Do "Far-Left" and "Far-Right" Mean Anything Anymore?

Not really, but they should.

(Audio version here)

Productive discussions about illiberal extremism are currently hindered by a lack of consensus about what the terms ‘far-left’ and ‘far-right’ mean. Designating a political position as ‘far’ is always going to be somewhat subjective because people will naturally feel that those who have a harder stance than they do on their own side of the political spectrum have gone too far. Equally, we will always be inclined to regard those on the other side of that spectrum as having views that are extreme simply because we disagree with them. Then, we are plagued by the projection of those who hold extreme views themselves regarding everybody else as being ‘far’ in the opposite direction to the point where moderate lefties get branded as ‘far-right’ by the far-left and mainstream conservatives as ‘far-left’ by the far-right.

Nevertheless, it is important that we are able to identify and discuss with some clarity and coherence the extremists on our own political sides. This is essential to the self-sorting of ideas into those which are widely held to be reasonable and ethical and those which need challenging and marginalising via internal critique. This is the process known as “getting one’s own house in order.” It is equally important, however, to have a realistic (and charitable) view of the range of ideas on the other side of the political spectrum. As we grow more politically polarised, we are vulnerable to hearing way too much from people who believe that everybody on the right is a fascist and everybody on the left is a communist or ‘wokeist’ (or confusingly, both). We consequently hear way too little from sensible and principled people with commonly held views they can argue for with reason, evidence and civility.

On the left, there are multiple arguments within its ranks because many of us on the left (including me) have always regarded left-wing politics as class-based. On this spectrum, the far-left are Marxists who want the means of production to be socially-owned, then, away from the fringes, the socialists who want more services to be nationalised and greater distribution of wealth and finally, closer to the centre, the left-liberals (hello, again) who support capitalism and favour economic, employment and welfare policies that prioritise the working class and the most vulnerable people.

Many leftists on this economic spectrum simply do not recognise the Critical Social Justice (woke) ‘left’ as left (although they can certainly be “far”in the sense of radical or extreme). This is because they focus on identity rather than class and use the power of capitalism and corporatism to further their identity-based training programmes and workplace policies and impose them on workers. Big businesses and corporations are amenable to this unholy alliance because it enables them to promote their brand without doing anything that genuinely enables upward mobility or requiring them to pay their lowest grade employees a living wage. The “Old Left” therefore does not regard this as a legitimate left-wing movement and argues that, as traditionally left-wing parties have taken on this ideology, the mass exodus of the working class from those parties supports the correctness of this stance.

The opposite of the “far-left” in the economic sense are, of course, free-market libertarians and yet these are not typically who are meant by the ‘far-right’ in our current discourse. That typically refers to right-wing identitarians who take anti-immigration, white supremacist and rigidly socially conservative stances and are on the other end of the spectrum to the ultra-woke. Libertarians are likely to support “Open Borders” as an essential form of freedom of movement and be individualists who believe the consenting sex-lives of adults are nobody else’s business and also that meritocracy and unimpeded capitalism are the best way to defeat racism and sexism. Libertarians are typically found on the right of the political spectrum because this is where policies for smaller government are found but they are often uneasy bedfellows for conservatives.

Yet ‘far-right’ does not simply mean ‘very conservative’ either. Traditional conservatives who hold their values dear are typically all about conserving good things including the liberal democratic foundations of western civilisation. They value tradition, manners, dignity, restraint, seriousness and incremental reform and they highly prize individual responsibility which provides safeguards against base racial identitarianism. They are fundamentally opposed to the extremists and revolutionaries on the right who want to overturn the foundations of liberal democracy with fascistic intent. They also find themselves at odds with the crass, bombastic, unserious, post-truth populists.

It is tempting to say that the terms ‘far-left’ and ‘far-right’ have lost any meaning at all. When “far-left” can be used to describe Marxists, the ethos of billionaire corporations, anybody even remotely progressive and even the centre-right and ‘far-right’ to describe anybody not onboard with the Critical Social Justice movement including socially conservative Marxists, liberals, the centre-right and traditional conservatives, these terms seem to have very little utility.

Yet we do need terms to describe the extremes of both progressive and conservative currents found at the fringes of what is considered the left and the right. In our current culture wars, these terms operate overwhelmingly within the realm of identity. The left (or progressives) can be said to be defined by a particular concern for the most vulnerable in society, traditionally centred on the working class but also including minorities. The right (or conservatives) can be said to be defined by a particular concern for what is traditional, established, and dominant, including majority norms and institutions.

