Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Left-wing politics. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Intro Edit

I've moderately altered the intro to try to reflect that fact the the term "left-wing" is an evolutionary one, has had different meanings and is still used as a very broad description of many different political ideas and positions. I have also reorganised the order of the intro - it seemed to me counterintuitive to plunge into examples of what might be described as "left wing" before defining our terms a little - hence I have moved the paragrpah on Communism and Marxist philosophy further down. I've also added an example of how the term has rather different applications in the Communist world, to demonstrate how the West-centric definition is not universal.--Corinthian 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edit, Corinthian. Rick Norwood 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party (US)

66.28.14.123 deleted the line "Outside of the U.S., the Democratic Party is considered by many to be right-of-centre", with the edit summary "deleted an absurd, unsourced sentence." I think that it probally unfair to call the sentence absurd, in fact it seems to be true. Compare the social and economic policies of the democrats to those of other "left" groups around the world and it seems fair to say the the democrats are right of center. There policies also seem to be the same as many european parties that call themselves center right. That said I do not have the ref's to show that this is so ... so maybe we should leave it out till we can find some.--JK the unwise 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the sentence is that it could be read that other parties in other countries with the name Democratic Party (or Partie Democratique) are right of center -- not what the author intended. In any case, needs a source. Rick Norwood 21:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the Democrats social and economic policies really significantly to the right of the Canadian Liberals, or New Labour in Britain, or even the SPD in Germany (currently in a grand coalition with the CDU)? The Democrats are most certainly pretty comparable to both of these parties, neither of whom is seen as right of centre. Now, England, et al, obviously have a much larger welfare state apparatus than the US but that is a result of history, and says little about the current ideology of the centre-left parties themselves. Should we also say that by American standards, the CDU and the Gaullists are left of center? This would be ridiculous. And, as noted, this needs a source. There are, of course, plenty of hard-core leftists who accuse the Democrats of being right of center, both in the United States and outside it. But these same people would say the same about the main centre-left party in just about every western country. It is arguable (and probably true) that, as a country, the US is considerably to the right of most other developed countries. But that doesn't mean that the Democratic Party is a center-right party, and, I'd add, this is nonsensical unless you have some sense that "left" and "right" are fixed categories with fixed meanings, which doesn't really make any sense. john k 04:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. - Jmabel | Talk 05:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How are we supposed to agree on center? The Democratic party is considered center-left because they favor government intervention to reduce inequality, while Republicans don't. If the entire world moves to the left that doesn't push the Democrats to the center. The key to understanding these terms is that we are talking about political philosophies. You may feel that the Democrats are center or center-right but political scientists will tell you that they are a center-left party because of their underlying philosophy that the government needs to be used to reduce inequality. The degree is of course much different from European left parties but the philosophy is the same.

This is a gross generalization. Republicans DO favor government involvement to reduce inequality in certain forms, such as equal rights before the law, the Voting Rights Act, anti-trust laws, etc. If the Dems are quite right of most "center-left" parties in the rest of the democratic world, than well, I think they're obviosly "center-right" as opposed to the "right-wing" Republicans. Nathan, sorry I'm not a user but I'll remedy it in a sec.

I removed branches from the list of forms of left wing politics

I removed the following idealogys Democratic socialism, Left communism,Libertarian socialism and post left anarchism because they are branches of already stated policys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konulu (talk • contribs) 11 Feb 2006.

That made no sense at all. --Revolución hablar ver 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

Left-wing politics --> Leftism. --Revolución hablar ver 23:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For the average reader this rename would make little sense. "Leftism" is jargonistic. Please leave the name alone.--Cberlet 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur w/ Cberlet. It also breaks symmetry, because the term "Rightism" barely exists. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Posting new topics at the bottom of this page is just plain stupid and there is no reason to continue doing so

Users naturally look to the top of a webpage for the latest information. It makes far more sense to keep old articles at the bottom so one does not have to scroll through discussions that are no longer active. The fact that there is also a sequence of numbers relative to the number of topics would also indicate that they are ordered in top to bottom with the most recent article denoted by a 1. I also fail to see why JK the unwise considers himself to be the authority on this entry when he has a master in philosophy and not political science.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

This has been explained to you already. It is convention on this website to post new comments at the bottom, just as it is convention in the U.K. to drive on the left. You may not like it but you can not just change it with out consensus. If you want to get this changed then bring it up at Wikipedia:Village pump.

