Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 10

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 8

Green Politics (cont.)

Green Politics is now under Positions. I suggest changing the heading to Environment, and moving mention of Green Parties to Varieties of Left-wing politics. BTW I do not see environmentalism as a defining left-wing attribute, which is one reason Green parties were formed. While it is true that the Left accepts the reality of global warming, so far left-wing governments have done little about it. China is now the no. 1 country for green house gas emissions and India is no. 4. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I already noted, statement: "In the 21st Century, questions about the environment have become increasingly politicized, with the Left generally accepting the findings of environmental scientists about global warming, and many on the Right vigorously disputing those findings." is not supported by sources. -- Vision Thing -- 10:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to say that a sentence is not supported by its sources. But when the sentence says exactly what the sources say, it is not an effective argument. I'll provide some quotes. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I’m ready to wait a few days for you to provide additional quotes but quote that you have already provided doesn't mention environmental issues ("the modern Right has adopted a style of politics that puts its adherents in increasingly stark conflict with both scientific information and dispassionate, expert analysis in general."). Also, be aware of the difference between opinions and facts. Opinions should be presented as such. -- Vision Thing -- 20:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the Right that we are talking about? Please provide sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision_Thing: One can hardly turn around without reading an attack on environmentalists from the Right, but I'll be glad to provide another quote.

The Four Deuces: What "the Right" is is, of course, a question with many answers, as the article notes. Attacks on environmentalists usually come from the economic Right, attacks on evolution from the religious Right, but they're in cahoots. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The latest source you have added is not particularly helpful. For one, it talks about situation in the US. The Chinese communists are notorious for ignoring environmental issues and they are arguably the most influential left party. On the other hand, large parts of the world's right do a lot to fight climate change. For example see Nicolas Sarkozy [1]. Also, as your article states when it talks about Newt Gingrich, even in the US situation is not clear-cut. -- Vision Thing -- 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the Chinese communists are on the Left or the Right is hard to say -- they favor big government, but they also favor capitalism. They oppose freedom, but they also oppose religion. One could argue that the Right in China are those who want to abandon capitalism and return to a Mao style socialism. Also, while the Chinese are in fact awful polluters, they pay lip service to the environmental movement.

But, in any case, the sentence in question clearly states that "some", not all, on the Right write against mainstream science. Such writing is pervasive in the US. I'll add at least one international reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

deleting references

The sentence to which the first deleted reference is appended states that when the Left accepts the idea of global warming caused by human activity, they are in agreement with the scientific community. To establish this, it is necessary to show that the scientific community does, in fact, state unequivocally that global warming is caused by human activity. The reference http://dieoff.org/page8.htm supports this, and is signed by many scientists, including many who have won the Nobel Prize. The second part of the sentence, to which the other deleted references are appended, states that many on the Right disagree with the scientific consensus. To show this, we need an example of someone on the Right disagreeing, and also a book which states that this is common practice for those on the Right. The reference http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/weather-channel-founder-blasts-gore-global-warming-campaign/ gives an example of the Right denying human caused global warming. The reference Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science, "the modern Right has adopted a style of politics that puts its adherents in increasingly stark conflict with both scientific information and dispassionate, expert analysis in general.", p. 4-5, Basic Books, 2006, ISBN 9780465046768 gives many examples to show that this is not an isolated incident but rather common practice. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

http://dieoff.org/page8.htm is used to source this claim: "with the Left generally accepting the findings of environmental scientists about global warming". It doesn't support it because the source doesn't talk about what views "the Left" has on global warming or how they compare with the views of environmental scientists. However, I don't object to the claim in its present form because it is supported by a NYT sourced at the end of the sentence, I'm just saying that http://dieoff.org/page8.htm is not an appropriate source to have at the end of this claim.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/29/weather-channel-founder-blasts-gore-global-warming-campaign/ doesn't mention "the right" and to say that FOX represents the right is POV.
The Republican War on Science, at least the part that is quoted here, doesn't talk about environmental issues. -- Vision Thing -- 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To establish that A agrees with B, two things are necessary. First, it is necessary to show that B actually says what the sentence claims B says, and second that A says the same thing. http://dieoff.org/page8.htm shows that scientific organizations actually say global warming is man made. I've added a reference that says that "the Left" says the same thing.

To pretend that Fox News is not a Right wing news source is disingenuous. Reporters for Fox News have discussed how Rupert Murdoch manages the news to support his Right wing views.

The Republican War on Science discusses global warming throughout, but I've added another quote that says specifically that.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory, confusing lead

The lead states that social liberalism and social democracy are left-wing then uses a definition from British politics today that specifically excludes liberalism and social democracy, which do not advocate "common ownership of the resources". Could Vision Thing please amend the lead to resolve this anomaly. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on a Talk:Right-wing politics. -- Vision Thing -- 08:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the quote from the appendix of British politics today. Since there are differing definitions of the Left, it would be wrong to assume that any one definition is definitive, especially one from an obscure source. Could you please advise me whether this definition is original and first published in this textbook or if it is drawn from established sources. If it is the latter then that would be a better source. Also, do you know if this definition has become generally accepted by the academic community, whether it has been criticized in peer-reviewed journals and whether dissenting views have been published? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

British politics today is an established source. I agree that there are differing definitions of the Left but that is not a reason to remove one of them. What source is used for the current definition anyway? -- Vision Thing -- 21:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The best source for the meaning of English language words is the Oxford English Dictionary. For American usage, Websters is standard, but it should be used with caution, because it is descriptive rather than normative.

