What is the Alt-Left?

Question

What is the Alt-Left and how different are they from the Far-Left or Ultra-Left? Are they similar to the Alt-Right in any way?

The alt-right isn't a single thing either. It's a conglomerate that has no real cohesion other than opposition to democrats and will pull itself apart. — Joshua, Oct 09 '17 at 03:22
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — Sam I am says Reinstate Monica, Oct 10 '17 at 03:17
I have never heard of Alt-Left (except in computer courses maybe) until today. I wish the question would cite some prominent uses of the term because asking about the meaning. On the other hand a quick wikipedia search already gives a definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Alt-left. A bit more initial research would be nice. — NoDataDumpNoContribution, Oct 10 '17 at 09:30

score 162 · Accepted Answer · edited Oct 20 '19 at 22:39

162

The alt-left is not really a thing unless you live in Switzerland, where it is a political party.

In the US, it's a term that got cooked up by the alt-right to describe their fantasized progressive equivalent. The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing.

There's the oddball violent antifa, but where the aim of such would-be alt-left might be fighting intolerance or a better (re)distribution of wealth, that of the alt-right is white supremacy. Personally, I find it hard to accept that the two are equivalent. The alt-left is leaning far left, whereas the alt-right stands for everything the US fought against during the Civil War and World War II.

The expression's history has a few interesting tidbits. Long story short, it seems to have appeared in Reddit alt-right groups. There is about zero reference to it in Google (except for the keyboard shortcut) prior to the last US presidential campaign. It got some uptake after a Vanity Fair article denouncing it as a problem. (There also were a few calls to embrace the term after the article.) It got much more serious uptake after Trump used the term in his "on both sides" commentary after Charlottesville.

edited Oct 20 '19 at 22:39

Stormblessed

4,729
2
28
54

answered Oct 08 '17 at 16:41

Denis de Bernardy

30,642
7
91
118

67

Groups like antifa are exactly the types I've heard this moniker used to describe in the U.S. – reirab Oct 08 '17 at 21:13
1

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Oct 10 '17 at 03:20
25

Antifa isn't just left though - it's a reactionary group that opposes fascist marches. Sometimes violent, often infiltrated by black bloc anarchists and other "I Wanna Smash Things Up" types, I've known centrists and anti-racists who don't much care for left V right politics turn up at antifascist counter-protests. The alt-right has a more cohesive political outlook - that's why they're called the Alt-Right, not something else. – Miller86 Oct 10 '17 at 10:51
8

@Miller86 "Reactionary" as used in politics is usually used to refer to conservatives. I get what you're saying though, Antifa is a response to fascists rather than a "standalone" political movement. – Andrew Oct 10 '17 at 17:08
5

-1 for the unnecessary and baseless derision of Anti-Fascist Action as "oddball" - which almost alludes to them being the "alt left" somehow. Please consider removing that part of your answer. – einpoklum Oct 10 '17 at 22:31
3

@einpoklum I'm afraid I disagree. "Oddball" is putting it mildly, and we can be thankful they're the odd ones out as opposed to being the mainstream. I don't have much sympathy for groups which don't afford their opposition the benefit of doubt, or who don't believe their opponents have the same basic human rights they themselves enjoy. They are, very much, the alt-left - perhaps the militant wing of it. – rath Oct 11 '17 at 09:26
27

This answer does not appear very objective to me. First of all, "better (re-)distribution of wealth" should at least have quotes around "better", which is a normative issue. Then there's the odd "The alt-left is leaning far left, whereas the alt-right stands for everything [...]". Many would define the alt-right to be far right, on the one-dimensional internationalism/ultranationalism axis. If you then concede that the "alt-left is leaning far left", they are symmetric on that dimension. – FooBar Oct 11 '17 at 11:42
3

I would argue that this answer is biased and not accurate. Both terms alt-right and alt-left are labels used by opposing sides. They simply refer to groups at the extreme end of the respective political spectrum and imply they have crossed some universal moral ground by being so extreme. While there are characteristics attributed to both the alt-left and alt-right most often these terms are used simply to degrade a group of people on the respective political side. They are more a sign of the growing divide between the left and the right, than any organised movement. – Dan Walmsley Oct 16 '17 at 02:44
1