I do not claim to be a political academic, though I have independently read a lots of political texts. Do you claim to be a political academic? What are your qualifications?

Also please sign your posts with four titles like this ~~~~.--JK the unwise 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You never explained anything, you said "it may be stupid but that's the way we like it." So you essentially gave the impression that either way is acceptable by Wikipedia. Furthermore you haven't shown me any rules that stipulate that new posts must be on the bottom. Anyways I do have a minor in political science. So yes I am quite familiar with political definitions and can tell you that this description of left-wing politics would be unacceptable to any professor in the country. In fact anyone who has taken political science 101 should take offense to it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

Firstly, note that I am not in the same country as you so ref's to "the country" are confused, wikipedia is Global. Secondly, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, in particular Layout. Your points about this article are addressed bellow.--JK the unwise 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Since we archive from the top, if you start a new section at the top and no one moves it, it is liable to be archived before almost anyone has had a chance to read it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Entire article is a mess and shows gross academic ignorance

Most political science professors would be appalled at this entry. Here's why:

Anarchism = rejection of all types of government. Some anarchists recently has been calling themselves left-wing but this is a contradiction in terms as the defining aspect of left-wing is the favoring of government intervention to reduce inequality. In political science circles far-left = communism and far-right = anarchism. One side has complete control of the economy and society to favor equality while one side has no government and is not concerned with reducing inequality. It is of course far too simple of a term to describe the average person’s political position but this is the accepted definition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

As far as I am aware the idea that anarchism is far-right is a fringe one and anarchist's are generally identified as being on the left. The fact that there is a large debate as to whether anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (see Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism) illistrates this point. If indeed within "political science circles" Anarchism is considered rightwing please could you provide us with some ref's to show this.--JK the unwise 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess political science is fringe then. Anarchism translates to "free from ruler," or the absence of government. Compared to a socialist this is far-right as it is assumed that greater inequality will result from the absence of government. To political scientists far-right has more to do with staus-quo than fascism. Their interpretation of it dates back to its original usage when France was divided between revolutionaries and the traditional ruling powers. The revolutionaries always wanted to use the government to bring more equality, while the status-quo wanted to let stand what they saw as an unequal but fair system. Neither side was communist or fascist. Over the years the terms have been blurred by just about everyone. But more importantly the two-sided spectrum isn't even used by political scientists to describe political positions. It's just used when describing the spectrum itself and how crude and inaccurate it is. Here's a good article on the issue: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/7/7/281/05051

The very fact that this article (which I would note is a blog rather then an academic paper) is titled "Remodeling the political spectrum" gives indication that it is trying to overturn the traditional political spectrum. As it notes in the introduction it "proposes a new model" rather then documenting one in general use. I have some sympathy with the idea that the left-rigt spectrum contains a certain amount of inacuracies and misdirection though attempts to re-model it tend to have a politcal agenda. However, it is still the dominant model, not only in popular use but also by academics (on this side of the pond anyway).--JK the unwise 08:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx founded Communism, not Marxism. The word "Marxism" is used to describe the underlying political philosophy but can often be interchanged with Communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

Nope Communism existed before Marx. As it notes in Wikipedia's communism entry "The notion of communism has a history in Europe long predating Marx and Engels".--JK the unwise 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The notion of communism and the complex political and economic theory of Communism that involves a violent takeover by the proletariat are two different things

There are too many random entries. The left and post-modernism? Why not add an entry on the left and alcoholism? How about farming laws? The depth of the relevance from the sub-entry to the main entry needs to be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

This has allready been discused, see above. (see archive) The academic left in particular have been infuenced by the idea's of postmodernism. Personaly I think postmodernism is junk and that attempts to combine it with lef-wing ideology are confused but this dosen't change the fact that many lefties think otherwise. Also your assertion of an absolute distiniction between "philosophy" and "politics" is fause.--JK the unwise 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read my complaint again. It obviously has a connection but I think the connection is too distant for it to be relevant, especially when the rest of the connections are more commonly found in contemporary political discourse.

