Talk:Left-wing politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6

Contents 1 Communism 2 US Congress 3 Imbalance and proposed merger 4 Postmodernism 5 Gracchi 6 Very dubious statement about U.S. 7 Leftism 8 the Irish Republican Army 9 Page is in a bit of a state 10 Big L little l 11 Accuracy Dispute - Huge problems with the political violence section 12 Does left-wing mean liberal? 13 extremely biased 14 green 15 Pejorative use of the word "leftist" 16 Will not let me edit. 17 discussion of "ultra left", "radical left", "far left" articles 18 Left in India 19 "Militant"

[edit] Communism

The following sections, already marked as disputed, were recently, anonymously cut. Frankly, I don't see much actively wrong with it, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Can we at least agree to restore some reduced version of this? I think it is ridiculous to have an article about left-wing politics that fails to discuss Communism at some length - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Communism and left-wing politics

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Despite the important differences from other left-wing ideologies, the Communism of the former USSR (and its satellites) and of the People's Republic of China during and shortly after the time of Mao Zedong is widely considered to be a part of "the left." This is somewhat parallel to the customary inclusion of fascism (and, in particular, that of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) in "the right." Nonetheless, Communism differs significantly from other politics that are usually classified as left wing, and most left-wingers (even many far left groups) believe Communism violates core left-wing principles like justice, human rights and democracy. The argument that Communism should be viewed independently of the conventional left-right spectrum is perhaps supported by the work of theorists like Karl Popper and Hannah Arendt, through the development of the concept of totalitarianism, as a form of politics common to fascism and Stalinism.

There are political currents which describe themselves as communist who criticise the states created by Communist parties. Trotskyists and council communists, for example, regard the totalitarianism of the former Soviet Union to be the result of Stalinism and its betrayals of genuine communist ideology. Many of these critics, however, recognise a kinship between Communism and the left. Likewise, most right-wingers (including many nationalists) reject any association with Nazism and fascism, although many recognise these are right-wing ideologies.

Some say that leftist-inspired welfare state reforms in many non-Communist countries, such as the establishment of social security and recognition of labour unions, helped to stave off Communism by alleviating the excesses of capitalism, hence protecting and preserving social support for capitalism.

---

The Soviet Union

In the days of the Soviet Union, left-wing movements worldwide had different relationships with Moscow-line Communist parties, ranging from enthusiastic support to outright opposition. Lincoln Steffens, in 1919, said of having visited the Soviet Union, "I have seen the future and it works", while others, increasingly numerous over the years, loathed the perceived crimes of those regimes and denounced them at every turn.

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, the large social-democratic parties of Western Europe were largely opposed to what they saw as its totalitarianism. A large majority of members of the British Labour Party, the West German Social Democratic Party of Germany, and the French Socialists were never supportive of the Soviet regime, and nor were their respective leaderships. The American Democratic party took a strong anti-Soviet stand, especially at the height of the Cold War.

One example of an internal dispute within Communism is that most Trotskyists adhere to some variant of Leon Trotsky's view of the post-Lenin Soviet Union as a "degenerated workers' state" and denounce Stalin as a traitor, some even claiming that the Soviet Union was actually a kind of 'monopoly capitalist' state. Other Marxists who adopt an analysis associated with Maoism regard the Soviet Union as fully State Capitalist from the late 1950s onward. Others, such as the American activist Hal Draper, argued that the USSR was neither capitalist nor socialist but bureaucratic collectivist.

Large segments of the left never took inspiration from the Soviet model and actually rejoiced to see the USSR's system collapse—as Michael Albert of Z Magazine put it, "one down, one to go" (referring to Stalinism and capitalism).^[1]

[End moved section]

---

Above change made by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=72.139.119.165.

I put (rather poor) China subsection into the hidden bit too, as it stood out a bit oddly. BobFromBrockley 11:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Congress

"The United States Congress continues the left-sitting tradition in the House of Representatives with the Democratic Party occupying the seats to the left side of the center aisle." I doubt it. Not that the Dems sit on the left, but that this is a continuation of this tradition. I'm pretty sure that the Dems have long sat on the left, long predating the situation that the Democratic-Republican split in the U.S. had major left-right overtones. - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imbalance and proposed merger

The concepts of "left-wing" and "right-wing" are supposed to be mirror images of each other. Any issue that can be discussed in relation to the left can also be discussed in relation to the right. And, indeed, it is often inevitable that a discussion of left-wing ideas will also entail a discussion of right-wing responses and objections to those ideas. You cannot talk about the left without also talking about the right, albeit briefly.

As such, I am wondering why exactly do we have separate articles about left-wing and right-wing politics instead of discussing all the issues from the perspective of both left and right in the article Left-Right politics. As it stands now, the attempt to separate the articles on the left and right has produced major imbalances - the article right-wing politics is little more than a stub. I propose to merge left-wing politics and right-wing politics into Left-Right politics. That will allow us to discuss both left- and right-wing perspectives on the whole range of issues mentioned in this article. It will provide a more NPOV approach to politics and it will give us one article on the subject of the left-right spectrum instead of the three overlapping articles that we currently have. -- Nikodemos 08:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I understand your point, but the traditions and issues are so different that to fit them into a single article would not work at all. There is a place for all thre articles.BobFromBrockley 11:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger. For one thing "leftist", to the extent that it has any mening at all, is not the opposite of "right wing". In the US, leftist = communist = bad person. Thus Republican politicians call Democrats "left wing" but nobody self-identifies as "left wing" except for a few academics, who have little or no influence. In the US, you seldom hear "right wing". In its place, you hear, "ultra-conservative" = Bible believing Christian = opposed to sex outside marriage and thinks evolution is "just a theory". I gather that outside the US, there is more of a polarity between "left" and "right", with left being internationalist and right being nationalist. On the other hand, I imagine a person who favors nationalization of industry but opposes immigration would be simultaneously left wing and right wing. Thus, separate articles are best. Rick Norwood 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All dictionaries and political science books that I know of define "leftism" as the opposite of "right-wing". This is natural, since left is the opposite of right. Rick, your comments about US politics are interesting, but they are unsourced and wikipedia must maintain a global outlook. Yes, there are many different interpretations of "left-wing" and "right-wing". That is precisely why we need a single article! Suppose someone writes a paragraph in this article about leftism in Australia, but does not write a mirror paragraph in the right-wing politics article about rightism in Australia. This would result in imbalance and a violation of NPOV. Like I said above, every time you talk about left-wing attitudes to an issue you must also talk about right-wing attitudes towards the same issue. -- Nikodemos 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob, I think I can write a merged article that would contain good descriptions of the different traditions and issues. -- Nikodemos 03:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is not destiny. I'm sure left and right wing started out being opposites, but I don't think they are any more. For similar reasons, it would be a bad idea to try to merge the conservatism and the liberalism article. In some ways they are opposites, in many ways they are not opposites.