@DanWalmsley I agree that the answer is biased however your summary of alt-right and alt-left as terms that either side uses to describe the other is innacurate. alt-right is a term that those with far right views use to describe themselves. Those with views considered far-left would typically call those who are alt-right "Nazis" or "Fascists". The whole alt-right thing was made up BY right wingers to distance themselves from those more common terms that are typically seen as unmarketable. – Eujinks Dec 03 '21 at 13:13

score 139 · Answer 2 · edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:20

139

There is no "alt-left". It's a term made up by the right to far-right in an attempt to create a false equivalence between white supremacists and those opposing white supremacism:

It's a "made-up term" used by people on the right to "suggest there is a similar movement on the left," [Oren Segal, director of the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism,] said.

But there's no equivalent with the anti-Semitic and bigoted groups that call themselves "alt-right", he said.

[George Hawley: ] "There is no such movement as the alt-left. Obviously, there are left-wing extremists but there is no congruence between the far-left and the alt-right."_{CNN: What's the 'alt-left'? Experts say it's a 'made-up term'}

Researchers who study extremist groups in the United States say there is no such thing as the “alt-left.” Mark Pitcavage, an analyst at the Anti-Defamation League, said the word had been made up to create a false equivalence between the far right and “anything vaguely left-seeming that they didn’t like.”_{New York Times: Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language}

Ultimately, the intent seems to be to frame alt-left as the opposite of alt-right and create a false equivalence between groups on the far ends of the right and left. But here's the thing: No left-wing group has ever called itself the alt-left. And the groups smeared by the alt-left label don't include anything like the heinousness of overt white supremacism that has increasingly defined the alt-right.

It's a blanket term some right-wing media commentators and white nationalists have taken to throwing over groups they disagree with _{Wired: There Is No 'Alt-Left,' No Matter What Trump Says}

"Alt-right" on the other hand is a self-applied term that was made up by white supremacists themselves for propaganda purposes.

There are of course far-left ideologies such as various sorts of communism, anarchism, etc. They are not comparable to the so called "alt-right" though; while some may contain racism or antisemitism, it is not central to any left-wing ideology, while they are central elements of the so called "alt-right". There are of course a lot of other differences, but that seems to be outside of the scope of this question.

edited Jun 17 '20 at 09:20

Community

1

answered Oct 08 '17 at 18:05

tim

37,031
15
102
133

21

Politically speaking, I completely agree with this answer; however etymologically speaking, all terms are made up by somebody. If you conclude from this that there is no Alt-Left, you could also conclude that there have never been any Nazis. – leftaroundabout Oct 08 '17 at 22:00
48

@leftaroundabout The person or people who coin a term matters. The Nazis and the Alt-Right named themselves (proudly, I might add). Therefore those groups affirmatively exist. I could say "the Alien Mafia caused the most recent thunderstorm in my area" but that doesn't mean there is anything out there that actually is the "Alien Mafia". If someone turns around and says "We are the Alien Mafia" then they are validating my invention of that term, or I heard it and I'm blaming a real group for the weather. – Todd Wilcox Oct 08 '17 at 22:47
11

There is no "alt-left" Just because a term is an exonym (alt-left) it doesn't mean it's any less valid than an endonym (alt-right). – rath Oct 11 '17 at 10:53
27

@rath True. The reason that it is invalid is that those who invented the term did not do so in order to describe an existing, well-defined phenomenon on the left, but to draw a false equivalency. I'm not sure why people keep stopping at "made up term" and ignore the rest regarding why the term was made up, and that - according to experts on the topic - it does not describe any actually existing phenomenon. (btw, that is also why "alt-right" is mostly an invalid term; it's just a euphemism for white supremacy, not describing anything new) – tim Oct 11 '17 at 11:24
4

@tim I think those opposed to the regressive left realized they really don't like the term, so they use it just to spite them - so you might be onto something there re it doesn't describe anything new. But that's a personal observation – rath Oct 11 '17 at 12:11
4

A word being made up doesn't inherently make it less valid, nor is it true that an exonym is necessarily less valid than an endonym. But that's not the argument here; the argument is that we should specifically be skeptical of political terminology invented by Nazis, because Nazi political philosophy is barbarous and irrationalist. In general, all words are invented, but that doesn't mean all words are equally valid labels. That is, the word "alt-right" is imputed upon a real group, whereas the word "alt-left" is imputed on a Nazi bogeyman, a rhetorical Reichstag fire. @leftaroundabout – ubadub Oct 13 '17 at 09:13
4

