Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Another collection of quotes from Marx and other Leftists

"counter-revolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." - Karl Marx ("The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, November 7, 1848)

"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." - Friedrich Engels ("The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849)

"… only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we [Germans], jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution… there will be a struggle, an ‘inexorable life-and-death struggle,’ against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror - not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!" - Friedrich Engels ("Democratic Pan-Slavism, Cont.," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, February 16, 1849)

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror." - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels ("Suppression of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, May 19, 1849)

"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia." - V. I. Lenin (Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow [London: Arrow Books, 1988], p234)

"... whoever recognizes class war must recognize civil wars, which in any class society represent the natural and, in certain circumstances, inevitable continuation, development and sharpening of class war." - V. I. Lenin (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [London: HarperCollins, 1994], p196)

"Until we apply terror to speculators - shooting on the spot - we won’t get anywhere." - V. I. Lenin (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p55)

"Let them shoot on the spot every tenth man guilty of idleness." - V. I. Lenin (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p55)

"Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the most cruel revolutionary terror?" - V. I. Lenin (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p57)

"You can tell Ter [a local Cheka commander] that if there is an offensive, he must make all preparations to burn Baku down totally, and this should be announced in print in Baku." - V. I. Lenin (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [London: HarperCollins, 1994], p202)

"Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" - V. I. Lenin (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [London: HarperCollins, 1994], p197)

"... carry out merciless mass terror against the kulaks, priests and White Guards; unreliable elements to be locked up in a concentration camp outside the town." - V. I. Lenin (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p103)

"I am confident that the suppression of the Kazan Czechs and White Guards, and likewise of the bloodsucking kulaks who support them, will be a model of mercilessness." - V. I. Lenin (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p119)

"When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism." - V. I. Lenin (Robert Conquest, The Human Cost of Soviet Communism [Washington: Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, 1970], p10)

"... catch and shoot the Astrakhan speculators and bribe-takers. These swine have to be dealt [with] so that everyone will remember it for years." - V. I. Lenin (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [London: HarperCollins, 1994], p201)

"Russians are too kind, they lack the ability to apply determined methods of revolutionary terror." - V. I. Lenin (Dmitri Volkogonov, Lenin: Life and Legacy [London: HarperCollins, 1994], p203)

"Dictatorship is rule based directly on force and unrestricted by any laws. The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained through the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws." - V. I. Lenin (Stephan Courtois, "Conclusion," in The Black Book of Communism, ed. Stephane Courtois [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999], p741)

"I come to the inescapable conclusion that we must now launch the most decisive and merciless battle against the Black Hundreds clergy and crush their resistance with such ferocity that they will not forget it for several decades... The bigger the number of reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeois we manage to shoot in the process, the better." - V. I. Lenin (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [London: HarperCollins, 1996], p227)

"But couldn’t this correlation [of political and social forces] be altered? Say, through the subjection or extermination of some classes of society?" - Feliks Dzerzhinsky (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p252)

"Do not believe that I seek revolutionary forms of justice. We don’t need justice at this point... I propose, I demand, the organization of revolutionary annihilation against all active counterrevolutionaries." - Feliks Dzerzhinsky (Michel Heller and Aleksandr Nekrich, Utopia in Power: A History of the USSR From 1917 to the Present [London: Hutchinson, 1986], p54)

"[The Red Terror involves] the extermination of enemies of the revolution on the basis of their class affiliation or of their pre-revolutionary roles." - Feliks Dzerzhinsky (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p114)

"In not more than a month’s time terror will assume very violent forms, after the example of the great French Revolution; the guillotine... will be ready for our enemies... that remarkable invention of the French Revolution which makes man shorter by a head." - Leon Trotsky (George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], p54)

"Root out the counterrevolutionaries without mercy, lock up suspicious characters in concentration camps... Shirkers will be shot, regardless of past service..." - Leon Trotsky (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [London: HarperCollins, 1996], p213)

"We have to run a hot iron down the spine of the Ukrainian kulaks - that will create a good working environment." - Leon Trotsky (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [London: HarperCollins, 1996], p183)

"As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life.’" - Leon Trotsky (Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [London: New Park Publications, 1975], p82)

"The Red Terror is a weapon utilized against a class, doomed to destruction, which does not wish to perish... the Red Terror hastens the destruction of the bourgeoisie." - Leon Trotsky (Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [London: New Park Publications, 1975], p83)

"... the road to socialism lies through a period of the highest possible intensification of the principle of the state… Just as a lamp, before going out, shoots up in a brilliant flame, so the state, before disappearing, assumes the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the most ruthless form of state, which embraces the life of the citizens authoritatively in every direction..." - Leon Trotsky (Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky [London: New Park Publications, 1975], p177)

"... the very principle of labour conscription has replaced the principle of free labour as radically and irreversibly as socialization of the means of production has replaced capitalist ownership." - Leon Trotsky (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary [London: HarperCollins, 1996], pp216-7)

ok so we understand that you're an anti-leftist. sign your posts. 1337wesm 12:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Failing Marx

I gather that the purpose of all of these quotes is to suggest that Left-wing politics is the same today as it was seventy years ago. But, as the article notes, the left/right distinction goes back to long before the red/white distinction (in the sense of Red Russian vs. White Russian). In the US, most supporters of the left have been anti-war, pro-labor, and pro-civil rights. Now that the horrors of communism are generally recognized, very few modern "leftists" defend communism.

I, for one, would not mind a section in this article on how gullible American leftists were during the forties and fifties, provided it was taken from a published source, and written in an objective style. But to pretend that everyone who is on the left today is tainted by communism is a pose, not an objective assessment. It is name calling.

The left was wrong about communism, that does not imply they were wrong about civil rights.

Rick Norwood 12:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Claiming that Marxists are on the Left is just name calling.

Er, actually, Marxists, what few there still are, are on the left. It is just that most people on the left are not Marxist. Rick Norwood 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the left were wrong about communism. I believe that communism is an ideology that was never really practiced. Any ideology that gets taken by a dictator and used abusively should not have the original ideology linked with it. That is why Lenin's policies were called Leninism and Stalin's were Stalinism. Neither were communists. Neither were Marxist. They were more right wing than left wing in the end. What we do have is proof that communism or socialism has been abused by the instincts of leaders. Purest socialism has never been experienced in recorded history. I don't think any political theory has. They always get manipulated, tweaked and changed.

The British labour party were originally socialists. Now they are... well they just wing it. They take a pinch of the left when it suits them and pinch of the right when it suits them. They are not socialists. They are the labour party who produce their own manifesto. Unfortunately the left have Stalin. The right have hitler. You will never see objectivity if you give people the ability to taint something for their own benefit. It's the world we live in. The only way to research communism is by reading the definition in it's purest form instead of attaching human history on to it. Read the communist manifesto. You will see how Marxism has never actually seen the light of day and how communism or Marxism only could have existed if Karl Marx had been an active, ruling politician. He wasn't so therfore Marxism has never been experienced in it's purity.

My advice. Instead of listing history under the heading of communism. Just write - see Communist manifesto. Only then will you be able to make an objective decision about Marxism. It is slightly worrying that so many people, even on the left, have such stong opinions about Communists without ever actually knowing what it is.

It's like saying, "I don't like cheese" when all you have ever eaten is processed cheese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.234.222 (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Sokal affair

I don't see why this reference to postmodernism is there: it's nothing to do with leftwing politics. Anyone mind if |I cut it? --Duncan 09:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we ought to cut out any bits of the article critical of the Left.