I'm glad to know about British Politics Today, and find it interesting reading. But it is about British politics today. Britain went through a period in which it was much more socialist than America ever was, and that experience has shifted the meaning of left and right to the left. What left and right mean depends on where the center is.

In any case, the lede should reflect standard academic usage, and also worldwide popular usage (which varies from country to country). It certainly should not present the use in Britain today as a timeless worldwide standard.

Textbooks are acceptable sources, but inferior to publications in refereed journals and to standard reference works. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

VT asked What source is used for the current definition anyway? None. No one liked any of the definitions found in academic writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So what makes definition from BPT inferior to current one? -- Vision Thing -- 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. -- Vision Thing -- 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

British politcs today states: The Left is usually associated with change, equality, collectivism and the common ownership of the resources. The term usually shows that this is a description not a definition. This would be a good description of the original ideology of left-wing parties, but it leaves out several important aspects: internationalism and class consciousness for example, and left-wing history, international organization and shared identity and symbolism. It is unclear whether parties that have moved toward the center, such as the Labour Party (UK) are still considered part of the Left. There are several other left-right models that should also be mentioned. Unfortunately the article synthesizes the various models without explanation or reference.

So I think both definitions are poor and that we should obtain a better one. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We've looked at a large number of standard definitions. I don't see how looking at more definitions will help. Basically, the standard definitions say that "liberalism" favors freedom, "conservatism" favors tradition, "the Left" favors the working class, and "the Right" favors the upper class. To this list should be added "socialism", which favors collectivism, and Libertarianism, which sees the right to property as paramount.

It is rare, outside of academic circles, for any of these words to be used today to convey meaning. The common meaning of all of the above in the modern popular press is, essentially, "Yo' mamma!" I'm sure that there are academic articles that comment on this loss of meaning. I'll try to find some. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the new seating arrangement for the European Parliament for Tuesday, July 14, 2009, still two days in the future.[2] Ex-Communists and their allies, now called "The Left", sit on the far left. Beside them are the Socialists. Liberals and Chrisian Democrats (who are part of the Centrist Democrat International) sit in the center, Conservatives are to their right and parties like the far right British National Party sit on the far right. (Although they have now lost their party status as the Technical Group of the European Right.) The Liberals by the way list Ayn Rand and John Rawls as liberal thinkers.[3]

It seems that these terms retain their meaning. The political parties themselves use the terms left, right and center, and choose to sit according to the traditional seating arrangement. They find the seating convenient because it is helpful for coalition building and avoids physical violence. Can you explain why they would retain this seating arrangement if It is rare, outside of academic circles, for any of these words to be used today to convey meaning?

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for valuable information. My exposure to American media may have rotted my brain. Here is the kind of thing I'm talking about (from the first google hit other than Wikipedia itself, and no, I didn't check first:

From myleftwing.com "Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice." So "left-wing means favoring justice.

From www.rightwingnews.com "Good grief! President Barack Obama takes the mantel of the American presidency and suddenly it dawns on him and the press that it's a "grueling" job and grueling for the staff, too? Where's my violin when I need it? What a bunch of pansy asses." So "right-wing" means not being a pansy ass.

From dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal "favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs." So "liberal" means progressive.

From www.conservapedia.com "A conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity." So "conservative" means favoring limited government and moral values.

From www.sp-usa.org, "THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control." So "socialist" means radical democracy.

From www.lp.org/issues "Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings." So "libertarian" means being in favor of freedom and free-markets.

I need hardly point out that only usage in this sample that agrees with the dictionary definition is "libertarian". I may not agree with the libertarians, but at least they are honest about their platform. I also note that a search of www.lp.org/issues for the phrase "right-wing" yields no hits.

To continue the experiment, I googled Ron Paul. The only hit I got for "right-wing" was in the context "the DHS report on right-wing extremism". No indication that Ron Paul considers himself right-wing.

So, while I admit I overstated my case, misuse of these words is common. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually the the Socialist Party USA [4] Statement of Principals is entirely consistent with the British politics today description of the Left: The Left is usually associated with change, equality, collectivism and the common ownership of the resources. "THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy [change]...classless [equality]...socialist society [collectivism]...where working people own and control the means of production [common ownership of the resources]." (They even got the order right!) Notice too the reference to the "working class", the red banner, the globe symbolizing internationalism and the quote from Marx: "Workers of the world unite!"

In the last year their presidential candidate, Brian Moore (politician), has been on many US news programs explaining why Obama was not a socialist - you can probably see these on youtube.com. His party is a splinter from the Socialist Party of America that was founded in 1901. That party was a splinter from the Socialist Labor Party founded in 1876 as a Marxist party.

But I don't understand your point. How do your observations relate to how this article should be written? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The attempt to apply foreign concepts to American politics is actually quite old. As Louis Hartz wrote in The Liberal Tradition in America (1955)[5]: "Hence, with the whole scheme of liberal unity blacked out, Whiggery became for the Progressives a frightful "conservatism," whereas it itself became "progressive" or "radical," a set of terms which meant nothing insofar as Western history of Western political alignments as a whole went."(p.29) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is this. Above, you used "the Left" as a synonym for "Socialist". You point out that the Socialist Party of America does not consider Obama a socialist. And yet Obama is often described as a leftist, even an extreme leftist.

Political debate is often nothing more than name calling. My party loves our country. Your party hates our country. My party is for freedom. Your party hates freedom. My party is for the One True Religion. Your party hates the One True Religion. My party will lower taxes. Your party will raise taxes.