"Regressive left" isn't real either, meaning believing in its existence belies a poor understanding of political philosophy. Calling a leftist group "regressive" is a Whiggian fallacy which implies there is a natural "progress" in politics. There isn't. – ubadub Oct 13 '17 at 09:17
1

Antifa are a derivative of a militant communist group, and communism has been the primary enemy of the USA during the 20th century. There is no false equivalence. – yters Oct 13 '17 at 11:32
1

@yters That's not really historically correct. The Antifa emerged out of communist and social democratic parties to fight rising fascism in Germany. Todays antifa groups have little connection to this origin and their association with communist and social democratic parties is a lot looser nowadays. Their main purpose is still to fight fascism though, not to spread either communism or social democracy. So yes, even if alt-left = antifa (which you just assume), it is a false equivalence. Opposition to fascism and fascism are not the same. – tim Oct 13 '17 at 12:12
2

This sort of begs the question about whether we should accept the term "alt-right," either, if it's an attempt by some truly nasty people to create a false association with their beliefs and what most of the right believes. If it's so important to ensure we don't associate Anti-fa extremists with the left, why is it okay to associate white supremacists with the right? – jpmc26 Oct 13 '17 at 20:34
1

@tim Why do you say Anti-fa opposes fascism? Fascism is, basically, the idea that the government should be the primary driver of the priorities and goals of citizens (and their businesses). Anti-fa uses violence to oppose the speech of people who advocate for government to have a smaller role in our lives. In other words, the idea they're trying to shut down is pretty much the antithesis of fascism... – jpmc26 Oct 13 '17 at 20:36
4

@jpmc26 You are completely right, and I think my comments (some of which have been moved or deleted) should make it clear that I do not think that "alt-right" is a valid term either; it's a propaganda term by white supremacists to try to make white supremacism acceptable to the right wing mainsteam (sadly with some success, but there are many on the right who do not fall for it as well). Regarding free speech: That's a straw man (an overused falacy, but here it actually applies). – tim Oct 13 '17 at 20:41
1

@tim Thanks. I think you missed my point regarding speech. I was pointing out that Anti-fa doesn't seem to be targeting actual fascist ideas with their violence; rather, at least some of it is targeted at people whose beliefs are far and away from it. – jpmc26 Oct 13 '17 at 20:42
9

That's a terrible definition of Fascism @jpmc26 – ubadub Oct 16 '17 at 15:10
2

@ubadub Not really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism. It's often associated with all sorts of evil because it has been historically so. In general, I think that's because the premise is flawed and that it enables the worst in people to rise to power. Sure, as a statement it was kind of sterile and dispassionate, but so are definitions of communism and socialism. It's important for all of us to realize that such seemingly sterile ideas can have such awful consequences. – jpmc26 Oct 16 '17 at 17:48
2

The wiki article you linked does not say "Fascism is, basically, the idea that the government should be the primary driver of the priorities and goals of citizens (and their businesses)" @jpmc26 – ubadub Oct 17 '17 at 04:24
1

@ubadub I didn't say it did. But if you drill down to the core philosophy of what fascism, at its best intentioned, is supposed to be about, it's the idea that the state should use its power to lead the country into prosperity. I guess if you consider the general militaristic aspects of it essential, I could buy that, but that doesn't really undermine the core idea of using state power to organize, mobilize, and streamline the private industry and citizens. Instead of just insisting that it's "terrible," maybe you could a constructive comment by detailing what you think is wrong or missing? – jpmc26 Oct 17 '17 at 04:54
8

Plenty of ideologies claim the state should lead the country towards prosperity. Your definition is uselessly broad @jpmc26 – ubadub Oct 17 '17 at 05:01
1

@ubadub You still haven't offered an alternative or any useful clarification. Additionally, it's not so "uselessly broad" that it invalidates my point in any way, which was that Antifa violently opposes people who reject even that core premise. – jpmc26 Oct 17 '17 at 05:02
1

