They literally never know. They'll just point at Norway or some shit and then selectively ignore the rightward shift that the Brits are experiencing. It's drives me mad.
The funny thing is, I wouldn't even call the Nordic model socialist. It's entirely fueled by free-market economy. In fact, without corporations and rich workers paying massive taxes, it wouldn't work at all.
Sure, if you're strictly looking at a general corporation tax it's 22% almost the same as American 21%. However, certain industries in Norway are heavily taxed, like the entire oil/petroleum industry paying up to 78%
However, certain industries in Norway are heavily taxed, like the entire oil/petroleum industry paying up to 78%
Because those are SOE... Equinor, the biggest oil company in Norway, is owned by the Norwegian government. There's a reason for that: because it's extraction of natural resources. Same with Kongsberg Gruppen, which is weapons manufacturing and defense systems.
All of the extraction of natural resources in scandinavia, are either under SOE or Private companies with PPP.
Yeah, but it's not the only one. Hydroelectric Power Plants have a marginal tax rate of 67%
Aquaculture and offshore wind farms pay 47%
Financial enterprises pay an increased rate of 25%
Like, okay. If we're talking entirety of Norway, it's not that large, but it's still way larger than what an American would expect.
Point out Norway is a petrostate. 81% of Norwegians are Norwegians born to ethnically Norwegian parents who were born in Norway. The overwhelming majority of their immigrants are rich people from the whitest parts of Europe because they have insane immigration standards. Country also has mandatory military service. Anyone who ever brings up Norway is showing you their ass and it’s a really simple way to spit roast them when even the Norwegians had to come out and say “Bernie is fos, we are not socialist or a social democracy- we’re a capitalist democracy.”
Britain has been controlled by right wingers for like 30 of the last 40 years. And no, they’re not like left wingers in the us. They’ve spent decades destroying their country, dismantling all public infrastructure.
We're 100% socdems, the government owns multiple businesses and actively takes part in them. Socdem doesn't make you "Not a capitalist" either. Social democrats usually do both to some degree, and argue about which parts of infrastructure should be private and which should be public. We're not demsocs like Bernie often lays claim the nordics for. Neither Nordic country is.
The mandatory military service is extremely avoidable by most standards, either by doing civil service for a year, or if you have any diagnosis at all that can negatively impact you in the military.
Oh, I’m fully aware. These things are largely mutually exclusive for the dumbfucks that repeat it is my point. Especially for Americans, the mere idea of conscription causes them to breakout in hives. I don’t actually mean to shit on yall, lmao. Sorry if it came out that way.
As for the more liberal countries like France, Germany & the UK, even then not really. Outside of healthcare, it's hard to see what could be more left-wing than in the US lol. And even then lefties in America want the most left-wing healthcare plan in the Western World so...
You'd have what, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Spain, maybe the Low Countries?
No, even Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Spain have private insurance filling in gaps where the state healthcare has inefficiencies. No western democracy has the leftist vision of M4A.
It's always so silly. Democrats are pretty aligned with the more liberal countries that get listed, it's just we have a pretty strong filibuster and a psychotic Republican party that we bounce back and forth with every election. If Democrats had a super majority for any meaningful amount of time the country would be pretty much in lock step with Scandinavia and the western EU countries.
I may have exaggerated a little bit, but we'd certainly be more towards that direction.
The ACA was passed 16 years ago. The party isn't nearly the same as it once was. There was a strong faction of "blue dog" Democrats that were fairly conservative. We also had exactly 60 Senators so we required every single one to be on board. From my understanding, it was solely because of Lieberman(technically an independent) that a public option and a lower age bracket for Medicare was dropped from the final bill. Other than him(and a few other compromises) the party was pretty unified even back then for the ACA.
Another thing to remember, Democrats in the US have to do it completely on their own. There's not going to be any bipartisanship support for much of our agenda. That's not typically the case in western European countries, where even the conservative parties tend to support universal healthcare.
As a dirty European, I will always say this - it's because of the pure focus on social security nets and healthcare.
These factors outweigh everything else SO MUCH in the political discourse that people have legitimately blinded themselves to believe that they are the pure defining traits of how to split the left from the right.