Almost every successful politician in any party is in favor of love of country, freedom, the One True Religion, and lower taxes. The claim that the other side is opposed to these things is a straw man.

I've asked a number of reasonably well educated people to define "leftist", "conservative", "socialist" and so on. Most of the people I ask cannot do so, though they think they know it when they see it.

Since this article, and related articles, are a major source of information, we need to say clearly, and without spin, what the standard dictionary definition of each term is. We've done that, many times. But other Wikipedians keep trying to spin the articles to favor their own point of view. If they are sufficiently steeped in the propaganda of one party, they say something to the effect that the article is clearly biased in favor of the views of the other party, the party which hates God, country, and freedom, and loves taxes.

After giving a brief, correct, dictionary definition, each of these articles should give a little history, and then point out how the word or phrase is used in popular discourse, often for spin and not to convey information.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did not use the term "The Left" as a synonym for socialism. I was using the description in British politics today that says that socialism is associated with ideas towards the left of the spectrum.(p.258) (In other words it uses the term as a synonym.) My criticism of that source, among other things, was that it failed to account for the evolution of the Left which has now largely rejected orthodox socialism. Parties that remain orthodox, like the SPA, have been relegated to the fringe, especially in developed nations, while parties that have modernized are major parties in most countries in the world. The fact that this did not happen in the United States is a matter of significant study, e.g., American exceptionalism.

Currently the article begins: In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms applied to positions that focus on changing traditional social orders and creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. It says nothing about people, organizations, parties, government or ideology, just positions. But these positions may also be held by people who are not left-wing. Is this actually the best definition available?

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the very begining; In politics. That already implies government, ideologies, ect. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Do left wing exists in United States? Can a American politician declare himself "communist"? this is against the law, public sense or such thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.44.199 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are left-wing parties and organizations in the US but they are very minor. There is for example the Communist Party of the United States. The Socialist International is represented by the Democratic Socialists of America, although they do not run candidates. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

81.170.22.190 edit

Thanks to 81.170.22.190 for an excellent clean-up. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead

I disagree with the phrase "While use of the term Left varies widely...." The article gives no explanation of this. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing effort to prevent the article from saying anything, if it doesn't say what one editor wants it to say. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's patently obvious to me that the "use of the term Left varies widely...." To find what others might consider a reliable source that says this may be quite challenging. Americans seem to see their Democratic Party as a leftist party, but it's obvious that it sits to the right of the major party considered rightist in my country, Australia, the Liberal Party. And I say that without implying any judgement on what is good or bad or otherwise. I'm not sure how we say this in the article without upsetting anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the trade union based Solidarity Movement in Poland was clearly considered right wing within its geopolitical context, but the article tells us rightly that, in general, trade unions means left wing. I thereby submit that clearly the "use of the term Left varies widely...." HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the Solidarity Movement could be seen as farther to the Left than Communism, at least in its early days, on account of its apparent left-communist, anti-Bolshevist tendencies. --97.112.49.34 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the items returned for "American left" at Google Books[6] or Google Scholar[7] most of the books and articles are not about the Democratic Party. Certainly there is great variety within the Left. The term "left" is also used in a relative sense as in the Left Opposition. And your observation that not all trade unions are left-wing, while true, does not change the meaning of the Left. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the phrase "the Left" is used in many different ways, but all of these ways cluster around support for the working class, as opposed to support for the upper class. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No. See comment above re the Polish Solidarity Movement being seen as right wing. The trade unions involved directly represented workers. Even your use of the term working class embodies a very old view of the meaning of left. Where does environmental activism come in? It is often described as leftist, but also often disadvantages workers in particular indistries. HiLo48 (talk) 13:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The terms 'left' and 'right' don't have exact meanings. The textbooks I read as a student said that in a narrow sense, the left-right spectrum summarises different attitudes towards the economy and the role of the state. However, this reflects deeper ideological differences about the nature and importance of freedom, rights, equality etc etc.

One of the problems with the left-right spectrum is that it doesn't really cater for anarchism and ignores many of the similarities between communism on the extreme left and fascism, usually said to be on the extreme right. That's why some writers have proposed various multi-axis models.--Pondle (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Left is a pretty clear concept - political groups and ideologies that descended from the First International or groups that identify with them. However it is disingenuous to add American liberalism, right-wing trade unions, fascism and environmentalism into the Left and use this as evidence that the term Left has no meaning. Since the First International the Left has been divided on how to achieve its objectives, and certainly many leftist leaders have betrayed their values, but it does not mean the Left has disappeared or never existed. Many left-wing internationals continue to exist today.