Nor do I care to, I have better things to with my time than answer a question you yourself could answer by looking at the very same Wikpedia article you linked. My point is your definition is uselessly broad, nothing more @jpmc26 – ubadub Oct 17 '17 at 05:04
@ubadub Generally speaking on StackExchange, if you're not willing to provide some useful information, then it's best to leave responding to people who are. See Comment Everywhere, which states you shouldn't comment with, "Criticisms which do not add anything constructive." – jpmc26 Oct 17 '17 at 05:09
1

I think pointing out your definition is uselessly broad is constructive when you did me the favor of linking to an article that answers your question just fine. If anything I would ask what you think you're adding to this question by taking up a position contradicted by the very source you cite @jpmc26 – ubadub Oct 17 '17 at 05:12
Let us continue this discussion in chat. – jpmc26 Oct 17 '17 at 06:21

Eff · Answer 3 · 2017-10-10T11:18:12.927

78

The alt-left, regressive left, or illiberal left are terms used to describe a subset of people on the left. The three terms may not be exactly the same, however they are close enough that I felt it makes sense to talk about them together. These terms seem to collectively amount to a certain type of criticism of some aspects of the left. First, it should be noted that the expressions are not used as self-identification, but rather used by opponents of their beliefs/actions.

The people in question are often committed to some degree of the blank slate or egalitarianism. From this it follows that all/most differences between human groups are caused by differential treatment of those groups, or by differential media portrayals of group members [*]. Particular areas of controversy are: sex differences, ethnic differences, class differences, cultural or religious differences. The main offenders are generally the patriarchy, white-supremacist society, the capitalist society, etc.

The terms are generally not used just because of their beliefs, but for their actions against people that challenge those beliefs.

When Lawrence Summers or James Damore suggested that there may be biological differences between the sexes in terms of e.g. interests that lead to different statistical representations of the sexes in various fields, then that goes against the beliefs of the "alt-left". But it's not just that they disagreed: they had to be fired, and it doesn't matter if they presented evidence. There was no reason to discuss the evidence, it was simply sexist stereotypes. Despite several experts generally agreed, and it is not something suggested without evidence. Instead of reasonably discussing the evidence, they are labelled (neuro-)sexists.

Another area of controversy is on the subject of Islam. Instead of reasonably discussing the topic with critics of Islam, they label them Islamophobes and/or racists. This is why Maajid Nawaz -- a practicing moderate muslim himself -- coined the term "regressive left". He believes that, while there are right-wing groups who are too eager to stereotype Islam/muslims, there are also many left-wing people who are too reluctant to criticize Islam. This is a sentiment shared by some other muslims and ex-muslims.

It should be noted that just because there are people who are too quick to call someone sexist, islamophobic, or whatever, that does not mean that the terms "sexist" or "islamophobe" are always misused.

These are just a few examples, I could easily give more areas in which such controversy have arisen. Generally, the "alt-left" view their opponents as so evil (sexist, racist, islamophobic, etc) that they don't even deserve to have a rational conversation about the topic at hand. So it is not just disagreement, but the desire to shut them down. Thus we see trends of disinvitations of university campus speakers, and in the most extreme cases riots and violence (see e.g. Antifa).

In conclusion, "alt-left" is one of several terms used to describe a certain faction on the political left. Certain beliefs are typical of the "alt-left", however it is not just their beliefs, but rather their desire to shut down people who disagree them with them, or their inability to honestly discuss an issue, which -- at least according to some people -- justify the name.

edited Oct 10 '17 at 11:18

answered Oct 09 '17 at 13:33

Eff

966
5
8

37

You know, I think this is the only answer here that actually even tries to answer the question about what it's supposed to refer to by the people who use it. – jpmc26 Oct 10 '17 at 01:50
12

The answer provides an example for a somewhat radical or even violent left subgroup, but that does not address the question if there in fact is an alt-left. Of course I can label any subgroup as I like, but that does not mean that the label is accepted generally or that it has a deeper meaning. In that way, the label is not more than "a left subgroup that many on the right side dislike and that has some violent extremists". It does not accurately describe a movement, nor would people with this mindset see themselves als "alternative". And it surely is not a leftist version of the alt-right. – Thern Oct 10 '17 at 09:31
5

"The term is generally not used..." That about describes the actual situation quite well. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Oct 10 '17 at 09:33
19