Political discussion takes place on (at least) two widely divergent levels: discussions by people who know what they are talking about and discussions by people who do not know what they are talking about (but are certain that they are "entitled to their opinion"). Almost all public discourse in the media is of the latter variety. Thus, words such as "right wing" and "liberal" are used as essentially meaningless noise most of the time. The entire content of such uses is: "Our side good, their side bad!" An encyclopedia article should do several things. First, it should point out origins of the word, and the way the word is used by informed people. Only then should it say something about the way the word is used or misused in the popular media. To combine the left-wing and right-wing articles would imply that the current usage is still close to the original usage. It isn't. Rick Norwood 15:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that political science scholars use the terms left and right differently does not proscribe that these differences should be discussed in separate articles. I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia guideline somewhere on the issue of keeping certain subjects in separate articles? Intangible 15:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the merger.
Rather then starting with the problematic question; "What is it to be left-wing?" we should start from the question; "What is the left-wing tradtion?", that way we need not take a POV stand on current polical science controvercies such as the far-left=far-right chesnut rather we can just discribe the actual history of those ideas and movemnets that have idenitifed themselves as left-wing or have been idenitifed as such.
Right-wing should be similarly treated, that is it should be treated as a tradtion.
If we do start from the perspective of the actual historical traditions (as I think we should) then it is unclear why "...every time you talk about left-wing attitudes to an issue you must also talk about right-wing attitudes towards the same issue"(Nikodemos, above) since in the two traditions have related but separte histories and are not only definable in relation to each other.--JK the unwise 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JK. I understand the idea of the compass, mirroring, etc, but they are not symetrical, precisely because the traditions are different, hence need for enclyclopedia article that descrives these traditions.BobFromBrockley 14:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that usage might not symmetrical does not preclude these concepts to be explained in the same article. I might actually argue that article 'left-wing politics' is a content fork of Left-Right politics, and that due to its lack for references is probably POV as well. The same goes for all these articles. I am not convinced that a Left-Right politics article will be too large, warranting separate articles to discuss details. Intangible 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is much talk about the supposed traditions of left and right, but, as it stands right now, neither this article nor the one on right-wing politics include any discussion of a coherent political tradition. Rather, this article talks about left-wing attitudes towards a number of random issues. -- Nikodemos 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually support the idea of a merger. The current article is incomprehensible, and annoying with all the controversy. It starts by saying what the left is associated with, as opposed to what the left actually represents. In it's simplest (and only meaningful) form, the left stands for equality and the right stands for inequality. However, this needs to be qualified, and this realization is normally gained after hours of philosophical discourse, and appropriate use of the Socratic method. So the article would need to be written carefully. There's a grain of truth to the fact that the left is the party of communism and the right is the party of fascism. Those are indeed the poles. But to present it intelligently would require some tact, and it's hard enough to build consensus when fringe groups foam at the mouth. MoodyGroove 16:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Postmodernism

"Left-wing Postmodernism claims to reject..."

Since I don't rightly understand what postmodernism is or isn't, I'm not completely comfortable changing this sentence. But, if I read it right, using "claims to reject" instead of simply "rejects" seems to cast doubt on the left-wing POV. Is this correct? 66.57.225.77 06:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Claims to reject" is not encyclopedic. "Left-wing Postmodernism rejects..." would be better. Better still would be a sentence that made it clear whether the meaning intended is "Postmodernism, which is left-wing, rejects..." or "Of the postmodernists, those who are left-wing reject..." Whoever wrote the sentence should fix it and support it or it should be deleted. Rick Norwood 15:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I (think) I wrote it. I have changed it to "Left-wing Postmodernist theories tend to reject". Hopefully this makes clear that it is the body of differnt post-modern theories that we are talking about. I am aware that the line is not referanced. I have looked for a consise explanation of left-wing post-modernism but post-moderists seem to dislike giving any such thing. The critisms are referanced but it would seem contray to NPOV to have them without trying to give psoitive def' first.--JK the unwise 13:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gracchi

Is there any citation for the even possible relevance of Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus? - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As best I remember, I'm not the one who put the Gracchi in the article, but as a firm believer in the lessons of history, I can certainly see the relevance. The Gracchi fought for freedom for the Roman plebian class, and were tossed off a cliff by the "right wing" patricians. Things have improved. Today, they would just be slandered on Fox News. But the pattern is the same. Rick Norwood 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Right (so to speak), but this article seems to suggest that their facing left while speaking had something to do with French deputies sitting on the left, and I seriously doubt it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The point was taken from Plutarch's life of Gaiius Gracchus. The point I was trying to make with this is that the distinction between left and right had political symbolic relevance before the time of the French revolution. This article posits the French Revolution as the origin of the Left/Right dichotomy. I found it interesting that the dichotomy may have had origins in Ancient Rome.

Unfortunately, I don't have any evidence to support a link or how this could have influenced the French Revolution. However, the point is very clear in Plutarch's writing. Gaiius' turning to the left symbolised his support for the people. I would be extremely interested to hear of any other evidence pointing to other influences pre-dating the French Revolution. However, the point still remains: the division between left and right did exist in Ancient Rome. The question then is was it just a freak occurrence, or did it have some influence over later political life and thought? This question needs to be answered. That is why the question was left open on the page.It was left open for further research in to the issue.

Another interesting piece of evidence in Plutarch is the fact that he considered a particular portent to be important in the life of Tiberius Graccus, Gaiius' brother. A bird was let out of its cage and it lifted its LEFT WING which tends to make me think that Plutarch was making another reference to politics at the time here.

Christian Findlay 117/12/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.12.152 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Smacks of original research to me. If somebody can find a source linking this to the modern sense of the term, that might be included in the article, but I think speculation should remain on the talk page until that happens. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point but there is no theory being propounded here. The facts are clearly marked out in Plutarch's life of Gaiius Gracchus. The point is that looking toward the left at a public speech symbolised something which is very much like our modern concept of "left wing". I make no claim that there was continuity between Gracchus' actions and the French Revolution. I merely make the point that it is possible. Doesn't this point deserve some place in the article?

In my opinion it is a useful piece of information which relates to the topic. It seems to me highly irrelevant that there is no continuity between the usage of the symbolism in Roman times and the modern usage. The *fact* is that the symbolism existed at that time as it does now. It is not research and it is not opinion. It is directly from the words of an ancient source. I can copy the passage out verbatim from the Penguin text if it makes any difference.

If nobody has a better idea, I will re-enter a summary of the passage under a new heading somewhere in the page without any implication of continuity between it and the French Revolution. However, I am completely open to where on the page this should be placed and how it should be worded.

