Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Material tagged as dubious.

It looks bad to have so many "dubious" tags in the article. It would be better to rewrite the material. With that in mind, I am going to delete the sections tagged as dubious or else provide references for them. If I delete anything for which there is good evidence, then it will be easy to replace it, with supporting references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope the changes I've made address the concerns expressed. The final sentence tagged as "dubious" says "The Global Justice Movement, also known as the anti-globalisation or alter-globalization movement, protests against global trade agreements and the negative consequences they perceive them to have for the poor and the environment." R-41 points out that some on the Left favor globalization. True. But the sentence so tagged just describes the views of one anti-globalization movement. It does not generalize. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Anti-globalization and Third Worldism

The fact that anti-globalization and Third Worldism are mostly left-wing movements is clear to anyone who pays attention to politics, history and current events. It is somewhat surprising that anyone would question that. The whole basis of those movements is to improve the situation of workers, the poor and the environment and to oppose capitalist exploitation, imperialism and colonialism. The current lack of of references that specifically state they are left-wing is no reason to delete the whole section. The section has recently been improved and should be improved further, not eliminated.Spylab (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these movements seem to meet our definition of opposing social hierarchy and inequality. Users concerned about finding a source that refers to them as "left wing" can avail themselves of a web search and find hundreds. groupuscule (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

While it is certainly true that much of the leadership of the anti-globalization and Third-Worldism movements come from the Left, it would be wrong to call them left-wing. Anti-globalization for example does not oppose capitalism or free trade, and opposes American protectionism and agricultural subsidies. It is similar to the anti-war and civil rights movements, which contained left-wing elements but had a much wider base of support. TFD (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Not all leftists oppose capitalism or free trade in general either, but it would be inaccurate to deny that they are left-wing. Where did you learn that anti-globalization activists oppose protectionism and agricultural subsidies? I've never heard that before.Spylab (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Both centre-right and far-right nationalists oppose globalization as well. In Germany, the far-right National Democratic Party denounces globalization. And there are plenty of Euroskeptic centre-right parties that are hesitant both on the idea of the EU and globalization.--R-41 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem associated with the term "anti-globalization movement", which has also been called "altermondalisme" and the "global justice movement". Being "anti-globalization" is not its defining feature and indeed its conceives of itself as a global movement. groupuscule (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Spylab, it says in the article whose link I provided, "Activists point to the unequal footing and power between developed and developing nations within the WTO and with respect to global trade, most specifically in relation to the protectionist policies towards agriculture enacted in many developed countries. These activists also point out that heavy subsidization of developed nations' agriculture and the aggressive use of export subsidies by some developed nations to make their agricultural products more attractive on the international market are major causes of declines in the agricultural sectors of many developing nations." And since the definition of the Left is opposition to capitalism, you need to find a source that contradicts it. I suppose in your worldview, Fox and Walmart are right-wing corporations, and GE and Starbucks are right-wing corporations. The Koch brothers are right-wing billionaries, while George Soros and Warren Buffet are left-wing billionaires. Coca-Cola is left-wing and RC Cola is right-wing. If you believe all that then you need to explain what term we should use to describe what reliable sources call the Left and we can change the name of the article. TFD (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

A day ago the intro said anarchism was "reformist", now it is saying that all of socialism is "revolutionary" - forgetting that there are reformist socialists: what is with the confusion?

The section of the intro describing examples of the movements is in complete shambles. It is changing everyday, and drastically from one extreme conclusion to the next. Yesterday it said that anarchism is "reformist" - which is not what most anarchists would identify themselves as. And then the next day it is describing all of socialism as "revolutionary" - when there are indeed reformist socialists. It seems as if that section was written by a very confused person who does not know what anarchism is, nor that socialism has reformist and revolutionary forms.--R-41 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The intro did not say that all socialism was revolutionary, but I see your point, and I have removed the word revolutionary. I really would like to have an article without a lot of flags on it. Now that the word "revolutionary" is gone, do you object to the statement that some people call socialism left-wing? Do you object to the statement that some people call environmentalism left-wing? Rick Norwood (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That is POV. Socialism is left-wing by definition. That is not the same as "some people" calling environmentalism left wing. Compare "Obama was born in the US" and "some say Obama was not born in the US." Different types of claims. TFD (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, while as best I can tell the use of left-wing to describe socialism is universal, it is not the definition (the Left during the time of the French Revolution was not socialist). In any case, I'm trying to reach a compromise with R-41, and I can't do that unless I learn what his objection is. I think his objection is only that socialism is not always revolutionary, in which case removing the word "revolutionary" should solve the problem.

Turning to "environmentalism", that is far less obviously "left-wing". Which is why the article currently states that the term left-wing has been expanded, and that some people use "left-wing" to describe environmentalists. It is left-wing only in the sense that anything that taxes the rich or regulates corporations is destructive of what the Right consider the natural social order.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

At issue is whether the article is about a topic or how a term can be used. When people call Obama a socialist, does that mean that the socialism article should be widened to include the mainstream policies of the Democratic Party or does it mean that some critics believe that Obama supports what we generally understand to be socialism? Regulation and taxation are not left-wing, except to some libertarians who believe they lead ultimately to total state control and ownership. Incidentally, at the time of the French Revolution the term "left" was rarely used and referred to deputies who sat on the left, not to their parties or ideologies. That meaning would only arise in the early 20th century as explained in Marcel Gauchet's "Right and Left".[1] If we want to explain how the left-right dichotomy can be applied to various periods of time, that is best addressed in left-right politics. TFD (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "right-wing" and the meaning of "socialism" have changed a great deal. It is not just a question of people calling Obama a socialist. It is a question of how responsible people use the words today.

All I'm trying to do right now is to satisfy R-41's objections so that the "dubious" flags can be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've waited a while for a response from R-41. Lacking a response, I'm going to assume that removing the word "revolutionary" answers his objection to the statement that socialism is called left-wing, and have removed the "dubious" flag. R-41: if you restore the flag, please explain your objection. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Left-wing Stop

Does anybody know what the recent creation of a redirect titled "Left-wing Stop" is all about? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Some animals are more equal than others...

• • In left-right politics, left-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.**

Neutral POV? I think not. The Right frames its argument in favor of personal rights/responsibilities and making yourself "equal".

Under the current administration in the U.S. these roles seem to be reversed. (Truthfully, *every* left-dominated nation has *always* had a favored (predatory) class and the preyed-upon masses.)

