Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Clearly defined core ideology is missing from the article

Reading the left-wing and right-wing politics articles, they have tons of text which sounds more like they were taken from political marketing campaigns instead of explaining the core points of the ideologies. I feel it is very important to keep these articles as neutral as possible.

I propose that the following texts would be added to the beginning of the articles, to explain in brief simple terms the difference between the parties:

Left-wing politics supports systems and infrastructures, which are regulated and owned by the government.

Right-wing politics supports systems and infrastructures, which are regulated and owned by the private sector, such as businesses and corporations.

The core difference between these two parties is who has the power to control and own things. It should be clear from the beginning of the article, since everything else is based on that.

Zonk22 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This claim, often made by the American Right, is not supported by references outside the American Right. Attempts to reduce the Left and the Right to single issue soundbites generally smack of propaganda far more than the Wikipedia articles do. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

If we compare two known polar opposites of the spectrum, USA and Soviet Union, it should give some kind of realistic indication what is the main difference between the two political views. In Soviet Union (far left) everything was owned and controlled by the government and profit from business was illegal. In USA (quite far right by our European standards) everything has been privatised for business and governmental decisions revolve mostly around business instead of improving permanent infrastructure for the country. Zonk22 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone on the Left is a Communist. Not everyone on the Right is a Capitalist. If you have evidence, please provide it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• That's original research on your part. For the most part, sources describe the distinction between right-wing and left-wing politics as their position on hierarchy - left-wing politics supports a more equal or egalitarian society, while right-wing politics supports a more hierarchical one. This is why eg. both monarchism and capitalism are generally classified as right-wing (since they support hierarchical structures), while both Anarchism and Communism are generally classified as left-wing, even though in both cases there are major differences. Also, from that you can immediately see the flaw in your definition - anarchism is generally categorized as a far-left ideology, yet it clearly has no support for government ownership of anything. And, again, monarchism is historically right-wing - the first people called that name were monarchists. --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Fascism, especially Italian Fascism, systems and infrastructure was heavily regulated and controlled by the Government, just not De jure directly owned by the Government (Though in 1939 Italy had the most Nationalised Companies following the Soviet Union). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.136.69 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Zonk22 has simplified things into vague generalisations by cherry picking extremes, eg, "everything was owned and controlled" and "everything has been privatised". The addition of those sentences in the lead doesn't add clarity. If instead those ideas can be reworded into specific examples in the body text with sources and then summarised into a sentence to support a key fact or two in the lead I would support the change. Its important to understand that left wing politics is a classification of a set of ideologies, rather than a division of the whole into a half or two sides to politics. This misunderstanding is demonstrated above when User:Zonk22, immediately after his proposal, conflates a set of ideologies with political parties. This mistake is more commonly made in reference to "the left". - Shiftchange (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

IP edit warring

Please, IP 91.127.237.15 self-revert and do not edit warring. My version already includes some of your edits that were good while removing bad ones such as changing quotes, the move to plural without discussion, the violation of the British English tag by using 'ize' rather than 'ise', the addition of a bunch of links at See also that are already in body (the manual of style says we should not list links that are already in the article) and the use of weasel words such as decisively and strongly. You were also the cause of this mess which is discussed above. Doug Weller, I may express my view the IP could be this sockpuppet I had to deal with several times, especially at Social democracy; similar patterns include the changing of quotes, the habit of edit warring rather than discussing, their pushing of Third Way social democrats as neoliberals, their use of weasel words such as erroneously and their change to "social democrats who adopted neoliberalism in the form of the Third Way", which I actually agree with but it is just a view (mainly by its critics). I may be wrong, but I have been proved right several times as you can see from the sockpuppet investigations archive. Davide King (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, you wrote in your edit summary that "This WAS the stable version though. For several days." That vandalism such as yours (let me repeat it for you, "changing quotes, the move to plural without discussion, the violation of the British English tag by using 'ize' rather than 'ise', the addition of a bunch of links at See also that are already in body and the use of weasel words such as decisively, erroneously and strongly) has remained in the body does not mean it had implicit consensus; those were disruptive edits that I removed while doing my best to incorporate your other edits, yet you reverted back to your favourite version, which includes those disrupting edits and removed my copy editing, another thing you have in common with a blocked user I had to deal with many times. Davide King (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There are a large number of mostly small points here, e.g. "movements" or "movement"; "left" or "Left". It would be more productive, instead of reverting all of one version and then reverting all of the other version, to address these points individually. By and large, I find the Davide King version better than the alternate version, but it seems unlikely that either version is correct on every point. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, I agree. I have changed to "the Left" because it was more consistently used in the body and restored "movement" because it is singular; it would make sense to say "the civil rights, feminist, LGBT rights, anti-war and environmental movements" but it would not make much sense using "movements" for each one as the IP did. I believe I have actually tried to do as you suggested and "address[ed] these points individually", incorporating some of the IP's edit, but they simply reverted back to their version. Davide King (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is there a statement from a professor in the lead?