The facts are clearly marked out in Plutarch's life of Gaiius Gracchus. is exactly what everybody who wants to insert original research on a historical topic into a wikipedia article always says. john k 00:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Without relevance to the seating arrangement of the legislative bodies of the French Revolution, this has no relavance to the subject of this article. One might as well concern oneself with the placement of statues at the entrances to Italian municipal buildings. - Jmabel | Talk 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very dubious statement about U.S.

"The United States Congress continues the left-sitting tradition in the House of Representatives with the Democratic Party occupying the seats to the left side of the center aisle." Except... isn't left and right in such seating arrangements usually described relative to the speaker? Which is to say, isn't this exactly backwards? I believe, though I'm not sure that (relative to the president of the Senate) the Senate's arrangement has placed Republicans on the left since 1913; unfortunately, I don't have access to the document that I believe would confirm that [1]. Can someone (probably an academic), with jstor access please take a look at this one? - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have access to jstor (as studying at Sheffield University). I have down loaded article and a quick look find the following line "In the United States Congress, Rebuplicans have been seated to the left of the chair and Democrats to the right since 1913" (p.346-347) "...before 1913 congressmen were seated by drawing lots for choice of seats, and members of both political parties were scattered throughout the chambers of the House and Senate" (p.347)--JK the unwise 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! So "Republicans to the left" is in both houses? - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

i would hardly call the u.s. democrats leftist. centrist maybe but definitely not left.

[edit] Leftism

I think leftism as it is described in the dictionary is the perfect politics. It promises a class less society, equality and justice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonathanPoindexter (talk • contribs) 11:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The question is not what leftism promises, but whether the methods of leftism are likely to deliver on those promises. Stalin promised a classless society with equality and justice for all. If wishes were horses, then beggers would ride. Rick Norwood 13:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Irish Republican Army

I added the word Provisional to the IRA on the list of leftwing terrorist groups, becasue the original Irish Republican Army (of the Irish War of independence 1919-1921 and the Irish Civil War 1922-1923) while being in favour of republican democracy and including socialists and Marxists, was itself not socialist in the least bit!

However the reconstituted Irish Republican Army of the 1960s under the leadership of Cathal Goulding did advocate a Marxist agenda, leading to the split of 1969 between the Official IRA (Marxists who supported Goulding and later renounced violence, becoming the workers Party in 1972) and the Provisional IRA which outgrow it's parent organization and is simply reffered to today as the IRA. The Provisional IRA is not Marxist, but does favour a united, 32 county, socialist, Irish Republic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.115.97.241 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

• Arguably, though, all organizations calling themselves "the IRA", and Irish Republicanism as a philosophy, IS associated with leftism despite the strong nationalist strains also visible. But yes, it is probably more important to distinguish the PIRA as the better example, since they are the most notorious today even after the Good Friday Agreement.

[edit] Page is in a bit of a state

An anonymous editor did a big edit over the last couple of days, that managed to hide most of the page. A lot of what was hidden is actually not great, and some of the changes were good, but there were loads at once, leaving the whole sequence of the article in a confusing order. I have reverted to last good version, and now go through a re-do some of the good bits of editing that editor did, plus am tagging the page as needing work. BobFromBrockley 11:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big L little l

Some editors are using capital L for every use of the phrase "the Left", others small l. Personally, I prefer small l, as it is not a proper noun. BobFromBrockley 11:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy Dispute - Huge problems with the political violence section

First off, the first sentence: using the term "left" in the context of the French Revolution and comparing it to today is very questionable and lacks nuance. Of note is the differences between the radical leftists and the center-leftists of the day. Robespierre, one of the center-leftists, had many of the radical leaders killed. I think this sentence should be taken out. It's repeating the French connection for the fourth or fifth time and in a confusing and untrue way.

Next, this paragraph: "In the 1970s, various left-wing groups sprang up from the social movements of the time, such as Weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Army in the U.S., the Angry Brigade in Britain, the Baader-Meinhof group in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy and so on. These groups were impatient with the pace of progress the social movements had achieved. They turned to acts of terrorism in order to either hasten what they deemed progress or in order to shock the populace into dissatisfaction with the status quo. The actual result of their activities was to divide the left and they failed to inflict serious damage on their "ruling classes"."

The citation provided here leads to an article from the Socialist Review articulating a Marxist condemnation of terrorism. While this is functionally true, it does not explain away the Weathermen. The Weathermen explicitly rejected violence and never killed or wounded anyone (excluding a bomb which blew up one of their own houses and killed several Weather operatives.) Their actions were based on both an anti-imperialist and an anti-racist analysis. They were Marxist-Leninist-Maoists. Even a cursory look at their history will reveal their reasonable adherence to this line and likewise the Marxist theory of terrorism as incompatible with class struggle. Qualifications of Weather as "terrorists" are highly biased. This section rips off whole sentences from the (incorrect) SR article word-for-word without any alternate viewpoints. Based on Weather's perception in the modern U.S. as terrorist, it is likely that SR is practicing rather pathetic revisionism here. Moral of the story: Just because a source considers itselves Marxist does not mean it is the be-all and end-all of radical leftist thought. I point those interested to the anarchist Johann Most's "Propaganda of the Deed."

This brings about the third and most sweeping problem with the section. It seems to conflate "political violence" with "terrorism." For instance, the final list of "left-wing terrorist groups" includes such groups as Black September, whose goal is indeed to terrify the Israeli populace into forcing the Israeli government to change their policies. On the flip side, the no action taken in the name of the Animal Liberation Front and verified by its press office has yet injured any human beings. The ALF and its sister org the ELF (also included in the list) practice and preach "direct action." In keeping with these aims, it appears that the groups' actions are more targeted at stopping specific acts of "animal cruelty" than at terrifying British and U.S. citizens into changing government policies.

Brendan141.140.123.117 03:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does left-wing mean liberal?

The first word to describe left-wing in the article is "liberal" but left-wing is as much anti-liberal as it is anti-conservative (i.e. liberty is overidden by the collective). Now it is true that the term "liberal" in the USA is used to mean left-wing, but this is because liberals are contrasted with conservatives. But this is to describe everything which is not conservative as left-wing. Does it make sense to describe Adam Smith or Hayek as left-wing? The modern origins of the left wing are those who thought that liberalism (or the position taken by Whigs after the Glorious Revolution) was not radical enough. Initially Whigs such as Charles Fox supported the French Revolution, but once the radicals (who it is wholly appropriate to call left-wing) took over there was a shift of opinion against the French Revolution in England (except amongst those who are now happily identified as leftists, such as the political philosopher Godwin and his son-in-law the poet Shelly. Upholding liberty is a pragmatic not a defining virtue for leftism i.e. appeals are made to liberty in order to undermine existing beliefs, institutions, and values. Once in power the left replace liberty with collectivity. There is sometimes an attempt to redefine liberty as something that truly takes place in submission to the general will (or as Rousseau put it, we ought to "force people to be free", but that is like calling a repressive monarchical State (such as North Korea) a "Peoples Republic" - it is using words in ways that invert their meanings. There is an author called George Orwell who talks a lot about this in a novel called 1984. If I was to think of the most illiberal States in the world, with the exception of States dominated by religious fundamentalists (and leftism is arguably a secular religion) they nearly all describe themseves as being on the left.