This tension can be very productive. At its best, the progressive impulse seeks to achieve progress by reforming systems to work better for everybody and making things more equally accessible for those who are currently disadvantaged. It nudges conservatives out of inertia when that needs to happen. The conservative impulse seeks to conserve what is valuable and so conservatives ensure that reforms only take place when everything has been considered and longstanding traditions and practices which have been established for good reason have been protected.

When do political identities become ‘far’ then? Is there any way to use the terms ‘far-left’ and ‘far-right’ that can be coherent and stable and refer to extreme views that would be regarded as a problem by the majority of reasonable and ethical people on that side? I would suggest (as usual) that it is when they become illiberal and cease to protect individual liberty while respecting the value of plurality and viewpoint diversity and honouring our shared humanity. Eric Kaufman in his book, The Third Awokening, usefully identifies a problematic attitude on the left which he describes as ‘Minorities good, majorities bad.’ I would argue that this is mirrored on the right where the illiberal attitude can be described as ‘Majorities good, minorities bad.” This includes groups that are not literally minorities, like women.

I would also argue that the illiberalism arises not from having a particular concern for the interests of certain demographics, whether they are minorities or majorities. These priorities can be argued for perfectly validly and productive discussions can result when both perspectives are represented. In fact, any discussion which does not consider both is bound to be lopsided. Illiberalism surfaces when a concern for the most vulnerable minorities is distorted into the demonisation of majorities or when protecting the interests of majority norms and institutions twists into the dehumanisation of minorities. The problem is with “Majorities/minorities bad.”

Let’s consider what a positive “Minorities good” statement might look like.
”I am particularly concerned for the most vulnerable people and sympathetic to their interests. I want to reform things to make life better for them.”

What might a positive “Majorities good” statement look like?
”I am particularly concerned for the majority of the population and sympathetic to their interests. I want to conserve their way of life.”

Neither of these stances are illiberal and both of these concerns do need to represented when discussing political and cultural issues.

What might an illiberal “Majorities bad” statement look like?

“I despise white people and men and wish to marginalise them in favour of racial minorities and women. I object to cis/heteronormative assumptions and wish to dismantle the nuclear family and established concepts of men and women.”

What could a “minorities bad” statement look like.

“I despise black and brown people and think white people should have supremacy. I object to the equal status of women and wish to reinstate a patriarchy. I oppose homosexuality and want to impose gender roles on everybody.”

These are clearly illiberal. These are extreme. These are far. They should not be silenced but the liberal majority on either side of the political spectrum should engage with their ideas in order to demonstrate the ethical problems with them and marginalise them.

These latter kinds of statements—whether expressed explicitly or pursued materially through aims to discriminate against straight, white men or against black, brown, or same-sex-attracted people, or by attributing negative qualities to individuals on the basis of race, sex, or sexuality—are contrary to the values of both liberal leftists and liberal conservatives. They oppose individual liberty and personal responsibility by demonising whole demographics, disadvantaging people on the basis of group identity, and ascribing collective blame. They reject pluralism and viewpoint diversity by assigning fixed qualities to particular groups and by attempting to coercively engineer a conception of the ‘common good’ that the vast majority of people do not regard as good, precisely because it excludes some of them. Finally, they deny the universalist principles that hold that everyone enters the world with the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—principles that underlie liberal democracies and the traditional values of both left-wing and conservative political philosophy. They are so far outside both mainstream left-wing and right-wing thought, and so fundamentally opposed to the principles of liberalism that unite them and underpin Western modernity, that they can and should be recognised as extreme, radical, and far.

Understanding the concepts of far-left and far-right in these terms provides a way to use them coherently and consistently, without collapsing into endless subjective interpretation, partisan tribalism, or semantic chaos. Rather than treating “far” as a measure of distance from some idealised political centre, or as a slur to be flung at opponents, it locates extremism where it properly belongs: in a radical departure from the fundamental liberal principles of Western civilisation that have enabled progressives to achieve progress and which conservatives wish to conserve.

---

The Overflowings of a Liberal Brain has over 6000 readers! We are creating a space for liberals who care about what is true on the left, right and centre to come together and talk about how to understand and navigate our current cultural moment with effectiveness and principled consistency.

I think it is important that I keep my writing free. It is paying subscribers who allow me to spend my time writing and keep that writing available to everyone. Currently 3.8% of my readers are paying subscribers. My goal for 2026 is to increase that to 7%. This would enable me to write full-time for my own substack! If you can afford to become a paying subscriber and want to help me do that, thank you! Otherwise, please share!