I agree. I have long thought that the whole Left and Postmodernism and Left and Darwinism sections should be removed. They take up a lot of space in the article, and are fairly marginal topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Can I go ahead and remove these sections then? BobFromBrockley 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree. This is a defining issue in modern left-wing political thought. Many of the European social democratic parties (that stand in the left-wing tradition) have used this kind of thinking to redefine themselves towards the 'pragmatist' centre ground. Also a lot of right-wing conservative criticism of the left-wing tradition is based on the idea that it is inherently relativist. Maybe it needs some work but it should stay.--JK the unwise 13:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. But what about the left and Darwinism section? BobFromBrockley 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

List of left parties

Mortsggah has helpfully started table for the left parties that have been listed at the bottom of the page here. I'm slightly worried about this for two reasons. First, it will become a space for the same sorts of endless arguments about what constitutes left that the opening paragraph is subject to. Second, it could be an extremely long list. I suggest directing people to existing lists like: List of social democratic parties, List of democratic socialist parties and organizations, List of Communist Parties, List of ocialist Parties, List of left-wing internationals. BobFromBrockley 12:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the table, and forgot to comment here. I'm not particularly fond of the content within the Political parties on the Left section, but that is an issue I will save for another day... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Ultra-left: Zapatista

I have never heard of the EZLN described as ultra-left as a recent edit says. I have removed this - please replace if it can be backed up. BobFromBrockley 13:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that I heard Televisa ("great source," I know!) use the phrase repeatedly back when the situation was still hot, but I will not reinsert the reference unless I find a citation. In the end, the odds are good that the EZLN (and any other aspiring anarchist-syndicalist national liberation movements) are more frequently considered to be members of the "far left." Regardless, it would be good to add a second recent or contemporary example to both the "far left" and "ultra left" sentences in the introduction. If you have any ideas, type away! --(Ptah, the El Daoud 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

First, sorry for the liberation theology thing - didn't read the whole para thoroughly. Far left and ultra-left are both dodgy phrases, because they mean all things to all people, but I think you are right to try and tighten up how they are framed here, with examples. BobFromBrockley 09:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

left wing politicians

there should be a list of left wing politicians such as segolene royal, Tarja Halonen, Jens Stoltenberg, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, hugo chavez,

Disagree. There are so many possible candidates for this list that it would end up swamping the article. BobFromBrockley 10:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It would, however, make a practical and informative list. For those interested in such a project, I would suggest List of active left-wing politicians or something of that sort. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

I'd have no problem with that at all, just worried about huge lists at bottom of pages. BobFromBrockley 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the left just "bad" or is it "really, really bad".

Most of the recent rewrites have been fiddling with adjectives and adverbs, in an effort to spin the article one way or the other. What this article needs is a scholarly writer with a deep understanding of the history of the left and a willingness to footnote. The article is not improved by changing "some" to "many" and "all" to "most", especially if such changes are unreferenced. Rick Norwood 13:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

88's errors

user:88.110.227.42 has attempted to add several serious errors to the article. These include his statements that:

"In the first half of the twentieth century, the Old Left argued that differences in social class supplied a complete explanation of human social behaviour."
- Which would have surprised many Marxists, let alone the rest of the left.

Counterexample to 88's version: Emma Goldman's Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty.

Counterexample to 88's version: James Connolly's Wages, Marriage, and the Church.

"Hard left refers to those who believe that social justice requires the State to have a much more aggressive role in changing society, for example Hugo Chavez president of Venezuela. Ultra-left organizations are those deemed to be on the most extreme left of the political spectrum, for example Italian autonomism."
- Well, autonomism/autonomist Marxism overlaps with anarchism and hardly intends the state to have any role at all.

Counterexamples to 88's version: Autonomous Marxism, Council communism, anarchocommunism. All these are hard left to ultra left and leave little to no role for the state.

Antonie Pannekoek, a council communist, wrote: "So they have to create the organs by means of which they direct their own work, as personnel, as well as social production at large. The institute of State and government cannot serve for this purpose because it is essentially an organ of domination, and concentrates the general affairs in the hands of a group of rulers. But under Socialism the general affairs consist in social production; so they are the concern of all, of each personnel, of every worker, to be discussed and decided at every moment by themselves." in Public Ownership and Common Ownership.

His substitution of:

"More recently, the left has criticized what it perceives as the exploitative nature of current forms of globalization, e.g. the rise of sweatshops and the "race to the bottom","
- With "More recently, the left has criticized what it perceives to be the exploitative nature of globalization i.e. the growth of global free markets."
  - Note that the former version did not equate neoliberal capitalism with free markets and the latter does. Many leftists note that neoliberals impose restrictions which benefit capital (e.g. neoliberal restrictions on immigration or support of intellectual rent-seeking).

Also his removal of references to:

Libertarian socialism
The religious left

I can't say the present text is any good, but these edits don't help. Jacob Haller 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

All interesting questions:

Role of factors (for the left) other than economics in social behaviour?

Role that the State plays (for the left) in the pursuit of a just society.

Difference between capitalism and free markets

The relationship between liberty (as opposed to equality) and socialism

But no sign of any illumination of these issues by Jacob Haller - shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.144.251 (talk) 19:09,

11 September 2007 (UTC)

If this article, and the response to the edits, is anything to go by I can only agree with the co-founder of Wikipedia that as a source of information Wikipedia is ‘broken beyond repair’.

"Larry Sanger, who co-founded the site with James Wales, was speaking two weeks after he started up a rival online information source Citizendium. The new site has articles checked and contributed by accredited academics and specialists, but will also accept publicly-written articles, once they have been checked.

He spoke out after the Education Secretary Alan Johnson praised Wikipedia at the annual conference of the National Association of Schoolteachers and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), saying it opened up knowledge that was previously unavailable to those who could not get access to copies of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

“I’m afraid that Mr Johnson does not realise the many problems afflicting Wikipedia, from serious management problems, to an often dysfunctional community, to frequently unreliable content, and to a whole series of scandals,” Sanger told The Times.

“While Wikipedia is still quite useful and an amazing phenomenon, I have come to the view that it is also broken beyond repair.”

Not quite ready to give up on Wikipedia yet.

Obviously, Wikipedia is a better source for information about, say, the Klingon language, than for information about politics. But I'm not quite ready to give up. Rick Norwood 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Two axes are better than one.

It would be nice if "left-wing" could be discovered to have some meaning. For example, if "left-wing" means favoring social equality, then "right-wing" means favoring social inequality. You used to be able to find right wingers who would admit this, but these days they all say that they are not in favor of social inequality, they are in favor of, say, small government. Social inequality just happens. But the idea that "right wing" means "small government" has no history behind it. Right wing always meant church, king and country. with the implications of class loyalty.

So, now we have liberal vs. conservative. Librerals favor freedom, conservatives favor -- what? A lack of freedom. Well, yes and no. Few conservatives these days will come out in favor of less freedom, though they certainly oppose freedom to get an abortion or freedom to use dirty words or freedom of gays to marry or freedom of people to say, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", but they are not opposed to freedom in general. They just favor "small government" (but not so small it cannot enforce abstinence only sex-education, no dirty words on television, and the war on people who use drugs).

So the public discourse is reduced to people who want something they cannot quite speak of vs. people who want freedom and equality. The former are called "right wing" or conservative, the latter "left wing" or liberal.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could pry these axes apart? Liberal would correspond to freedom, "left-wing" to social equality. Thus a libertarian would be a right wing liberal, and a Russian communist would be a left-wing conservative.

Sadly, I fear the words are too far gone to be made to mean anything any more. We need new words. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New words? Good grief! Sounds like 1984! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.154.210 (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You just invented the Nolan chart! Congratulations! C mon (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

balance and remake

the article is still heavily anglo-saxon tilted. Left/right distinctions are extremly contextual, an issue or stand perceived as 'leftist' in one country or period might well be 'rightist' in another. my suggestion is keeping this article to an absolute minimum, explaining the historical roots to the term 'leftwing'. --Soman (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Some forms of Popularism et al

Various contributors (it was formed before I came along although I have made some slight changes) have constructed the following paragraph:

"In general, the left advocates a secular, multicultural society, with a prominent role for the State. It is linked with some forms of Popularism, Communitarianism, Syndicalism, Trade Unionism, Anarchism, and Libertarianism."

"Lucky Mitch" has objected to this paragraph on the grounds that it is not left-wing to believe that (for example) the State of Texas ought to have more power than the National government in Washington therefore the word State is wrong.

The phrase 'cretinous sophomore having a negative impact upon the quality of Wikipedia articles' comes to mind here.

He also objects that socialism and communism are on the left (well spotted!) and so they ought to be mentioned in the offending paragraph.