While left and right may disagree over "attitudes towards the economy and the role of the state", these are not defining differences. When the Right invented the welfare state, the Left opposed it. When the Left proposed free trade, the Right opposed it. What is important is why the Left and Right took divergent views on these issues.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the term is older and potentially broader - it originated with the French Estates-General. The Penguin Dictionary of Politics says that "left and right... are frequently used, but ultimately empty, slogan words in modern politics. The most that can be safely said is that those on the 'left' wish to change things... in the direction of more equality and less tradition than those on the right. In Western political terms a left-wing position has come to signify belief in state intervention in society and the economy, in contrast to the right which emphasises [individualism]. However, in communist societies the labels are reversed, limiting consistent application of the term to radical opposition to an establishment."--Pondle (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In the Estates General the terms "Left Side" and "Right Side" were used to refer to the deputies on the two sides of the chamber. But use of the terms "the Left" and "left-wing" only originated in the late 19th century. The revolutions of 1848 had created a clear cleavage between the Left on one side and the liberals and the Right on the other. The Left had earlier organized the League of the Just and organized the First International following the revolutions. Criticism of the term "left-wing" dates back a century, but it continues to be used. For examples see the history of the left in Europe[8], The history and future of the American left[9] or just do a search on Google Books or Google Scholar. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair yet to say that the evidence of the posts in this Section alone is enough to demonstrate the truth of the wording ""While use of the term Left varies widely...." ? HiLo48 (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide me a use of the term "Left" that does not belong to my definition and is widely accepted? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're trying to engage in this discussion at all. The fact that others have provided different views here is simple evidence that the use of the term varies widely. Finding a formal definition that aligns with yours doesn't prove an absence of other definitions. That they exist is demonstrated by the mere existence of this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is insufficient to say that use of the term varies widely without explaining how. Do you in Australia consider the Australian Labor Party and the Communist Party of Australia to be on the left, or do you consider the National Party of Australia and Family First to be left-wing? Is your grouping of parties any different from anywhere else? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is sufficient to say that I consider Australia's Liberal Party (considered to be the right wing party here) to be on the left when compared with the USA's Democratic Party (considered to be the left wing party of the two major parties there). HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Australia is affiliated with the Republican Party through the International Democrat Union whose members self-identify as centre or centre-left. The Democratic Party is not left-wing but is a broad coalition. The Labor Party of Australia is affilitiated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) through the Socialist International. The DSA, which is a minor organization, self-identifies as left-wing,[10] does not run candidates and supports the Democratic Party. It is not the meaning of the Left that differs from country to country but rather the policies that they support. Otherwise the Liberals would affiliate with American socialists. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war in lead

Over the past 32 hours there have been three non-registered editors conducting an edit war over a single word in the first line of the lead. It all seems very silly and may simply be due to ignorance by those editors. I'm still unfamiliar with all the due processes in these situations and am seeking help from more experienced folk around here to sort it out. Do we lock the article so IPs can't edit. Do we try to educate? (I did already try that a little, to no avail.)

HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is usually a waste of time to try to educate those who engage in edit wars, because it is impossible to reason someone out of an opinion they have not reasoned themselves into in the first place. Often, the most stalwart edit warriors are young men looking for something to do, and are best ignored, since it keeps them off the streets. If, on the other hand, they actually do harm to an article, just revert them, and other serious editors will do the same. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if I could defuse this stupid edit war with a new approach? Change the opening to "In politics, the terms left-wing, leftist and the Left are used to describe people who......." HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that works. I might call people leftist, but would I call people "the Left"? The words usually refer to groups, organizations, or ideas. Most people are on the Left on some issues and on the Right on others. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How about "In politics, the terms left-wing, leftist and the Left are generally used to describe positions that support..." Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What positions are left or right can vary over time and from country to country. What divides left and right is the reasons for adopting specific positions, not the positions themselves The Four Deuces (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Then what's your suggestion? Bobisbob2 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As it keeps getting pointed out, the only thing that left "describes" is the opposite of right. In politics it cannot be given a precise description, all that can be done is an indication (historical or otherwise) of the sort of (diverse) things the term left is used to mean.

People changing the text (to something inferior) then complaining that a change back is an edit war is pathetic. If you are going to change the text the onus is on the person who changes it to justify why it is an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.21.144 (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "Left" does have a clear definition. It is only the policies of some movements and parties that vary. Also you keep missing the word "generally". Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "left" does indeed have a clear definition, it means the opposite of right. In politics however the term "implies" and "is associated with" various different beliefs, many of which are contradictory, for example red versus green, anarchism versus authoritarianism, religious versus secular. That is not to say it is devoid of content, but it implies rather than describes. By all means come up with a better word than imply, I would welcome it, but do not pretend that "describes" is an improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.21.144 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Left refers to political groups that claim to support the working class. Their ideology is normally socialist. Why do you find this contradictory? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"...do not pretend that "describes" is an improvement". I suggested that word, and I wasn't pretending anything. I was trying to defuse a silly edit war by introducing an alternative word. I don't have huge amounts of my ego invested in it, unlike those here who keep changing the article without discussion.

Left and right don't have obvious meanings. I see them mostly used as negatives to describes one's opponents, with the chosen word being an intended slur. Right is used to mean people who greedily want to make money before caring about other people. Left is used to describe anything that prevents someone making a decent living. (The clichés in those definitions were deliberate.) Let's just be very general in the definitions so we can get on with more serious editing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Left and right are used in America as "negatives to describes one's opponents, with the chosen word being an intended slur". However in the rest of the world they have real meanings. Socialists are left, conservatives are right and liberals (of all kinds) are centrists. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about America, but I am speaking from Australia. We must be more like America than the rest of the world. I wonder how much of the rest of the world is more like America? HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is the Socialist Left (Australia)? Why would they call themselves that if "left" was a slur? Do you think they are mistaken? You may be right about the term right-wing however, but that is a different article. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My simple point is that you claimed it was an American perspective, but I am an Australian. Contrary examples, however valid, don't negate my position. HiLo48 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it a slur to call a self-described leftist a leftist? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Left refers to political groups that claim to support the working class." This is a Marxist way of putting it. Lots of "groups" described as on the "Left" make no mention of the "working class" e.g. anti-racists & feminists. The very term "working class" is controversial. Are all those who work working class? Are all those who work below a certain income level working class? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.142.200 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Although anti-racists and feminism are often associated with the Left they are not inherently left-wing positions. Can you name any specific left-wing groups that do not claim to support the working-class? Whether or not the concept of the working class is controversial is irrelevant to its significance to left-wing ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrases "working class", "working man", and "the workers" are archaic. Few people on the Left (except Marxists of course) define themselves using that sort of language these days. Even the word "ideology" has to be used with care. You seem to have a Marxist obsession with "groups". You define who counts as Left and then exclude anybody who does not fit your definition, instead of making your definitions fit reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.142.200 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx was actually a key figure in the 1848 revolutions, the German Social Democratic Party and the First International. Furthermore, a significant section of the Left (i.e., Marxists) considered themselves his followers. Note that the 1st International was called the "International Workingmen's Association" and most left-wing parties in the English-speaking world are called or were called "Labor" parties. Notice too the relationship between labor unions and the Left. Notice the lines in The Internationale: "Labourers, peasants, we are The great party of workers".