@Nebr The purpose of my answer was explicitly to try and give the context for what people mean when using such terms. I also explicitly state that people do not self-identify as "alt-left". I also didn't say that it was a leftist version of the alt-right, so I don't understand that criticism. It's my view that you cannot understand the term "alt-left" without understanding other similar terms as I've addressed in my answer. On "a left subgroup that many on the right side dislike", much of the criticisms given in my answer are actually from people on the left or center. – Eff Oct 10 '17 at 11:17
2

Afraid I have to agree with Nebr. I love this answer, and it highlights some very real problems, but it does not answer the question as such. – Jared Smith Oct 10 '17 at 11:53
5

@Eff The problem is that people mean very different things when using the term "alt-left". This can be an Antifa member as well as a feminist, a marxist or an anarchist, up to protesters at Trump ralleys or people who do not condemn Islam enough. In principle, the term "alt" degenerates to "wrong" here, where wrong is of course extremely subjective. But there is no substance behind the term "alt-left" other than the belief that if there is an "alt-right", there also must be an "alt-left" (originating from the erroneous belief that for every extreme, there must be an equal counter-extreme). – Thern Oct 10 '17 at 13:01
24

@Nebr Much of your criticisms can be used almost exactly equivalently about other things, even the term "alt-right". While there are people who identify as alt-right, there are also many who don't who are still called it due to the same subjective feeling of "wrongness". The same could be said for other terms such as "racist", "white supremacist", "sexist", etc, terms which relatively very few people identify with yet are called due to some subjective feeling of wrongness. I tried in my answer, as best as I could, to describe what sentiment people try to get across with the term(s). – Eff Oct 10 '17 at 16:07
7

@Nebr By the way, I'm happy to be challenged, so no hard feelings at all. I think we come from two different positions: I tried to describe what people generally approximately mean when using these terms. You, as far as I can tell, criticize the terms because they do not correspond neatly to some objective group. I agree with that sentiment, and in fact, I prefer to stay away from such terms which can be highly subjective. I still think my answer is valuable to address what people generally mean, instead of only whether there is some objective group that the terms accurately describe. – Eff Oct 10 '17 at 16:38
4

"While there are people who identify as alt-right, there are also many who don't who are still called it due to the same subjective feeling of "wrongness"." Then this is a wrong attribution, except for the case that those people share the same values as those who identify themselves as alt-right. While it is true that such kind of wrong attributions is not uncommon, it still stays wrong. Alt-right should only refer to those who identify themselves as alt-right or those who share these beliefs but for some reason do not like the term. Alt-left is meaningless without a group identifying as such. – Thern Oct 10 '17 at 22:09
5

but that does not address the question if there in fact is an alt-left I don't understand the objection. And I'll be so flippant as to say that it seems the first rule of the alt-let is that we don't talk about the alt-left. Some people have identified an ideological intersection and this answer does a very good job describing how to identify it. It is met by comments in the vein of yes but it doesn't exist, much in the same spirit as other answers. Sorry, it does, because some people said it does. This is how these things work, to my understanding. – rath Oct 11 '17 at 09:13
2

I think "alt-left" emerged as a term because there isn't really a "set" term to describe the group of people that's mentioned in this answer. The only other term that's sort-of understood is "regressive left". I'm guessing they're being called "alt-left" because it's the same group that the alt-right loves to pick fights with. – Pyritie Oct 11 '17 at 12:20
1

@Pyritie It emerged as a term because Trump brought it to the mainstream; everyone else was using "regressive left" and "illiberal left" and similar up until then. Several switched because the way Trump described the group, they realized he was referring to the same subset of people that they were, and that was now the mainstream term, while others still use the previous ones. – Izkata Oct 11 '17 at 13:22
2

@Nebr, a group does not need to collectively affirm a label in order for it to be applied to said group. I like the term alt-left as described above (and I use the term in this context), as it allows me to separate the extreme liberals from the normal ones in daily conversation. – SethWhite Oct 11 '17 at 14:38
2

@SethWhite But is your label understood by most of your conversation partners, or do you have to explain the term? I surely would not draw the conclusion that someone who is too reluctant to criticize Islam is already an "extreme liberal" so far out that she or he could be called "alt-left" (or regressive left, which is, as you propose, nearly the same). And I doubt that this is a term many people would understand if you present it without an additional explanation. For example, for me "alt-left" would mean some (violent) alternative to classical liberal movements, maybe anarchists or antifa. – Thern Oct 11 '17 at 17:41
4