The trouble is the paragraph is about SOME forms of X (where X = Popularism, Communitarianism...et al) that are sometimes on the left but not always. For example some forms of popularism (Franco was quite popular in Spain for example) are rejected by the left. Some critics from the right object that liberalism is atomistic and have therefore advocated non-State forms of Communitarianism to counter this tendency. Some deny that all forms of syndicalism (for example the syndicalism that took place in Fascist Italy) are on the left, or that Trade Unionism (for example Apartheid supporting Trade Unionism in South Africa) should automatically be classified as on the left. You also may have noticed that SOME anarchists and libertarians actively oppose the left.

Now these views may be right or wrong but they support the claim that the word SOME is appropriate here.

The words "socialist" and "communist" are mentioned in the previous paragraph. So why repeat them in this paragraph when it is clear that the paragraph is about some forms of X that are associated with the left. If you can convince people that some forms of socialism are not on the left then fire away!

All this has been pointed out to you several times and yet you persist in adding socialist and communist to the paragraph on the assumption that it has not been mentioned and/or they are on the left so should be mentioned in a paragraph drawing attention to some forms of X. I suggest you read the paragraph again (and the paragraph above it) very carefully. You might (I stress the word might) discover you are getting confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.203.163 (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what I missed! I see that the general terms of Communism and Socialism have been split into pieces! I was taking you too literally when you told me to look for the two terms and was looking for the two actual terms of "socialism" and "communism". My mistake! To avoid having this mistake be made by others in the future, would it be okay with you if I changed it to look like this?:

The term covers a wide spectrum of political beliefs, from Socialism (social liberalism, social democracy, and democratic socialism) to more radical movements such as Anarchism and Communism (Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism).

This way it will mention the entire ideology as well as include the more in-depth pieces that make it up.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not really accurate to lump social liberalism, social democracy and democratic socialism together as 'Socialism' - firstly, because social liberals are not socialists, and some but not all social democrats would consider themselves socialists, and secondly because many past communist governments described themselves as 'socialist'. Putting Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism under the heading 'Communism' is fine, except that it needs to make clear that there are other forms. --Rbreen (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Does Rbreen know what Civil Society means? [hint - it is not the same as a free market] Does Rbreen know what Communitarianism means? [hint - it not only on the left]. Is Rbreen a bigoted and ignorant vandal? [hint - look at his editing contributions over the last year]

'cretinous sophomore'? 'bigoted and ignorant vandal'? Anonymous editor, please stop being a dick. Petty namecalling and assertions that another editor is 'confused' or 'doesn't know' what a phrase means are uncivil and unconstructive and give a very poor impression of the person making them. You have simply reverted or rephrased text without attempting to justify it or to come up with constructive alternatives, and show no sign of willingness to engage with the views of other editors.

You want to replace "in opposition to the right wing, which view this pursuit as a threat to liberty and/or existing traditions." with "whereas the right seek to uphold traditional authorities and/or the liberties of a civil society." Why? What are 'traditional authorities'? Do you mean 'traditional authority' in the abstract, or specific traditional groups, institutions or organisations? And on what basis do you assert that it is only the right that want to uphold the liberties of a civil society? This section is a definition of the left, not the right, and if we cannot find a consensus on what the opposite view is, it may be easier to remove the definition of 'right' altogether.

You want to replace "Movements traditionally associated with the left include Communitarianism, Syndicalism, and Trade Unionism; others which may have a left-wing element include Popularism and Libertarianism." with "It is linked with some forms of Popularism, Communitarianism, Syndicalism, Trade Unionism, Anarchism, and Libertarianism." How is that an improvement? It's not easy to find a form of words that expresses this succinctly, but there are clearly groups that normally tend towards the left - such as trades unions - but sometimes, in practice either favour the right / centre or consider themselves outside of the right/left spectrum entirely. There are also movements such as libertarians and some populist political parties which either have a mixture of elements, some normally considered on the right, others on the left, or else combine an essentially right-wing approach with some left-wing elements. There may well be a better way of phrasing this, but saying that 'it is linked with' some forms of these very varied groups is woolly and doesn't actually explain anything - 'linked with' is vague and shows nothing of the dynamics of the relationship. --Rbreen (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When I described you as a bigoted and ignorant vandal this is simply a summary of the way in which you have vandalised this entry over the last few months by deleting anything which did not fit your limited knowledge, and your all too evident bigotry. It therefore comes as no surprise that you have only a very limited comprehension of the term "civil society" and an even more limited comprehension of the term "communitarian". What do you expect, to be given some sort of award for being too stupid to realise that you are out of your depth?

I suggest you look up "tradition" then look up the word "authority" and then combine them in your mind. That should give you an idea what the phrase "traditional authority" means. For good measure I suggest you look up the word "radical". Try to hold these two concepts in mind "traditional authority" and "radical" it might give you some glimmer of insight into what is being talked about in this article. I am afraid the concept of civil society requires a little more knowledge, but so long as you comprehend that the liberties of a civil society are not the same as individual liberties or civil liberties you are progressing. Communitarian is not another name for the left as has been explained to you many times. You can be a right-wing communitarian, indeed most are you idiot! The contrast is with liberalism. Popularism has left wing elements? What a clumsy an inaccurate way of putting it. Sorry I am not going to waste my time going over these concepts again. It is not a politics 101 class.

You have to ask yourself, do I understand what I am changing, and is my change an improvement. If the answer is no to either of these questions (I admit this requires some humility and reverence for truth) I suggest you stop vandalising Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.104.8 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

list of left wing ideologies and issues

Why do we need these? We don't have then on the right wing article. The ideologies and issues are discussed thoughout the article so this isn't needed. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Barry Clark quote

There are clearly one or more words missing from the second sentence of the Barry Clark quote. Can someone familiar with the quote fix this? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The lede

Here are the sections that caused me to revert the lede.

1) "an equal distribution of wealth" It would be a very unrealistic leftist who actually supported such a thing. Wealth is and always has been unequally distributed. Leftists support a more equal distribution, with fewer extremes of wealth and poverty. Any sane person understands that if wealth were equally distributed today, it would be unequally distributed tomorrow. I know of no modern examples of a leftist who supports "equal" distribution of wealth. Please cite one.

2) "common ownership" Historically, Communists favored what they called common ownership of property. This proved impossible. Attempts to attain such a goal proved utterly impractical. Today "common ownership" is a bugaboo put forward by the Right to frighten people who don't know any better. The last attempt at "common ownership" is know about was the Hippies in the 1960s. It didn't work then, either. To include this, please cite one major modern leftist who believes in "common ownership" (as distinct from state ownership, which the far Left still advocates in some cases).

This article should reflect the views of sensible writers on the Left, not of the nut cases. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Otolemur crassicaudatus makes a good point, one I had not considered. Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just becuase attempts to achieve common ownership failed- and I think the Kibutz in Israel did manage this - doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, as this was one of the major rallying cries of the left. Equal opportuninities was not, and is more of a liberal term. Additionally, the statement about what unions achieve is dubious to say the least. Larklight (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kibbutzim in Isreal are another example of a failed attempt at common ownership. They were forced to become capitalist to survive. You say common ownership was one of the major rallying cries of the left. Yes, it was, in the 1920s. But it hardly reflects the veiw of the Left today. I have no objection to including it in the history of the Left section.

You say that the claim that a union is a more equal bargaining partner than an individual worker is dubious. In any negotiation, the party with the greater resources has an advantage over the party with the lesser resorces. If the individual worker happens to be, say, Michael Jordon, then he may have greater resources. In most cases, workers without unions have to take what they can get. Management calls the tune.

Of course, in these days of American unilateral intellectual disarmament, an good worker has a lot more bargaining power than a worker in a country with good schools. But the countries with good schools usually also have strong unions. As in all negotiations, balance is an impossible ideal, and the playing field tilts as rapidly as the board in Labyrinth.

All I want is for Wikipedia articles to reflect an honest, contemporary viewpoint, instead of viewpoint of the straw men thrown up by both sides of any argument. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This article covers everything 'left' - not just today's left. The great leftist nations, the communist states, did attempt common ownership, asdid the communes and the like. It's a leftist aim- which means it warrants mention.

No, I said the claim that unions make labour and management more equal is dubeous- as any economics student should know. Additionally, the claim that most leftists support them is mistaken, or at the very least unreferenced. Your arguements about resources are a gross misrepresentation of game theory and marginal utility.

Finnaly, none of your references were relivant. Larklight (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your doubt that unions help balance the power of labor and management is not clear to me. Do you think that the individual laborer already has more resources than management, or that unionized labor has less resources than the individual laborer?