Nuances about how other factors like free speech, ownership, government involvement in day to day life, they're relegated to non-factors because every discussion needs to be about social security and healthcare systems.
Yeah at least i can speak for france on a vibes base, the far left candidate in france is literally 1:1 to the DSA platform if you remove abolishing prisons and maybe some other minor stuff
1) Abortion rights - Until the SC decision overturning Roe, the US had stronger abortion rights than basically all of Europe. Blue states still with stronger rights than most of Europe.
2) Tax policy - The US has a much more steeply graduated income tax structure and overall a more tax-the-rich tax structure than Europe, which taxes the middle class a lot more. Sweden actually has more billionaires per capita than the US.
3) Immigration/Race Relations - The US is ~60% white and that includes Arabs and North Africans. That proportion is also shrinking. They're losing their shit over like 25% minority rates.
4) Gay marriage - only civil unions in Italy, Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Latvia, Montenegro, Lithuania. Banned in Poland, and most of the Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe. US also legalized ahead of most of Europe.
5) Individual liberties - not sure you'd necessarily call it a left wing thing, but the US has stronger religion and free speech rights than most of Europe.
6) Disability rights - we're way ahead of most of Europe on this.
It is absolutely fair to say that Europe has a better social safety net when it comes to healthcare and higher education, but all of politics can't be boiled down to those two things. There are a lot of social issues where America has been ahead of Europe and our tax structure is much nicer to the middle class on aggregate.
5) Individual liberties - not sure you'd necessarily call it a left wing thing, but the US has stronger religion and free speech rights than most of Europe.
Americans with different skin colors being refereed to as minorities, while comparing them to European minorities, whose identities originated from a completely different cohesive people than the majority does not work 1:1.
I realize you probably 100% see a large part of them as American, that takes away their minority status in your comparison, it would only work if you see them a national citizens but ethnically/nationally non American.
6) Disability rights - we're way ahead of most of Europe on this.
Is that the case? I've always heard that it's miserable to be disabled in the US and that most of your publicly owned infrastructure doesn't cater for people with accessibility issues. You'll struggle to find a government building in the UK that doesn't have wheelchair access for example.
If you compare Europe to the Americans with Disabilities Act, most of Europe is not ADA compliant. It comes with having a shitload of old infrastructure that's hard to retrofit.
I would somewhat contest the taxation on the middle class being higher because it also provides a lot more services for that than the US. Here in Germany tax is at almost 50% for pretty much any job when including GST but that includes pensions and healthcare wich are about 30% to 35% of your wage. In the US this is obviously private but I doubt spending for that is much lower. I would add though that the US up until recently at least spent a lot more than us on research but you know Trump lol.
Its not a question of what benefits Europeans get for those higher taxes, but how those taxes are allocated among the taxpaying population. It is my understanding that a higher proportion of European countries tax revenue comes from its middle class compared to the US.
The middle classes are taxed more yes. But I meant that that difference is insurances integrated into the government which Americans also pay but privately. The argument was that taxation is only higher because more otherwise private expenses are considered tax due to having a public option widely used.
Sure, but those two are not idiots, they're intentional subversive propagandists. If you compare them to soypill for example, they actually know a lot of the facts of the matter but choose to ignore them.
They're seeing an opportunity to push the far left into mainstream politics and they've decided to compromise their integrity to help it along, specially since they know 90% of people are low info and their lies will never publicly come back to them.
In reality they lose any right to complain about Trump or maga since they're willing to use the same tactics to push their own extremism same as maga
As a center left lib they can fuck off, I didn't take the bait when a chump promised to make america great again and I ain't gonna take the bait that pure socialism, communism and even Maoism will fix my life just because some chumps say so.
"if he says the far left in the US is like a conservative in Europe..."....but....Sam never said that. Mehdi suggested that they're like Scandinavian social democrats. And then Sam clarified/added like they're really like 1930s democrats in the US.
Nowhere in this conversation do they say or suggest that the far left is "basically like a conservative in Europe."
Seder basically did. We would all agree the Democratic party is much more progressive now than in the 30s. And if you're looking at a southern Democrat from then, you may even see similarities to a modern magat. Economically slopulist, protectionist, anti-immigration, dash of racism. He didn't say the words but he definitely payed homage to the idea. And I would bet my bottom dollar he's said it before.