Any discussion of left wing ideals practices should include all or most of these qualities 1) One Party State

2) Centralism

3) Totalitarianism

4) Extensive use of properganda and slogans

5) Reliance upon Terror as an instrument of policy

6) Militarism

7) Anti-Monarchism

8) Anti-Liberalism

9) Materialism

10) Anti-Priviledge (except for Party members)

11) Anti-Tradition

12) Socialism (i.e. collectivism)

13) State control of education

14) Welfare State (from cradle to grave)

15) Elimination of intermediate (i.e, between the individual and the State) associations

16) Conformity of Mass Media

17) Elimination of private propery

18) Persecution of religious bodies

19) Use of political witch hunts for 'traitors'

20) Constant reference to democratic principles

Of course these qualities refer to actual (rather than fictional) left-wing States and manifest themselves with vaying degrees - only operating in a full blown way when Leftists gain absolute power. The more external restraint (as a consequence of appeals to tradition or God or truth or justice or morality or property or liberty and so forth) the more moderate the application of these qualities. Conversely if leftists succeed in obtaining absolute political control all of the above properties will be abundantly manifested. This is because leftism is at its core radical and utopian.

Urgel Bogend

• • nice joke, im guessing that next you are going to say that Hitler was actually left wing instead of right wing?

• • Are you on drugs or just trying to increase this article's absurd bias? I don't get it. Do people get off on spreading lies over Wikipedia?

Brendan141.140.123.117 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brendan. No I am not on drugs. Actually I am sympathetic to the notion that pursuit of truth is a conservative virtue. If you were a Marxist for example you would view truth as a very bourgeois notion (for some reason they do not apply that analysis to their own beliefs) and comprehend "truth" claims [in inverted commas] as lies in the service of class struggle e.g. for Lenin truth is whatever the Party (which is to say the party of which he is the leader) says is the truth. This of course means moment to moment changes (and possible fatal consequences if you get it wrong). What was "true" prior to the Stalin-Hitler pact for example was not "true" after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

You raise an interesting question - was Hitler [and National Socialist German Workers Party] on the left? I do no more than suggest that you read a balanced selection of the scholars who have discussed this question. You may find it a bit of an eye opener! If the article was about Herr Hitler this would be an appropriate place to discuss this issue. For my part l would say that Nazi Party is a distinctly different branch of leftism than say Italian fascism or Russian bolshevim but it is the same tree.

I am assuming that you recognise that leftist government have pursued all of the above properties that I have listed as properties of the left. So what is your explanation? Why are the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution and the Cuban Revoloution and so forth associated with the above mentioned properties. Are you saying that thes regimes are not left-wing? You need to account for the illiberality of those who describe themselves as being on the left. If you believe that their illiberality runs counter to their leftism, and I am genuinely interested in hearing this view defended, given the history of the last 200 years the burden of proof lies on you to explain why this is the case. I, for example, even view New Labour as illiberal - and possible to get much more left (and therefore I would argue much more illiberal) than that!

P.S. Somebody told me that it is not possible to have intelligent debates with leftists because they do not address points they simply get abusive. I hope this is not true.

Urgel Bogend

Okay, I think you've got to do a little bit more reading on the topic of leftist theory, particularly Marxist. It may clear up some problems. As much as I distrust and dislike Marxist-Leninism, you have completely distorted their views in your above post (probably unintentionally.) That being said, Wikipedia is not the proper forum for this discussion. I would recommend reading the Communist Manifesto or any of the fine introduction to communism primers found at this website.

Brendan 141.140.123.117 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• • here is the part you dont get, communism is not on the left, its on the FAR-LEFT, facism is not on the right its on the FAR-RIGHT or EXTREME-RIGHT , all those 20 points you mention apply mostly to these two extremes, not to left or right. - --193.136.128.7 08:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have conflated "Leftist" with "Marxist-Leninist". To make the very broad category of the political left, which historically has included everyone from the Girondins to Franklin Roosevelt to Friedrich Ebert to Stalin to Mao to Tony Blair to Robespierre, equivalent to one particular political movement of the 20th century, which itself always found itself with many opponents who considered themselves to be on the left (starting with the Mensheviks and SRs in Russia itself, and continuing through any number of anti-communist socialists in Europe and North America), is deeply unhelpful. There can be no definition of "the left" besides "those political elements which have defined themselves as being on the left," and that definition includes well beyond just communists, and always have. It originated during the French Revolution, with a group of intellectuals largely coming from the property-owning professional classes, who were pretty strongly committed to liberal economics, private property, and so forth. The original key elements to the left were probably republicanism and anti-clericalism, and these remained fairly standard as definers of the "left" until the rise of socialism late in the 19th century. In France, they might be said to have remained as such until even later, due to the particular resonances of the Revolution. There, the Radicals, as upholders of the Revolutionary tradition, continued to see themselves as "on the left" for years after their actual policies on economic and other day to day issues made them in many ways closer to the political right. The party remained schizophrenic in that way until after World War II, even.

On the other hand, the claim that fascism is a species of the left runs into a lot of problems. Of course Mussolini began his career on the left, as did some of the early National Socialist leaders in Germany, and nobody denies that fascism took on many stylistic elements that had been pioneered by the left, and even that some of its policies derived from left-wing sources. But fascist movements as a whole have always been seen to be on the right. In the 30s, this was pretty obvious from the fact that traditional conservatives and other normal right-wingers clearly saw the fascists as allies against the forces of Bolshevism and Social Democracy (and liberalism, too). Remember that it was the head of the ancient and venerable House of Savoy who appointed Mussolini, and the aged monarchist war hero Hindenburg who appointed Hitler. And their opinions were by no means particularly out of the ordinary among conservatives. Alfred Hugenberg, the leader of the main conservative party in Germany, the DNVP, always saw Hitler as a potential ally, and the government in which Hitler came to power was intended to be one where conservatives would contain any potentially radical actions by Hitler. Even after this proved not to be the case, the conservatives didn't abandon Hitler. Franz von Papen, the man who, more than anyone, was responsible for bringing Hitler to power, continued to serve Hitler in various capacities throughout the Third Reich. So did other conservatives. Hitler also rather easily won the allegiance of the most important people in the Reichswehr, an institution dominated by the conservative old Prussian officer corps. The basic fact is that fascist parties were supported and aided by traditional conservative elements, and that most (but certainly not all) of their voting bloc came from elements that would normally be considered constituencies of the political "right." Most fascist movements also explicitly identified themselves as being on the right, as for instance Mussolini, who declared that the twentieth century would be "a century of the right, a century of fascism." This isn't to say that Fascism is the same thing as traditional conservatism, or that there were not conservatives who saw fascism for what it was and opposed it. But it was always seen as a phenomenon of the right, and before 1945, both right-wingers and left-wingers would have agreed with this. As noted before, I think any political definition of left and right cannot be based on any immutable principles. There simply are none that can be identified. They have to be based on tendencies, styles, and self-identification. This is a lot clearer, and by such standards fascism is clearly on the right.