I can easily supply many references for the fact that the Left almost universally support labor unions, but since you don't like my references, I'll wait and see what point you are trying to make in rejecting the references I already provided.

I stated that in a negotiation the party with greater resources has an advantage over the party with lesser resources. To prove this in the context of game theory, the party with greater resources has the option of using all of his resources or only some of his resources. If the party with lesser resources had the advantage, then the party with greater resources could attain the advantage by not using his resources. Is your suggestion, then, that availibility of resources plays no part in negotiation? If so, I'll be glad to provide counterexamples.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that historical aims of the left, like the main aim of the communists, warrant mention?

I don't mind the assertion that the left has generally supported labour unions- if that is taken to allow support in a passive context.

Even the idea of 'advantage' is mistaken in mutually volentary exchanges. As is the ideas that 'unions' support 'labour' - unions try to support particular types of labour. Larklight (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

references

All of the references recently deleted reference the statement for which a reference was requested. Note that the article does not claim that, for example, racial equality is a fact, but only that racial equality is a Left-wing ideal. Since The Nation is a leading left-wing magazine, and since the referenced article strongly favors racial equality, to say it does not support the statement that left-wing sources favor racial equality is disingenuous. I could, of course, cite a dozen left-wing sources favoring racial equality, but since I don't understand the objection to the first source, I doubt that this would help. I'm going to restore the references, and hope that rather than engaging in a revert war, we can discuss the reason for the objection here. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the references reference the statements. The statement in question is that the left has allied itself with the quest for racial equality. No-where in the reference is this said. The same goes for the other references. I can think of example where members of the left have not favoured racial equality, far more relivant ones than a magazine. Come up with very heavy-duty, definitive sources for these sweeping statements. If you don't wish to engage in an edit war, try finding a reference that actually contains the word 'left' in it's political usage. Larklight (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Watch the 3RR rule) Larklight (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently what you want is someone who says this, "I am a leftist and I am in favor of racial equality." This is a very unlikely statement for a person to make, on the face of it. If the Left did not support racial equality, then a leftist magazine like The Nation would hardly be expected to publish articles in favor of racial equality. The fact that they do shows the support of the Left for this and other issues. What the Left supports is reflected in what articles are published in major leftist periodicals, and what major leftist writers write. You are aware, I assume, of the motto of The Nation: "the flagship of the left", that it is a major magazine, and that it has been published weekly since 1865. It seems to me you are in the position of one who requires ever greater evidence for a statement that is evident to any educated person in the first place. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I want a statement akin to 'from the pereod x to y, the left allied itself with the struggle for racial equality. The proposition that the left has allied itself with the struggle (hense P) could be untrue and The Nation still support it- other groups, like various socialist parties around the world, could disagree with The Nation. Larklight (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can easily find a statement such as the one you suggest, but for the moment I'll wait and see if the platform of the Communist Party satisfies you. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It does not even mention the word 'culture', so it cannot reference the fact that the left has allied itself with the quest for cultural tolerance. Nor does it include the word 'left' or 'allied' in fact. It never says that "almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary, ranging from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy or the social market to nationalization of the economy and central planning." Nor does the article mention that the left has allied itself with the struggle for racial equality. Additionally, as the work of an extremist party, it couldn't be used as a reference for a sweeping statement anyway. Please find a statement such as I suggest. Larklight (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From your description on your user page, I took you for a reasonable person. But you refuse to accept references from The Nation because it is a magazine, or from the Communist party because it is "extremist", or a reference which mentions such cultural elements as gay marriage because it does not use the word "culture". I gave you a reference that used the word "left". You deleted it.

The statements you question reflect common knowledge available in many sources and understood by any well educated person. However, I will continue to assume good faith, and provide still more references. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the The Nation references were that they never actually said anything to do with the statements. My issue with the communist party source was in part that they were extreme, ajd in part for other reasons; like the fact that it did also largely not reference the statements.

Thankyou for continuing to assume good faith. Larklight (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added new and very specific textbook references. I hope we can now move on to more productive work. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is rubbish

It is amusing to watch this article get progressively worse and worse. It is a textbook demonstration of the ignorance and bigotry of leftists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.187.144 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were more specific. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. "Article is rubbish" is exactly the kind of specific criticism I was looking for. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much everything in this article is wrong, but tell me why would anybody waste their life correcting it when any corrections will quickly be edited out by the leftists who wrote it in the first place? The first sentence

"In politics, left-wing, the political left, or the Left are positions that seek to reform or abolish the existing social order."

is wrong for example. It implies that any establishment is ipso facto not on the left which even the most dim witted leftist can see is wrong.

"The left advocates for a society where all people have an equal opportunity"

is also wrong. In the USSR (or any other society you care to mention where the left have gained absolute power) "party members" get priority. Which also by the way undermines the claim that the left is about an

"equal distribution of wealth and privilege."

Some of the claims in this article would be funny is they were not so pathetic, such as the claim that the left are opposed to war and imperialism. A war or imperialism does not count as such if it is by leftists, it becomes by definition "peace" and "liberation". I could go on but as I say why bother to correct leftists when they are not the slightest bit interested in truth.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. Most of the points you bring up belong to the old question, "What do the revolutionaries do after they win?" Chairman Mao recommended and brought about continual revolution, to the vast suffering of his people. Stalin attempted to quash all revolutionary thought, to the vast suffering of his. The article should certainly mention the failures of the left.

On the other hand, the article should also mention the ideals of the left, as well as their failures. It would, after all, be wrong to begin the article on "Conversatism" with a list of all the prominent conservatives who have gone to jail in the past few years. The article begins, as it should, with the conservative ideal.

Statements such as "leftists...are not the slightest bit interested in truth" tars a very large and diverse group with a very broad brush. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is "assume good faith".

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reread the article, and removing the section on communism has left a large gap. I've added a stopgap paragraph, and I would ask that anyone inclined to delete it replace it with something better, instead of leaving an elephant shaped hole in the middle of the room. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Useless Information

This page is loaded with useless information - so much it just distracts it from the friggin' point. Let's clean this up, or just throw all the useless info into a section called "Random Facts Nobody Cares About" or something.

Seriously. "The term originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament." Does anyone seriously care about that in any possible way whatsoever? It's like "Wow! Really? Seating arrangements!!!??? OMG!" How about we just give info on how it is used in modern society?

The page has some good info, but it's just cluttered with random crap nobody will EVER care about at all.

Illidan92 (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am generally sympathetic to the idea that articles tend to contain too many side issues, the origin of the term "left-wing" is of interest to everyone who cares about words and language, and so I strongly disagree with your suggestion that it is "crap". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

lead

Do we need paragraphs that describe the different leftisms in different countries in the lead? Why not just have a general oveview of leftism in the lead and note that there are differences in the last paragraph (of the lead) and let the the below sections provide details on the different leftist groups in each country (which they already do)? 207.118.235.215 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY DISPUTE: "Abolish the social order" in 1st sentence

As with many Wikis, this is misleading and makes all of the left-wing sound like dangerous anarchists and destructive guerilla revolutionaries. This is inaccurate when things as mainstream as the Democratic Party and most forms of American liberalism as well as left-leaning centrism falls on the left. It needs to be changed to something more neutral and less extreme-sounding. Tim010987 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But what the first sentence actually says is "reform or abolish", and the rest of the lede seems to make it clear that what is desired by the left is a less unequal distribution of wealth. You could replace "social order" with "class system". That might be less easy to misunderstand. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

<nvm>77.163.143.28 (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Personality cult-based administrations

in that paragraph it says that left wing leaders use a Personality cult. Shouldn't it be mentioned that all of the mentioned people were dictators and every dictator, whether right or left have used a person. cult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.151.135 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right 89.217.151.135. The section dealt with personality cults which are part of dictatorships of the left and the right. The section did not describe anything about specific to leftwing politics. Therefore I have removed it. C mon (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

List of prominent leftwing thinkers

I changed the list of leftwing thinkers from a random list which seemed a hodgepodge of celebrities, politicians and philosophers, to a list which is structured by the main ideologies listed in this articles and is based on, for as far as possible, on the people included in the templates related to those ideologies. It is assumed that there specialists came to a consensus about who to include.