Note that in many places-that-are-not-the-US, "the left" is traditionally on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to "liberal parties" – Tobia Tesan Oct 12 '17 at 05:03
It would be nice if this answer included sources to verify the claim that groups historically never called alt-left should suddenly be labeled as such. "at least according to some people" citation needed. – BurnsBA Oct 13 '17 at 12:20
@Thern "alt-left is meaningless without a group...", language is a societal construct and not a thing that we each individually get to define as we so choose. You are a "human" whether you like it or not because others use that term to describe you. In this vein, if a group of people are describing you as "alt-left", then whether or not you choose to use that exact term is irrelevant. The relevant discussion is about what this group means when they use the term 'alt-left'. Since 'they' invented the term, 'they' are free to define it as they so choose. – Him May 11 '18 at 15:32
@Scott But language is not free to define whatever you like. "Alt-left" only makes sense when related to "alt-right". Of course, I can define whatever I want, but then I maybe lose the relation to "alt-right". If I define what I like, and then implicitly - by using this term - equate this with the alt-right, I am making an error. – Thern May 13 '18 at 05:24
"they had to be fired, and it doesn't matter if they presented evidence" There is a long dishonourable history of white male academics proffering "evidence" that black people and women are naturally inferior to white males. See "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould for an overview (its a long book). Debating yet another bogus bit of evidence merely gives these people respectability that they don't deserve. – Paul Johnson Sep 28 '23 at 13:10

score 16 · Answer 4 · edited May 10 '18 at 21:26

Many people on both sides falsely label their opponents.

The fact is there are bad on both sides and the simplest answer to the stated question is

Alt-left is the name given by conservative groups to the most extreme members of the left

Just as alt-right is used to describe the extreme elements of the right. (including, as state in other answers, by those extreme-right wingers themselves). So there is no real difference in labeling them far-left or alt-left.

Most commonly it is used as a term to denounce groups and individuals committing violent crimes (notably antifa and various individuals on university campuses) and those who use fraud to progress their agenda (fake hate crimes) and who push for false equality and affirmative action (I'm more equal than you)

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — Sam I am says Reinstate Monica, Oct 10 '17 at 03:21

score 9 · Answer 5 · edited Nov 29 '21 at 16:00

9

Same thing that the alt-right is - a pejorative used to label people one strongly disagrees with. Accompanied by cherry picked outlier incidents of a few fringe individuals, to further denigrate an entire group.

edited Nov 29 '21 at 16:00

Ekadh Singh - Reinstate Monica

3,088
2
17
46

answered Oct 08 '17 at 17:24

tj1000

10,467
14
40

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Oct 10 '17 at 03:44
17

This answer is speculative and agrumentative as opposed to explanatory and essentially uncorrelated with the actual question. Consider supporting the answer with references. – Dynamic Stardust Oct 11 '17 at 17:11
1

@DynamicStardust this is not uncorrelated to the question, although the answer is hardly complete. Specifically the notions that the term 'alt-left' is primarily a pejorative and has a subjective component would be key components of a definition, if they apply. References would be nice, though. – Him May 11 '18 at 15:44

Tyler Mc · Answer 6 · 2023-09-28T12:41:12.407

There is no such thing as the alt-left according to experts because it is a made-up term and no accepted by those on the left unlike how extremes on the right accept the term alt-right... the term you are looking for is the "extreme left", a term that is accepted by people who see themselves far left of socialism and are extreme in their methods similar to the alt-right. The word originally came from the French term extrême-gauche and was accepted by the French Communist Party. The term, according to political scientists like Luke March and Cas Muddle, can apply to far-left extremists who meet these criteria:

rejects the underlying socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism
advocate alternative economic and power structures that involve the redistribution of income and wealth from political elites
internationalists, seeing a causality between imperialism and globalization, and regional socio-economic issues

What people need to understand is that these terms generally become 'official' because they are accepted by the extremes they describe and become a part of a lot of academic papers. Aince alt-right is generally accepted by many members of the far-right, that term stuck in peer-reviewed political studies and - in a way - became an official term. Similarly, the extreme left became an 'official' term since far-left groups like the French Communist Party accepted the term and even far-left academics started using it in studies and reports. This makes it easier to see this as an 'official' term.