Finally, as to liberalism, it's rather complicated. "Liberalism" is a term with numerous meanings. But pretty much always it has been, in some contexts, seen as being on the left, and in others, as being on the right. To Socialists, political liberalism is on the right. The material struggle is between socialists on the left, representing the proletariat, and liberals on the right, representing the bourgeoisie. But in other ways, liberals have frequently been on the left, and not just in the contemporary united states. For most of the 19th century, the main political struggle was between liberals and conservatives, and in this struggle the liberals were clearly on the "left." As socialism comes into play, issues become more complicated, but there are still many countries where parties calling themselves "liberal" are generally seen to be on the left - not only in the United States, but also, for instance, in the United Kingdom and Canada. So, I think the issue is complicated. Liberalism, as such, is neither on the left or the right, in the way that conservatism and fascism are on the right, and socialism and communism are on the left. Whether it is on the left or right depends on context. john k 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good points John. This article has been maliciously edited to become an attack on left-wing politics (or "The Left" as a recent editor insists on calling it, as if it is a formal organisation). It needs serious editing urgently to make it more encyclopedic. BobFromBrockley 17:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Here is where I see the state of the debate. I noticed that the article lists liberal as a characteristic of being left-wing, and so I made a list of the sort of things associated with being on the left and pointed out that they are all illiberal (i.e. they all increase the power of the State at the expense of freedom) and therefore I dispute the claim that left can sensibly associated with being liberal. It was noted that the list I supplied could equally be applied to the Nazi Party, and since they are on the right my list fails to accurately capture what it is to be on the left. To this I replied that I do indeed think that the Nazi party had a lot in common with left wing parties. To which it was asserted that I have conflated the extreme left with leftism generally.

So I take it as agreed that both the German Nazi party and the Russian Communist party imply one-party rule, dictatorship with deified leaders, a regime of terror enforced by the secret police, with the State encroaching upon all domains of life, with morality and law functions of government will, and transcendent religion replaced with worship of the will of the people, with a pretension by government to represent that will. I also take it as agreed that instead of interpreting the Nazi party as a brown rather than red left we ought to acknowledge that it has features that place it on the extreme right - for example they did not seek to liquidate classes, or replace capitalism, nor did they strive to reduce all social relationships into an expression of State power. They upheld instead the concept of racial inequality, and sought to purify Germany (and Europe) of Jewish blood, and restore a pagan Teutonic religion, which upheld cruelty as an end in itself, replacing the concept of an end to history with biological cycles of blossoming, thriving, and decay.

Which leaves us with the question is there a valid distinction between the totalitarian left and the liberal left? Are leftists ever liberal? The answer it seems depends on how you define liberal. If by liberal you mean libertarianism the answer is no! If by liberal you mean opponents of conservatism the answer is yes! There is thus an ambiguity about the world liberal. This difference ought to be alluded to in the article because in classical liberal terms what the left seeks to achive is illiberal. Which is why those on the left view classical liberals (such as Milton Friedman) as being on the right. This tension between liberalism and leftism ought to be alluded to in the article.

Urgel Bogend

There is certainly a great deal of ambiguity with the word liberal. As to whether the left is illiberal, I think this is problematic to assert, even if you add the meaningless phrase "in classical liberal terms". The mainstream left in the developed world accepts most of the premises of 19th century liberalism, and some of the ones it rejects are rejected by the mainstream liberal right as well - a limited franchise, for instance. Basically, any party in the political mainstream of the developed world would qualify as more or less liberal in the 19th century - everyone from mainstream European socialist parties (including the ex-Communist parties of central Europe, for the most part) to the Republicans in the US or the Tories in the UK upholds most of the basic premises of liberalism, including a commitment to private property (more or less), to representative government, and to basic civil liberties. These parties obviously differ in their emphases, and given that many of them arose not out of the liberal tradition, but either out of a conservative/clerical/christian democratic tradition or a socialist one, they have some emphases and policies which differ from those advocated by classical liberals in the vein of Milton Friedman. Conservative and Christian Democratic parties tend to favor traditional morality and so forth more than classical liberalism would, while social democratic parties tend to emphasize economic equality and so forth more than classical liberalism would. But the idea that the left is somehow "illiberal" is problematic. The extreme left and right are both illiberal, certainly. But the political mainstream on both sides is resolutely liberal, and includes groups that identify themselves strongly as being both on the right and the left. "Liberalism" shouldn't be identified too strongly with a particular economic theory which has never been universally held by liberals. Anyway, I don't think liberalism should be identified as a movement of either the left or the right. At different times and in different contexts it can be either, both, or neither. john k 04:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Classical liberalism means individual liberty, free markets, and limited government. This conflicts with an approach that seeks expand the power of the State. It does not matter what you call that alternative approach (e.g. welfare liberalism or socialism or plain old leftism) in classical liberalism terms it is at the expense of liberty. Now you might seek to redefine liberty as something that legitimates increased State intervention but this change of definition is opposed by classical liberals. In short if the word liberal is going to be used in the article the conflict between classical liberalism and left liberalism ought to be mentioned.

Urgel Bogend

In response to 88.110.201.83 who wrote above comment, please sign your comments using tildas (see "Sign your name" in box below edit box). This avoids making the talk page very confusing. You should also sign in as a Wikipedia editor if you are going to continue to make substantial edits to articles. On this issue of liberalism, yes classical liberalism conflicts in key ways with social liberalism, left liberalism, American liberalism, and the latter could be seen as left wing in a way the former cannot, and perhaps the article should reflect this. On the issue of the state, there are many libertarian currents within the left who argue for smaller rather than larger states and are highly critical of state forms of socialism such as Stalinism, e.g. libertarian socialism, left libertarianism, social anarchism, social ecology, syndicalism, mutualism, social market theory and many forms of democratic socialism. To conflate the left as a whole with Communist states is a wilful misreading of the facts of history. BobFromBrockley 09:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that just as there are people who believe in fairies there are people who believe that socialism can be achieved spontaneously without coercion. But back in the real world socialism is about coercion. Of course not all left of centre governments are totalitarian, but it is a matter of degree. I could list the ways in which the current Labour government in the UK has curtailed freedom. A link can then be made between those actions and various leftist assumptions. Of course the more left you go the more extensive the curtailment of freedom. That goes without saying.