Its not appropriate for a lead section to contain a quotation. We keep that part for key facts and summary sentences. We should be speaking in Wikipedia first voice about things. Emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark does not speak on behalf of others. He isn't an authority on the matter. Why is his statements of what others claim in the lead? The professor states an opinion about what opinions others hold. That is not fact-based. That is pure conjecture. In the book on page 32, his statement is made regarding leftists (whatever and whomever that is?), not left wing supporters. The article isn't about people, its about politics, or in other words, what we should do. We need to trim the history out of the lead and fill it with more about the predominate left wing policy. We need a sentence or two that for each of the subheadings in the positions section. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable academic sources are a cornerstone of Wikipedia. It would be possible to paraphrase the quote and include the quote as a reference for the paraphrase, but I don't see any advantage in that. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote quite nicely encapsulates some pertinent information. I see no advantage to re-writing it to avoid the quote, since the information would need to be in the lede anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you insist the quotation is so important it must be included that is fine, but not in the lead. That is giving undue weight to his statement. The lead section is for basic facts only, not for commentary. It may be pertinent however it is not significant enough to be in the lead. That statement is beyond a "concise overview". Copying and pasting quotes into a lead section is very lazy. I can't see why someone would insist on that quote in a lead. Why are you over-emphasizing that? Its too specific for the lead. What is so special about that quote? I don't understand. Also neither of you have responded to my suggestion that the lead reduce its over-emphasis on historical examples and summarize the content below about positions and current events. Policy avoidance and suspect bias. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no proscription against using quotations in the lead in WP:LEAD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The text is quoted from a textbook, but using in text attribution makes it appear as the opinion of the author, rather than his phrasing of general knowledge. In the second edition it appears on p. 34.[1] In general I would avoid introductory textbooks because they don't have footnotes and there's no certainty the author has defined the Left correctly. TFD (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't see why a specific quote needs to be the third sentence in an article about left-wing politics. That is far too much weight given. It is odd. Neither Centre-right politics, Centre-left politics, Centre politics nor Right-wing politics have any quotes in the lead section. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Lumping together left and far-left

So far as I'm concerned, it's a bad and confusing idea. Among other things, is center-left not left? Is it the case that all "Supporters of the left and far-left generally favour a post-capitalist socialist economy that rejects the capitalist market and private enterprise"? It depends on your definition of "left", and the problem with that is that at least in America and quite a bit I think of the English speaking world that is a bit blurred. Publications that are on the left don't necessarily reject capitalism and private enterprise. CNN keeps getting called left-wing, but it certainly doesn't reject private enterprise or capitalism. And the sources that were added were certainly not enough to back the text they were added to. The one with the page number didn't seem that relevant, and one book with no page numbers isn't enough for major far-ranging statement. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The term left as originally defined and used in most academic sources includes socialism, communism and anarchism. While some believe that the replacement of capitalism is necessary to achieve social justice, others try to achieve social justice through existing institutions. There's a spectrum rather than a hard line between these approaches. The way reliable sources distinguish between different elements of the Left is to use their actual names, such as socialist, Trotskyist, Maoist, rather than their supposed position on a political spectrum. Can you tell me where the line should be drawn?