Too many sources to sole opinions from authors in an attempt to manipulate the reader rather than inform.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

Correct me if I am wroung but you don't seem to have provided any ref's to multiple or even singular sources.--JK the unwise 16:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of my complaints have to do with style, relevence, consitency and contradictions. For example you claimed the definition of left-wing is elusive yet you provide a single definition as the first sentence.

This is also a cheap defense:

"Right-wing critics have generally seen acceptance of post-modernism as an indication of the poorly thought-out, fashionable nature of the academic left. Some right-wing critics mirror the idea that left-wing postmodernism is a product of the 'failure' of Marxism to bring liberation. For example Gary Jason claims that 'The failure of socialism, both empirically and theoretically, brought about a crisis of faith among socialists, and postmodernism is their response.'"

Gary Jason the philosophy teacher has made that claim, not "right-wing critics." I took this out because it is poorly sourced. Gary Jason is a philosophy teacher who made that comment and you can hardly assume that he is representative of anything but himself. I also consider your section on the Soviet Union to be biased in favor of trying to downplay the relationship between the Soviet Union and other left-wing groups. The USSR was a monopoly capitalist state? Well duh that is what Karl wanted, have the state own all of the industries. God forbid you actually mention that the USSR was a left-wing authoritarian state that killed over 61,000,000 people in its attempt to create a worker's utopia. Here's a source on that if you want it: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

But whatever, keep this entry biased and unprofessional. I wouldn't expect anything else from a couple of people that actually refer to themselves as "Marxists." Anyone who believes that Marxism still has any kind of chance in hell probably needs control over something like this to deal with the onslaught of reality. As if anything will ever change the fact that nothing in human history has failed like Marx's theories.

Oh and you might want to learn how to spell before planning the next revoultion.

How is it that someone can say something that is really entirely reasonable, such as "Marxism is dead", and come across sounding like a fanatic? Rick Norwood 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism is not left-wing

Anarchism is the rejection of all governments, thus it is a contradiction in terms to claim that anarchists are left-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

Your political science professors should study the Spanish Civil War. Not to say that its always true, but Libertarian communism is an example of the sort of cross-pollination your edits discount. Absolute statements are kinda POV by their very nature. DJ Silverfish 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Because other people have used these terms incorrectly before that means its ok to incorrectly use them now? We should just disregard the millions of times they were used correctly? Absolute statements are POV by their nature? The earth revolves around the sun. Was that a POV statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.218.34 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

As per JK's comments, given the Global nature of the encyclopedia and its sourcing, the more inclusive definition is preferrable. Strong cites (not the Encyclopedia Brittanica and unnamed political science professors) can be used to support a revision, but should be justified in Talk, first. DJ Silverfish 16:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Way to completely ignore the questions that I asked you. Well since Wikipedia also states that anarchism is the rejection of government, it's a contradiction to be both left-wing and an anarchist as being left-wing implies you have a political position and thus see a role for the government. But if you want to believe that anarchist means whatever you want it to and that contradictions don't exist then go right ahead. Obviously there is no accountability to logic here.

"It's sister Jenny's turn to throw the bomb..."

You are talking at cross purposes. Yes, the pure form of anarchism has no government at all. Just as the pure form of libertarianism has no government at all. Just a the pure form of a vacuum contains no atoms at all. But, for practical purposes, we speak of the vacuum of space even though there are lots of atoms zipping around. Minarchist libertarians will allow for just a little government. And there are anarchists who are not absolute anarchists. Usually they allow as how all governments are bad, but maybe we need an interim government to get rid of all the governments we have now and pave the way for the golden age of pure anarchy. These anarchists allied themselves with the communists, and therefore are usually considered left wing. Rick Norwood 20:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The other incorrect assumption here is that left-wing = government control. While I do not want to start a debate over what Marx said, it is a fact that some people interprete him as avodcating the abolishment of the state (in a more gradual way then anarchists sure), yet these people are still part of the left-tradtion. It is not for us to set the meaning of "Left-wing" it is for history with all its controdictions or otherwise.--JK the unwise 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell, nobody uses the phrase "left wing" these days except to apply it to their political enemies, with the implication that these political enemies are commies, whether they are in fact commies or not (usually not). Rick Norwood 22:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about America but this certianly isn't true in the U.K. Many back bench members of the labour party would happly call themselves left-wing. Tony Blair claims to be a Socialist. In the U.K. Left-wing doesn't imply Communist anymore then right-wing implies Fascist.--JK the unwise 08:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we've been around this before: in the US, "leftist" is a typical self-identification, "left-wing" somewhat pejorative; in the UK it's the other way around. - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Further evidence for Jmabel's observation. One of the most interesting sections in this article is The Sokal affair, where Sokal is described as a "self described leftist". On the other hand, there is an article in the current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education that calls university professors "left wing" in a clearly hostile way, the idea being that queers, lesbians, and foreigners are turning the campus over the the radical left. Rick Norwood 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

leftists and commies

Good edit, JMabel. Rick Norwood 14:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Different views of "the left"