Urgel Bogend

I would remind you that this is an encyclopedia, Urgel, not a debate. Whether or not you want to accept that there is a legitimate difference between the totalitarian left and the libertarian left is irrelevant. The fact is that a strong strand in leftist discourse has been the principle of liberty. This concept, arising in the Enlightenment, is not inherently linked to right or left-wing thought. As BobFromBrockley has pointed out, there is are two major branches of libertarian leftists, the democratic socialists (ie Eugene Debs or Clarence Darrow) and the anarchists {ie Petr Kropotkin or Murray Bookchin). Please, leave your political viewpoints at the door. If you have such problems with leftism, perhaps you can recognize that you wouldn't be the proper person to edit the article fairly.

Brendan 141.140.123.117 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion page Brendan. I might say that something is black and blue all over but that does not mean it makes any sense. Merely saying the phrase libertarian socialist does no work whatsoever. Liberty is not something that arose in the Enlightenment. As for the statement "Please leave your political viewpoints at the door" The bias of refusing to acknowledge the existence of any conflict between liberty and leftism - and therefore excising it from the article - is precisely what is at issue. Asserting [because it makes you feel better] that no such conflict exists solves nothing.

Urgel Bogend

I beg you to read some of the literature by the authors and in the traditions that I or BobFromBrockley have mentioned before you continue this conversation. I'm not going to sit here and explain to you why liberty and leftism can coexist when there are theorists who have already done so. The left-liberal (or left libertarian or libertarian communist or anarchist or whatever) hypothesis is one that most modern leftist parties and organizations are drawn from (except Marxist-Leninists).

And for the record, yes indeed, the concept of "liberty" as a right did indeed arise with the Enlightenment. I would point you towards to works of John Locke or John Stuart Mill. Before the "Enlightenment liberals," political theorists had focused on the question of the "good state". Only with the Enlightenment did the emphasis move to the question of liberty and the legitimacy of states.

Frankly, you have yet to point to a solid thinker who discusses the conflict between liberty and leftism. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't accept personal research as material for a page. If you can mention a thinker who elaborates on your critiques, it would be great to mention it in the article. Check if the critique isn't already present under the "criticisms" section.

Brendan 141.140.123.117 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You may not have noticed Brendan but the argument is already settled. With regard to the article the issue was whether or not reference to the left being liberal ought to be qualified by a reference to the fact that although welfare liberalism (a strand of liberalism that emerged in the late C19) is consistent with leftism, an earlier tradition of liberalism (e.g. Adam Smith, The Manchester School, Constant, Tocqueville, Guizot, Burckhart, Acton, Mazzini, Gladstone, Cobden, Mises, Hayek, Friedman et al) has a vision of liberalism that conflicts with leftism. The secondary issue (an issue which nobody has suggested ought to be addressed in the article) is whether or not this opinion is correct. Giving examples of people who assert that liberty and equality (or social justice or whatever is your vocabulary of choice) are not in conflict does not mean they are consistent. I suggested that you can only make the conflict between liberty and equality disappear by re-defining liberty in such a way that increases in equality are also increases in liberty. A classical liberal would reject this move. I happen to agree with them. Nobody is suggesting that the article should be re-written so that it agrees with what classical liberals assert, it was simply noted that the fact that this view exists ought to be acknowledged if the article is going to refer to the left being liberal. The article has therefore been ammended. As for the notion that liberty as a political concept only arose during the Enlightenment this is simply false. Locke was attempting to supply a theoretical justification of a tradition whose roots go back into the Middle Ages - and beyond. Indeed some argue that his attempt to supply an abstract justification for that tradition endangered liberty more than it helped it. You ask me to name one thinker who thinks that the leftism is an enemy of freedom. Where do I start! It is tempting to say - any modern political thinker you care to mention who is not on the left, but you have to start somewhere so

von Mises, Ludwig [1927] (1985). Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, trans. Ralph Raico, New York: Foundation for Economic Education. ISBN 0-930439-23-6.

Urgel Bogend

Let us look at 19th century liberalism," rather than the confusing term "classical liberalism." The principal concern of 19th century liberals was the establishment of representative and responsible government, and of civil liberties, particularly freedom of expression. Like other middle class types, they also supported private property, and were usually in favor of free trade. But, as a movement, liberalism arose in opposition not to socialism, but to conservatism. By conservatism, I mean conservatism in the 19th century sense - support for autocratic royal government and the established church, deference to the economic interests of wealthy land-owners whose wealth often depended on protection, and staunch opposition to any kind of popular sovereignty or representative government. As socialism grew more and more important over the course of the 19th century, liberals were forced to respond, and sometimes the defense of the economic interests of their largely middle class supporters came to overshadow other liberal causes, especially as conservatives were gradually forced to accept most of the rest of the liberal program, particularly representative government, which was to be found in some form in every European country by 1914 (except possibly the Mecklenburg duchies, but the inhabitants of Mecklenburg got to elect deputies to the Imperial Reichstag, even if they had no say in their own local governance). It's worth noting that free trade also took a heavy beating in the late 19th century, as the "great depression" led just about everyone (save the British) to turn to protection. The upshot of this is that liberalism essentially was so successful that it killed itself - it ceased to be a viable political movement because all of its objectives were achieved. At this point, those who had previously been liberals had a choice. They could either side with the left and continue to uphold the liberal ideals of "progress" and so forth, even if the way these ideas were then playing out was sometimes in conflict with some of the ideals expressed by 19th century liberalism; or they could hold firm to a much narrower vision of the liberal mission, and side with the right in defense of property against revolution and chaos. This division often took a long time to play itself out, and in the United States it never really did, because of the lack of a viable socialist movement here and the very late development of actual ideological parties. But the basic fact is that in developed countries both left and right agree on a great deal of the 19th century liberal program, and the ways in which they disagree generally reflect different interpretations of what the most important part of the 19th century liberal mission was. Right-wing liberalism, by taking on the name "classical liberalism", seeks to claim for itself the sole mantle of 19th century liberalism, but we can't accept such self-definitions as fact. Anyway, once again: liberalism is neither on the right nor on the left. Liberalism is, for the most part, the very broad field on which just about all mainstream politics in the developed world take place. It so happens that in the United States, the use of "liberalism" is largely restricted, in common usage, at least, to the center-left variety of liberalism. In continental Europe, it tends to refer to one particular strain of the center-right variety, one that focuses on free market economics and social/cultural tolerance. But that's really neither here nor there. john k 07:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing confused about the term classical liberalism. A distinction between classical liberalism (in which freedom is defined negatively as 'freedom from') and welfare liberalism (in which freedom is defined as 'freedom to') is standard in the literature. Of course people had different views about the best way to realise each type of freedom (many classical liberals for example were suspicious of democracy) but the distinction turns upon how much State intervention in our lives is legitimate. An article which fails to make a distinction between those two stands of liberalism is misleading. For advocates of classical liberalism (which you call right liberalism) welfare liberalism (which you call left liberalism) is a misnomer because equality is deemed to overide liberty.