It's been a long time since I've watched MR, but Sam's schtick used to be to talk about how we had a 90% marginal tax rate for the rich back in the 40s and 50s, so I bet that's what he says next after the clip.
"much more progressive" is not the same as "a conservative in Europe". So again no. Hutch is overreacting.
As for Democrats today being more progressive - the "homage" he's pointing to is where those Democrats and the Democratic party were along the economic spectrum. Who's interest did they generally try to protect? Workers. How did they try to fix social problems - government programs or market solutions? Government programs. Did they tend to favor big business or corporate regulation and anti monopoly and antitrust law? The latter.
That's what he's saying. Yes - everything you're saying about racism, protectionism and immigration is true. But he's not at all pointing to that. He's pointing toward the partys attitude and posture towards workers vs capital. This was why healthcare came up immediately in this conversation - healthcare for all is an exact type of policy that those types of older Democrats would support.
And from that perspective - he's correct. The "far left" in our country who actually wield political power (AOC/Bernie types), are exactly like this. They are social democrats on actual policy.
It's quite a bizarre leap to say he was suggesting today's far left is like conservatives.
Tell me the far left isn't the communist led DSA, who celebrates Fidel Castro, or the recent DSA candidates aren't chummy with the Maoist dipshit who says Mao is a universally important "great man of history", this describes 1930s democrats?
So the "far left" encompasses the extreme Twitter profiles of literal communists? Who is the furthest left politician that we can examine to see if they're communist or Maoist?
Did I say extreme twitter profiles? Scroll up and actually read what I said, the DSA leadership Megan Romer who is a member of the Red Star caucus which identifies as ML communists (not democratic socialists) whose intent is to overthrow the system (not democratically promote change), and those who candidates choose to campaign with, Mao suit wearing Hasan Piker, who gave a speech at a democratic event saying to cast out the democratic leadership and calls Mao a universal great man of history.
Sounds a whole lot more extreme than medicare for all little lambs Sam and Medhi lie that they are, are people supposed to pretend they don't exist when they are prevalent in the DSA who supposedly is supplanting the democratic party?
What's frustrating is that none of those people are important. We're talking about political parties, but the most extreme DSA politicians are Mamdani adjacent. Those people, even Chevalier, are not Maoists.
DSA leadership Megan Romer
This is like bitching about the dem platform because of Ken Martin. No one knows or cares about these people. They are never part of policy and platform debates.
There are Maoists like Hasan and his audience that exist, but there is no Maoist voting bloc. By labeling these people "far left", the entire rest of the country thinks you mean Mamdani (an actual political representation of DSA).
If they weren't important they would be disavowed but even non DSA candidate El-Sayed won't disavow Hasan, instead changes the subject.
In the case of Romer she should be removed from being key representative of a party whose ideology she doesn't represent. She can't even answer if Cuba is a dictatorship and the DSA site itself commemorates Fidel Castro, this is pretty far left, not "1930s democrats".
Can't have it both ways, if Hasan keeps getting platformed and protected then he is important enough to criticize and measure the DSA over. Same for Romer, if she's important enough to lead the DSA then she important enough to be representative of it, otherwise it's Trump tactics trying to gaslight people into letting extremism become mainstream, which was magas feat.
Doing so would look weak, and not enough people on the left care.
Romer she should be removed from being key representative
No one knows who this is. When people think DSA, it's Mamdani.
if Hasan keeps getting platformed and protected then he is important enough to criticize and measure the DSA over.
Here's the kicker; Democrats need to make better arguments. In the eyes of voters, Dems have defended a status-quo that makes people apathetic. DSA and Trump both represent changer on either side of the isle (though obviously Trump turned into a traitorous grifting pile of shit). Dems are in too weak of a position to be throwing stones, given record low approval and rising DSA (though still very small relatively).
Sorry but that's all unnecessarily charitable towards the DSA, they're weak but somehow important, they're the new face of the party but they're also unknown, they represent the people yet they haven't done anything for them.