While I am not sure that this discription is a particluarly brilliant one;

Jeffrey Berry (Tufts University) describes liberals as valuing equality over individual freedom, e.g. through welfare, and valuing individual freedom over social order, e.g. supporting abortion rights.

I don't see how it is any less relevant then Peter Singer's definition of the left. Unless, as the lack of Wikipedia entry suggests, Jeffrey Berry is not widly known.

In general, I think that the the article would benifit from a few different quotes about what it means to be left-wing/leftist as this would help to show the disputes that surround the idea in a NPOV way.--JK the unwise 12:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rights?!?

The Peter Singer quote defines left wing ... "as being those who place minimizing suffering above other moral imperatives, such as tradition or rights." The paragraph above makes a point of the left being involved in civil rights... these two points seem to be contradicting. I think it would be good to note after his quote that some left-wing supporters do believe that rights are very important and other don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) 9 May 2006

Peter Singer, one of whose main causes is animal rights, is hardly a mainstream leftist. This is certainly a left animal rights activist's take on what they draw from the left tradition, and may merit mention as such, but it would not be the view typical of those on the left. - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Pete Segar would say that the Civil Rights movement was not important because of some abstract right, but because Blacks suffered under segregation. This was, in fact, one of the reasons given in the US Supreme Court decission (a blatant case of judicial activism) overturned the Jim Crow laws in the South. Rick Norwood 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Pete Segar". Does this mean to say "Peter Singer"? Or are you talking about someone else? - Jmabel | Talk 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad. The correct spelling is Pete Seeger. He wrote "Where have all the flowers gone" and other civil rights and anti-war songs. Rick Norwood 12:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm more than familiar with him, but… I assume that you understand tehat hte Peter Singer we are talking about is someone else entirely? - Jmabel | Talk 15:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Biggish edit

I have done a fair amount of editing of this page, to remove material that is off-topic or POV. Hope people find this acceptable! -BobFromBrockley 12:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you want too far. I'm going to restore some of the material you blanked. It is better to discuss than to delete. Rick Norwood 14:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for going too far - I should have discussed. But I do think the section on Communism is very fuzzy at the moment and needs work to make it clearer. At the moment, it reads a little like competing POVs balanced against each other.

I am also unsure that all the sections really belong in this article. I wonder if some should become articles in their own right instead - specifically the Darwinism and postmodernism sections. If the approach as it is now, with lots of "the left and..." sections, maybe the issue around the left and secularism (slightly fuzzily) raised in the intro should have a section of its own?

I'm not sure the sections deserve articles on their own -- in fact, they seem a little thin here, and would benefit from references and quotations from established sources. Rick Norwood 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure about the "Dawinism" section but I do think the "Post-modernism" section is revelvant as postmodernist theory has had a large effect sections of the left, esspecialy in acedemia. The section does have some ref's but is baddly writtern and could do with more on why postmordern thinking is thought to be important/thought to fit in with being left-wing by it proponants.--JK the unwise 09:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism is important because it has a cool name, and also because of the split between the two cultures -- witness the cant picked up by postmodern commencement speakers, who tell students there is no such thing as algebra in the real world, blissfully ignorant of the fact that the plane that flew them to the commencement wouldn't fly if some engineer at some point hadn't done some algebra. Rick Norwood 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

politics vs. ideology

Left-wing politics should be about the term in its political science context. Left-wing politics is not a political ideology, but why does this article read as if it is? Intangible 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put a disputed template on this article. The reason is given. Intangible 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Have done a lot of editing of "Left-wing issues" section. I hope the article is now slightly less disputable, although obviously lots more to do. Don't really understand Intangible's point about political science vs ideology though. --BobFromBrockley 11:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid talking about "left-wing politics" as if being "left-wing" was a spesfic ideology rather then a famialy of historically linked movements grouped around ideologies with similar goals. However, there are moves with in some political science circles to create more clear definitions of left/right, because these moves remove some of the abiguity of the term they can overturn some of the original historical meanings. I would be against rewriting the article to reflect any new defition of "left-wing politics" rather then to reflect the rather messy historical meaning. I'm for clarity but against reduction.--JK the unwise 12:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another biggish edit

