You're viewing a single thread.
I've never heard this before. The US has "left" and "right" like everyone else, not that I don't consider those terms entirely based on imaginary association. I always found it intriguing "left and right" is a scale but policies themselves are seen as binary. Just because the "left" does not come across as represented in this particular culture does not silence them, at least not at the moment.
This is because there is no true left in the US.
The American left has moved so much towards the right that it is mostly centre to right
You say that as if there aren't people of every political view in almost every country and/or that the US is weeding them out. What the representation trends say do not speak for whether there has always existed those of viewpoints further down a scale. Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, both appreciated and not, can be found scattered across US traditional history and coloring the geography of some of the fifty states, such as parts of New York and Vermont and in Louisiana where Huey Long was once a governor who fell just short of being considered Communist. There is indeed a community in the US that one might call "the true left", even if the people who end up elected are generic politicians. It sounds much like the "non-Roman-pagan philosophies didn't exist in Rome" view.
Because "there is no true left" is a lot shorter than "while individuals with strong left-wing ideologies exist in the US, the current political power structure leaves them almost full disenfranchised, forcing them to either vote for right-wing parties or forego their vote" is really not very catchy.
I mean, the US is a democratic republic, the whole point is that the most resonating choice for ruler becomes the ruler... that a section of the political sphere wouldn't become the one represented by the ruler is nothing striking and nothing to be ashamed of. Equally there being "no true right" is a common shortener because nobody in office ever advocated (true) Fascism beyond what could be found trending in other political crowds at certain times in history.
the whole point is that the most resonating choice for ruler becomes the ruler...
Do you actually believe that the political establishment/ruling class of this country has ever "resonated" with the majority of people?
At least in recent times, there is much more evidence to the contrary.
To an extent. They might artificially thrust some people into the game, and the system is clunky, but as far as votes go when votes are offered, they are listened to. If the person in charge was a cheat, it would technically prove my point even more, because it would imply it's not a true game of representation and that those of us who may be considered adherents to "left" streams of thought are on more street corners than the "they're a demographic minority" view might suggest.
The only options people have to vote on are what are offered to them. The problem is, that in the US, you need money to become an option. That money comes mainly from corporations. Corporations won't back a left wing party or politician.
I can name several examples to the contrary. Google is the most successful business in the entire nation, and they've been 100% consecutively in favor of "left" choices, often even promoting logo imagery of people whom a decade ago would be considered radicals. Don't forget corporations in the modern era have sacrificed face to make completely meaningless changes to their marketing that they knew would put them in the path of the opposition to cancel culture (Aunt Jemima, Budweiser, etc.). The idea that corporations don't have at least a little sense of "left" is false.
Nothing Google does or supports is actually a leftist anything. You're making the same mistake all Americans make - buying into the propaganda that left/right is about social permissiveness. It's actually an economic spectrum, and every meaningful company or organization is either far right, or extreme right.
Google and other major corporations will try garner goodwill by supporting ideas that they want people to think of them as. Its the same with pride support and green washing.
If you as an American ( I assume) believe that Google is positioned to the left, l'd say you basically proove the point of there not being a left in the US
Even though Google knows it's facing backlash for said views? It's been a decade and they still flagship "left" streams of thought, posting videos about them on YouTube every two instances, typically with the comments/ratings disabled as a defense mechanism. What is that garnering? On at least three occasions they had a Google doodle of people who outright celebrated terrorism and 9/11 as steps in the right direction. Definitely not typical PR.
I'm not so sure. The US sure is a democratic republic by 18th century standards. But you still retain that system that makes someone win the presidency who doesn't have the absolute majority of votes. And some of the states don't really count in the campaigns since it's obvious if they're blue or red.
I've watched too much George Carlin. I think the system with the two parties is more to give you the illusion of having a choice. Same with the theoretical availability of 'left' individuals.
And I mean we have enough examples of systems suppressing people. A theoretical possibility doesn't help if there's no real choice. And you can keep the masses uneducated and occupied with lots of work so they don't have time to get to power. I think that's some of the dynamics in the USA that keep the system as is. Also, Putin also was elected somewhat democratically. It's just that he got rid of his opposition. And the USA is more or less doing a similar thing. Just that they provide the people with a second choice, some illusion of choice that gives the people something to keep busy arguing about. In practice they both are a slightly different hue of the same color.
So on the paper, it's a democratic system and you'd be correct arguing with me. In practice it's deliberately set up in a way that votes can't change anything of substance.
Even if it's a clunky system, what I meant is it's still an evened out system, equally fluid for everyone even if some of that fluidity manifests more often for some than others. It should also be remembered the US is a nation where the leadership is not the whole of control. To those whose complaint here is that things seem preselected against their wishes (and against mine, I want to stress I'm not implying I disagree with them policy-wise), there is still at least some element of choice before things are narrowed down to the two choices. The US is not using a "loud/might makes right" approach at the moment, just a bumpy process, which sets it apart from Russia for example which is arguably de facto quasi-feudalist.