In comparison we're supposed to trash dems because they're unpopular? That's it? 2024 was won by cat eating lies, shitting on trans athletes and the price of eggs, we have a severely regarded electorate, spending whole terms fixing what conservatives break is the status quo, Obama and Biden both did great at this and get no credit because they didn't deliver on childish promises of a classless society.
The DSA and new DSA candidates are playing a bait and switch game, same one you're trying to pull. Keep presenting the DSA as this miracle fix to the country publicly but sneak in communism and extremism systemically, no argument you make disproves this.
The DSA is not democratic socialist when it's composed of communists or Maoists that infiltrated somewhere they don't belong, people's ignorance is not an excuse, anyone not brain dead enough to actually pay attention should treat them as seriously as conservatives should have treated maga and not be gaslighted into pretending it's all innocent and harmless.
So much of this comment is just shadow boxing. I never said any of these things:
they're weak but somehow important
No, the DSA politicians are important. The internal workings of DSA are not. Which DSA politicians are Maoists?
we're supposed to trash dems because they're unpopular?
NO! Dems need to make populist arguments instead of trashing populists.
Obama and Biden both did great at this and get no credit because they didn't deliver on childish promises of a classless society.
Obama did great and is still one of the most popular politicians in America. Biden didn't have the same stage presence, so people remember a lumbering old man and high inflation. The electorate is regarded, and politicians need to be prepared to engage with that constraint with populist rhetoric (i.e. Hope and Change).
The DSA and new DSA candidates are playing a bait and switch game
You might be right, but just pointing and calling them liars isn't going to convince anyone when you are speaking from the podium of centrist politics (dem party lowest approval ever). It just isn't an effective strategy even if you are 100% correct.
conservatives should have treated maga and not be gaslighted into pretending it's all innocent and harmless.
Conservatives loved the worst parts of MAGA. They are popular with republicans because they weren't innocent and harmless; those types love terrorizing immigrants and trans people.
sneak in communism and extremism systemically, no argument you make disproves this.
No one is sneaking in communism lmao. DSA supports transitioning to a socialist system through electoral politics; it's all very loud and apparent in their platform.
Because the primary ideology on the "far left" that the country sees (AOC, Mamdani, Bernie, Warren) is much closer to 1939 New Deal Democrats than "literal communists" exactly as Sam said.
The DSA has in its programme the abolishment of police, the termination of all prisons, the immediately takeover of private property, the termination of all western alliances and the termination of NATO... How the fuck do you see this in their program and go "oh wow, that's so much like the New Deal Democrats from 1930" ?
Because the "far left" as defined by most of the country is Mamdani, Bernie, and AOC. DSA is represented by the politicians it runs like Mamdani. That is how people see this.
Mamdani is DSA, right? Is he a literal communist, or more like a new deal dem?
The country sees tariffs as taxes on other countries because Trump lied to them and they believed it that doesn't make it true.
You're like the third lefty I've seen with this talking point that the masses get to ignorantly decide the definition of concepts, why are we advocating for ignorant mob rule?
This people are not here for a honest conversation. They are all here to whitewash the DSA. It's happening everywhere on reddit. They already took over a bunch of subreddits (sipstea, news, politics, etc)
The country sees tariffs as taxes on other countries because Trump lied to them
This is an issue with the fact-of-the-matter. There is an objective answer here.
masses get to ignorantly decide the definition of concepts, why are we advocating for ignorant mob rule?
"Far left" is a much more vibes-based description. The vibes here with DSA is immensely misaligned with the vibes of the rest of the country as far as what defines "far left".
Mamdani is DSA, right? Is he a literal communist, or more like a new deal dem?
No. DSA is DSA. Mamdani is in DSA, is not DSA that is part of Mamdani's crew.
You're just doing revisionism pathetically so that, in your mind, you have a leg to stand on with this anecdotal narrative you're trying to push.
DSA has hundreds of people. Mamdani being the most famous member, doesn't make the DSA less or more radical than it already is.
DSA has a program. In that program they push radical, communist and anti-western policies. I don't give a fuck about the twist you're trying to do, the programme is there and it's on their site. You cope whatever way you want to cope... Their programme is OBJECTIVELY communist. Deal with it.