It has become confused by the adoption in the U.S. of the terms for shorthand for liberal and conservative, terms which themselves also have an ahistorical meaning. So they group Joe Biden and Pol Pot on the left and Hitler and Susan Collins on the right. Yet While we should acknowledge this usage, thy are not real topics that require articles.

TFD (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces's reading is correct. I would say CNN is more centrist than anything, like many other mainstream news outlets, rather than left-wing. There is this issue that more left-wing socialists dismiss centre-left and other more moderate and pragmatic socialists who governed throughout the Western world as not true socialists; and on the other hand, we have this on the right and even some centrists who use socialism as a term of abuse, often in reference to Soviet 'Communism' and so all the work and progress those moderate and pragmatic socialists did is given to capitalism, but I am digressing.

As noted by The Four Deuces here, "Socialist is a loaded term in the U.S. while in the rest of the world it's usually just one of two major parties. When describing foreign leaders, U.S. media only use the S-word for socialists they oppose and never use it for those they support. So Maduro is routinely referred to as a socialist while Gaido never is." Both socialists and the left agree on basic tenets (egalitarianism, the rejection of liberty‒equality as mutually exclusives rather than necessarily interlinked, opposition to social hierarchies, etc.) but they disagree on how to achieve that (basically, the history of the left) and whether this can be achieved within the current system or not. So I agree with the reverts and I also absolutely agree that it is "a spectrum rather than a hard line between these approaches."

Davide King (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King and The Four Deuces:I'm a bit confused and I think I'd like to see more discussion about the IP's edits. I agree CNN is centrist. I basically agree with both of you, but I'm concerned about the average North American reader, maybe even British reader (and maybe Australian and New Zealand) who reads this. This isn't the simple Wikipedia, but it still needs to be written in terms they can relate with. And of course properly sourced. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am just saying that there is no clear line between center-left and far left and the terms are rarely used as specific categories in the literature. Take the main left-wing groups in the U.S. for example: Democratic Party (United States), Working Families Party, Democratic Socialists of America, Green Party USA, Socialist Party of the United States, Communist Party USA, Socialist Alternative (United States), Party for Socialism and Liberation as well as dozens of smaller groups. Where would you draw the line? Can any of these groups contain elements of both? Isn't it simpler to classify them by ideology, such as liberal, green, socialist, communist, anarchist? TFD (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I agree, too, but this should not stop us from following academic sources that use socialism, in a neutral manner as provided by the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, to refer to social democracy and the hundreds of centre-left, moderate socialist parties (Labour, Social Democratic and Socialist parties) that pragmatically governed the Western world as one of the major parties. In other words, we should not lump together the left and far-left as one thing and centre-left or moderate left as another, as a hard line rather than a spectrum, just because this may be commonly or popularly done by some news media and users (we still have many who believe that Nazism is left-wing and socialist), when academics make a more sensible distinction and take a more nuanced position. Davide King (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the Far Left is anybody who does not vote Republican, in the current American discourse. In academic circles, there is a more sensible distinction. The far left (and the far right) are characterized by their use of violence, and an unwillingness to work within the system. This definition would not apply in non-democratic countries. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, that is a good summary and I agree it would not apply in non-democratic countries; it makes no sense to describe the ruling communist parties in Communist states as far-left, even though some news media or users may see that as obvious, when it is not so obvious; as you correctly noted, academics make a more sensible and nuanced distinction. I would note that while their use of violence and unwillingness to work within the system are the few things that accomune the far-left and the far-right, they are not necessarily true for the whole far-left or even far-left parties (Luke March says that the most successful far-left parties are "pragmatic and non-ideological"); but it may well be true that the far-left is more committed to systematic, radical, or faster transformation and perhaps more willing to use violence than those other on the left who are more moderate. This is why it is more of a spectrum than a hard line. Davide King (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of discussion on related page