99.5.202.164 (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that explains your opinions on right wing egalitarianism. BTW. when Farmer Jones owned Animal Farm, he did not even pretend that the animals were his equals. TFD (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The libertarian Right is a minority even within the right-wing. Far more common are the right-wingers who frame their argument in terms of opposition to equality for "foreigners" or women or homosexuals. Politics makes strange bedfellows. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider myself on the left, but I fundamentally agree with the criticism. This is a bad article from the get-go, based on an essentialist, reductionist definition of leftism as "social equality". This definition is inconsistent and inaccurate; for example, environmentalism or pacifism are traditionally aligned with left-wing politics, but neither causes are about "equality" per se. Historically, leftism has tended to refer to political movements committed to reform and revolution (French Revolution, progressivism, feminism, marxism, etc), whereas right-wing movements have tended towards resistance to change, or a belief in a "natural order". Even so-called rightwing reform movements have tended to frame their reformist agenda in terms of a return to an imagined originary state (like the Tea Party or the Nazi volkisch movement). In the very least, a better lede would avoid the essentialist definition, and simply define leftism as "an umbrella-term that encompasses a variety of political movements..."" etc etc, or something along those lines. --72.208.60.225 (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You make a good point. Today, protection of the environment or opposition to war are considered "leftist", though they would not have had that lable at the time of the French Revolution. To some extent, there seems to have been a shift from Right = upper class, Left = working class, to Right = conformist, Left = idealist. But to put that into the article, you need a reference. Better, several references. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

While environmentalism and pacifism are stances more often held by left-wing people they are not inherently left-wing stances, and one can hold these views and be right wing or apolitical. That is true for many issues, such as free trade. Whether they are left or right, depends on whether they tend to increase or decrease equality. Hence free trade in the 1911 Canadian election was left-wing because it allowed farmers to buy cheap imported equipment and sell their grain without tariffs, while in 1988 it was right-wing because it meant workers losing jobs. TFD (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

two quick replies to Rick Norwood and TFD...both of your replies to my point underscore the basic argument that I'm trying to make: the terms "left" and "right" can't be essentialized, since both terms are historical and relative...the definitions change with the times. To essentialize "equality" as definitively left-wing is an ahistorical, reductionist claim. Frankly, it seems to me that it would make more sense, as I've suggested, to make the lede more general and open-ended--something along the lines that leftism constitutes "an umbrella-term that encompasses a variety of political movements...". That is a more accurate claim then merely "left = equality" since even plenty of right-wing political movements embrace equality; for example, right-leaning libertarians believe in concepts like 'equality-before-the-law' and 'equality of opportunity'. --75.172.164.197 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The terms left and right can be used as absolute or relative terms. This article is primarily about the left as an absolute term. It is supposed to reflect what sources say and if you disagree with them then find sources that support what you want to say. 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

leftwing is anti-militarism

you could also note, that leftwing is against military ... anarcho-antimilitarism ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.108.173.87 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That's too broad a statement, and is not supported by history. Not all leftists are, or have been, anti-military, anti-war or anti-armed struggle.Spylab (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It is more relevant to left-right politics - the further left one is the more likely one is to be against the military, but it is a rough correlation, not part of the definition of the left. TFD (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is environmentalism left-wing.

I would like to deal with the "dubious" flag on the claim that left-wing, in modern political discourse, has been extended to a wide variety of positions, of which environmentalism is one. Since examples of people who call environmentalism left-wing have been provided, I assume the question is whether the usage is common enough to merit inclusion in the lead. It seems to me that it is, but I don't want to make a big deal out of it. R-41, would you like a larger number of references, or is your objection that the people who call environmentalism left-wing are not important enough for inclusion here? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

They combine elements of the left, right and center. (See Alan Ware, Political Parties and Party Systems, OUP 1996, p. 43.) In European parliaments, the Green parties sit between the socialists and the liberals, although the most left-wing greens sit with the ex-Communists. As the Green Party of Canada website says, "Many people find it hard to position the Green Party on the old political spectrum. We believe in sound fiscal management and strengthening our economy while ensuring that it is sustainable. Does that mean we are “right wing”? We believe that government must provide needed social services while protecting our environment and the rights of women, minorities and disadvantaged people. Does that make us “left wing”? We don’t think so."[2] Notably none of their leaders have backgrounds in left-wing politics or trade unionism. TFD (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The affiliated Green Party of Saskatchewan however appears to be left-wing, it broke away from the socialist party which it considered too right-wing and its resolution 1998.4 says they "oppose the current capitalistic system and paradigm which exploits workers".[3] TFD (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So, should we remove the statement that the meaning of left-wing has been expanded to include environmentalism? If you think so, then I will remove it, or you may. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that most people in Canada view the Green Party as being on the left wing. For example, the Green Party's description is "a Canadian Federal Political Party with a modern, progressive platform that balances fiscal, social and environmental concerns." (emphasis mine) Also, in Canadian school textbooks, the Green Party is described as being on the left of the spectrum. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 21:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

the picture of Jacobins killing aristocrats used in general to depict the political left is obscene and slanderous

the first picture shown is a picture of Jacobins holding pikes with aristocrats' heads on them, this picture is shown in a general paragraph about left-wing politics. it is obscene and slanderous in that this choice of picture is being used as a general depiction of what left-wing politics is. even in the French Revolution there were moderate left-wing groups as well as extremist ones and the extremist ones persecuted the moderate ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.210 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find anything about this picture and will recommend its deletion unless it can be identified. I imagine it represents events of March on the Tuileries, 10 August, 1792. Ironically, the article on Liberalism uses the Women's March on Versailles, 5 October 1789.[4] The articles on capitalism and democracy do not even have pictures of the French revolution. In the women's march, they also put heads on pikes, although we see the before picture. It seems like a dual standard. TFD (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

cross-ref to abolitionism in U.S. should be changed

Social Progressivism cross-ref to "abolitionism in U.S." article should be changed to cross-ref to "abolitionism" Wikipedia article, because abolition of slavery was not only a U.S. phenomena or achievement, and because the other progressive achievements are not just U.S.-centric but, like the "aolitionism" article, are world-wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.11 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources that opposition to slavery was left-wing, it cut across ideological lines. Nor does it make any sense to refer to progressives before the progressive movement (which also cut across ideological lines) was even created. TFD (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Views

' More recently in the United States, left-wing and right-wing have often been used as synonyms for Democratic and Republican, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism respectively.'

I have several contentions with this statement.

The statement is mis-sourced

Reference 17 directs to a blog from a Time journalist which contains the following text: RNC chair sends a letter to supporters Tuesday asking for contributions to stop Franken from “stealing” the Minnesota incumbent’s Senate seat.

“I’m no stranger to the gutter campaign tactics and shady legal maneuverings of the Left Wing.”

That is the entirety of the information which can only be understood contextually and does not prove the original statement. Time is a political publication that has been known for several years to push an elite or establishment viewpoint - it is ironic that this is being used on an article on 'The Left'.

Reference 18 details a Spanish judge who tried Bush administration officials under the premise of Universal Jurisdiction. The article does not make one reference to the Democratic party, the only relevant piece of information is 'but rather he intends to cement his reputation as a darling of the Left'. The source is neither from a credible source(ABC cable) or backs up the original statement.

Reference 19 simply says ' reported in Mother Jones, April 29, 2009' - could someone link this with access to the Mother Jones digital archive? This reference as it is does not help or prove anything.

Reference 20 details a study of the brains of supposedy 'left' wing and 'right' wing individuals. 'Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Ok fair enough, but what does this prove?

Does not Represent Views From the Left

If you actually ask someone involved with Left wing politics if they are a Democratic party supporter they would simply laugh you off - seeing as the Democratic party is not left wing at all. People actually involved with the left. Tariq Ali wrote an entire book on how Obama and the Democratic party are no different to the Republican party. Noam Chomsky describes all democrats as 'moderate republicans'. The list goes on. I simply find it disturbing that the article that is supposed to describe the activities of 'the left' in fact misleads the reader into thinking that something like the Democratic party is left wing in the traditional sense. It simply reinforces the dogma(in the Fox News style) that supposed 'liberals'(a non term)are just the counterpart of the right wing in an inclusive, self contained political system.

