‑right is a label used in political science and public discourse to describe ideologies, parties, movements, or individuals that sit at the extreme end of the right‑wing spectrum. While the exact contours can vary across countries and historical periods, several core characteristics tend to recur:

1. Nationalist or ethno‑nationalist emphasis – a strong focus on the nation‑state (or a particular ethnic group) as the primary unit of identity, often coupled with opposition to immigration, multiculturalism, or supranational institutions.
2. Authoritarian tendencies – a preference for strong, centralized authority, limited democratic checks, and sometimes an endorsement of hierarchical social orders. This can manifest as support for “law‑and‑order” policies, militarism, or a charismatic leader who is seen as embodying the nation’s will.
3. Economic conservatism taken to an extreme – advocacy for minimal state intervention in markets combined with protectionist or corporatist policies that serve a particular national or ethnic interest. In some far‑right strands, laissez‑faire economics is blended with state‑directed support for industries deemed vital to national sovereignty.
4. Reactionary cultural stance – a desire to preserve or restore perceived traditional values, often framed as defending “the true culture,” religion, or family structure against progressive change. This can involve hostility toward LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality initiatives, or secularism.
5. Exclusionary or supremacist rhetoric – while not all far‑right groups explicitly espouse racial or religious superiority, many adopt exclusionary narratives that portray certain groups (immigrants, minorities, political opponents) as threats to the nation’s identity or security.
6. Populist framing – positioning themselves as the authentic voice of “the people” against a corrupt elite, media, or establishment, which they claim have betrayed national interests.

Because political contexts differ, the term can encompass a range of movements—from ultra‑nationalist parties in Europe that combine anti‑EU sentiment with strict immigration limits, to extremist militias that promote outright white supremacism, to authoritarian regimes that blend nationalist propaganda with tight political control. Scholars often distinguish far‑right from more mainstream conservative positions by emphasizing the extremity of these traits—particularly the willingness to curtail democratic norms, endorse exclusionary identity politics, or employ violent tactics to achieve goals.
Understanding the far‑right thus requires looking at both ideological content (what ideas are promoted) and behavioral manifestations (how those ideas are pursued in practice). This dual lens helps differentiate between conventional right‑leaning policy preferences and the more radical, often anti‑democratic, currents that fall under the far‑right umbrella.

and what about the "Far Left"

Far‑left denotes the extreme end of the left‑wing spectrum. As with the far‑right, its precise shape shifts across societies and eras, but several recurring attributes help delineate what scholars and commentators usually mean when they speak of the “far left”:

1. Radical egalitarianism – a foundational belief that existing hierarchies—whether economic, class‑based, racial, gendered, or colonial—must be dismantled in favor of a more equal distribution of power and resources. This goes beyond reformist social‑democratic aims and calls for systemic transformation.
2. Anti‑capitalist orientation – a critique of private ownership of the means of production and the profit motive. Far‑left groups often advocate for collective, cooperative, or state ownership, planning economies, or other models (e.g., socialism, communism, anarchism) that seek to replace market‑driven allocation with communal decision‑making.
3. Revolutionary or abolitionist tactics – many far‑left movements view gradual reform as insufficient and instead champion direct action, mass mobilization, or even insurrection to overturn entrenched structures. This can include strikes, occupations, sabotage, or, in some fringe cases, armed struggle.
4. Internationalist perspective – solidarity across borders is emphasized, with an eye toward global emancipation from imperialism, colonialism, and neoliberal exploitation. Far‑left actors frequently align with anti‑imperialist causes and support liberation movements worldwide.
5. Emphasis on identity‑based oppression – while the far‑right often frames politics around exclusion, the far‑left foregrounds inclusion, arguing that class oppression intersects with racism, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc. Intersectionality becomes a central analytical tool.
6. Anti‑authoritarian or libertarian‑socialist strains – within the broader far‑left there are currents (e.g., anarcho‑communism, libertarian Marxism) that reject hierarchical state power altogether, advocating for decentralized, participatory structures such as workers’ councils or community assemblies.
7. Populist rhetoric of “the people versus the elite” – similar to far‑right populism, far‑left discourse often casts capitalists, multinational corporations, and technocratic bureaucracies as oppressors of ordinary citizens, though the moral framing is rooted in exploitation rather than cultural threat.

Because the term spans a wide array of ideologies—from Marxist–Leninist parties that have historically seized state power, to libertarian socialist collectives, to contemporary anti‑globalization movements—the far left is best understood as a set of positions that demand profound, structural change to achieve egalitarian, anti‑capitalist, and often anti‑authoritarian goals. The distinction from mainstream left or social‑democratic politics lies in the extent of the proposed transformation and the willingness to employ radical, sometimes confrontational, strategies to realize it.