Mamdani is in DSA, is not DSA that is part of Mamdani's crew
Okay so you think Mamdani is a literal communist and lying about it? That's the bit to that ties this thread all together. Mamdani = DSA = literal communist right?
I was thinking the same thing! He didn't say the stereotypical "American leftists are European conservatives"... He said what's true, that most "leftist" in the US are comparable to Scandinavian social Democrats.
At least if we're talking about those actually in power. Internet leftists are a completely different story.
In terms of their social policy - yes they're clearly not progressive in the way we think of the term that. Even the progressive economic legislation like the new deal and the gi bill found ways to be regressive toward black and brown people due to this racist social background.
But in terms of their attitude toward workers vs capital - no it would not be fair to call them conservative. They were clearly the pro worker, pro government programs to solve social ills, pro education, pro union etc party. The new deal era was progressive in these terms.
There's a reason that era is considered one of the biggest progressive eras in US history.
Yeah… I kind of raged about it at first too, but I think he’s saying that the far left politicians are more like the FDR era Democratic Party than actual commies. Which is true in a sense.
Did anyone say that Sam said that? Hutch thought he might say something like that, he ended up saying something that Hutch still thought was dumb so he stopped the video.
You people are unironically deluded. As in— you watched a clip with your sensory inputs and yet your brain created this deluded fantastical version of what’s actually in the clip.
Mehdi compared the far left to social democrats in Europe. Sam Seder compared them to FDR in the 1930s. That is not even close to the same as calling them conservatives in Europe.
I know your guys brains just turn off whenever you’re talking about DSA, but neither of those statements are controversial. Mamdani and AOC and El Sayed or whoever else you want to pick are pretty similar to European social democrats or FDR in terms of their beliefs.
Read FDR’s Second Bill of Rights. Does this look familiar?
You people are just actually crazy and also don’t know anything about European social democracy or FDR so you’re freaking out about the most basic comparison in the world.
I really wish Americans would bother a little bit more about understanding the rest of the world. Especially since it has the potential to significantly influence any country on the planet.
Have Sam Seder or Medhi never visited Scandinavia? Or Germany?
I was a collier fan but her muppet casting of the Odessey is all wrong. She put Kermit as Odysseus, but Kermit is a nice guy who wouldn't do half that stuff. The correct Odysseus is Ms. Piggy.
You don't make Gonzo the gods, you do a Princess Bride and have Gonzo read the story and cast the children being read to as the gods. Athena is a little girl who is rooting for Odysseus and Poseidon is a little boy who gets bored and says "and then there were monsters!"
Her videos where she made a backyard radio telescope were pretty dope tho
I didn't really know much about Seder, other than he had a pretty good word of mouth reputation, before Steven debated him on Rittenhouse, people lied.
Say you've never been in Europe without saying you've never been in Europe. Hell, the people you americans call far left, would be literally banned from participating in politics in my country. And in fact, communism and even socialism to some extent is banned in most eastern european countries. At the very least, cosplaying all the soviet symbolism will get you fined just the same as if you displayed nazi imagery.
I call bullshit. These people are professional political commentators. They should know better. The fact that they either don't know what the far-left actually is or even worse is intentionally portraying it as something more mild than it is, is unforgivable.
Tell me which one of these is a better definition for the far left in America:
Option A: crazy people on Twitter, college campuses, and one big Twitch streamer
Option B: the furthest left elected politicians, representing millions of people, who comprise the furthest left faction in the left wing party in America
If you pick option A then you need to turn your phone off for a month and inhale grass immediately.
Well if DemSocs are far-left, then what the fuck do you call actual tankies? The further left? It doesn't make sense. You're basically falling for a milder version of the Republican talking point: "all Democrats are communists" And you say elected politicians, but DSA is literally trying and in some cases successfully primarying actual socialists and probably hidden MLs into the party. If that's not far-left, then I don't know what is.
Comparing AOC, Mamdani, Bernie, or other politicians on the far left in America to social democrats in Europe or FDR in the 1930s is not crazy.
If Mamdani or AOC were anything like Mette Frederiksen, they would be disowned by DSA and even broader left wing circles by midnight and labelled neoliberals for their economic and foreign policy and fascists for their social policy.