Either find sources that actually reinforce the point or move it completely. I think there should be some content dealing with the 'real' left wing. KingHiggins (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

it says that the terms are often used this way, it does not say Democrats are actually left-wing as the term is normally understood. The terms "liberal" and especially "conservative" are also used in non-standard ways. I agree the sourcing could be improved. TFD (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that the reason I have an objection to the paragraph is because that is all the material on left wing politics after Reconstruction. It seems a shame to miss out on a rich vein of history which could lead its reader to think that the Left is simply synonymous with 'Democratic Party'. How about if I drafted a paragraph on post war intellectual thought; I am thinking of people like Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn, Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky and many more. I feel this would bring a more balanced look(without pushing a particular POV). KingHiggins (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Any sourced addition is welcome. On the other hand, I think it is clear that the sentence quoted above has nothing to do with what liberal or leftist or Democrat mean, but rather with the common practice in American news media to use the three words as synonyms, and the same with conservative, right-wing, and Republican. It is commonplace to read a story in, say, Time magazine that begins with something like this: "The Republicans filibustered the Democratic nominee. The liberals did not have the sixty votes needed to overcome the conservative filibuster. This handed a victory to the Right over the Left." Rick Norwood (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"[The left wing] is often in opposition to social hierarchy" if this is true then all forms of government and virtually all forms of organized civilization is not left wing. This is more of a description of anarchism than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.239.214 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Left-of-Centre

There are various sources on this and other websites as well as in mainstream media and society that refer to the term "leftt-of-centre/center". Would it not be a good idea to include a new section in the main article to define the concept? It seems necessary to me because the terms "centre-leftt", "leftt-of-centre" and "left-wing", while sounding similar, describe materially different political positions. For example, in the European Parliament, there is the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) group, the left-of-centre European Green Party (EGP) and the left-wing Party of the European Left (EL). Each of these groups ideologies diverge significantly from on another, as such I believe it would be wise if terms used to describe said ideologies left little room for ambiguity. The term "left-of-centre" could also possibly include some of the parties in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE) group as well as parties from elsewhere in the world that subscribe to certain schools of Liberalism. What I would like to see is the political spectrum content on Wikipedia include stand-alone articles for "Left-of-centre politics" as well as "Right-of-centre politics" alongside the established main poltical positions. Though, an alternative, and potentially better solution, seeing as they are both fairly short, could be for the articles Centre-left and Centre-right politics to be expanded and respectively renamed "Centre-left/Left-of-centre politics" and "Centre-right/Right-of-centre politics". If you agree with me, I would appreciate any assistance in this endeavour.

MBFCPresident (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no consensus about even basic Left and Right, much less about more complicated compounds. The best this article can do is present some of the ways left-wing has been used historically and a few of the primary ways it is used today. Trying to distinguish between "centre-left" and "left-of-centre" would, I fear, lead to nit picking. However, as always, if you can find an authoritative academic source, you should recommend it.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting take on what you are saying here: [5] (very recently published). It seems that this issue might need to be expounded upon substantially somewhere in the left / right wing WP articles. Jprw (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no consistency and it is more precise to distinguish the parties by their ideologies, in this case liberal, green, socialist etc. Hard to say the liberals are center-left when many of them are New Right, i.e., supporters of Hayek or Rand. And while both socialists and Left parties call themselves left-wing, Left parties say socialist parties are really right wing, while socialists say Left parties are far left. TFD (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Were the abolitionists left-wing?

No, leftists have always believed that people can be made to work for others, and that the fruits of their labor are not their own. A hallmark of left wing politics is the belief that power should be used to take earnings of one person and give it to another. The abolitionists believed that everyone was entitled to their own labor. From Lincoln:

"That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. -- October 15, 1858 Debate at Alton, Illinois

Certainly, the abolitionists were considered left-wing at the time, while the conservatives supported the status quo.

- No they were not. The word conservative was not used in political parlance at the time to describe any political party. You are just being polemical.

Similarly, on the subject of capital punishment, most people who oppose capital punishment self-identify with the Left, while most who favor capital punishment self-identify with the Right. See, for example: https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment and http://theweek.com/articles/447348/conservative-case-capital-punishment. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The term left-wing was not used before the 20th century. Usually when sources refer to the Left in the 19th century, they are writing about anarchism and socialism. Certainly most of them were abolitionists, but there were very few of them in the U.S. Mostly the abolitionists seem to have been inspired by religion. It seems a stretch of the term though to call Obadiah Bush, the founder of the Bush political dynasty as a leftist. TFD (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If the definition of left-wing is "Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality and egalitarianism, ... ." then certainly abolitionists fit that definition. Maybe this article is incorrect to say that "left-wing" originated with the French Revolution. The political Left dates back to the French Revolution. I've added to the article some information from the OED about when "wing" was appended to Left and Right. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly you can use the left-right template for any period. Confucius and Lao Tse, the optimates and populares in Rome. But it would be better to have sources that do that rather than introduce them ourselves. While France in 1789 introduced the seating arrangement that would lead to the current terminology, it was never used throughout the 19th century. I do not think that James was using in in its modern sense. TFD (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Check out the OED. I used their first source, as of historical interest, but the idea that the Right favored God and the upper class while the Left opposed everything that was good and true and favored the lazy and good-for-nothing working class and the deist intellectuals was certainly one early thread of the dichotomy. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Abolitionism should not be a great issue in this article. Remember that this is about the world wide conception of left-wing politics and not about the specific political traditions in the United States. Dentren | ^Talk 21:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that abolitionism is not a major issue, but neither is it an exclusively US issue. The abolitionist movement in England was specifically religious in nature.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

On including Barry Clark quote in the lede

Honestly I can't see how Barry Clark quote ads something relevant to the lead. The lead is to concise and the quotation is too long. Its better left to somewhere else in the article. Dentren | ^Talk 21:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see how this quote "If the Hegelian gnosticism, which has begun to show itself here and in Great Britain, were to become popular philosophy, as it once was in Germany, it would certainly develop its left wing here as there, and produce a reaction of disgust." belongs in the lead, but this quote "Leftists... claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated. According to leftists, a society without substantial equality will distort the development of not only deprived persons, but also those whose privileges undermine their motivation and sense of social responsibility. This suppression of human development, together with the resentment and conflict engendered by sharp class distinctions, will ultimately reduce the efficiency of the economy." is biased. Should the lead only include the views of opponents of the Left, and not views of the supporters of the Left? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that "views of opponents of the Left" are prominent in the lead. I agree with you "Hegelian gnosticism" sentence needs to get out of the lead, becuase it helps little to explain what left-wing politics is. Could we not include a more concise quote (not blockquote) from Barry Clarck in its place? Dentren | ^Talk 14:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I can work with that. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Calling Blair Right wing is just POV

Blair is not "right wing", and to use that language in the article is spin and POV. He is to the right of old labour but just because something is to the right of old labour it doesn't mean they are right wing. And citing journalism that itself is not NPOV is not citing a reliable source. Blair is to the Right of Old Labour, yes, but to call him "Right Wing" is just spin from anti-blairites. LeapUK (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

GOOD _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead, equality and Barry Clark

At the risk of just dumping broad criticism here, the lead seems a little off-beam and over-focused on defining leftism as being simply about equality. More specifically, in terms of the last para, I'm not sure Barry Clark is such a prominent authority that he alone gets quoted by way of definition (this was briefly discussed two sections up) or that the main difference between the far left and centre left is simply about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, even if that may be one factor that is sometimes apparent. N-HH talk/edits 11:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this article, particularly the lead, is that it confuses several different topics: the left half of the left-right axis, the driver(s) that determine positioning on that axis and the ideologies that are generally thought to make up the left. So if we use the first topic, then the view of equality becomes the only commonality of the Left. Both Pol Pot and Hillary Clinton supported greater equality than their opponents to the right, otherwise they had nothing in common. Furthermore, parties that are generally considered left may be considered right in some contexts (for example, Socialists in Greece oppose the Radical Left government) and vice versa.