I do not know whether this article needs a list of figures. All I know is that this structured and grounded list is of figures is preferable over the random selection we had.

I am happy to debate with any one whether we need this list, and whether this list needs to be expanded or needs to be cut. What kind of categories of individuals need to be included or which individuals need to be included.

- C mon (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should be cut.Valois bourbon (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your actions. I want to wait for a real debate (with arguements) before we take any radical actions. C mon (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is highly West-centric and includes people who never identified as left-wing such as Rousseau (a republican philosopher) and Rothbard (small government right-wing thinker).Valois bourbon (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I pressed 'save' whilst typing an edit summary. In short, what's the criteria for inclusion really? It doesn't take a political genius to see that the point of listing Barack Obama and Pol Pot next to each other is an attempt for pov-pushing. 'Left wing' is such a broad and contextualized term, that no global listing of individuals can be viable for wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)a

I agree with the removal of the list on these arguments. C mon (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image bias

Interesting. Right now, the vast majority of the images here are of dictators, Muslims, or extremists. Contrast with right-wing politics, where the images basically show how wonderful and progressive the right-wingers are. I could normally put this down to diverging management of the articles, but due to the sheer percentages of "good" v. "bad" images in the two articles, I can't shake off suspicion here. This appears to be a poorly designed (not to mention discriminatory) attempt to demonise the left wing. Could we please get this fixed? (And if anyone offers up WP:BOLD, I'll kill them. :)) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should remove images altogether? The images are great, some of the most influential left-wing figures of each region. However, this article is about an ideology, images don't have so much value.Valois bourbon (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits on my behalf

I've done various edits today (diff), which does alter the character of the article. I'd be happy to debate these issues, both the article in general and individual sections and wordings. The present version is far from satisfactory, but qualitatively better than this morning.

Some main point is that I've tried to delimit the article contents to the core topic, namely the term 'left-wing politics'. The 'left' is not a cohesive political international, rather its a term used very differently in different points in history and in different countries. I have tried to steer away from exemplifications, listings of individuals or parties. --Soman (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great edit Soman, good work! You have greatly improved the article! Many thanks! C mon (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Valois Bourbon please discuss changes that deviate greatly from Soman's new version before changing it. You are reverting the article to the poor quality it was before. C mon (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

French Assembly had Feuillants on the right side, who were not necessary conservatives. Montagnards took seats on the left-side and they were not liberals but a group of men with very diverse shades of opinion. Valois bourbon (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.Valois bourbon (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some comments on the differences between these two versions:

I think its better to enter into the details of the original french division in the first section, not the lead.
Stating that the Danish Venstre is 'firmly' rightwing today is a bit pov, but in the norwegian case directly wrong.
"bring about a classless and stateless society, heavy taxation, state ownership, and the abolition of private property." is a passage that clearly contradicts itself.
Socialist movements emerged in europe in the 19th century. By the 20th century, the movement was already established.
'divided into Social Democrats and Communists' is a better wording than 'various ideologies of socialism and Communists'. The hithero unified international socialist movement was effectively divided in two camps (although there were minor dissident tendencies as well), and it is this split that remains a watershed in the history of the socialist movement. Later divisions are less notable.
'National question' is a better wording than 'nationalism', it relates to the issue of the nationality as such in a broader way.
Why is there a mention of the Red Army in the nationalism/national question passage? It's just odd.
"In many ways the process of organizing matters overall can be more important to activists than the avowed goals or achievements of any component of the movement." is of course an argumentative pov discourse, not an encyclopediatic wording

--Soman (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Soman. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

References

The book that is referenced for the contraversial introduction, Clark's Political Economy, does not use the phrase "The Left" either in the introduction or in the index. I have not read the entire book, but with the lack of an index reference, it does not seem ideal as a reference. I am replacing it with a more modern reference, and a less biased view. The new reference has the advantage of not being Amerocentric. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find a reference in the book which states what is in the cited statement - a particular problem when we have books cited without page numbers. Interestingly, what Clark does say is that (page 34, quote: "proponents of equality have since [The French Revolution] been called 'leftists' while those who defend hierarchy are called 'rightists'.") The current citation from Geoff Eley doesn't help either because again there is no page number, which makes it impossible to verify, and besides that is a very limited definition of left wing. We have had a number of attempts to define the term in previous edits which were at least better than the most recent ones. We ought at least to acknowledge that the terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' are actually very fluid, especially in the modern era. --Rbreen (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Significant change in lead

Significant change in lead, made anonymously. I leave it to others to sort this out, I suspect the result should be a synthesis of the two. - Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll wait for things to settle down a bit.

Good edits to Wilipedia are not measured by how rapidly they are written or how dogmatically they assert their point of view. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But I can't resist pointing out a few facts. Valois burbon wants to paint The Left as monolithic evil, and always in favor of revolution. He has reverted any attempt to describe The Left in terms of what they actually believe, but only in terms of what their opponents say they believe. If you want a counterexample to your one-sided view, read some issues of the magazine The Nation, a good example of a liberal leftist publication. It's motto is "the flagship of The Left" and it was founded by Abolitionists (that is, it was founded to fight against slavery in the United States). Being anti-slavery is not "human rights"? Your reasoning, Valois, seems to go something like this. Some leftists are communists. Some communists oppose human rights. Therefore all leftists oppose human rights. Not good logic. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede should be referenced.

Valios bourbon considers Geoff Eley description of The Left to be nonsense. Instead of deleting it, he should provide a source as reliable as Oxford University Press that says Geoff Eley's book is nonsense. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Geoff Eley does not say the left is a "working class movement". The left tends to refer to ideologies seeking more equal outcomes and it's well referenced.Valois bourbon (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If your claim about the Left seeking more equal outcomes is well referenced, you shouldn't have any problem finding a reference. Geoff Eley talks extensively about the Left representing the interests of the working class over against the upper class. That, in fact, is what your "more equal outcomes" refers to, I'm sure, workers getting a fair share of the profit that is made from their labour. Representing the interests of the working class is clear and specific, "more equal outcomes" is vague and general. More equal outcomes in what, horse races? Why not say?

Most Leftists do not insist on equality of outcome, only on equality of opportunity, but when the CEO makes ten thousand times as much as a worker, most Leftists think that is going too far. In any case, what you and I think does not matter. The lede should be referenced. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing what is generally understood as "left-wing" around the world and what is understood as left in your home country, the United States.

The "working class" votes both left-wing (socialist/communist) and right-wing parties (conservative-liberal). The difference is that the left emphasizes equal outcomes like the reference says, ie. equal income and wealth. The American "left" would be considered extreme right outside America. The article should deal mainly with the worldwide usage of the term.

One more reminder: you can't modify citations. If the source says "moderates", you can't replace it with "conservatives"; they have different meanings.Valois bourbon (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, actually.. the lede shouldn't require referencing, as it should only contain a summary of everything in the main article text. Nothing should appear in the lede that isn't either uncontroversial common knowledge or is referenced elsewhere in the article. [ roux ] [x] 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the lead does need references. It does need to be a summary of the article too. Vb was correct in his moderates/conservatives as far as the source goes. I tend to view the right as conservatives though. Another thing. I think it is Rick Norwood keeps putting back in that bit about the left being most forms of anarchism? What a load of crap that is! It was covered on this talk page before and I see Rick agreed to leave it out. Why the drama now? Another editor (User:Agtrheeeinsm) undid my last edit, but only after he had padded his userpage (charmingly headed by "Hi I'm Me, So Fuck The Fuck Off My User Page") with anarchist/libertarian banners? So anyhow this account created on 22 Oct by someone who wants everyone to know they are a leftist, progressive, liberal social democrat still doesn't understand that most forms of anarchism are definitely not left wing? I tend to think that religious and political articles on Wikipedia are always going to be victims of edit-warring due to peoples strong personal opinions. Really in articles like this, every sentence needs to be referenced and WP:V.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I want the description of the left to be what the Left says they believe, rather than what the enemies of the Left say they "really" believe. I'm restoring the referenced first sentence. The question of anarchism I'll leave to others to debate. Delete that if you like. As for the difference between moderates and conservatives, here is what Geoff Eley says, "When the French Constituent Assembly divided on the question of the royal veto and the powers reserved for the king during 1789-91, radicals took a position physically on the left-hand side of the chamber as viewed from the president's seat, facing conservatives on the right." I use the word "conservative" because the reference uses that word. I am not trying to put forward my opinion here. I'm trying to make this a scholarly article rather than a rant. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks ok Rick. Watch how quick it gets changed though ;-) Sting Buzz Me... 12:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, assuming your referencing is correctly written, the source does NOT say "are positions that support the rights of the working class" - the sentence is Wikipedia:Original research. Let alone that the fact that all left, right, center, and other positions seem to support the rights of the working class. Also, "labor movement" is not a left-wing ideology, but a separate phenomenon, and many of the most famous labor movements (such as Solidarity) have been right-wing. I'll revert to Soman's version, which begins with the reference to more equal outcomes.Valois bourbon (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In my latest edit i tried to reword the first sentence. I think its important to differentiate that 'left' is a label, not a coherent movement. --Soman (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What the Clarke reference actually says.