My definition of the Left basically includes most groups that self-identify as left and are called the Left. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a strong opponent of widespread timber felling for woodchips in my neighborhood. My goal would put timber workers out of work, so am I anti-working class? For my position, I am often described as a leftie. I can assure you I have no interest in communism. Work all that into your definition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you are a leftie? If so, could you please explain why. The woodchipping story provides no information about your political orientation and it is possible to be left-wing without being communist. (See Converse accident.) Communists broke with socialists following the Zimmerwald Conference (1915). Anarchists were expelled at the Hague Congress (1872). The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I told that mixed up little story to highlight the silliness of the terms left and right these days. I was accused of being a leftie by people who wanted the term to be seen as an insult, mostly by people with similar orientation to themselves. Personally, I won't classify myself as a leftie or a rightie. I'm just me. We are all different. Group labels are rarely accurate, or even meaningful. HiLo48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC).

describe vs. imply

If I use a word to describe something, then I am giving information. If I use a word to imply something, than I may or may not be giving information, but I am trying to convince people of something, something which may or may not be true.

If I say that Stalin was a leftist, I am giving information. If I say that King George III was a leftist, I'm trying to convince people.

Left-wing is used both ways, but this article should say how it is correctly used, that is, what it is used to describe. Incorrect uses, if included at all, should be further down the page, not in the lede. Thus the lede should say what "left-wing" describes.

Left-wing is often used to imply that someone is a Godless commie, but that does not belong in the lede.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Imply is also giving information. It is merely saying that there is no necessary connection between X and Y. If you were to say Rick Norwood is a leftist you would be claiming that one of the properties of being Rick Norwood is that he is politically on the Left. If you were to say that Rick Norwood is a registered Democrat and this implies that he is a Leftist, you would be saying that there is no necessary connection between being a Leftist and being a registered Democrat, unless of course you made the additional assumption that a registered Democrat by definition makes you a Leftist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.142.200 (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You are using "imply" in a technical sense. The common usage is that you are saying something that may or may not be true, as in "Are you implying that I'm a crook?" Rick Norwood (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, left-wing implies support for government control of the economy, atheism or feminism. It describes support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Government control of the economy, atheism and feminism are neither implicit nor exclusive to left-wing ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Map?

It would be reeeal nice if someone put a map of the world with left-wing governments, or a map showing "left-wing governments, right-wing governments, has left government but elected right-wing, has right wing government but has elected left-wing" or something like that, it would make the article real happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.180.15 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty tricky request. First we would need to agree on a list of left-wing-governments. As an Australian continually exposed to US politics via the media, it's apparent that what is regarded by many as a left wing government in the USA, the Democrats, is still way to the right of the major party described as being on the right in Australia. It's all very contextual. Not a lot of absolutes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitions are subjective, and the map would need to be changed too often to be useful. The closest we have come is List of socialist countries, which includes maps of states that either currently or previously declare(d) themselves to be socialist in their names or constitutions.--Pondle (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Generalisation

Article seems to generalise about beliefs, like saying "left-wing politicians believe in giving contraception to young people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.48.4 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

People look for new posts at the end of the page, not at the top. (I made the same mistake when I first came to Wikipedia.) The artlce does not contain the quote you give above. The search command (control F) is useful for finding out if an article contains a given word or not. You should use four tildes (upper left corner of the keyboard) to sign your comments. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Roderick Long Quote

Why the Roderick Long quote defining left-wing politics as "concerns for worker empowerment, worry about plutocracy, concerns about feminism and various kinds of social equality" is deemed so good as to merit inclusion in the introductory paragrah is a mystery. Was the French Revolution about "worker" empowerment? Is worry about "plutocracy" only a concern of the political Left? Are "feminists" only on the Left? Even if your answer (wrongly) to all of these questions is yes, it still falls short of being anything like an adequate definition of the political left. The only assertion that is beyond dispute is the assertion about "social equality", but that simply repeats the claim made earlier in the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.77.130 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Any quote in this position in the article has to be exceptional to deserve such prominence. The Long quote falls short of being adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.116.102 (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good source because it is from an interview - about libertarianism.[11] Long is not defining the Left. However bear in mind that left-wing tenets overlap with other ideological families. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Marx and the environment.