I agree though that we should not mention individuals for a definition unless they are particularly identified with it, for example Bobbio is identified with the idea that views on equality determine positioning on the left-right axis.

I think we should focus on the ideologies that are generally thought to make up the Left, and leave discussion about the drivers of the left-right axis to Left-right politics.

TFD (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User TFD : Agreed with above, the key to left-wing politics in relation to right-wing politics is the left-wing ideology that goes behind it. All the left-wing political positions stem from the the ideology. I think we could improve the intro if we make this point, and then it could lead into some of the resulting policies. A good example is : http://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

There is already a page for equality so we dont want to repeat that again. The whole of the left wing does not revolve just around the same equality.

Both left and right want the same outcome ie a richer and more successful society, with better education and better healthcare. It is just how to get there which is different between the two ideologies.

People1750 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish everyone on the left and right wanted what the moderates on both sides want. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Right in most industrialized countries either support these left-wing policies or do not hold strong opinions on them. Even in the U.S., these are mostly wedge issues that arise from time to time. Throughout U.S. history, what the chart calls the Left has introduced policies that have then become the consensus view, such as the universal franchise and abolition of slavery. And where did Marx and Engels, who are mentioned in the chart, come out in support of same sex marriage and stem cell research? While both U.S. liberals and conservatives adhere to the utilitarian view that politics should achieve the greatest good of the greatest number, both sides say the other considers the distribution of wealth to be more important. Nor is it the goal of most ideologies. This type of analysis is more suitable for articles about left-right politics. It is about where they differ rather than defining either one. TFD (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The piece linked to is written very much from the perspective of mainstream, 21st-century US politics, from its opening sentence onwards: "The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government". Much of the right, especially in Europe, has supported a strong role for government, especially when it acts as they wish it to, whether that's old-school reactionary authoritarians, fascists or moderate consensus conservatives; on the left there's anarchism and other libertarian trends of socialism which very much see their aims in terms of less government. Classical liberalism might even be thought of, in some historical contexts, as being of the left. And of course the modern US right often has plenty to say in favour of state power when it comes to issues such as crime, war etc. Unfortunately, that more simplistic, anachronistic and context-specific definition of the political divide colours the approach to too many politics pages here. N-HH talk/edits 11:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia articles need to rise above the meaningless slogans and discuss specifics. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Even in the U.S., the Right in the Northern States supported a strong role for government until the 20th century while the Left opposed it. And the Left, tied to nonconformism, was socially conservative, while the Right was not. TFD (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

MS magazine cover

I have no objection to the edit, but it is not at all clear to me why the MS magazine cover is important enough to add to both this article and to the global warming article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left-wing politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090311004501/http://gptu.net:80/gleft/greenleft.shtml to http://gptu.net/gleft/greenleft.shtml
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150923114559/http://www.cc.com/video-clips/7qwmpn/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-president-evo-morales to http://www.cc.com/video-clips/7qwmpn/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-president-evo-morales

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Relative diagram of left ideas restored

User:109.76.126.193 has deleted a diagram I made for this page twice and I think this is not a good decision. So I decided to undo that change one more time. Here is what has gone on between us so far:

User:109.76.126.193: diagram is nonsensical and unnecessary

User:Araz: This editor needs to be more objective in their criticism. They need to explain what is wrong in the diagram that needs to be corrected. Araz (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:109.76.126.193: It only serves to confuse the meaning of terms that are explained on the page itself. It does not make anything more clear, it simply obfuscates things. For example, why is Christian Socialism and Islamic Socialism in your diagram never overlapping with Utopian Socialism or Marxism? In this example alone, of Christian Socialism, that could be said to encompass anything from the Christian anarchism of figures like Tolstoy to liberation theology to Christian social democracy. Other things on the diagram don't make sense either. Why is there a section of the Bordigism circle that's not libertarian at all but is Leninist? If that's the case it's not Bordigism. I understand the meaning you are trying to convey with that overlap but with the section not under left communism you imply that there exist Bordigists who are just a subsection of Leninism, which is nonsensical. In this way much of what you've put on the chart is either plain wrong or ignorant of leftist theory and the abstract nature of many of these terms, and serves to confuse rather than educate. It seems as if you've made this chart based on little evidence for any of your decisions with regard to where you'll place things and entirely on your own opinions and personal research. Another example is the placement of Eurocommunism, which was essentially social democracy, but it looks as if you've put it further left as anarcho-syndicalism! As such it's confusing and should have no place on the article for left-wing politics. 109.76.126.193 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of Capitalism as a separate circle doesn't really make sense either, and the inclusion of right libertarianism / anarchism is as irrelevant as including any other form of right-wing politics / non-left politics, as you're suggesting that just social democracy and green politics are capitalist yet others would argue that 90% of what you've labelled socialism is also capitalist in nature. You're presenting things as fact when it's really your opinion of where these different schools of thought lie. 109.76.126.193 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Araz: I respond to your arguments and claims one by one:
1. It only serves to confuse the meaning of terms that are explained on the page itself. It does not make anything more clear, it simply obfuscates things.

• This how you think about it and others may not agree

2. For example, why is Christian Socialism and Islamic Socialism in your diagram never overlapping with Utopian Socialism or Marxism? In this example alone, of Christian Socialism, that could be said to encompass anything from the Christian anarchism of figures like Tolstoy to liberation theology to Christian social democracy.

• I myself had hesitations about including religious socialism and where to put it from the beginning. I agree that religious socialism might share some characters of other concepts as well and this is noted under the photo in wiki-commons. If you can think of a better place to locate it suggest or do it yourself

• Christian Anarchism of Tolstoy is not introduced as a left idea. Neither on the respective Wikipedia entry nor for example in the book called Anarchism; A Beginner's Guide, Ruth Kinna 2005.

3. Other things on the diagram don't make sense either.

• Again your opinion not necessarily shared by everyone.

4. Why is there a section of the Bordigism circle that's not libertarian at all but is Leninist? If that's the case it's not Bordigism. I understand the meaning you are trying to convey with that overlap but with the section not under left communism you imply that there exist Bordigists who are just a subsection of Leninism, which is nonsensical.