The lede claiming that the Left looks for "equal outcomes", which is vague and controversial, is referenced by Barry Clark's book Political Economy. I have no objection to basing the lede on what Barry Clark actually says. Here is a quote: "As liberals challenged aristocratic privileges, the labels "right" and "left" became part of the political discourse." The book does not use the phrase "equal outcomes", which it is cited to justify. Most people on the Left realize that "equal outcomes" is neither possible nor desirable, but look for equal opportunity and equal rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to be careful with phrases like "Most people" around Wikipedia ;-) Sting Buzz Me... 12:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As best I can tell, the only person who supports the ideas that Leftists are all socialists or communists is Valois bourbon. One person should not, through persistence, be able to decide what an article says. If he wants to be an influential editor, he has to cite sources, preferably with a quote and a page number. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well he is persistent. Consensus needs to be worked out here on the talk page when edits become too controversial. Which edits are going to stay depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time.Sting Buzz Me... 12:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As you suspected Valois bourbon has simply reverted. I've changed it back. I do appreciate, Valois, your willingness to discuss things here. Please note above that your reference, Clarke, never mentions "equal outcomes". You need to find a reference that does. You also need a reference to support your claim that left-wing "almost always" refers to "socialism" or "communism".Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I just googled "left wing" and, after two links to this article, here are the top references:

My Left Wing :: A Liberal TranslationA community weblog operated by Maryscott O'Connor featuring a variety of liberal political views and opinions. www.myleftwing.com/ - 303k - Cached - Similar pages left: Definition from Answers.com"Left wing" redirects here. For the term used in sports, see winger (sport). ... In politics, left-wing or the left, on the left-right political spectrum, ... www.answers.com/topic/left-wing-politics - 157k - Cached - Similar pages The Corner on National Review OnlineOct 9, 2008 ... If Obama is elected, won't we have our most left-wing government ever? ... I'm sure he's left wing, but we were all upset over some of ... corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTNjODVkY2Y3ZmJmOTM1YmIyNjMzZTQwM... - 14k - Cached - Similar pages Sarah Palin: Obama's 'left-wing agenda': The SwampOct 7, 2008 ... Palin also accused Obama of campaigning with "a left-wing agenda packaged and prettied up to look mainstream. And, Palin accused Obama of ... www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/10/sarah_palin_obamas_leftwing_ag.html - 204k - Cached - Similar pages How did the terms "left wing" and "right wing" come to describe ...Thus, the left wing of the room was more liberal, and the right wing was more conservative. In the next few years, the revolutionaries would take over and ... ask.yahoo.com/20011217.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Note that none of them are about socialism or communism. Now, it may be that in Europe, left wing usually means "socialism" or "communism". If so, say that, and reference it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And here is what Barry Clark actually says, "...the consequence of equal rights would be substantially greater economic equality." In other words, the Left (in the French Revolution) wanted equal rights, and a consequence of that would be greater economic equality...not equal outcomes but a less unequal distribution of wealth. You still don't have even one reference that says the Left supports "equal outcomes". I'm sure you can find one on some right wing blog, but I doubt you'll find a respected source that says that. And yet you insist on having that in this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop rapid edits.

It should be obvious that an unstable article, which changes hourly, is not good for anybody. This article should reflect the way in which the phrase left-wing is actually used, and not be an attempt at propaganda to demonize the Left. In particular, while the use of left-wing in the US should not dominate the article, neither should that use be ignored. When, for example, The Wall Street Journal describes Barack Obama as an "extreme left-wing candidate", they are not using the word to mean what this article claims it means. The left-wing members of the French Estates General were not communists.

The current reference for the lede is the Concise Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia, itself an encyclopedia, should not use other encyclopedias as a referene, unless the fact that a certain encyclopedia makes a certain claim is the subject being referenced. In this case, we should reference a standard scholarly work on political science.

I will continue, for the time being, to try to work with the speed editors, but if there are others following this article who are as fed up with speed edits as I am, please respond here. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The democrats

The use of "left-wing" in the US is different from its use in the rest of the world, and that use has to do with liberalism rather than with socialism. Both US parties are strongly socialist, though both hotly deny this. Bush, a Republican, provided perscriptions drugs for the elderly at taxpayer expense, and pushed for nationalizing the banks. No Democrat in recent history has proposed anything nearly this socialist. The two parties actually agree on almost everying, as Ralph Nader has pointed out. In the first dabate, Obama respond to McCain with "I agree" many times. So, where do the two parties differ? The answer is social liberalism. Democrats want freedom for homosexuals to marry, for women to get an abortion, for parent's to choose their children's religion. Republicans oppose these freedoms. That's really the only difference between the parties in the US today. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Should this article claim that "left wing" means "socialist"?

There are several people editing Wikipedia who want to make the claim that liberal = left-wing = socialist or communist, and that conservative = right-wing = capitalist. This is an attempt to present the Libertarian POV, not an attempt to inform readers of Wikipedia how the words are actually used. For example, in a recent issue of Slate, we find the following sentence. "Support for Obama among women—who began to move left in 1980—also reflects a shift toward liberalism." This is a commonplace use of "left", and yet it certainly does not suggest in any way that American women are socialist. In fact, it says explicitly that it means that American women are more liberal.

Now, the people who don't want this in the article offer two excuses. First, they say, "the Left" really means "socialist". I'm sure it does -- in the circle of people who they converse with. But it means no such thing in today's larger world. It did in the 1950s. It did not in the 1780s, and it does not in the 2000s. The meaning of "the Left" has changed over time and this article should reflect that.

The second excuse for deleting the use of "the Left" to mean social liberalism (women's rights, gay rights, and so on) is that this use is primarily limited to the United States. But to go on to suggest that the United States is such a small and unimportant country that the way the word is used in the US is not worth mention in the lede is absurd.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment of the situation is mostly accurate. The problem is that certain people (let's not beat around the bush, it's Valoi bourbon and perhaps a few other like-minded individuals) are pushing the right-wing libertarian objectivist talking points that left-wing only means socialist or communist (especially the nasty totalitarian kind, even if they are communist or socialist in name only), liberal means centrist or free-market capitalist, and right-wing means conservative, capitalist and libertarian. He, and others like him, also promote the view that fascism and Nazism are left-wing (because they included a few policies that are traditionally viewed as leftist), or at the very least are not right-wing. This incessant propaganda campaign is getting tiresome.Spylab (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain U.S. editors seem to be confused. In the United States (where everyone is extremely right-wing-leaning) the left does not mean "socialist", but in about every other country the left means socialist.Valois bourbon (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I'm in Australia and the Labor Party here can easily be classed as left-wing but is not strictly "socialist". Everyone on the US is NOT "extremely right-wing-leaning". To state that is completely ridiculous. Editors like Valois bourbon who continually POV push to the point of edit warring (lets face it that's what's been going on) should learn to accept the majority decision. And isn't that what consensus is supposed to be about? I might not agree 100% with edits by Rick Norwood and Spylab at on this topic but I find more often as I log on (and I'm not on for great lengths of time) that this article has been changed yet again and usualy by VB and it is all getting a bit frustrating.--Sting Buzz Me... 05:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (and to some degree, the United Kingdom, although the Labor Party officially claims to be socialist) are certainly the other anglophone exceptions where the government is seen with suspicion and the mainstream left has not leaned to Karl Marx. But you don't have to go farther than France and communism is mainstream leftism. Encyclopedia Britannica clearly says the left is mainly associated with socialism and communism. Controversial views of the world's most right-leaning countries - or the world's most left-leaning countries (Stalinism in North Korea, Cuba) - are not good material for the lead. At least it should give the most weight to what is internationally mainstream leftism.Valois bourbon (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