Two discussion have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Picture of the Estates General

Aren't there better pictures to choose? The French Revolution arguably was not even a left-wing revolution. Prins van Oranje 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance of the picture. The Estates General was the first example of seating members from left to right according to ideology, but few of them would be considered left wing, which was not a term used at the time. TFD (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter where the members of the Estates General would be placed on a modern political spectrum, what matters is the seating convention begun by them, which lead to "left/right" instead of "up/down" or "black/white". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That would make it a candidate for the article, Left-right political spectrum. But since the concepts of left-wing and right-wing did not come into existence until the twentieth century, it's anachronistic to call the Jacobins left-wing. By the time the concept of the Left came into use, the original factions of the legislature were sitting on the right. TFD (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Point taken, but there's still a straight line connection between "left" in the Estates General and "left-wing" as currently construed, and "right" and "right-wing" Nowhere in the article is it implied that today's leftists would necessarily agree with the left of the French Revolution or vice versa. It's an analogy, after all, and the image portrays where the analogy began. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The analogy did not begin with the Estates General, it began with the National Assembly in the 20th century. At that point, socialists sat on the left, liberals in the center and conservatives on the right. There actually isn't a straight line connection because the legislature was discontinued at various times and seating plan was changed after the defeat of the Jacobins. TFD (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, strong French Republicans like De Gaulle were right wing, but were more similar to the radical republicans of the 1790s than to any of the Royalists and religious groups who opposed them. Prins van Oranje 08:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sayoku" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sayoku. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#Sayoku until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Leftism and leftist

The terms leftist and leftism (both redirects here) are frequently used in tweets, posts and US-centric mass media, most frequently to define 'otherness' than one's self. I hadn't seen these terms used very frequently before this, has it has emerged as a neutral synonym for left-winger (if that is neutral). ~ cygnis insignis 04:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Equality

It should say tipically suports equality and egalitarianism. As the article says it in an absolute sense as in that supporting egalitarianism is what makes someone left although, Many leftist political thinkers such as Karl Marx have rejected Egalitarianism. Left are right are not well defined in real life or on Wikipedia. We should work towards making these articles more descriptive rather than essentialist. Krɪt̮ɪkl feɪjəɹ (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Krɪt̮ɪkl feɪjəɹ: see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We need reliable sources for however we describe it. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com//mobile/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685530.001.0001/acprof-9780199685530-chapter-11#:~:text=Marx%20and%20Engels%20always%20regarded,in%20the%20form%20of%20capitalism. Marx who is claimed to fit this article’s definition of a leftist and many of his followers are considered left by this page and so egalitarianism cannot apply to leftists as a whole as the opening sentence claims. Krɪt̮ɪkl feɪjəɹ (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson is a major liberal figure, but owned slaves. That does not mean liberals did not oppose slavery. Marx is a major figure in communism, but that does not mean that all communists, much less all leftists, are dogmatic Marxists. The only way people can communicate is to agree to use the dictionary definition of words, not argue about what words "should" mean, and especially not try to change the meaning of words. As the article notes, the meaning of the phrase left-wing has changed dramatically over time. The way Marx used the phrase is not the way the phrase is used today.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Your source says, "In place of equality, and based on his historical materialism, Marx advocated the abolition of class society, as it presently exists in the form of capitalism." In other words, he advocated for an egalitarian society but did not justify it on the basis of egalitarianism but on his view that it was the inevitable development of human society. The levelling of classes would of course make society more egalitarian, for better or for worse. TFD (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal social movements,[11] including the civil rights movement, the use of body piercings and tattoos, hair coloring, voluntary childlessness, antinatalism, individualism, feminist movement, men's rights movement, LGBT rights movement, interracial marriage, reproductive rights, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, immigration, anti-war movement and environmental movement[12][13] as well as a wide range of political parties.[14][15][16]

...change to...