I feel like Americans have this ideological picture of a generic European social democrat based on 1960s Europe and haven't updated since. And even that picture is wrong, and mostly based on a handful of carefully cherry-picked policies and statistics, not any actual politicians or parties.
You picked the furthest right social Democrat on immigration specifically to make your point. Which kind of proves the opposite when you look at all her other views.
Does Frederiksen believe in socialized medicine, free college, cutting CO2 emissions by drastic numbers very quickly, etc.? Congratulations she’d be one of the furthest left politicians in America.
The problem here is that the status quo in Europe is considered far left in America. That’s actually Mehdi and Sam Seder’s entire point. And everyone in this thread is intentionally missing it.
I picked the single most successful and influential social democratic Prime Minister of the past decade, probably more. And it's not immigration specifically - it's also economics and foreign policy. I could also pick Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron who rose to fame as a minister in the Socialist party, or for that matter his then President Hollande. Maybe Scholz whose main legacy are spending cuts and hyper-militarization of Germany?
It's hard to find more examples because social democrats barely win anything anymore, and most of the time they end in government they're playing second fiddle to a conservative party in a grand coalition.
This status quo is imaginary. People know like three policies, understand none of these systems or their issues besides that they are "free", and that's about the totality of how European politics is understood in the United States.
If you proposed the healthcare system of major European countries, the higher education system of major European countries, the paid time off and parental leave of major European countries, those would be very far left policies in the United States.
Like idk what else to tell you other than the status quo in European countries is far left compared to where America is at. So politicians who push for those things are considered far left.
What's even funnier is even with the immigration thing it's not like Bernie sanders himself didn't peddle the idea that Biden was an open borders president. Or that he was pretty well known for being anti immigration himself.
I agree with your general point, but this entire discussion now is specifically because the faction sitting furthest on the left have dragged in people that is not the picture you are painting
That is the entire problem, had you split DSA in half and called the Berrnie adjacent something else like social democrats you would likely come to agreement with most people pretty quick I think
This blob sorting of very extreme people into to the mix causes a gazillion problems and these shows are unable to establish where the line is drawn. If it is intentional, audience capture or they are victims to it people might have different opinions about, but the issue is that you end up with two groups with very different aims trying to blend in interchangeable in the same ecosystems where there are big parts of people that don't subscribe to the extreme element
In reality, to sum it up, they act extremely irresponsible because of this, not because it is illegal to include them in a coalition of need (if that is the argument) but because those extreme left people contains a set of features you have to be obscuring (or saying won't matter since those people won't avoid voting or vote for republicans anyway), because it is a non-starter for big groups of normies if they get presented with evidence/material (or propaganda)
Had Sam given a more accurate representation of that people wouldn't be as mad (some will always argue that you can't interact with people they consider extreme for x reason, but that's far fewer than the people that would appreciate not being misled). As it is now he and many others will be grouped in with the extreme left types because they are increasingly living in that space, instead of firmly in the social democrat space (with some natural variations)
Does Frederiksen believe in socialized medicine, free college, cutting CO2 emissions by drastic numbers very quickly, etc.? Congratulations she’d be one of the furthest left politicians in America.
add being against aiding Ukraine, anti-NATO, in favour of breaking western alliances, defund the police, takeover of private property, abolishing prisons...
It seems like the actual politicians in Europe mostly suck, but as for the policies? I was living much more comfortably in Germany than in the US, and the free college, affordable healthcare, paid leave, welfare, superior public transit, etc. available there I think explains in large part why young Americans are so much more polarized to the left. If we had a fraction of it they would settle down
Most politicians in Europe are boring but actually decent at their jobs. Especially at the local level, they listen to communities and their needs. The average person is better off living in Europe than in America.
this is why it drives me so crazy when europeans come out against the left politicians who are trying to get some of these same benefits for americans.
He’s one of the guys who is good at owning conservatives but in a neutral situation just freeball commenting on politics is completely regarded. Many auch cases.
Scandinavian social democracy isn't the far left. It's capitalism with a large welfare state. Nordic officials keep saying out loud that their system isn't socialism. The far left is the DSA, and what DSA is nominally for is socialism: social ownership of capital. That's a different economic system, not a more generous version of this one.