• From Wikipedia page on Amadeo Bordiga: “Bordiga throughout his life called himself a Leninist and never polemicized against Lenin directly, but his totally different appreciation of the 1921 conjuncture, its consequences for the Comintern, and his opposition to Lenin and Trotsky on the united front issue illuminates a turning point that is generally obscured by the heirs of the Trotskyist wing of the international left opposition of the 1920s.”

• Unfortunately what you think you understand is a clear misunderstanding. I don’t want to imply that some Bordigists are Leninist. Rather I understand all Bordigists to inherit Leninist elements somehow reconciled in their view with their libertarian Marxist origins.

5. In this way much of what you've put on the chart is either plain wrong or ignorant of leftist theory and the abstract nature of many of these terms, and serves to confuse rather than educate. It seems as if you've made this chart based on little evidence for any of your decisions with regard to where you'll place things and entirely on your own opinions and personal research.

• From Wikipedia page on “Dispute Resolution”: Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.

• If you think much of the assumptions behind the diagram are plain wrong or ignorant, you need to offer a lot of suggestions/corrections backed by evidence not only four examples.

• Most of the decisions behind this chart are made based on the Wikipedia sources and yes! through my personal research. I don’t see a single reference in your critique that would imply that what you believe are not your personal opinion but rather established facts.

6. Another example is the placement of Eurocommunism, which was essentially social democracy, but it looks as if you've put it further left as anarcho-syndicalism! As such it's confusing and should have no place on the article for left-wing politics. 109.76.126.193 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is true that many Eurocommunists eventually adopted social democracy as their program but neither true about all, such as the Nordic communist parties and their contemporary continuation nor correct in theory. Eurocommunism is put under the series on communism in Wikipedia and is classified as a Marxist school of thought. So your claim that “Eurocommunism was essentially social democracy” is incorrect. However I agree with you that eurocommunism evolved into social democracy and parliamentarism.

• There is no left-right directionality dimension to this diagram. As you see capitalism is on the far left side of the picture. Diagram simply seeks to visualize the relation between ideas and I had no intention to indicate that euro communism is to the left of anarcho-syndicalism etc.

7. The inclusion of Capitalism as a separate circle doesn't really make sense either,

• I see no overlap between capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production and socialism as its collective ownership.

8. And the inclusion of right libertarianism / anarchism is as irrelevant as including any other form of right-wing politics / non-left politics, as you're suggesting that just social democracy and green politics are capitalist

• right libertarianism is not included in left politics. Only mutual anarchism is classified as associated with the left.

9. yet others would argue that 90% of what you've labelled socialism is also capitalist in nature.

• By “others” you seem to mean yourself. You can make a diagram with all those 90% being put in the capitalist camp to see how favourably other editors might react. I suppose that way you need to rewrite hundreds of pages on Wikipedia because apparently your views are not reflected on pages related to these topics and their representative parties.

10. You're presenting things as fact when it's really your opinion of where these different schools of thought lie. 109.76.126.193 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• There exists a truth surrounding the relationship between the ideas on the left and we can try to approach it by dialogue and evidence. A mature editing entails discussing shortcomings and offering suggestions to improve someone else’s work before simply deleting what does not suit an editor’s taste.Araz (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It is original research and should be removed. Since Another person preparing such diagram might place the various ideologies differently, we would need a source that presents it this way. Another writer for example may find that Trotskyism and Stalinism had at least some overlap: both for example saw the Russian Revolution as socialist in nature and saw the party as the vanguard of the revolution. And I do not understand why capitalism is included, it is not an ideology it is an economic system. And why are green politics included in socialism? While some Greens are socialists, some greens are very pro-capitalist. TFD (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

1. It is original research and should be removed. Since Another person preparing such diagram might place the various ideologies differently, we would need a source that presents it this way.

• Other people can draw new diagrams and improve on the current one based on more concrete evidence. What is reflected in this diagram is compatible with related Wikipedia entries on these ideas or else, please show the incompatibilities.

2. Another writer for example may find that Trotskyism and Stalinism had at least some overlap: both for example saw the Russian Revolution as socialist in nature and saw the party as the vanguard of the revolution.

• Trotskyism and Stalinism have common assumptions about revolution and the USSR that puts them both under Leninism which is proof of your claim but claiming commonality beyond that is a bold claim totally at odd with the historical evolution of the two schools of thought which grew in sharp contrast with each other. I refer you to the Wikipedia entry on Trotskyism to count the number of times the anti-Stalinist character of Trotskyism is emphasized. The fact that no one has tried to draw a new diagram with Trotskyism and Stalinism having overlap is a proof of its incorrectness.

3. And I do not understand why capitalism is included, it is not an ideology it is an economic system.

• Capitalism is indeed an ideology and a value system about the social organization of economic production similar to communism, socialism etc. Please take a look at the entry “economic ideology”.

• However I agree with you that this diagram is mainly concerned with political, economic and environmental differentiations in the political left (and not issues of culture, religion, internationalism etc.) so I move it further down to the section on economics and clarify this limitation in the diagram title.

4. And why are green politics included in socialism? While some Greens are socialists, some greens are very pro-capitalist. TFD (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Fair point. Thanks. I modified that.

If each time you are critical of something on the image you delete it you won’t give others the chance to think about it and improve it. So please write your comments on the talk page and allow for deliberation before removing the diagram.Araz (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Abritrary break

I agree with the concerns expressed about the graphic and with its removal. Also, the editor repeatedly reinserting this, against consensus, has this back to front: you need to get agreement to include any version of it, not simply ask everyone to discuss how to "improve" it at a micro-level while leaving it on the page and edit-warring to that effect. The problem with it on a more fundamental level is threefold, as mostly already pointed out: first, as noted, it rather blatant WP:OR; secondly, even if it were sourced, it would remain utterly subjective in how it tries to present the relationships, since sources are unlikely to agree on a definitive representation among themselves; thirdly, it's utterly confusing and unenlightening on a casual glance, which rather defeats the purpose of a visual representation. N-HH talk/edits 08:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You think so? Then let me tell you how I think. I tried to make an impartial graph visually depicting relations that are endorsed and explained by the content existing on Wikipedia (which you call subjective!) but as you rightly expressed:

"The main reason Wikipedia is so unreliable as a resource and badly written is ... because so many of the account-holders and regular content editors are basically ignorant about the areas they contribute to and have no idea how to read and research topics or to construct readable, coherent, concise and genuinely impartial encyclopedic content. And of course some of them aren't even here to try to do that anyway, but instead actively view this place as a playground for scoring political points."

An IP editor removes my graph on the account that it is "nonsense". The second one removes it because they know as much about the topic as to argue that there might be a relation between Trotskyism and Stalinism beyond their shared Leninist root!!!

I truly feel offended and abused by the fact that in the last month so many people including Trotskyists and Stalinists might have seen this and no one objected but three people with whom I was happy to engage in building a consensus simply chose to remove this piece of work because they don't like it! How about other editors who thought it is accurate enough and chose not to remove it? who counts them?