In addition, the term "left-wing" has also been colloquially applied to a broad range of culturally liberal social movements, such as civil rights movements (including feminism, LGBTQ+ rights), individualism, reproductive rights, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, immigration, anti-war movement and environmental movement, as well as a wide range of political parties.

Notes:

-"body piercings, tattoos, hair colouring" are irrelevant to political philosophy. -"antinatalism" is irrelevant to political philosophy, but may be inspired by economic or environmentalist perspectives. -"men's rights movement" - this is an inherently reactionary right-wing counter to feminism. -"interracial marriage" - covered by 'civil rights' -added 'colloquially' 108.170.151.219 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Among Us for POTUS (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

Under "Social progressivism and counterculture", in the discussion of LGBT rights, the article on Stonewall Uprising, a documentary film, is incorrectly linked where Stonewall riots, the event being mentioned, should instead be linked.

That is,

...having been instrumental in the founding of the LGBTQ rights movement in the aftermath of the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 and contemporary leftist activists...

should be replaced with

...having been instrumental in the founding of the LGBTQ rights movement in the aftermath of the Stonewall riot of 1969 and contemporary leftist activists...

or similar. Thaumavorio (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I also made a minor correction to improve clarity. Thanks for your request! Actualcpscm (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Bias In The Editing Of This Article

Obviously, there’s bias in this article. The see also section for the right-wing politics page lists a bunch of forms of extremism, yet there is no such on the Left-wing Politics article. Ideally, at this article, there would be a Far-left Politics article in the see also section, and the same in the Right-wing politics article. Those would have the listings of some extremes on the 2 sides. Instead, the see also for the Right lists extremes, while the Left doesn’t; and the Right isn’t protected from vandalism, while the Left is protected. We should be endeavoring to make sure Wikipedia is fair and free from politics. Whoever protected this article from vandalism should in the spirit of fairness go protect the other article as well. Bagofscrews (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

These are two separate articles and the merits of how each one is presented has to be considered separately. Saying that another article does something is not a good argument that this article should or vice versa. Incidentally left and right are not symmetrical. The Left for example is made of related ideologies that have divided, while the Right is made up of unrelated ideologies that have united. Do you have any specific changes to this article you would like to make? TFD (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ The Four Deuces I don’t think it’s objective to say that the extreme groups have come together with the right, while they have done the opposite with the left. Just as an example, it’s an objective fact they Donald Trump decided the party. Some supported and some refused to ever support regardless of his party affiliation. I think the objectivity of Wikipedia would be upheld if for each party, we just put a link to list of extremes at the see also section. The way it currently is suggests that the right is more extreme than the left — something that isn’t an objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagofscrews (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The u.S. has an unusual political system. in European legislatures, right-wing parties sit together on the right-hand side, which is why they are called right-wing. In the U.S., Trump, never Trumper and agnostic Republicans all sit together as Republicans. TFD (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe your answer is sufficient, as European and American systems at this day have little to do with how united the right or left wing is across the world.

Right in Europe is considered left in the states f.eks. making no right or left wing united, apart from specific ideologies. Kepsalom (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That post is a year old, don’t necessarily expect a reply. I’ve no idea what you are talking about and you have no sources which is what we need. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

would this paper do? It is US centric, however, it does acnowlede the differance between right wing and left wing not only between themselves, but also between countries and continents

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/abs/similarities-and-differences-between-leftwing-and-rightwing-radicals/C46411F0228745583D2EB8E91A19D881 Kepsalom (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Support of immigration

Hey. :) Why was edit reverted? None of the statements are backed up by sources and arguably don't fit in the "left-right" axis. (Men's Rights Activism being left-wing. For instance.) . @Beyond My Ken: KlayCax (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I changed that section to reflect the actual sources, removing text added in October that wasn't in the source. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Relationship to Science

I would like to know the relationship of science and the left. I know that Stalin was anti-science, but the modern left seems to accept science more than any side of the spectrum. From climate change to transgender rights, the left seems low on rejection of science. Yes, while there is the anti-nuclear movement and other movements, I'd say that pseudoscience on the left is low and disorganized.