"Building on its concern with the lower classes and with combating oppression, the industrial revolution saw left-wing politics become associated with the conditions and rights of large numbers of workers in industry."

I'll just point out one problem with the most recent edit, which I reverted -- the sentence above has the industrial revolution concerned with the lower classes and combating oppression. Write carefully! Rick Norwood 12:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is a very good example of a piece of bad writing in my edit. However, I believe the version you have reverted to is full of bad writing and meaningless sentences. For example, "The far left has opposed..." The aricle should be about the left; there is nothing "far left" about opposing concentrations of power etc. Is trade unionism a model of society? (Or "socieity" as the version you reverted to has?) What are the "Keynesian ideals" in pursuit of which left-wingers are supposed to be acting in? (Surely Keynesianism is at best a pretty minor current within the left?) The final paras of the section I edited are almost completely meaningless.

I think that my (flawed) edit is a much better basis for developing the article than what you have reverted to, but I'll leave your revert alone, assuming it is me who is the odd one out! --158.223.71.65 15:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason on earth you shouldn't try your edit again, writing more carefully this time. I would, however, suggest editing one paragraph, waiting 24 hours, and then editing another paragraph. Rick Norwood 15:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will do a paragraph today and then see how it goes... --BobFromBrockley 14:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Left and ... "

As it stands now, the bulk of this article consists of unrelated discussions of the relationship between the Left and various random issues - some of which are important, like war, and some of which are mostly irrelevant, like postmodernism. Certainly "the Left" includes a vast number of political thinkers and philosophers, so you could discuss the relationships between the Left and anything you like. However, I believe this article should concentrate on two specific kinds of issues:

Things that all Leftists have in common.
Major lines of disagreement between large ideologies described as Leftist.

That would involve removing a lot of superfluous material that is currently present in this article, so I would like to hear other editors' opinions before I go ahead with the restructuring. -- Nikodemos 16:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above I think that the post-modernism section is important, I am generally open however to the idea that the article could do with more focus.--JK the unwise 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to move that section to the post-modernism article, though? -- Nikodemos 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nikodemos, but it seems clear that the weight of opnion is to keep these sections, or at least the postmodernism one. --BobFromBrockley 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Communist a proper noun?

Wm has edited this article to replace all uses of big-C 'Communist' with small-c 'communist', on the grounds that it is not a proper noun. I passionately disagree with this. I think there is a clear distinction between small-c communism - a world without property and exploitation, or the belief in that world - and big-C Communism - associated with a party or state called Communist. An exact analogy would be liberal and Liberal (as a liberal helping of ice cream has nothing to do with the Liberal Party; lots of Liberal Parties do illiberal things), conservative and Conservative, labour and Labour, etc. Party names are proper nouns. Ideologies are not. The capital letter enables us to know which one is being used. This is set out, incidentally, in the second paragraph of the criticisms of communism page, altho the difference is not used consistently in many wikipedia articles.

I propose editing this article to distinguish between instances of the proper noun and the ideology, but don't want to be seen as vandalising Wm's contribution. What do people think? --BobFromBrockley 15:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is an important distinction. Warofdreams talk 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and regularise the Cs. --BobFromBrockley 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

State of the page

1. I have added a set of definitions to the Intro. 2. I think the left-wing parties section is very lame. Needs fleshing out or removing. 3. Am unhappy with the Chinese Communism section. Is neo-left-wing a recognised phrase? --BobFromBrockley 10:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On this last: in the context of talking about China, neo-left is used. I don't know about "neo-left-wing". - Jmabel | Talk 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

by definition, communism is not totilitarian

An anon deleted the entire section on communism with the comment "by definition, communism is not totalitarian".