Urgel Bogend

The term "classical liberalism" is certainly commonly used. But we should be clear on what we mean. There is a difference between "19th century liberalism" and 20th century "classical liberalism", as expressed by people like Milton Friedman. A lot of differences. This is why I prefer "left liberalism" and "right liberalism," because I think it's a lot more clear what's really going on. I'm happy to use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to Friedman, et al, but it should not be conflated with 19th century liberalism, which was a political movement of a different time, with different impulses. You are clearly conflating the two, as the comment that "many classical liberals...were suspicious of democracy." 19th century liberals were, indeed, often suspicious of democracy (and often for good reason - democracy greatly weakened their political strength throughout Europe). 20th and 21st century "classical liberals" or "liberal-conservatives" or "continental liberals," or whatever you want to call them, cannot really be said to be the same. We seem to be talking past each other here. My point is that the liberal tradition inherited from the 19th century is fairly broad. Some aspects of the 19th century tradition (the suspicion of democracy, for instance) have been almost universally jettisoned. Others have been more or less universally accepted by all mainstream political groups in the developed world (representative legislatures to represent the people, ministries responsible to those legislatures, rather than to unelected monarchs, certain basic ideas of human rights and civil liberties). The economic views of liberalism, which are only a small part of the package of 19th century liberalism, have been particularly emphasized by those people you refer to as "classical liberals." They have often elevated an adherence to laissez faire economics as being the heart of the liberal project (or, at least, what distinguishes present day liberalism from other political movements like social and christian democracy that more or less accept the political aspects of liberalism). But it isn't an undisputed fact that this stuff represents the heart of the liberal tradition. It is only the viewpoint of one faction. There are numerous self-described liberal parties that do not hold such doctrinaire views. Almost always, parties that call themselves Liberal support some aspects of free market, laissez-faire type economics. Even the leftiest liberals have never really called for state ownership of the means of production, for instance. Nor have even the leftiest liberal parties ever really gone in for explicit class warfare in the way that even the most moderate of socialist parties do. Sure, many left liberals accept the welfare state. But so do "classical liberals" in countries where "classical liberal" parties are actually major political forces. Parties like the German FDP, or the various classical liberal groups within the UMP in France, do not advocate outright elimination of the welfare state. They merely support modification of the welfare state in the direction of greater competition and a larger role for the free market. Obviously, there are some classical liberals who do support a much more thorough going laissez faire system, but where is one to draw the line? The modern state is what it is, and any political movement that wishes to survive in the present day world has to come to terms with the fact that it's a lot larger and more powerful than what was envisioned by 19th century liberals. Just because groups have adapted to this, and accepted some aspects of this state as either unavoidable or even, in some ways, desirable, does not mean that those who refuse to accept that 2007 is not 1817 are the only ones who get to call themselves liberals. john k 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

John Kenny, sorry your reflections are not interesting enough to justify a point by point reply to your meanderings.

Urgel Bogend

But you do feel the need to note that my comments aren't interesting and to describe them as "meanderings". That's perhaps the least sincere "apology" I've ever seen. Well done, I'm sure you'll make lots of friends here. In the future, you can always not reply when you don't want to reply. john k 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

See also this nice example of Urgel's interactions at the New Left talk page, where his/her editing has also been deployed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Left#Extreme_POV_edit BobFromBrockley 14:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered changing your username to Stalinist Bob?

Urgel Bogend

Dear Urgel, in your own words "P.S. Somebody told me that it is not possible to have intelligent debates with leftists because they do not address points they simply get abusive. I hope this is not true. - Urgel Bogend" not only your words didnt prove to be the case, you now start to do exactly that.. - --193.136.128.7 09:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Except of course that Bob is a Stalinist. It is true (as far as I am aware) that he does not actually kill people who disagree with him, he simply deletes anything that conflicts with his extreme leftism. Reading his website it is clear that he would not describe himself as a Stalinist, but then again he is not the one supplying the description: I am. Come on Bob, a challenge. Be honest. If you have never supported a mass murdering leftist regime here is your chance to deny it!

P.S. It is hard for somebody who is familiar with Twentieth Century history not to have contempt for the left, but amazingly after using Wikipedia they have sunk even lower in my estimation! They truly hate debate (because it exposes their ignorance and pathology) so their solution in Wikipedia is to delete anything which upsets their leftist bigotry. Although their pretence of balance has its humorous side Wikipedia is truly contemptible exercise if it does nothing but purvey leftist lies.

Urgel Bogend

Let me be sure I understand. You think bigotry is a bad thing, and can still post something like the above? Rick Norwood 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bigot - a pejorative term describing a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are proven to be false. Try contributing anything to an article on Wikipedia that corrects leftist falsehoods [no matter how absurd] and you will understand the meaning of bigotry. Imagine that you read an article on Wikipedia that said that Mao died on x date, and imagine for a moment that in leftist mythology Mao is immortal. Each time you put in the date it would be deleted. You would link to the death certificate and it would be deleted. You would point out on the discussion page that all reputable historians say he died on x date and it would be deleted. There would be no discussion of the matter - how could there be? - it would simply be taken on faith that Mao is an immortal and therefore any information that contradicted that belief ought to be deleted. Are leftists the only bigots in the world? Hardly. Do I despise the left? Of course!

Urgel Bogend

A bigot is a person who condems an entire group for the actions of some of its members.

Interesting that instead of an actual example you choose to offer a hypothetical and unlikely example. I am sure there are left-wing idiologues, but my experience is that no political viewpoint is free of idiologues. Consider, for example, the number of right-wingers in the US who claim that American children are not allowed to pray in the public schools, when this is not now and never has been the case. Rick Norwood 13:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a rather vague grasp of the meaning of the word bigot. The definition I gave is more precise.

Of course I could give examples. My brief experience of Wikipedia has furnished many examples! If however I were to give an example of where I have added new material which has been deleted the debate would then shift to the legitimacy of the new material.

If for example I were to say that I had made contributions to Marx or Lenin that were deleted you would have to know about Marx and Lenin before you could judge if the sort of leftist bigotry I am alleging has occurred.

You are right of course that bigotry is not limited to leftists. To make that claim would indeed be absurd.