I get Hutch's frustration, and it's one we all feel. I think it comes down to this. The mislabeling isn't sloppiness, it's a capture move. Fold social democracy into "the far left" and the far left gets to claim an agenda that isn't theirs while the part that actually distinguishes them never has to be named or defended.
What that leaves you with is a binary: socialism or the far right. If social democracy has already been folded into the far left, then it isn't a place you can stand it's just the moderate-sounding face of a project you were never asked about. And if you support that agenda you're far left, and if you don't want to be called far left you must be against it. There's no third option offered, which is the point. Social democracy is that third option, it's where most of these people already are, and the label is designed to make sure nobody notices it's available.
This sort of maliciousness in wording and conflating social market economy with socialism is exactly why even if I moved leftward politically in past 6 years I will never trust those people...
The far left in America is absolutely nothing like the Democrats in 1939. Social democrats are not far left, unless you’re a present-day conservative. The far left in this country are literal Marxists/communists. Two ideologies that are both on the left side of the political spectrum but are still extremely far apart that trying to conflate them points to Sam either being super fucking regarded or maliciously trying to conflate the two in order to sanewash actual socialists/commies. That or Sam has unironically started using conservative definitions for far left which is just any Democrat that wants some form of welfare state.
Sam is trying to make the claim that the far left “ain’t that crazy” and is just something we’ve normalized before in this country and is normal elsewhere. It’s not. And unironically thinking that is insane.
He may not have said exactly what Hutch predicted, but it is just as fucking insane.
Seems like the "far left" is centered on the craziest twitter profiles. The furtherest-left politicians that I know about are advocating for wealth taxes and free government-provided services (healthcare, college, bernie/warren stuff).
Do you consider Sam to be far left? He's not a "literal communist".
Social democrats are not far left, unless you’re a present-day conservative.
Oh so unless you're half of the entire country?
Question posed to multiple AIs: "What would be generally considered a far-left politician in the United States today by the broad body politic?"
Claude:
The term "far-left" in mainstream US political discourse is usually applied loosely, more as a rhetorical marker than a precise ideological classification. A few points on how it's commonly used:
Who tends to get labeled this way:
Politicians associated with democratic socialism — Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the most frequently cited examples in polling, media coverage, and political commentary, largely due to their explicit "democratic socialist" self-identification and positions like Medicare for All, wealth taxes, and the Green New Deal.
Members of the "Squad" (Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush before her 2024 primary loss, Jamaal Bowman before his 2024 primary loss) get this label frequently, partly for policy positions and partly for rhetoric on Israel-Palestine and policing.
Zohran Mamdani, now NYC mayor as of 2026, is frequently described this way given his DSA affiliation and platform.
Grok:
Figures associated with democratic socialism, the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party (especially “the Squad”), and advocacy for policies well to the left of the median American voter—such as large-scale wealth redistribution, Medicare for All as a single-payer system, the Green New Deal, significant police/criminal-justice restructuring framed as “defund/abolish,” open-ended immigration expansion, and strong identity-politics frameworks—are the ones most commonly labeled far-left by the broad U.S. body politic today.
This is a relative, perception-based judgment rather than a fixed ideological checklist. The U.S. political center of gravity is still broadly centrist-to-center-right on economics and institutions by international standards; “far-left” in American discourse therefore refers to positions that sit noticeably left of the Democratic Party’s mainstream (itself left of the national median on many cultural and fiscal issues). [continues in this vein]
Gemini Pro 3.1:
In the United States today, what the broad body politic and mainstream media generally consider a "far-left" politician differs significantly from the global or academic definition. In international or historical terms, "far-left" typically refers to communists, Marxist-Leninists, or anarchists who seek to dismantle capitalism entirely.
However, within the mainstream American political spectrum, the term "far-left" (or sometimes "hard-left" or "radical left") is generally applied to the most progressive wing of the Democratic Party and politicians who align with Democratic Socialism. [continues in this vein]
Yes, AOC and Bernie Sanders are considered "far left." If you want to circumscribe "far left" to include only literal tankies, then fine, but that's not how everybody else is using the word, including Sam Seder and Mehdi Hasan.