VB I noticed you changed the social liberalism article and then use information you added to that article to justify your changing the lead of this article yet again. Don't you know that people can visit the histories of the various political articles and see what you are doing? There also seems to be a lot of IP activity in support of your agenda? At least that's how it is looking to me. I'm reverting your edits as I still see it as POV pushing on your part. If you can't find established editors rather than IP or single purpose accounts to agree with your views then I see the majority consensus here to be against the edits you are making.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you have misunderstood the nature of encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is based on scholarly sources, not personal views. Read the social liberalism articles, there is a list of social liberal parties and more than half of them are centre parties, many of them directly having "centre" in their names. There are also left and right parties, and yes, in the anglophone they are usually left whereas in the continental europe they are mostly centre. You can also look at the references to books on social liberalism I inserted there after someone repeatedly tried to claim social liberalism is a "left-wing ideology". Regards.Valois bourbon (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Social liberalism is left wing. The changes within that article (and this and several others) have been made by you. Don't you get it? We can see what you are doing! I suggest you stop your POV pushing and edit warring. Did you find some established editors to back you up?--Sting Buzz Me... 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, it seems that you are mistaken about the nature of encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are not constructed based on editors opinions. Encyclopedia just refers to reputable sources, see Wikipedia:No original research.Valois bourbon (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Several of us have tried to explain as clearly as we can that this article should mention the history and current use of the term, and not limit itself to one way in which the term is used, in certain countries, at a certain time. Since you do not accept this, we have no choice but to revert attempts to so limit the meaning of the phrase to what you seem to want it to mean. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon is determined to state in the lede that the Left means communist or socialist. That is false. I would rather, Bobisbob2, have his inclusion of Venisuala than his exclusion of the way the term is used in the United States, with the implication that, for example, since U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is often called part of "the Left", we all agree that he is a communist or a socialist. What I would really prefer is a return to the last version I edited, but I hesitate to do that myself. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Usage in the US.

I've restored the US usage, not because I think the US is the sine qua non of English word usage, but because when a word is used in dramatically different ways in different countries, both usages should be included. I've rewritten the paragraph to compare and contrast European and American usage. If someone would like to add a sentence on the use in, say, Canada and Australia, that would be welcome. I would also like to see in the article a section on cognates in other languages. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Use in academia contrasted with use in the popular press.

I came across this quote, which nicely illustrates one reason this article produces so many arguments. It is from the introduction to "Cicero, Selected Works" and is by the editor, Michael Grant, Trinity College, Cambridge, written circa 1960:

"(Cicero) started his career on the left -- interested in...the extension of privileges beyond the senatorial class... . (later) Cicero had moved toward the right: his mind was no longer on attacking vested interests...but on desperately endeavouring to conserve what good might be found in them. Men often move to the right as they grow older, when their temperaments cool and they acquire vested interests in the status quo. ... But fundamentally, at all times, he was a moderate, a 'middle-of-the-road man'; to the two tyrannies, reaction and revolution, he was equally opposed... . That is to say, he was a liberal."

In other words, to be on "the left" is to support the interests of the working class, to be on "the right" to support the interests of the upper class, and to be a "liberal" is to support freedom, over against the tyranny of either the mob or the aristocracy.

These are, I think, still what the words really mean. But because, in the modern world, those who support the upper class need code words to cover that support, a new jargon has developed. Because the mob has the physical strength of numbers, the use of physical strength is call "coercion". Because the rich have the economic strength, the use of economic strength is called "negative rights". The upper class wants a government just strong enough to protect them from the mob, but not strong enough to preserve the "positive rights" of the working class.

As for religion, one needs only to read Roman history to see that the upper class has always used religion to justify their superior position and to keep the mob in line.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This version of the first few lines introducing the article is supposed to be "vandalism". Some arguments why the version it revises is better would be nice.

"In politics left-wing and the Left are terms associated with progressivism and radicalism. The terms originated during the French Revolution, when deputies from the Third Estate who sought to replace the ancien regime with a new society with greater liberty and equality sat to the left of the presidents chair. After the philosopher Karl Marx the Left was increasingly viewed as advocates of socialism and communism. In more recent times however the Left is more often associated with social liberalism and support for the welfare State."

Yes and your agenda is obvious. Your vandalism has been reverted.I suggest you log on an account and become an established editor and stop point of view pushing. Can you find an established editor to back your views? Most IP edits around political topics look pretty suspect to me. Are you wondering why they keep getting reverted?--Sting Buzz Me... 02:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making cretinous remarks about you are a vandal because "your agenda is obvious" how about addressing the issue at hand. What in the above summary constitutes vandalism. Prey do tell.

As for the problems with the previous summary

"In politics left-wing, political left, and the Left are terms applied to a wide variety of political positions associated with progressive or radical causes. The term has had different meanings in different countries and time periods. Originally, during the French Revolution, left-wing referred to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the left opposed the monarchy and supported radicalism. Since the publication of The Communist Manifesto and the rise of Marxism, the term has been associated with socialism, communism, anarchism, social liberalism and a wide range of related ideologies. Today, in most of Europe, the Left refers to socialist parties, while in the United States, the Left usually refers to modern liberalism.^[1]"

1) "political left"

is not a term anybody uses

2) "are terms applied to a wide variety of political positions"

is almost empty of content

as is

3) "has had different meanings in different countries and time periods."

4) "Since the publication of The Communist Manifesto...the term has been associated with ...anarchism, social liberalism"

is just plain wrong.

5) "and a wide range of related ideologies"

The author does not appreciate the intellectual baggage which the use of "ideology" carries here - a more neural term is more appropriate.

6) "Today, in most of Europe, the Left refers to socialist parties"

is again simply incorrect. I am guessing its author is not from Europe.

7) "while in the United States, the Left usually refers to Modern liberalism

A reference to United States politics is obviously too specific for an introduction to such a general concept. It belongs lower down in the body of the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.80.215 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha "cretinous" at least a bot doesn't have to sign my messages! Look I wont even bother reverting you this times, as someone else obviously will! Why don't you register a user name? You IP WP:SPA accounts are a pathetic waste of editors time around here. See how many times you have been reverted by different editors? Does that tell you something? Are you learning anything yet?--Sting Buzz Me... 04:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Still unable to respond to any substantive points I notice.

and you still can't find those tildes? Hint, they look like this ~~~ --Sting Buzz Me... 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say about the content of the article, you have nothing to contribute to a discussion about the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.80.215 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why the oft reverted version is not acceptable.

1) A possessive noun requires an apostrophe. 2) If a word is used in different ways in different English speaking countries, that should be reported. 3) Usage to mean "communist" followed the publication of the book, not the birth of the man. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that the best you can come up with? How about addressing the substantive points - I have helpfully numbered them 1 - 7 so you do not get confused. The nearest you come to addressing a substantive point is your reply to number 2. You obviously know nothing about how the word "Left" is used in European politics so why pretend (to yourself as well as everybody else) that you do. Have you even ever travelled out of the USA?

P.S. If you think your reference to an article in Slate magazine makes a substantive contribution to the Wikipedia entry you are deluding yourself. Try to put your vanity aside for a moment and accept that your knowledge about this (admittedly vast) topic is extremely limited.

For what it is worth, I have traveled to Canada, Mexico, England, France, and China (among other countries) but what is important is not how widely I have traveled but how widely I have read. In any case, I have made no changes to the part of the introduction that says how "Left" is used in European politics.

Examples of how a word is used are standard features in helping people to understand the word. See, for example, the OED.

Rudeness does not increase the weight of your assertions.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you request it, I will respond to your "seven points":

1) "political left"

is not a term anybody uses

I agree. I've changed it.

2) "are terms applied to a wide variety of political positions"

is almost empty of content

as is

3) "has had different meanings in different countries and time periods."