I had previously added this segment to the environment page but it was removed:

'Karl Marx argued that capitalism ruthlessly exploited not only human labour but also the natural environment. In Capital Volume One, he argued that “For a century and a half England has indirectly exported the soil of Ireland, without even allowing its cultivators the means for replacing the constituents of the exhausted soil.” ^[1] . Marx described the mismatch between the frantic pace of capitalist exploitation and the limited regenerative capacities of nature as “an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism”. ^[2] He argued that society was morally bound to protect the environment; “Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together,” Marx stated, “are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations.”^[3]'

Due to Marx's undeniable influence on much of the left, it seems to me to be useful to profile his views on environmental matters. Unless their is some objection I am going to restore the paragraph. I have no idea why it was removed previously. It is referenced and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranlatty (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source stating that Marx was advocating environmentalism and that his views influenced the Left in the 19th century. What he was complaining about was that landowners (who were not capitalists) destroyed agricultural lands in Ireland in order to make quick profits. Ironically this may have been a sound environmental practice, since the lands were returned to a pre-agricultural natural state (grasslands and forests). The Four Deuces (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair enough.Two points;

1 Marx certainly did see environmental destruction as exacerbated by the capitalist imperative to make short term profits- he also talks specifically about the destruction wrought by (capitalist)cash-crop farmers like coffee growers, especially in the colonies. Regarding the colonies, including Ireland he also argued that agricultural and mineral exports from the colonies were necessary for industrial, capitalist expansion in Britain. With the right quotes, and possibly some secondary sources, it can be demonstrated that Marx's environmentalism was anti-capitalist, and vice-versa.

2. The influence of Marx on 19th century socialists regarding environmentalism may be very slight, or hard to elucidate or prove, but I can try and dig something up. However, Marx was a key figure on the left in his own right. More importantly there are significant portions of the 20 and 21st century including many eco-socialists and 'green-lefts' who have consciously drawn on Marx's environmentalism, or at the very least, like Marx, saw capitalism as responsible for environmental destruction.

To summarize, I would be for including some of the content becuase it is probably the best, early example of anti-capitalist environmentalism- which reappears at various times and places as a significant current of opinion amongst 'the left'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranlatty (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the section of Das Kapital which is cited by John Bellamy Foster in Marx’s Ecology,[12] the book reviewed in Socialist Worker online.[13] The conclusion that Marx is talking about environmentalism seems far-fetched. You really need to show that the notability of Foster's opinion. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you left out the link ?. In any case, there is some debate around the exact meaning of some of Marx's environmental writings, but there is no real current of opinion which states that he was outright disingenuous or lying. In this situation it is reasonable to take his words at face value, which strongly imply an environmental outlook- especially this quote '“Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together,” Marx stated, “are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations.” This is a pretty clear cut statement of his views on the proper relationship between man and nature.

There is some good content on the history of Marxist/socialist environmentalism here in the ecosocialism page. With the exception of the high tide of Stalinism between roughly 1930-68, when environmental concerns really were downplayed by the influential CP's, big sections of the Marxist left have had an environmental concern. The Green Bans that are mentioned in existing section were pioneered by a Marxist and communist building worker,Jack Mundy- his union even held reading groups on Capital.

Regarding the notability of Fosters opinion, I am unaware of any expert on Marx who has challenged his interpretation. Certainly his work is very influential amongst the contemporary Marxist left. The vast majority of the English speaking Marxist left, and some notable sections of the French speaking and third-world left are familiar with his work and draw on his ideas. The positive socialist worker online review is only one of countless positive reviews by socialist publications.Kieranlatty 03:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made an extensive edit which incorporates material from the paragraph above and material from the eco-socialist page. The page is now probably too weighted towards the ideas of the hard left, and someone should add material on the social-democratic or liberal left- for example the carbon taxes and other regulation supported by center left governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranlatty (talk • contribs) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is now some content on approaches to carbon reduction, including market solutions favored by the center-left.Kieranlatty 12:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Clarke Quote

"Leftists ... claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations"

This is either a truism (i.e. it says nothing that is distinctive of the Left) or it is false (Marx for example wants to INCREASE not decrease class conflict - in order to further the logic of history. Of course his endpoint is a vaguely imagined utopia of complete equality, but such a utopia has nothing to do with any political reality.

"that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."

This is merely a long way of saying the Left is egalitarian, which has already been mentioned (By the way the "elimination" of, for example of Kulaks (Stalin), intellectuals (Pol Pot), aristocrats (Robespierre) et al, did not lead to equality, it simply led to a replacement of one ruling elite by another i.e. e.g. "priveleges" for the Party elite. North Korea, to use a contemporary extreme Leftist example, is by any measure one of the most unequal societies in the world.)

"According to leftists, a society without substantial equality will distort the development of not only deprived persons, but also those whose priveleges [note spelt incorrectly!] undermine their motivation and sense of social responsibility. This suppression of human development, together with the resentment and conflict engendered by sharp class distinctions, will ultimately reduce the efficiency of the economy."

Very few Leftists now argue that inequality leads to economic efficiency. That argument was lost when capitalism/free markets generated much more prosperity (including the living standards of the least wealthy quartile) than communism/socialism. The argument on the Left is currently that the State ought to intervene in the (what are perceived to be harsh and inegalitarian) workings of a market economy in order to deliver "social justice" (via higher taxes and greater legal regulation).