Urgel Bogend

[edit] extremely biased

this article is incredibly biased, it talks about the left wing like its the far-right wing (i.e facism), makes descriptions that actually apply to the right ring, and has a mostly american point of view, which historicaly is right (not center-right) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.128.7 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

In America, a "lefty" or "left wing" person is a "red" or a "commie". The Republican Party propaganda machine, with its Ann Coulter style claim that "liberals hate America", consistantly calls Democrats "left wing" in hopes of tarring them with the communist brush. Except for a very few real communists, nobody in America self-identifies as "left wing". Its usage in this country is purely perjorative. My understanding is that in European countries, left wing is much less perjorative, and does not necessarily imply godless communism. Rick Norwood 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have done quite a lot of editing, mostly to restore facts that were removed under recent heavy edits by anonymous editors, which filled the article with phrases like "the left in its lust for power" etc. Should idea of left as pejorative in US be made clearer? BobFromBrockley 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but will need to find references. Rick Norwood 17:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See also political epithet. List includes pinko, commie, reds and I addded lefty. BobFromBrockley 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, it is simply not true that the "left" is a pejorative in the United States. What about The Nation and other non-communist types who are perfectly happy to describe themselves as leftist, or on the left? There are lots of us who are perfectly happy to be described as "on the left," with the caveat that in the context of US politics this means something in the spectrum of social democracy or reform liberalism, rather than genuine socialism or communism. The United States doesn't have nearly as large a far left as Europe, and the center-left is a lot warier of calling itself "the left" than elsewhere, but you are going way too far to say the term is purely pejorative. john k 07:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In europe, the left is associated with freedom and social justice i.e giving individuals more freedoms, social programs to help the poor, reduce state control, increase privacy laws, increase the minimum wage , reduce taxes to the poor and increase them to the rich, increase healthcare and education quality etc.. Of course that if you go to the extremes of the left (far left) you will get total freedom with anarchism, or social "justice" by force with communism.

the right on the other hand is usually associated with economics , state control and even some patriotism i.e the right gives more focus on creating a better economy rather than help the poor directly,is likely to create better taxes condition for busineses and wealthy individuals, is less likely to give rights to workers (such as the right to strike or to not get fired without good justification),is likely to pass laws that decrease privacy in the name of security, also usualy the right is more conservative (abortion, drugs, tougher crime laws) and little tolerant of illegal immigrants...

This is not to say that the left simply doesnt care about the economy, or that the right simply doesnt care about the poor, its just that their emphasis are diferent and have diferent approaches to achieve some of the same ends.

I live in a country that you might say its center-left, mostly "lefist", that was for the most part of the 20th century under an authoritarian far-right regime, compared to a mostly "rightist" country like the united states, the following comparisons could be made

Education is almost free here, in fact, until a few years ago, before a rightist party was elected and increase the university taxes, the university taxes were just a miserable 300 euros per year. In the united states on the otherhand, university education is quite expensive, several thousand dollars per year, usualy families have to save money from the moment the child is born to pay their university education.

Health Care is pretty much free (you pay at most maybe 5 euros to go to a goverment doctor), there is a expensive surgery or treatment? maybe you have diabetes? the goverment pays..

People cant get fired, unless there is a very strong reason to do so, i.e your boss cant fire you just because he doesnt like you, or say because the company needs to save more money and you are expendable. If you dont have a job, the goverment can support you and even help you find one.

Of course not all these are good and im not defending the left or the right, but im mentioning these points just to illustrate the diferences of left and right, and the left is really about , which is something most americans dont seem to understand.

- --Cyprus2k1 13:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John Kenney, for the correction. I was not aware that The Nation self-identified as "leftist". (Which is why I didn't make any changes to the article without an independent reference.) The discussion above gives, I think, a very clear idea of what "left-wing politics" means, both in Europe and in the US, and the differences in meaning and connotation. I hope the article reflects this thoughtful discussion. My own experience with "leftist" goes back to the time of Tail Gunner Joe, when "leftist" had the definite implication of "Godless communist". Rick Norwood 14:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It certainly can be a pejorative, but it's going way too far to say that it's always one. What about the New Left? As far as I know, that was a self-designation. john k 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I overstated the case when I said "leftist" was always perjorative. However, today's column by Bill O'Reilly is a good example of the perjorative use of the term, such a good example that I plan to add it to the article. Rick Norwood 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Leftist militants feared responsible" at http://www.foxnews.com/ , again another example of perjorative use in the conservative american media —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.128.7 (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] green

There are two statements in the article to the effect that Green parties, notably in Germany, are "left-wing" -- even though they deny that they are left wing. This seems strange to me, and sounds like it was written by someone with an ax to grind. Is this standard? Referenced? What does clean air and water have to do with with socialism? Rick Norwood 21:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps reference in opening section should be removed (it has been removed before, and returned), but perhaps the sentence in "usage" section left, as this clarfies a little. BobFromBrockley 13:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in the usage section still makes a claim that green parties are "leftist" but say they are not. Such a claim needs a reference. To label environmentalists "leftist" suggests propaganda rather than description. Rick Norwood 15:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pejorative use of the word "leftist"

There are problems with the "Pejorative use of the word "leftist"" section. First, the section should not rely extensively, let alone exclusively, on Bill O'Reilly or any other person. In addition, there is also the problem of original research because it is using quotes of Bill O'Reilly as evidence to prove that "leftist" is used in a pejorative way. Instead, it should be quoting or citing a reliable source that claims leftist is used in a pejorative way. -- Kjkolb 07:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will not let me edit.

I intended to add a blub explaining how in the United States the anti-globalisation movement is (unusually) politically strongest from the right-of spectrum, citing how the majority of the anti-globalization presidential candidates have come from the right, and how immigration plays a factor. I am a new user, so if someone else cares to add this feel free. -brain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian887 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] discussion of "ultra left", "radical left", "far left" articles

Related discussion of proposed merger of articles Radical left, Far left, and Ultra leftism at Talk:Radical left. --lquilter 14:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left in India

The left in India is not really secular, in reality it is pro-minority and anti-majority, so at best it is only secular. The leftist brand of politics in India is quite different from the rest of the world. Should any corrections be made in the main article about this? Saileshganesh 07:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth does "anti-majority" mean? Back up what you're saying Saileshganesh! BobFromBrockley 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What he tries to say is that the Left is anti-Hindu, and pro-Muslim, which of course is a pov assertment. Just as the Bangladeshi right accuses the Bangladeshi left of being pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim. --Soman 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Militant"

I think we need discussion of best way of phrasing the title of the section (basically a list) which has been variously titled "left-wing terrorist groups", "violent left-wing groups", "extremist groups" and (currently) "militant groups". What is the pruprose of the section, for that matter? BobFromBrockley 18:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)