I'm not gonna spend more time on this matter anymore. I think Wikipedia should be thankful of people who dedicate their time and energy to make something valuable and educational rather than kicking them in the ass.Araz (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you put work into this, and that the graphic as put together is not necessarily flat-out wrong. I'm sure it's arguably a valid interpretation, but that's precisely the point - this is about interpretation. Anyway, people have actually discussed this with you in some detail, and also explained what the problems are (and always would be, however much work was put into it by you and/or anyone else). WP does work on consensus, for better or worse, and not everything everyone wants added makes it in. I think you probably also overestimate how reliable WP is as source material and the extent to which individual pages are ever looked at and quality-assured. N-HH talk/edits 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism

There is a section on the right-wing article devoted to "Right-Wing Terrorism." Why is there no equivalent section in this article? There are plenty examples of radical leftist organizations committing acts of terrorism, including bombings and murder, throughout the 20th century. I also think there should be a devoted criticism section on both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The fact that another article has a terrorism section is not a valid reason this one should. It could be that the other article should not have that section or there may be specific reasons why it does that do not apply here. I do not know. You would have to make a case here. TFD (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Given that the section on right-wing terrorism seems to be maintained, wouldn't it now make sense to create a left-wing terrorism section? The point of the terrorism discussion is to discuss ideological terror practiced by the political right. Given there are comparisons in other ideological spheres on the right-wing and left-wing pages (both talk about nationalism, economics, religion and social issues, it'd make sense to have a left-wing terrorism section to discuss ideological terror practiced by the political left. To have it for one article but not the other seems inconsistent with the approach both articles have taken and the justification for not having a left-wing terrorism section. Alternatively if terrorism isn't very relevant, it could be removed from the right-wing politics page instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"Wing" parsed as "extremist"

Looking through the talk archives, it seems clear that a lot of people take issue with the "left-wing" label because they see it as signifying more than just "left." Perhaps the semantic nullification of "wing" isn't as broad as the article implies. 38.124.22.170 (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess it might depend on what sort of wing people think of. If you think of a large building with a left wing and a right wing then each wing is approximately half the building, not a pair of brick outhouses bolted on the sides of a main building. On the other hand, if you think of the wings of a bird then you clearly have the main body of the bird in the middle and the wings can be referred to the extremities, although I doubt many people regard a bird's wings as being extreme (if we exclude those served in very hot sauce). I think the onus is on us to use language as precisely and correctly as we can. We should try to avoid situations in which we can be widely misconstrued but we can't be responsible for the quirks of people's internal mental imagery and the associations they may make from certain words that are not supported by their normal usage. So, if, for example, I were to say that we should avoid using the word "article" because it makes me think of dead pandas and start sneezing then the correct response is to shrug your shoulders and ignore the suggestion. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is that left has both a relative and an absolute meaning. The absolute definition began in the early 20th century when socialist deputies sat on the left side of the National Assembly and came to be called the Left, while their opponents were called the Right. But there was also a continuum within and among ideologies, so that Stalin could speak of the Left Opposition and the Right Opposition within the Communist Party and Americans today talk about Left and Right within their political mainstream although there is no socialist party. To add to the confusion, Americans paint their opponents in extreme terms, so that Obama was called a socialist, while Trump was called a fascist. TFD (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Left-wing terrorism

An IP restored a section on left wing terrorism saying, "Restoring segment, given we have a right-wing counterpart, despite it's small size on the political right for reasons given on that page which I would argue are valid here. Take concerns to Talk Page?"[6] That is not a valid reason, and violates the guideline, "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." The IP thinks that Right-wing politics should not have a terrorism section, so adds one to this article. It does not belong in this article because it is not a signficant part of left-wing politics, particularly as the Left is defined in this article. Terrorism for example was not one of the tactics used by the Democratic Party in the recent elections. Furthermore, the assumption that there is symmetry between Left and Right is false. They are not mirror images of each other. TFD (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I was one of the people who supported the inclusion of a small section in both articles and I still do but I agree that the two are not mirror images. In particular, left wing terrorism is less of a current thing than right wing terrorism. The section removed here was definitely highly problematic and not at all what I was hoping for. For a start it was too early in the article (i.e. before the Varieties section). Also I feel it was too long.

The main problem is that it was fixated on ludicrously overdetailed coverage of a few American terrorist groups rather than explaining the subject as a whole, in which the USA was never a major part. It was bad enough that I fully support its removal. I don't see it as something that could be fixed up.

Maybe it is my European viewpoint but I disagree that the subject is not significant enough for inclusion here at all. I remember this stuff being all over the news when I was a child. It was a fairly major thing, along with several other sorts of terrorism, of course. We should cover it, in a appropriately weighted manner. It can't be allowed to dominate the article or appear to cast taint on the left as a whole. That is pretty much the same concern that was worrying people on the right wing politics article.

What I would like to see is a very short part (I'm thinking 2 or 3 sentences.) within the Varieties section that mentions that there have been some left wing terrorist groups, without necessarily needing to name any particular groups (and certainly not mentioning the Weathermen!), with a link to the Left-wing terrorism article for those who want to know more.

Do we feel this is reasonable? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

An older version of the left-wing terrorism section was less American focused and just provided a general definition. Not to mention that left-wing terrorism used to be very common - the Red Army Faction in Germany for example. Right-wing terrorism, in modern democracies anyway, isn't a major part of the political right so you could equally argue that it's over-emphasizing a small segment and trying to say "terrorism is a key component of modern right-wing politics". The reasons given for it existing was that it is part of right-wing politics even if it is minor (though you could just create a generic "right-wing violence" section since that's more justifiable) and the same could be said of left-wing politics. If the reasoning is that terrorism is not a large enough part of the left-wing to justify keeping it around, then it seems odd for the right-wing politics page to have it too, which has not been removed. The two aren't mirror images but they are close enough - I mean both pages talk about the subjects of economics, nationalism and social issues despite not being mirror images of each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Currently the article has two sentences on Trotskyism and one on Maoism, and no mention of Lassalle, Bernstein or Fabianism. It is undue to have an entire section devoted to groups made up of a few dozen people in the 1960s. It could be part of a wider coverage of different tactics and goals of different groups within the Left. So I would agree with DanielRigal. TFD (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

And editor has restored the section.[7] I do not see consensus for this and ask that we continue discussion. TFD (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. That section is terrible. We need something but not that. I'm sure we can do better.--DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What about my old edit that was just a tiny paragraph that mentioned it in the varieties section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Left-wing_politics&oldid=759705204. It's small and gives only slight mention while still keeping it in the article, rather than creating a dedicated segment on the article for what is really a tiny part of left-wing politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems close to what we want. I'd be happy for us to start with that and see where it goes. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

An alternative proposal, which I discussed with Rick Norwood on the right-wing politics talk page, would be either to ignore it or just have a link in the "See Also" section due to this entire subject becoming a tumor on the edits page - it risks tainting the wider ideology and is a small segment (my reasoning on for the right-wing politics page could apply here easily IMO). Thus it may be better to just not include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.75.38 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not keen on leaving it out entirely (on either article) but just putting it in See Also sounds like a reasonable default position if we can't get a consensus for anything else. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Left-wing politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/Fleisher/courses/econ508winter06/docs/Democratic_socialism.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100326154510/http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13676 to http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13676
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://scrutinyhooligans.us/2010/07/26/the-yes-men-fix-the-world/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-leftwing-extremists-increase-in-cyber-attacks-dated-26-january-2009.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=59issue%3D105
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Populism, avant-garde art. etc.