So this quote is not only useless, it is also inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.93.180 (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles require reliable sources. If you want to improve the article please provide sources that may do so. TFD (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.93.180 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

IOW if you feel that the information in the article is incorrect, then provide sources that provide a correct description of the Left. Articles cannot be based on our own personal observations. Please see reliable sources and neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to me (in a comment on a quotation added to the article) to provide a "source" telling you what the term Left means in politics. You may have noticed I am being sceptical that anybody can find a "source" which can be quoted telling us in a few words what being on the "Left" means politically. If you can find one, great, but maybe no short definition is possible; being on the Left politically may mean lots of different things, or maybe an adequate definition is possible but it would have to be the length of an article. The question is - Does this particular short quote capture what it is to be on the political Left? If somebody adds a short quote from some dumb American professor saying "This is what Left means politically. It means X" they (or their supporters) have to adequately answer any objection which assert "X is not an adequate definition because...". How about addressing the substantive points. By the way, has it not crossed your mind that finding something written in a book it does not make it true! You could spend your life swapping quotes and get nowhere. Maybe I need to quote a book that says "Not everything you read in books is true" before you accept it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.14.59 (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles are actually based on sources, and this article is supported by sources. If you want the article to say something else then please provide sources supporting what the article should say. Again please follow the links I provided which explain how articles are developed. Articles are not based on editors opinions. TFD (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically what he's saying 88.110.14.59 (talk) is that you need to find someone's opinion that agrees with you, but has been published in an official-ish location. Only then is it valid to be included in Wikipedia.--81.100.215.14 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you want me to find a book/article with a quote saying 'The assertion "Leftists ... claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in co-operative, mutually respectful relations" is a truism'? Putting aside the absurdity of this demand, who cares what somebody else says? Is the above statement identifying something distinctive of "Leftists" as opposed to say "Rightists" or "Christians" or "People with nice manners" or not? Yes or No? You want me to supply you with a quote in which Karl Marx characterizes human progress as deriving from class conflict? How about a quote which says "The Battle of Hastings was in 1066" or "Most Italians speak Italian"?? You want me to supply a quote which says that people "can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated" is just another way of saying that the Left is egalitarian? Is 1 + 1 = 2 something which is established on the basis of a reference to a mathematics textbook? You want me to supply you a quote from a book/article which asserts that (for example) people are not equal in (for example) Communist societies such as North Korea? You mean you think there are people in the world who believe that Kim Jong il and the Party elite in North Korea live the same sort of life as their citizens? The only assertion which (I concede) might remotely require some additional evidence is the claim that it is not now orthodox for people on the Left to assert that a Socialist economy is more economically efficient than a Capitalist economy (as was at one time fashionable) for the simple reason that (for example) the USSR collapsed economically (how much more evidence do you need!) and therefore the emphasis is now upon redistributing the wealth (via an appeal to "social justice") generated by free markets and/or regulating free markets (in order to prevent "social injustice"). My personal views about this strategy is indeed irrelevant (which is why I do not mention them) but is there anybody not aware that this change has taken place on the Left since at least 1989 - I refer to my 1066 assertion above! Of course it is a matter of complete indifference to me that "The Four Deuces" wants to retain some idiot quote in the Left Wing politics article. I am certainly not going to waste any time deleting it (he even deleted my criticisms of it in the discussion section so I am hardly going to bother changing the article!) but that does not stop me pointing out on the discussion page that it is a feeble quote which does not deserve its prominence at the beginning of the entry.

The basic distinction between the Left and the Right is class distinction. The Left supports the working class, the Right supports the upper class. There have been bad people on both sides. You can cite Kim Jong-il. I can cite Pinochet. But that doesn't have anything to do with the body of philosophy that has built up around these beliefs.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I truly doubt most of today's international Left supports the working-class, since it's been co-opted by the globalization movement and largely required to adapt to middle-class, business environment needs. Likewise, the Right no longer supports the "upper-class" (does that even exist anymore?), but the middle-class through economic non-interventionism. Had it supported the upper-class in our times, the Right's attitude towards free-market liberalism would have stood firmly in opposition. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Social democratic parties today remain to varying degrees mass democratic parties, give affiliated memberships to union members, require union membership (where possible) for individual membership, receive union funding, refuse corporate funding, have a largely working-class membership and voter base, enact pro-labor legislation, support the disestablishment of remaining medieval institutions, and contain a range of membership including those strongly opposed to capitalism. This is even more true of more left-wing socialist parties. In Von Beyme's categorization of parties, which looks at history, ethos and party structure, there are sufficient differences to distinguish left-wing parties from their more conservative opponents, including liberals. Whether or not the Right continues to exist is outside the scope of this article. TFD (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As a former member of the upper class, I can assure you that it does still exist, and is, in the United States, staunchly Republican. See, for more information, Daughters of the American Revolution and Distribution of wealth. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First sentence is misleading