However, I am curious about how the left has supported (and rejected) science. From fighting racist science to confuting wrong studies, I'd like this page to answer my question: what is the left's relationship with science?

Of course, I'm not saying leftism is infallible to fallacies. We've made mistakes and corrected them, while the right seems to have rejected science altogether. Western Progressivist (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

All the sources I have seen on this use the term Left as a shorthand for U.S. liberalism, which is only left-wing in relation to U.S. conservatism.

I don't think that any mainstream politics in the last few centuries have been anti-science, except when it conflicts with their beliefs. No one calls for burning physicists at the stake. TFD (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Four Deuces, you are forgetting the Soviet Union and its rejection of Darwinism. "More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the Soviet campaign to suppress scientific opponents." The Soviet Union was supporting a form of Lamarckism, and speaking against it could result in a summary execution. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that was the Old Left, we now see the right rejecting science more than ever. For example, vaccine misinformation and anti-intellectualism have been on the rise among Republicans. To further my point, American conservates have been notably questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, epidemiology, and other scientifically confirmed facts. I'd argue that the right has been unscientific, while the left has fought back against this. Then again, Donald Trump created an anti-science movement within the Republican Party and MAGA. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Then again, Donald Trump created an anti-science movement within the Republican Party and MAGA." Created? The Christian right has been a major player in American politics since the 1970s. Jerry Falwell probably had more impact in that field than Trump. Dimadick (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, you make a good point. Although, if even the anti-science was there, it was Mr. 45 who injected it into the mainstream. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's relative. 45 dropped real bombs on Afghanistan and was treated for covid by real doctors. He hired real engineers to build his hotels. He didn't cast a spell and hope that the gods would provide.

OTOH all presidents bless America and join in prayers for its success and for victims of natural disasters. There is no scientific basis that these actions will have any effect. TFD (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought that it was part of typical American superstitions to have leaders encouraging public prayers. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Lamarckism was the theory that acquired attributes could be inherited, which incidentally (if you continue reading the article) was part of Darwinism and was finally rejected by mainstream scientists in 1925. But note I wrote, "except when it conflicts with their beliefs." In this case science and Stalin's agricultural policies came into conflict. It's not as if these policies were based on pseudoscience, just that pseudoscience was used to justify them.

On a positive note, Lamarckism caused the Soviet Union to reject eugenics, which was widely supported by Western politicians across the political spectrum until it too was rejected because of its association with Nazi Germany and not incidentally because of any scientific proof.

In modern times, far right politicians claim there is no evidence that human activity contributes to global warming. More centrist politicians accept the science but fail to act on it. Basically if the science, or any facts, are inconvenient, they ignore them. That's not because they have an ideological aversion to science. TFD (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that even if there is no aversion, they undermine it. The New Left has accepted science since it aligns with their goals. Even if it didn't, I'm sure that Leftists would readjust and proceed accordingly since the left is made up of logical, progressive people. 99% of the time, the so-called "leftists" who are nuts are just a vocal minority. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, mental disorders keep appearing in human populations, and the political or philosophical beliefs of the patients are not the ones which determine that they maintain their mental health. Speaking to deities and fairies may have little to do with whether you support right-wing or left-wing parties. Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Western Progressivist I'm not sure what you mean by "this page". If you mean this actual page and not the article, you should ask at the WP:Reference desk which is for this sort of thing. TFD has given you an answer but that's where you should go if you need more. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"how the left has supported (and rejected) science" Try the article on Lysenkoism and its campaign against natural selection. Dimadick (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, politicians across the political spectrum will reject facts that conflict with their policies. Stalin used Lamarckism as a justification for his failed agricultural policies. Had they been successful, he would have honored mainstream biologists. TFD (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, you cannot necessarily make judgements on ideology based on actions in office. In office, Labour adopted policies designed by social liberals, which the Tories denounced then continued once they came to office. Under Thatcher Tories adopted neo-liberal policies which were then continued by New Labour.