Communism is an economic system characterized by collective ownership of property. Totalitarianism is a system of government in which all power is vested in the government. There are totalitarian communist states: the USSR under Stalin; totalitarian non-communist states: Italy under Mussolini; non-totalitarian communist states: the commune founded by Pythagoras in ancient Greece; and non-totalitarian non-communist states: England under Queen Elizabeth II.

Rick Norwood 19:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, but the introduction of the Communism is section is hopelessly biased. It starts by naively wondering if Communism is part of the left, than goes on about Fascism and wonders if Fascism is to the right, and then includes a little reference to Popper to justify the fact that many or most people on the left reject communism as totalitarian? This is pure unencyclopedic ideology. Tazmaniacs 01:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of political ideology articles on wikipedia. In terms of the basic comment, I'm confused. This is an article on left-wing politics. Why would communism be deleted from this article because it is "by definition" not totalitarian? I'm deeply confused. At any rate, I would add that, in fact, Stalinism is, by definition one of the two defining models of totalitarianism, the other being Nazi Germany. I think the concept of totalitarianism is a deeply flawed one, probably more misleading than useful. But clearly the concept includes (at least one form of) communism. john k 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopelessly biased? It seems very NPOV to me, explaining why and in what way Soviet Communism is considered left-wing and should be included in this page. What about that is biased or ideological, and how would you change it? -David Schaich 02:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I left this message because of the NPOV tag I left, not because i support the anon's deletion of the whole part (although it's such non-sense that I wouldn't consider it vandalism, just the wrong way to proceed on Wikipedia). Communism should of course be included here, and several sources should be provided to uphold the marginal view that Communism does not belong to the left wing! If left & right are terms finding their origins in the French Revolution (left: those who accept it; right: counterrevolutionaries; see left-right politics), than doubtlessly the October Revolution marked a new dividing line and a "new deal" concerning left/right repartition. Mainly, it introduced a split in the left-wing, between those whom supported the Bolcheviks and the others, more reformists. That's a split, not an exclusion! And Communists would probably argue that, if somebody had been excluded from the left-wing, then it was the revisionists and not themselves! The debate on totalitarianism is another point, and the claim that several Communist states (if not all) were totalitarian (I agree with John K's remarks) doesn't have any relevance on the inclusion or not of Communism as full-part of the left-wing. Tazmaniacs 13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense (not to above comment, but to ones above it). Even Stalin did not claim to have reached communism, but socialism as a transitional state. It is disputed by others whether he was even a real socialist, but he certainly did not reach communism (see the communism article, communism is a classless, publicly owned means of production, and stateless society, the term communist state is a oxymoron, see that article). Under totilitarianism, the state, under a dictator, is all powerful, usder communism, it ultimatly ceases to exist. End of story. Communism is not totillitarian (even if some states ruled by Communist parties where). Since the section claims it is, the section is wrong and must be removed (it is incoherent, anyway, so if such a section is to be put back, it is better to start fresh and not from the old version). See it this way, under socalism/communism, the state is under workers control, under totilitarianism, it is under the control of a dictor. Does that help? 72.139.119.165 16:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, you are talking about the Marxist idea of "true communism." I don't think there's any helping people who still believe such things, but I will make the attempt. When us non-true-believers talk about "communism" we mean "Marxism-Leninism, plus utopian communist movements" Got it? The idea that we can analyze a "true communism" which has never actually existed is absurd. john k 17:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever your views are, communism is a classless, publicly owned means of production, and stateless society. Marxist-Leninists are not the only ones who think that such a society will eventually form, anarchists and libertarian socialists also want to create such a society, through different means. Also, the Paris Commune and a few other things were moving toward such a socity, but it is true it (so far) did not occur on a large scale for a long time. However, under socalism/communism, the state is under workers control, under totilitarianism, it is under the control of a dictor. This proves communism is not totilitarian. 72.139.119.165 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The people above may be refering to planned economies. In that case, it is certianly true that you can have a totilitarian planned economy. For that, the artilce should use "planned economy" or "command economy" instead of "communism." 72.139.119.165 19:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How is communism not totalitarian? Have you ever seen a communist state which has not been totalitarian? See Ta Mok for example. Intangible 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I spoke carelessly, there are other kinds of Communists than Marxist-Leinists. That being said, pretty much every political party which has called itself "Communist" has been Marxist-Leninist, and it is the politics of such parties when they've gotten into power that is normally meant when one refers to Communist governments. That Communist (party-led) regimes stated that they were only in the process of creating a socialist society, and that true (i.e. ideal, stateless) communism had not arrived yet is a quirk of Marxist-Leninist dogma, and doesn't change the general usage of "Communist" to mean "Marxist-Leninist" john k 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that this section is discussing specifically "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", as opposed to the theoretical stateless society. This, I think, should take care of your objection. -David Schaich 20:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I can accept the use of the word "communism" in the section. I was thinking of the marxist conception of communism, and not the other use, which refers to the soviet union and other related states. Howerver, even if used in this context, the states should not be described as "totilitarian" because that is POV. At any rate, the section is a mess (as Tazmaniacs pointed out) and needs to be rewritten. 72.139.119.165 12:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just thinking about it, I realized that the non-Marxist-Leninist definition of Communism is "government by people who believe in the Marxist-Leninist definition of Communism..." Anyway, I can agree with your other points. In particular, we should never use "totalitarian" as though it is an unproblematic concept - most scholars today do not find it to be a useful concept, and trying to apply it to, for instance, Honecker's East Germany or Brezhnev's Soviet Union is almost certainly inappropriate. john k 15:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to work on this section to make it less of a mess. Still needs more work. The issue of defining communism versus Communism (i.e. Marx's conception of communism as a world without exploitation versus Marxist-Leninist idea of Communism as dictatorship of the proleteriat) still needs to be addressed. This is the issue (see earlier in the discussion) of communism without a capital letter versus Communism as a proper noun. --158.223.71.65 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that what most English speakers mean by "Communism", especially with the capital, is roughly what the Soviets meant by "actually existing socialism": the system as it was (and in a few cases, is) practiced in countries with one-part Communist Party governments. Present-day China is something of an exception; their so-called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" seems to me (and, I daresay, to most) to be a different phenomenon. But present-day North Korea and Cuba fall within the definition. And anyone who can say that present-day North Korea is not totalitarian obviously simply rejects the concept of totalitarianism.

