By: Eugene Malwrick

What does it mean to be considered far left in modern society?

Previously, that question would be identified with liberal individuals who emphasized the collective good, such as unions’ benefit of collective bargaining rights, protesting unfair conditions, and the general mass of society acting with conscionable efforts to make society better. In essence, the far-left means collectivism. Not in a socialist or communist way, but rather purely in the form of people coming together for the expressed purpose of exerting force through collective means. In essence, the far-left strives for ubiquity rather than specificity.

From this philosophy derives certain big-government tendencies that lay the foundations for socialism and communism, but this new century of far-left will more than likely turn its back to those systems due to their sordid pasts and failed totalitarian associations. Due to the overwhelming progressivism attitude, the far-left will likely create a new social system based on technological innovations intermixed with an emphasis on the collective will of the people, such as groups as the Zeitgeist Movement and the Coffee Party.

Generally, like previous decades, the far-left often incorporates hyper-academia-and-intellectualism. This can at times be a problem when the theoretical and abstraction of human minutiae become constant debate, since at a certain point there will be no action merely committees, subcommittees, votes, filibusters, diplomacy, paper work, and general bureaucracy that was initially established as protective means to ensure the good of the country but invariably leads to indecision and social inertia. The phrase “either shit or get off the pot” seems fit in this case.

The far-left’s intellectualism can at times be its drawback, since the ivory towers of academia are not an all-inclusive resort, but can, and often times are, very exclusive. The old adage that those behind the books are on tap, not on top applies. The same reason why the far-left distanced itself in previous decades from the mass of society is the same as it was then with regards to its emphasis on intellectualizing and philosophizing everything.

Then the radicalization of the far-left has led in many cases to violent opposition to mainstream society, such as The Weathermen Underground. While the Occupy Movement has remained generally civil in its disobedience, thousands of dollars, probably millions, in damages have been reported since its inception. The universal protestor is not necessarily cheap for society. And because a large sect of the far-left are artists, academics, writers, philosophers, and the such, there isn’t much in the far-left’s conception of how to rebuild society. Unless, of course, you read something like The Anarchist Cookbook, which proposes a violent destruction of modern society. The action of the far-left, therefore, doesn’t look much better than the theorizing.

What does it all equate to? Theoretically, the far-left strives for a harmonious society based on the principles of inclusion, integration, acceptance, and progressivism. History, in many ways, has taught that people often have a hard time accepting other people’s religions, politics, and other minute differences (like skin color, sexual orientation, geographical accent, and the such). Wars have been fought in the names of all of the above, and will unfortunately be continued to be fought in this upcoming century and beyond. Heterogeneity, while ideal, sounds often times too utopic for reality. But there is nothing to suggest that mankind cannot at one point reach such idealism, it would just mean a constant struggle.

But overall, the far-left will continually reiterate the symbolism of humanity’s connectivity in the developing globalization of modern society. Physically, the far-left are generally young, hipster-looking individuals with an odd sense of style, while mentally they realize the limitations of every individual and see the potential benefits in banning together to create a mutually-beneficial society that identifies the importance of each individual in the grand scheme.