Most anarchists consider themselves far-left. Most of the are a libertarian wing of far-left.

> Most anarchists consider themselves far-left.

"Far-left" is a derogatory term, a synonym for "left-wing extremist". Nobody considers themselves an extremist. I've noticed that my own views seem to be to the left of any mainstream political party here. For me, that just means that all the mainstream parties are right-wing.

I reserve the term "far-left" for hyper-dogmatic communist revolutionaries who don't object to using violence for political ends.

Anarchists are far-left. Some far-lest is authoritarian like Marxist-Leninists, some far left is anti-authoritarian like Anarchists.

It appears that you want to use the term "far left" to mean something like "socialist". I agree that anarchists are socialists.

I don't agree that all Marxist-Leninists are authoritarian; and for what it's worth, I'm not aware of any Marxist-Leninist grassroots group operating here (UK).

I repeat: "far-left" is a term of abuse. It's routinely deployed by US persons of the Trumpian and Tea-Party persuasions against anyone they disagree with, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, a party that has never espoused any kind of socialism.

>do you consider yourself neither left nor right on the political spectrum, because you believe that society is fundamentally broken and both sides just further consumerism in different ways (the right supports big business directly, and the left tries to create equal opportunities for everyone to further consumerism)

No, because I find that extremely reductionist, simplistic and naive, In my experience points of view that abandon nuance in favor of equivocation and cynicism tend themselves to be attempts at propaganda and control.

It is true, if you adopt the left/right political model, that both the Democratic and Republican parties in the US serve the needs of capitalism and the military industrial complex. It is not, however, true that all leftist ideology and all right-wing ideology are essentially the same as a result, and that neither have any purpose or value beyond simply being vehicles for capitalism.

Graber was an anarchist and a leftist. For example, quoting from https://davidgraeber.org/articles/is-your-job-bullshit-on-ca...

> I’ve been working with people who’ve become big advocates for a universal basic income. It’s not the only solution, but it conforms with my political instincts. People think that is odd because I’m an anarchist. Why would I want a policy where the government would just give people money? Isn’t that giving power to the government? I say, no.

> A basic income would be the perfect leftist antibureaucratic policy. It would not only reduce the number of bureaucrats, but it would get rid of the worst of them, the annoying ones who decide whether you’re really poor enough to deserve this, or whether you’re really married to that person or whether you really live in that room.

He thought there were multiple ways people considered themselves on the left. For example, from https://davidgraeber.org/articles/from-managerial-feudalism-... :

> The conclusion that I came to is that essentially, the left is applying an outdated paradigm: they’re still thinking in terms of bosses and workers in a kind of old-fashioned industrial sense, when what’s really going on is that for most people the key class opposition is caregivers versus managers. Leftist parties are trying to represent both sides at the same time, but they’re really dominated by the latter.

and that "mainstream left" wasn't barely on the left. From https://davidgraeber.org/interviews/i-found-myself-turning-i... :

> Because, in a way, the left began against bureaucratization of life. It’s about freedom. The mainstream left, which is barely left at all at this point in traditional terms … has really embraced a combination of market and bureaucracy, an equal synthesis of the worst aspects of capitalism and the worst aspects of bureaucracy.

as do many left-wing political parties

well, they wouldn't be left wing if they presented centrist liberal ideals would they? you, too, may be confusing liberalism with leftism. almost as if it was the intended function of the liberal project...

"Left" is a relative concept. The original French revolution left was liberalist. Liberalism is the core ideology of the current western world. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberalists. Even Putin is predominantly a liberalist.

yes, this is what i am saying. modern liberalism is indeed a "core ideology", or put another way, a hegemonic centrist ideal. it is definitionally not leftist. i think it is well understood that most leftist political ideologies recognize the importance of a liberal movement as a precursor. to the original comment this stems from, leftism is in no way an endorsement of consumerism.

I find it more useful to use more "absolute" terms. If by left you mean some fashion of socialism, then indeed left is not liberalist. But in contemporary politics such left is almost non-existant. E.g. most European "socialist" or even "communist" parties are staunchly liberal, and mostly celebrate consumerism.

I don't think "leftism" is really an ideology, or at least it can mean very different things in different contexts.

Edit: I find it also better to use "liberalist" instead of "liberal" when referring to the political movement and ideology. "Liberal" is easy to misinterpret and misuse, and it tends to hide the fact that liberalism a quite specific ideology, that e.g. has no monopoly on liberty.

Especially so called radical liberalism was very important for development of various forms of leftism such as anarchism.

> Even Putin is predominantly a liberalist.

He's an authoritarian autocrat. I've never come across a definition of "liberal" that includes that.

Liberalism is totally OK with authoritarian autocrats as long as they maintain the "freedom" of property holders to do as they please regardless of societal outcomes. Liberalism has a more problematic relationship with democracy. Quite expected as most people suffer from the liberalist economical order, making it somewhat tricky to maintain democratically.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/friedrich-hayek-dictatorshi...

yup yup