The concept of totalitarianism, especially as modeled by Popper and Arendt, was mainly an effort to analyze and describe what they perceived as similarities between Nazi Germany and the Stalin-era USSR. If you bother reading them (especially Arendt) it is clear that they are not saying that Nazism and Stalinism are interchangeable or identical, but they are saying that the two systems have some deep similarities. - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism

In the intro, during the description of left-wing, it mentions 'liberalism.' However, the kind of liberalism to which it links is classical liberalism as it is known through most of the world outside of the US, not the sense in which the word 'liberal' is used in the states. It is not traditionally considered to be left-wing, and much of its positions have been co-opted by the libertarian/corporatist segments of the right-wing. I'm changing the link to American liberalism for now, but it's probably better to just leave it out altogether. JF Mephisto 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The original left wing was precisely liberal. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Left and feminism

I've added a small section called left and feminism where the "to be written" women's rights section was in left-wing issues. I've created a longer main article this links to. I'm planning to do something similar with the left and secularism. I'd suggest a similar approach be taken to the controversial postmodernism, Darwinism and maybe Communism sections - i.e. trim drastically but link to longer main articles. What do you all think? --BobFromBrockley 15:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. The communists were, of course, strong supporters of the idea that men and women were equal, and should be treated the same in the workplace. And some American feminists, such as Helen Keller, were communists. Pete Seager and Woodie Guthrie were leftist folk singers who were also strong feminists. They tried to make the labor unions accept women's rights, but the rank and file didn't buy it. Rick Norwood 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. Have added these points to the main article[1]. --BobFromBrockley 12:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

Yesterday, 69.182.196.127 added this sentence to the Spanish Civil War section[2]: "It is important to note that the in this war Communists loyal to Stalin eventually betrayed their allied anarchists and libertarian socialists, eventually leading to Franco's victory." Rlitwin sensibly removed it, saying "hoa nellie! this needs discussion, and if it goes in, much more neutral wording" Personally, I think the comment is true, but is completely POV in the wording. Also, it is not appropriate to the fact that the Civil War section is in a larger section[3] about the left and war. It might, however, be valid to say something about this in the section on the left and Communism[4], but in a neutral tone, perhaps along the lines of the fact that Communists have worked with other left groups at some times (e.g. in Popular Front governments, such as in Republican Spain, but that etc. --BobFromBrockley 12:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