This passage does not make much sense, I think:

"Since the Right was populist, both in the Western and the Eastern Bloc, anything viewed as avant-garde art was called leftist in all Europe. Thus, the identification of Picasso's Guernica as "leftist" in Europe[25][page needed] and the condemnation of the Russian composer Shostakovich's opera, The Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District, in Pravda, as "Here we have 'leftist' confusion instead of natural, human music...".[26][page needed]"

Since when "the Right was populist"? There are both populists and elitists in the Right - if anything, I think "elitism" is a position more naturally associated with the Right than "populism". And what is the Right in Eastern Bloc? The dissidents? Or some socially conservative hard-line Communists (who, I suppose, were the people in Eastern Bloc more opposed to "avant-garde art")? And what is exactly the relation between being "populist" and being against "avant-garde art" (I could imagine many elistists being against avant-garde art - the kind of people who think that only classic music from some centuries ago is true art, for example)?

The identification of Guernica with the left has no mystery - it is a painting about the destruction of a Basque city by the Nationalist/Fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War; about the Shostakovich's opera, there seems to be a great confusion here - the Pravda was the newspaper of the Communist Party! It it accused the opera of being "leftist", surelly it is not in the sense used in this article; probably it is with the meaning that "leftist" has in the internal jargon of the Communist parties - something like "irrealist extremism".--MiguelMadeira (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Then do something about it. TFD (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

But perhaps ask to @Rick Norwood: what he intended to say with that passage?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Contemporary 21st opposition to left-wing politics section needed

The article currently focuses on the time period from the French Revolution to the end of the 20th century.

As far as the 21st century, the article doesn't given enough explanation of the contemporary conflicts between the left/right.

For example, issues such as Brexit, the rise of European right-wing politics[8], the emergence of the alt-right and the election of Donald Trump are all significant matters.

Politics is similar to Newtonian physics. For all actions, there are reactions. In other words, left-wing politics doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The article should have additional information on the various challenges that left-wing politics currently faces in the developed world. For example, there are the issues of right-wing opposition to Muslim immigration; aging populations putting additional stress on government retirement/health programs; public schools vs. privatization of school systems (Betty Devos), high levels of national government debt in many developed countries that are growing, etc.

In Asia, you have fundamentalist, Protestant Christianity quickly expanding in Communist China[9] (fundamentalist, Protestant Christians often have socially conservative views on various issues). And China is poised to increase its status/influence as a major power in the 21st century. And this same brand of Protestant Christianity is rapidly growing in Latin America/Africa which will affect right/left wing politics in these places too. Knox490 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am having difficulty following you. You begin by mentioning "issues such as Brexit." The Left and the extreme Right supported Brexit (although not entirely). The center-left and the Right opposed it (although not entirely). How do you think the article should be re-written to explain that? TFD (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about Brexit. Brexit can be mentioned with the caveat that the left was split concerning this matter.

The remainder of the material was straightforward and easy to follow in terms of its relevance/implications.

Finally, I added a footnote in my above talk page post as far as the rise of right-wing European politics. The footnote cites a 2017 New Statesman article. Knox490 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe such possibly essayish content has to be included. This is an encyclopedic article about the term "left-wing". This article should not portray or evaluate conflicts etc. That is what scientific literature, blogs, opinion mags etc. are there for. It does not seem to has a place here.--Joobo (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Joobo, facts such as right-wing politics ascending in Europe and other facts indicating left-wing politics is losing ground in the world are not "essay-ish". They are relevant data which should be incorporated in the article. These are seminal events which are shaping the political contours and political disourse in the world.Knox490 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how the New Statesman article fits in. It says Golden Dawn won 7% of the vote in Greece in 2015. Syriza won. Who is the Left: Syriza, the Socialist Party, or the Socialists and Syriza? TFD (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

TFD, I don't know why you are having difficulty with the New Statesman article used as a footnote on this talk page. The title of the article, for example, is plain enough. Here is the article in question: Rise of the nationalists: a guide to Europe’s far-right parties by ANOOSH CHAKELIAN, New Statesman, 2017

The lead of the New Statesman article is straightforward as well. It declares: "We are seeing a rise of far-right parties in mainstream European politics. Playing on scepticism about the European Union following the eurozone’s travails, and using racist rhetoric to exploit a migration crisis that has become difficult to contain, these parties are gaining voters in countries across the continent." [10]

Factors such as high youth unemployment in some areas of Europe and backlash against Muslim immigrants is fueling the rise of right-wing political parties in Europe.Knox490 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left-wing politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416234151/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/neomarx.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/neomarx.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413181212/http://leonora.fortunecity.co.uk/WilliamMorris.html to http://leonora.fortunecity.co.uk/WilliamMorris.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Zionism

Should leftist positions on Zionism, anti Semitism, and the Israel Palestine conflict be included? Benjamin (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hard to say. It is a subject on which the Left is strongly divided. To try to generalize is difficult. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Then it should mention the controversy, no? Benjamin (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can cite reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So there is agreement, then, that it would be appropriate to include? I'd expect there to be plenty of sources. I put it on my to do list and will add it when I get around to it. Benjamin (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you add a section, it must show the full story, not just current right-wing talking points. It should cover for example the role of Jews in the development of socialism and anarchism, left-wing positions on the Dreyfus Affair and the Final Solution, the Civil Rights movement and the fact that most of the Left today is pro-Israel, and Israel itself has been governed by the Left for much of its existence.

Incidentally, I notice that there is no corresponding section in Right-wing politics. Anti-Semitism dominated the Right until the end of the Second World War and even today has a much stronger presence, especially on the fringe. You might want to put that on your list too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what I meant when I said it is not really a left-right issue. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a "controversy" section focusing on a peripheral if not incidental aspect of something so broad, that would be entirely out of scope. It would be like having a controversy section on apartheid in the article right-wing politics. If it's systemic then of course that would be different, but what I'm saying is that this is only even applicable in some countries. Such a section would probably be focused on the US and Israel, perhaps along with some accusations against European parties. As for focusing on Jews and left-wing politics, we already have Jewish left. I honestly don't think this is a good idea. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Far-politics categoires

If on the right-wing politics page it is also categorized with the far-right politics (nazism / fascism), why can not the left-wing politics page be categorized with the far-left politics (communism / anarchism)?

Would not it be easier to categorize the pages of the far-politics with their respective ideological movements?

--83.41.227.101 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Is politics singular or plural?