It isn't evened out for everyone. That's like saying "now taxes are a flat 100k each year and it's correct because it sucks for everyone". When a milionaire (a party with a following) wouldn't care, someone who is starting out (and could for instance gain 5% of the vote in this election) would get dumpstered and prevented from gaining more votes next election, since they'd be "on the board" and people would see them
When I say evened out, I mean in indication of the fact there's a difference between having a voice (which everyone has the same amount of), everyone having differing levels of being able to have a voice, and being heard or unheard, as well as a difference between being dismissed on a fair/honest or relatively fair/honest basis (as in they're overshadowed according to fair rules) and being dismissed unfairly as a result of certain people being prioritized by means that would rig the game. "Wealth is a prerequisite to power" isn't the whole story and misrepresents the complexity of the process which in turn would allow more of a chance for everyone than that. Some past members of the government (of all roles, senator, governor, etc.) have been incredibly poor and largely disconnected from any wealth structure.
I don't think it's an evened out system. It's that on paper. I think we can agree on that. But the proper question is: Is that paper worth anything, anymore?
And is it evened out? What percentage of their salaries do lower class people pay for taxes and healtcare and the infrastructure? What percentage is it for rich people? Is there lobbyism being the biggest influence on what gets decided in politics? Who can afford that and gets their itches scratched? The big companies or the rural population? And do they even get some audience in the TV news shows, their voices heard?
As another reply said, when I say evened out, I mean in indication of the fact there’s a difference between having a voice (which everyone has the same amount of), everyone having differing levels of being able to have a voice, and being heard or unheard, as well as a difference between being dismissed on a fair/honest or relatively fair/honest basis (as in they’re overshadowed according to fair rules) and being dismissed unfairly as a result of certain people being prioritized by means that would rig the game. Certain things do surpass lobbyists, which I do acknowledge is a large force, but which, if it were the largest influence on politics, I'm sure would in turn surpass any meaning to any discussion on the two party system, another thing which I acknowledge might affect the gears (but not the outcome, if enough people of a certain opinion so willed, which is my point) of the government. There are many avenues around each blockage.
Yeah, what I mean is, sure there are some specific counterexamples far and in between. But if it weren't for the pharma lobby, you'd spend $8.000 on healthcare instead of $14.000 per year. And you'd live 2-3 years longer on average. I think 99.9% of the population would gladly accept that. But it ruins some of the business model of the 0.1% who get to make the decisions. It'll never happen in the USA because it's just on the paper that the people decide. And some of them aren't even educated enough to do so. Same thing with school shootings and other things people regularly complain about.
Sure individuals exist! I am even sure that many would vote for the left if they could. But because the US political system is what it is, they can't vote for a politician or party that will represent their ideology. Hence, there is no left in the US even though people might actually want it to be.
they can’t vote for a politician or party that will represent their ideology.
Says who? Nobody can guarantee they'll succeed, but everyone can be guaranteed an honest vote. We're not living in the Hollywood Blacklist era anymore. I've seen Marxist mayors win mayoral seats.
I think that we keep misunderstanding each other and i can't figure out if its intentional. I am pretty sure that this is about the two party system and none of them being on the left
I thought the gist was about the supposed deterrence of potential "left" aspects of American culture as present in the individuals, which is mutually exclusive from the situation in the American leadership (especially if they don't fully represent the people, which I don't disagree with), especially if they aren't the only positions of influence.
There is a similar discussion in Mexico... you have the leadership which is historically "left" while the grand majority of the population is historically "right", all before they get mixed up with America's "left" because that's the association they have when you run into debates about closed or open borders. Several EU countries come to mind as well, many have locked-in systems that contrast with the people. The two parties in Canada (because most countries have two parties) are both significantly more "left" that the people, but nobody there is saying there's "no true right", so why do we say America has "no true left"?
Were they genuinely Marxist? Or did people just call them Marxist because they had more liberal policies than the norm for the area? Liberalism ≠ socialism, and socialism ≠ Marxism.
Some did identify as Marxist. Not sure how to square that with what counts "as objectively Marxist" since political labels tend to act as a sum of the policies. If a nation that's canonically supposed to be "Marxist" has a policy out of place, is it "not Marxist", as opposed to two, three, four, etc.? Without a doubt many nations in the fold of Marx were more unbecoming of Marx himself that the towns I'm thinking of.
What the OP's question is referring to is whether or not there is an organized political movement of any real size or structure that represents leftist ideology (which at minimum I describe as anti capitalist). In the 2 major parties, there is not. Full stop. Of the lesser parties which have a snowballs chance in hell of actually getting real power? Probably not. Greens bad Dem Soc are not explicitly anti capitalist as far as I'm aware.
There are certainly what might be called organized political movements of that kind, even if they aren't at the top of their game, which like I said resembles the Roman analogy I gave. There will always seem to be something that sticks to the leadership, something that sticks to certain commoners, and things that are unlike either one to do. It's a democratic republic, there will always be the unsung people, this isn't striking or anything to be ashamed of. All have different supposed degrees of conceptualizations of capital, which isn't uncommon even in Marxist countries, many of which retain some aspects of that policy sphere, something I say in connection to where I mention how intrigued I am that "left and right" is a scale while each individual policy is built on "yes" or "no". You may have heard the common adage "China is becoming more capitalist while America is becoming more socialist", and the American Democrat Party was in fact in one of the Communist Internationals if I'm correct.
Look up the Overton window.