No. This is important. For example, the word "girls" once meant "boys". Someone reading Chaucer needs to know this. Similarly, a student of politics needs to know that even though "the Left" once mean opposition to monarchy, that is not the way the phrase is used today.

4) "Since the publication of The Communist Manifesto...the term has been associated with ...anarchism, social liberalism"

is just plain wrong.

Saying something is wrong doesn't make it so. I suggest you read up on the history of anarchism and social liberalism. Almost any book on either subject will use the phrase "the Left".

5) "and a wide range of related ideologies"

The author does not appreciate the intellectual baggage which the use of "ideology" carries

here - a more neural term is more appropriate.

I agree.

6) "Today, in most of Europe, the Left refers to socialist parties"

is again simply incorrect. I am guessing its author is not from Europe.

What would you suggest to replace this?

7) "while in the United States, the Left usually refers to Modern liberalism

A reference to United States politics is obviously too specific for an introduction to such a general concept. It belongs lower down in the body of the article.

No. To ignore the United States is as bad as ignoring Europe would be. A good introduction covers all major uses of the word. The United States is not the whole world, but it is a major nation. I would expect a good article in the English language Wikipedia to cover (at a minimum) how an English word is used in Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia, where those usages are substantially different.

Point seven seems to be the point you feel most strongly about, and repeatedly delete. Why?

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for (finally) addressing the issues raised by the changes.

You concede point 1 so we shall see if your change is described as vandalism.

I agree with you that points 2 & 3 do say SOMETHING - namely that Left (like most words for that matter) cannot be defined precisely - for example in a political context what does equality mean, or justice, or society, or liberal, or progressive, or radical, or.......and so on and so forth.

In all these entries the first few lines introducing the topic COULD say something along the lines "has been used in different ways in different places at different times". There is in short a justification for using this expression, but it is extremely weak. Its inclusion is I concede a matter of taste rather than substance; it is not false it is superfluous.

By the way when I say your knowledge is very limited when it comes to the history of the Left I do not intend to be "rude" I intend it to be factual. That you are unaware that your knowledge is very limited demonstrates its truth. The history of the Left goes far earlier than the French Revolution. The term does not even originate from the French Revolution. You are quite wrong when you say that to be on the Left meant to be anti-monarchical, it is more complicated and subtle than that in ways that you currently (and probably never will) understand. I am not saying that writing such an article is easy, or that finding out about such things is worth doing, but it helps if you try to be aware of the limits of your knowledge before contributing (and indignantly deleting) encyclopaedia entries.

As for point 4 it is simply false to say that say that the use of the term Left to mean anarchism and social liberalism dates from the publication of the Communist Manifesto. On what grounds do you make this assertion? Have you for that matter even read the Communist Manifesto? This is a good example of your ignorance becoming arrogance.

You concede point 5, which is quite a technical observation but nevertheless meaningful to those whose are familiar with the vocabulary.

In point 6 I simply remark that it not the case that in Europe Left = Socialist/Marxist. This may (questionably) have been true 50 years ago, but it is certainly not true now. It is I am afraid a lot more complicated than that, and so for this reason I would delete the sentence rather than attempting to make it more accurate via a description of the politics of every country in Europe.

As for point 7 its value rather depends upon the word Left having a different meaning in the USA than in the rest of the world. This assertion is highly questionable (I would say it is false) and so mentioning the USA in the first few lines is absurdly parochial. I am not the first person to have pointed this out.

The term Left (as you are fully aware) is not something restricted to English speaking countries, it is a term used across the world in almost every language you care to mention. Use of the world Left to mean (amongst other things) a position advocating social liberalism, progressivism, and a mixed economy, is NOT restricted to the USA. I simply assert this as a fact.

I made the change. It was still there last time I looked. The Left is used so differently in different contexts that some warning to the reader of this fact is necessary. All of the sources I've consulted trace the use of the phrase "the Left" to the French Revolution. If you have information to the contrary, cite sources. The concept, of course, goes back much further. During the Roman Civil War between Caesar and Pompey, Caesar would have been viewed as being on "the Left", for favoring land redistribution and debt relief, while Pompey would have been viewed as being on "the Right", for favoring the interests of the upper class. The irony in this is, of course, that Pompey was a parvenu while Caesar was born into a moneyless but aristocratic family. Of course, the Radicals during the French Revolution had much more on their minds than just opposition to the monarchy, but we can't write a book in one paragraph. Yes, I've read the Communist Manifesto, even the boring stuff at the end. I can quote from it from memory. "A spectre is haunting Europe." "Workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains." Of course my knowledge is limited -- all human knowledge is limited. Eschew personalities and concentrate on references. The article needs to say something about what "the Left" means today. If you can't think of anything to say, then leave well enough alone. While a phrase cognate to "the Left" is used in many languages, this Wikipedia is the English language Wikipedia, and is naturally read mostly by people whose native language is English. Therefore it behooves us to address their needs.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you address the minor points - your belief that it is important to state that the word Left has different meanings in different places at different times, and that Left (as a political term) does derive from the seating order of the French Assembly - but neglect to answer the major points

Your error in asserting that Left meaning 'anarchism' and 'social liberalism' dates from the Communist Manifesto (Hint - Try looking for class struggle as the key concept in that document) and your error that Left meaning socially liberal, progressive, and supportive of a mixed economy is a specific (and thus worth noting) American usage.

As a defence it amounts to the declaration "I cannot justify what I wrote but I wrote it and like it so do not want it changed!"

You notice that I left the derivation of Left from the seating arrangements of the French Assembly intact when I revised the text, but of course the assumption that it was just by chance that the radicals sat to the left in the French Assembly would be incorrect. It is because (generally) we have two hands, with the right hand (generally) predominant. To be "right" therefore (in a metaphor at least as old as the Bible) implied orthodox, superior, correct, and favourite, whereas left carried with it the meaning of heterodox, inferior, sinister, and reviled. I only mention this as an aside. The addition of wing to Left of course does derive from the seating arrangement in the assembly - but this seating arrangement derived from the medieval conception of society as a hierarchical series of estates - with the aristocracy naturally superior.

P.S. The importance you give to your reference to Slate magazine is laughable.

The use of the word "left" to indicate anarchism and social liberalism was common. See, for example, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction by Colin Ward, from page one: "The anarchists and their precursors were unique on the political Left in affirming that workers and peasants..." Any other book on the subject would contain the same usage. Look up "votes for women", "votes for Negroes", "trade unions", and so on for many more examples. Whether the use of "the Left" to mean "socially liberal" is specifically or primarily American, I don't know. If you would like that broadened, I have no objection. Cite examples. What I object to is deleting that usage entirely. As for the use of "the Right" to mean "the good side", that's a stretch. Yes, the Apostles' Creed says, "...and sitith on the right hand of God..." so it may be that the Radicals were forced to sit on the left, but again you need to cite references for such a claim. Slate is a major on-line news magazine, but an example could be found in any major magazine, on-line or print. Do you find a reference to Slate "laughable" because it is an on-line magazine rather than a print magazine? Or have you some other reason? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It currently reads (capitals mine)

"SINCE the publication of THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO and the rise of MARXISM, the terms have been ASSOCIATED with socialism, communism, anarchism, social liberalism..."

Which is clearly wrong. The objection is NOT to the claim that Left is associated with anarchism and social liberalism, but that this association is a) In some way linked to Marx and 2) Post-dates the publication of the Communist Manifesto. The two are EVIDENTLY not linked - as even a cursory reading of the Communist Manifesto would show.

I am perfectly aware that you "do not know" if the association of Left with "socially liberal, progressive, and supportive of a mixed economy" occurs outside the USA. I am telling you that it CLEARLY is the case; indeed only somebody who knows little about politics outside the USA could think otherwise. Only an American could think that mention of the fact that Left in the USA is generally associated with "socially liberal, progressive, and supportive of a mixed economy" ought to be in the opening few lines.

Since I do not advocate including the older left/right metaphorical association in the article I see no further purpose in illustrating the history of this usage - I have not the slightest interest in educating you only improving the Wikipedia entry. I laugh at your reference to Slate magazine not only because you give such importance to it, but because it exposes the shallowness of your scholarship.

Laugh all you want. You still aren't citing any sources. Or signing your posts. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

^ http://www.slate.com/id/2204109/

[1] ttp://www.slate.com/id/2204109/

[1]