In the U.S., Republicans denounced the New Deal, then continued their policies until Ronald Reagan. Then the Democrats kept Reagan's policies once they were in office. TFD (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, you kinda can. Also, don't be saying that we just follow stuff.

Liberal policies are proven to reduce death rates, which in red states death rates are higher.

Like, every time conservatives come into office, they try to lower taxes on the bigwigs. Leftists try to get them to pay their fair share.

So yes, you can judge an ideology based on actions in office. Western Progressivist (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Like, every time conservatives come into office, they try to lower taxes on the bigwigs." And who do you think financed their political campaigns, other than these "bigwigs"? In politics, quid pro quo plays a larger role in decision-making than the nominal ideology of a party. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you see the Koch family and other right-wing donors helping them? Yes, you do.

Don't play dumb. People like billionaires are helping to get these fools into office. Western Progressivist (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Except that liberals and conservatives in the U.S. share the same ideology. See for example Political Ideology Today, Ian Adams, 2001, p. 32: "Ideologically all US parties are liberal and always have been."[2]

Ideologies are broad sets of beliefs that allow for considerable variation in policies.

Incidentally, liberals brought in the first major tax cuts for bigwigs following WWII in the Revenue Act of 1964.

TFD (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's plain stupid. Conservatives hate trans people, and liberals don't. Do you know how stupid you sound?

Sure, the Revenue Act was passed by liberals, but that's just a one-timer. Conservatives have brought many tax cuts for the rich more frequently than liberals. Western Progressivist (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it just shows how encompassing ideologies can be. As a parallel, Christians also can hate or not hate trans people. As Adams explains, the liberal-conservative dichotomy in the U.S. is about how the two sides interpret liberal ideology. The terms entered U.S. politics in the 30s when FDR called his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives, which at the time was a pejorative term referring to rule by kings, tsars and emperors. Incidentally, U.S. liberals were also anti-LGBT not so long ago. TFD (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Democrats also supported the Reagan tax cuts btw it wasn't a one off. TFD (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Please avoid name calling

There is no good reason to call people names on these pages. I also note that the discussion above has gone far, far off topic, and has recently had nothing to do with science. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Picture of the Estates General removed.

The picture of the Estates General was removed with the comment "there is nothing specifically left-wing about that picture, which is not included in the article for right-wing politics either)". The name "left wing originated in the Estates General and it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. I have no problem with the picture also appearing in the article on right-wing politics. Why the picture needs to be removed is not clear to me. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That image does not belong here, nor is it specifically representative of right-wing politics. But I incorporated it into the article on the political spectrum, where it is relevant. Trakking (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We have reached a compromise: I incorporated the image into the "History" section of the article in question. There it belongs perfectly. Trakking (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a good choice. The deputies of the estates general arranged themselves from left to right by ideology, and this has been copied in European legislatures to this day. But the term left-wing only came into usage in the early 1900s, by which time the successors to the original left were considered centrist or right-wing. Today's left, even if one includes social liberalism, did not exist in 1789. TFD (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

""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."

Pretty crazy that this is not a leftist statement. The idea that human flourshing is measured in "development" is the issue: "development" is itself a capitalistic idea, and not leftist.

Describing leftism by the language of not-leftists is no good. Imagine describing why it's good to eat sugar from the perspetive of someone who hates sugar - that's just silly yeah? CrickedBack (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see our page at WP:NOTFORUM. You are stating personal views that are not supported by most credible published discussions of this issue. Please provide links to published mainstream sources that support your concern. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)