Beyond My Ken and I are having a debate about whether politics is singular or plural. I say that, in the title of this article, it is a singular noun. He says that in the title of this article it is a plural noun. The dictionary says it can be singular of plural. (It is certainly not the plural of politic, which is an adjective meaning "wise".) Thus, we can have one kind of politics, as in the title of this article, left-wing politics, or we can have various kinds of politics. There are many different kinds of politics in Washington. But in the title of this article, it seems clear to me that politics is a singular noun. If you agree, please fix it in the first sentence of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There is more than one kind of "left-wing politics" -- socialism is a form of left-wing politics, communism is a form of left-wing politics, etc. -- and this article deals with them all. Hence, the title is plural. (Some words just do not have different singular and plural forms, cf. "sheep".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly aware of words that do not have different forms for singular and plural. I'll offer only the following famous quote: "Politics is the art of the possible." Would you change that to "Politics are the art of the possible." Rick Norwood (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say in this case it is singular. Consider the sentence: "Both left-wing politics and right-wing politics are represented in the assembly." The word both is only meaningful if politics is used as a singular noun. But we could use it as a plural noun by changing the sentence to "Both left-wing and right-wing politics are represented in the assembly." Certainly we can speak of socialist politics and communist politics, but this article is about the politics of the whole. TFD (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from reliable sources that "politics" in the sense used in the title of this article is a singular noun. George Will, "The Conservative Sensibility", "Politics originates in nature... ." Plutarch, quoted in "An Unfinished Life, John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963" by Robert Dallek, "They are wrong who think that politics is like an ocean voyage... ." I did not pick and choose these, they are the first two I found. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

According to one school of thought, when the word is used without qualification, it is usually singular ("politics doesn't interest me"), but when particularised it goes plural ("my politics are my own business"). "In a prosperous country, above all in an imperialist country, left­-wing politics are always partly humbug", according to George Orwell. Which is not the same as saying that all left-wing politics is humbug. William Avery (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why leftist defend keynesianism and then they say enviromental problemas are because of "consumism". I mean i know that leftist are not coherent but this is too much even for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.60.71.192 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's more likely that what you describe as leftism is not a coherent concept. Keynsianism is pro-capitalist ideology rejected by leftists who oppose capitalism and consumerism. TFD (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Argument for the removal of an image from this article

Conventional left–right political spectrum

Please see the centralized discussion here for the argument to not use the above image in en.wiki articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The following RfC concerns this article: [11]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Parties

It would be nice if there could be added on the page a list of historically most important and current left-wing parties, possibly grouped under different left-wing ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.74.8 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 January 2013

Definition of "left" isn't consistent with the article's content

Why is there mention of "Stalin" or other non-left leaders?

The first paragraph of the article clearly states "Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. The term left-wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system""

Why is Stalin later mentioned in the article, implying that Stalin is a leftist? Stalin's policies were not consistent with social equality, egalitarianism or anti-hierarchical ideology. It didn't show concern for those who were disadvantaged, it didn't reduce inequalities, etc.

Stalin also was opposed to workers' self-determination and workers' ownership of the means of production, so he wasn't a socialist.

Stalin also was an authoritarian who wanted a strong state and he didn't abolish money nor classes, so he wasn't a communist.

I don't understand why people like Stalin are mentioned in the context of left wing politics. It's better suited as an example of far right politics. Shouldn't the examples of Stalinist policies be removed from the article? I don't see how they are relevant at all to the discussion about left wing politics (except to serve as a counterexample to left wing reform)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindknecht (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC) 

The meaning of the words "left" and "right" have changed dramatically. Originally, left meant egalitarian and right meant monarchist. But as monarchy declined, and communism rose, left came to mean communist and right came to mean anti-communist. Thus Hitler, an anti-communist, was called right and Stalin, a communist, was called left. In modern times, the meaning has changed again, and now left means egalitarian again, but since there are very few monarchists left in politics, right has come to mean a lot of things, mainly anti-left. In Europe and, to a lesser extent in America, "far right" has come to mean racist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The article is based on reliable sources and you would need additional sources in order to challenge what they say. Under Communism, traditional social ranks such as emperor, prince and baron were abolished and lower class people such as Stalin himself were able to hold high positions. Whether or not Stalin's policies created greater egalitarianism could be argued, but that was the supposed purpose of his policies. TFD (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, egalitarianism is not the definition of left, but a description. Left wing parties are generally more egalitarian than right-wing ones, but that's merely a generalization based on observation and is not necessarily true in every case. It's like saying Americans are richer than people in the third world. In general they are, but not in every case and it's a description of the U.S. rather than a definition. TFD (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think equalitarianism is a main character of the left. Stalin did indeed destroy/kill/exile all the rich people in USSR -- see kulak. Under soviet communism money no longer mattered much. Special privileges (like good housing) went not to rich people but to those high in the Communist party. Socialist non-communist parties all across the West Europe were equalitarian in many ways. eg high taxes on the rich. Thus Michael Keating re Europe cites studies in which : "The result was a bidimensional political space defined by: an economic/redistributive/equalitarian leftist vs neoliberal/individualistic dimension" (plus a second dimension of post-modern vs traditional) Michael Keating (2015). Crisis of Social Democracy in Europe. p. 171. In the US race and gender issues have the left emphasizing equality and opposing social factors that put whites higher than Blacks or men higher than women. Rjensen (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The contradiction you describe is one of the biggest historical divisions on the left and something that has attracted extensive discussion by academics. It should probably be covered in more detail in the article, but we'd need sources to cover it; definitely Stalinism is generally described as left-wing (though there's nowhere near the unanimity or significance attached to this label as for eg. Fascism being the iconic far-right movement), since at least on paper its purpose was to create a more egalitarian society, and it did eliminate certain specific inequities, as people noted above, even if it also had all the problems you outlined. But suffice to say that the contradiction of trying to use an absolute state to create an egalitarian society has, indeed, been extensively commented on and critiqued, both from within the left and from outside it. We could probably include a bit of that debate in the article, but we'd need good sources for it. Another thing worth mentioning is that there's generally far more variety among left-wing movements in comparison to right-wing movements - almost all right-wing movements carry some combination of nationalism, racial hierarchy, economic and social hierarchy, and so on, varying only in the extent to which these are emphasized and the justifications presented for them. In comparison, left-wing movements cover a range that extends from centralized authoritarian state Communism to outright anarchism - movements that, aside from the basic concept of "egalitarianism", are almost diametrically opposed in both their methods and the ultimate goal they're shooting for. So it's to be expected that some people on the left will argue that others aren't "real" leftists. --Aquillion (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The Left, while divided, still has a shared history, symbols and ethos such as the Red Flag, while the Right combines reactionary, conservative, Christian democratic, liberal and other elements. TFD (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

the Marxist strain of the left has a red flag background but NOT the left (or "progressive") strain in USA = Bryan, T Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, in Britain = Gladstone, Asquith Lloyd George, Keynes. The left originated in French Revolution 1790s and the red flag came much later. Rjensen (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The person who asked the question, "Why is there mention of Stalin," asked a simple question and deserved a simple answer: there was a time in history when "left" = "communist". Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Marcel Gauchet in "Right and Left," the terms right and left, while based on the geography of the National Assembly, did not come to refer to relative political positions until the early 20th century. At that time, conservatives sat on the right, liberals in the center, and socialists on the left. So while Lenin wrote about "left-wing communism," Marx never used the terms right or left. And Communists everywhere are still considered to be to the left of pro-capitalist parties. The only point of dispute is how left a party must be before it is considered part of the Left. If we consider Joe Stalin and Joe Biden part of the Left, then it becomes difficult to define. TFD (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This makes no sense at all, Stalin was a communist, he was a member of the Communist Party, to say he was centrist or right-wing, is dis-ingenious at best.ZL3XD (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To some, the beginning and end of the right is anti-communism, but most of my students don't have any idea what communism is. We need to at least include the modern definition. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Singular or plural?

“Left-wing politics“ implies different politics which is plural. Why is the singular used in the article?--LeftiePete (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 11#Is politics singular or plural? TFD (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)