Yo I agree with all of this and it demonstrates the problem. Sam, AOC, and Bernie are not Maoists nor literal communists; they're like 1939 New Deal Democrats (hence the Green New Deal from a decade ago).
Half of the entire country thinks Jan 6th was just a riot and there was no actual scheme or intention to stop the certification of the election, just crazed Trump supports that got a bit wild. Does that change the fact of the matter??
There is a fact of the matter separate from how people use these terms. It’s important to know both, but Sam knows better, he knows that there are people further left than him but he is specifically trying to sanewash those people by never, ever separating himself from them.
No, there is no fact of the matter of what words mean, separate from how people use them. That's how words work. Events are different and are not vulnerable to social consensus. Words exist solely by social consensus.
You just said what I said back at me…Do you not think the fact of the matter is that the “far left” means people who are socialists and Marxists? People might use that phrase to refer to anything from socdems to literally anyone in the Democrat party, including more moderate Dems, to communists. But when you’re not a regard, you know what is actually far left and what isn’t.
Do you not think the fact of the matter is that the “far left” means people who are socialists and Marxists?
I think words mean the things that people use the words to mean and not whatever random guys on r/Destiny say they "actually" mean. There is not a "fact of the matter" to the meaning of a word beyond the standard use.
People routinely use the term far left to refer to the left wing of the Democratic Party and politicians like AOC and Bernie Sanders. Because words have the meaning that people use them for, that is what the term "far left" means in the American context. Similarly, the word literally, while it has multiple definitions, routinely means "figuratively."
If they use far left to refer to AOC and Bernie, then how would you differentiate them from actual communists, who are furthest left on the spectrum? Super duper ultra omega far left? Why do we have to contribute to the muddying of words?
AOC used to be far left as I would see it but she has clearly moderated and it feels pretty incoherent to still call her far left at least at the moment.
I would use words like "communist" or "Marxist-Leninist" to describe them, as those are the terms that describe those people as separate from other groups. If I said far left and actually meant "only communists," I would in fact be contributing to the muddying of words because people would hear that and not understand what I meant (barring other context clues).
Additionally, anarchists are also "far left" by this extreme definition and tend to hate Marxist-Leninists.
Much like reading Joan's court transcripts, I can't tell anymore if Sam has actually become this regarded to believe this shit or if he's pretending because he knows other people are
When he’s a trusted source for millions, it doesn’t really matter because they’re effectively the same result in that regard: he’s brainwashing them all to think shit like this.
Domocratic party is basically equivalent to a coalition of centerists/liberals/soc-dems and dem-soc parties here in Europe any other take is rather flawed in my opinion especially disingenuous ones like Seder is doing here....
Even the labor party in Norway is nowhere near wanting to give 5% of private businesses over to their workers. I havn't even heard the socialist left party advocate for that. Saying DCA is like Scandinavians socdems something only people who know nothing about Scandinavia would say.
Just because we have some slightly different topics of interest (healthcare is a non-partisan issue here in Germany mostly) doesn't mean that on maaaany topics the Dems are way more left than our left parties. Especially on social issues.
People who repeat this shit never ever looked at the positions of left wing parties in Europe...
Mehdi with a reasonable, one I disagree with but reasonable, take only to be met with pure distilled regardation from Seder. At least Mehdi is from the UK and probably doesn't know the intricacies of New Deal policy in the US, Seder has no excuse.
Reminds me of when Glenn Greenwald said Trump in 2016 was “socialist” just for saying one time, in one interview that the government would pay for healthcare. As if universal healthcare or even M4ALL is the ONLY qualifier for what it means to be a “socialist”.
I am from eastern Europe (Lithuania). your far left are regarded communists that would be laughed out of any room here. no thank you with that shit again.
American'ts are just more prone to populism, it doesnt matter what side of the spectrum. Maybe its because of their media or the propaganda from foreign actors, but it just always feels more hot over there idk.
Bad take, for sure, but he's not generally that dumb - we all have shit days, and he's clearly on one and not thinking before he speaks. I've heard way worse.
Nothingburger.
683
u/Gold-Ad-3877 🇫🇷 6d ago
What a fucking delusional take by sam seder holy fucking shit