SPUSA spammer

An anonymous editor (or editors) with similar IP numbers has persistently added links to the Socialist Party USA website and the wikipedia page on the organisation. These links number in the hundreds to any article on a social issue, such as black power, and re-adds the links repeatedly after they've been reverted by other editors. Numerous wikipedians have added warnings to these anon talk pages. I encourage other editors to be mindful of this "serial spammer" and consider whether these links (to a single US-specific organisation) belong in articles about global issues. The anon sometimes justifies additions to pages on subjects as diverse as pacifism, direct action, council communism, marxism, leninism, trotskyism, shachtmanism, sparticism, etc. by claiming that SPUSA contains members or "currents" that follow these traditions. They also add links to any labor issue ("labor caucus of SPUSA"), racism ("people of color caucus of SPUSA"), religious article ("SPUSA faith commission"), queer ("queer commission"), feminist etc etc.

They are usually in the "see also" and "external links section, but sometimes, the same editor removes content critical of the SPUSA, or adds links in the body of the article (e.g. this diff, this diff and this diff). Occasionally these links may be considered legitimate, but the vast majority are things like "the SPUSA cares about this issue too" (e.g. this diff). It's hard to tell if they are honestly trying to promote the group or turn people against it! The editor/s have used the the following IP addresses, among others:

ntennis 02:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Secularism

Considering the amount of wrangling it has taken, I think the lead section has turned into a remarkably good taxonomy. I have one issue, and I'm not sure how best to address it. Right now we have:

The left claims to be dedicated to personal liberty, social justice and secularism. The left is often seen to include secularism, as in the United States, India, the Middle East, and in many Catholic countries, although religion and left-wing politics have at times been allied historically, such as in the U.S. civil rights movement, or in the cases of liberation theology and Christian socialism.

While liberation theology and Christian socialism are definitely religiously based movements—indeed, specifically Christian movements—and there was a strong current of religion (especially a Black Baptist and occasionally other Protestant leadership and constituency) in the U.S. civil rights movement, none of these movements, to my knowledge, ever questioned the separation of Church and State. Certainly the U.S. civil rights movement did not. They called on Christians to live up to their understanding of the morality of Jesus, but they had very little concern with piety. While there is a part of the left (especially the Marxist left and much of the anarchist left) that is radically secular, to the point of being anti-religious, most of the left is secularist only in the sense of opposing the imposition of religion. One could read this paragraph and come away with a very different impression. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?

I see that the article as a whole has a tag saying that its factual accuracy is disputed. I think it is a bit underreferenced, but other than that it strikes me as essentially accurate. So two questions:

Are there factual disputes outside of the one section (Left-wing politics#Communism and left-wing politics) that is separately tagged for a dispute over accuracy and NPOV?
In that one section, I certainly have my doubts about "Neo-left-wing politics is seen as being more appealing to students in mainland China today than liberalism" (which has been tagged for some time as needing citation), but what else exactly is in dispute either factually or on a POV basis?

Jmabel | Talk 18:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the top banner untill some factual debates about sections other than Left-wing politics#Communism and left-wing politics are clearly stated.--JK the unwise 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We now have "Centre-left, left of centre and left liberal refer to the left side of mainstream‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} politics." I don't really know what to do with that request for citation. The sentence may deserve the qualification "in liberal democracies", but within that context it is simply a description of common usage. I'm not sure how you would cite for this: it's one of those things that is so obvious that it seems unlikely someone bothered stating it explicitly. It's like trying to find a citation for maple wood coming only from maple trees. - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I added "in liberal democracies" and removed the citation needed marker. I think it did need that qualification. Rlitwin 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Requesting article "Tribunite"

Does anyone feel able to create a stub on Tribunite (sub-set of the mid-20th century British Left)? The only sources I have are

http://www.allwords.com/word-Tribunite.html

(and other pages with identical text)

and this from Guardian

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1530801,00.html

"According to his biographer, Professor Bernard Crick, Orwell saw himself as a Tribunite socialist whose experiences in the Spanish civil war had left him sharply disillusioned with Soviet communism."

-- 201.50.123.251 13:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Tribune (magazine). Ah, I see that in the wake of your comment, someone made Tribunite redirect to that. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)