Acceptance by the group is not an indication of the phenomenon [non-]existence. And, as noted to other answers, all terms are "made up". Arguably, the idea of rebranding as "alt" is to indicate that it is a different, new kind of right (or left), alternative to the old. From this point of view, it is not the same as "extreme", and communists are, of course, not "alt", simply because they are "the" left, the good/bad old one. They still often like to rebrand themselves, though, and arguably it's the same "thing", just different words. — Zeus, Dec 02 '21 at 23:51
@Zeus All words are made up, but some kind of acceptance helps when creating somewhat 'official' terms to designate certain groups. I think what experts are saying is that since alt-right is generally accepted by many members of the far-right, that term stuck in peer-reviewed political studies and - in a way - became an official term. Similarly, the extreme left became an 'official' term since far left groups like the French Communist Party accept the term and even far left academics started using it in studies and reports. This makes it easier to see this as an 'official' term. — Tyler Mc, Jul 23 '22 at 15:38

score -5 · Answer 7 · answered Dec 03 '21 at 01:16

-5

There is no alt-left, because the Left doesn't offer or allow alternatives.

The term "alt-right" is short for "alternative Right", because they propose a conservative/reactionary nationalistic philosophy that is an alternative to the neoliberal internationalist philosophy embraced by the mainstream conservative Right. They're the alt-right because they offer an alternative to the mainstream conservative Right - and, moreover, reactionary thought is presented as an alternative to the slowly losing battle of conservatism (because today's conservative is the liberal of 20 years ago).

There is no such alternative philosophy offered by those on the Left. Those who might be termed "alt-left" by some commentators, such as antifa, "social justice warriors", and the like, aren't truly representing an "alt-left" because they endorse the same philosophy as mainstream progressive Left, just more so. As such, it is more correct to refer to them as "extreme Left". Indeed, it's notable that the Left doesn't allow alternative philosophies the way the Right does; just look at how JK Rowling is treated because she adheres to a version of Left politics that was popular when she was young, rather than the current version of it.

answered Dec 03 '21 at 01:16

nick012000

4,408
2
17
34

1

this is also true of the alt-right, but the alt-right exists anyway. – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 03 '23 at 14:51
1

@user253751 No, I literally explain in this answer how this isn't the case. The alt-right provides a coherent alternative philosophy to that of the mainstream right, unlike the far left which merely embodies the same philosophy as the mainstream left, but moreso. – nick012000 Mar 04 '23 at 10:40
2

the alt-right endorses the same philosophy as the mainstream conservative right, just more so. – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 06 '23 at 11:36
1

@user253751 No, they don't. The reactionary, ethnic nationalism alt-right is qualitatively different to the neoliberal internationalism of the mainstream right. Additionally, there's a significant difference between the "I want to keep things the same" of Conservatism and the "I want to change things back to how they used to be 40/70/100 years ago" of Reactionary ideology. – nick012000 Mar 06 '23 at 11:49
Neoliberal internationalism is the Democrat party. Are you saying the Democrat party is mainstream right-wing? – Reasonably Against Genocide Mar 06 '23 at 11:49
1

@user253751 Neoliberal internationalism is also the mainstream Republican party, but moreso. – nick012000 Mar 06 '23 at 11:50

score -6 · Answer 8 · answered Nov 30 '21 at 01:16

To my ears, alt-left/far-left/ultra-left is the same. Ditto alt-right/far-right/ultra-right.

It describes zealots who are irrationally convinced in the ultimate truth of their politically beliefs, find everybody who even mildly disagrees evil, intolerable to free expression of political thought that doesn't coincide with theirs, and willing to use violence to promote their political agenda. Basically extremists, in both their views and their method.

Both left and right had multiple examples of that throughout the 20th century, and, I'm afraid, both are present in US now. Much of 2020 was a bacchanaly of alt-left, with multiple cities burning by self-righteous leftist zealots, and January 6 2021 alt-right did a similar thing in DC.

Hmm. Am I really alt-left if I (hypothetically) am stubbornly convinced that Hitler was a really bad guy and willing to use violence against people who think Hitler was a really good guy? Or would I simply be considered normal? — Reasonably Against Genocide, Mar 03 '23 at 14:52

What is the Alt-Left?

8 Answers8

There is no alt-left, because the Left doesn't offer or allow alternatives.

Linked