"In politics, left-wing, leftist and the Left are generally used to describe support for social change with a view towards creating a more egalitarian society" When a billionaire philanthropist donates money to famine relief, or low-income housing, he is not being left-wing. Left-wing politics is specifically about using the government to bring about "a more egalitarian society." It is a social engineering goal. My edit in this regard was reverted. Also, it's worth noting that Republicans believe "making everybody wealthier makes the poor wealthier", i.e. trickle-down Reaganomics is (allegedly) egalitarian. Left-wing is specifically opposed to free-market approaches, not merely in favor of egalitarian ones. Noloop (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your use of the term 'social engineering' was the problem - it sounded like a value judgement. Besides, it isn't exclusively a left-wing agenda - politicians on the right have also been accused of 'social engineering', for example the British Conservatives' commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system.[14]--Pondle (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your latest change asserts that leftist social change is accomplished only via government, which clearly isn't so; there are any number of private organizations working toward the same ends. In any case, the existing text has two citations, so it would be necessary to provide a citation for it instead being "specifically about using the government". AV3000 (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You need a source for your edits and it is always wrong to change sourced text if the result does not correctly reflect the source. The Left does not necessarily support government polices, some believe in achieving their goals independent of government, for example through trade unions. Some leftists do not see a need for government at all. TFD (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My latest change did not assert that leftist social change is only accomplished by the government. This article is not about leftist social change; it is about leftist politics. That was the point. Politics is inherently a government matter; change is not. Nor did my edit imply that the left supports government policies. It implied that the politics of the left-wing supports left-wing government policies, by definition.
The use of sources here is inappropriate. Those sources are political essays, not a basis for making factual assertions in an encyclopedia. Does anybody really think it will be difficult to find an equally reliable source with a very different interpretation of "left-wing politics"? We don't use sources to decide what an article is about.
Finally, when I look at the references in Google Scholar, I see no contradiction with my edit. Their topics are government policies, not more vaguely and generally defined "support" for something egalatiarian. Volunteering at a soup kitchen is not "left-wing politics", yet meets the definition this article currently provides. Politics is about government. Let's not debate the obvious. Noloop (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not supposed to debate personal views here but discuss improvement of the article. If you have a better source for the lead, please present one. TFD (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources talk about policies, which is exactly what I said. If you can document otherwise, do so. Noloop (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No they do not. You should realize that government is not the answer to all problems. TFD (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not obvious that politics is 'about government'. Politics, politicians, and government policies may share a root but they aren't all synonymous. While the widespread paradigm is the formation of states, 'Politics' is applied to any collective decision making or bargaining. Ever hear the term "Office politics"? The point I'm trying to make is that "Politics" describes not just the State but also the basic productive relations between people. It can manifest as government, trade unions, or community organizations. Treating leftist politics as "Statism" as synonymous is a recently popular canard that obscures the many, many anti-authoritarian strands of leftism. Sorry for all the talk, I'm trying to find a source but I'm not sure what to look for except quote-mining Marx or some post-structuralists. 98.236.191.219 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

TFD, what are you talking about? Noloop is right, the definision given in the text is missleading. Because thats your personal view, doesn't make it true. --TIAYN (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether true or not, definitions require sources. Also, could you please look at the actual edits made, rather than just Nollop's comments. TFD (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what TFD is talking about. My edit was exactly what my comments suggest: I changed the lead to be a statement about govrnment polices, rather than the vague "social change." Social change is a much broader topic than politics: this article is about politics. Other sources:

Describes a group or person that is not closely bound to traditional ways and is supportive of government intervention to cure social ills.
A broad range of political ideology that is denouncing the of economic and social inequality in the present order of society and advocating the adoption of vigorous public policies to reduce or eliminate these inequalities

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:left+wing&sa=X&ei=w4caTMX3OOXunQemtpTgBQ&ved=0CBIQkAE Noloop (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You should read reliable sources. Your first reference is from the glossary of the "United States History" website.[15], a travel and history website that "has been made possible by Online Highways.... a leader in Internet travel information and reservations, is committed to the belief that an understanding of history enriches the travel experience".[16] Not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither violates RS, and both are better than the references currently in use, because the ones currently in use are from individual political treatises. The ones I provided are intended to be neutral, dictionary-like definitions. But, as I said, the current ones are also about policies and laws. Read them, instead of just contradicting me. I'm not sure what your beef with me is, but after your sock puppet case, it seems obvious that you are more interested in a personality battle than anything respectful. You are making strawman and tendentious arguments merely for the sake of being oppositional. Noloop (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you read reliable sources and also please assume good faith. TFD (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I suggest you read reliable sources. The sources currently used in the lead are reliable only for the fact that those authors think those things. Wikipedia policy clearly says so. Also I suggest you read the actual sources used in this article, both of which are about the kind of government people support, not general change. Finally, I certainly do not assume good faith about your intentions after the evidence of your recent behavior. Noloop (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that a U. S. "travel and history" website is a reliable source? TFD (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the sources already in use? They specify that left-wing politics is about the correct form of the state. I don't have to think that the additional ones I provided are better. I do think they are better, simply because they aim to be neutral, whereas the sources currently in use are political essays. However, the ones in use support my edit too. It is also just a matter of common sense: Conservative Christians volunteer at soup kitchens and give to the poor--very egalitarian. That doesn't make them left-wing. Noloop (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me just unequivocally state that Noloop's proposals are absolutely ridiculous and do not merit inclusion in this article. The term "left-wing" is an umbrella phrase that covers a vast array of ideologies and movements over the last two centuries. The opening sentence should reflect that general scope to the subject. Where government policies are important, they should obviously be mentioned, but it would be flatly wrong to use that metric as the defining standard of "the left."UBER ^(talk) 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, while I respect your own personal opinions, articles must be based on reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source for your views. TFD (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources are the ones already in use in the article. Or, the new ones I gave. Or the dictionary definition that equates "left-wing" with being based in socialism (do you disagree that socialism is about government?) Isn't this pretty obviously about the state:

...egalitarians often utilize the most powerful of all hierarchies--the bueaucratic state--to mandate greater equality....Their preference is equality of result, which may require using the coercive power of the state. Noloop (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Socialists are on the Left, but not everyone on the Left is a socialist. Some people on the Left favor state intervention. Others, especially in totalitarian states, oppose state power.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wanted is something objective, like a fair definition, not everybody's personal interpretations, and not some authors' published personal interpretation. Despite TFD's insistence to the contrary, political essays are not reliable sources for statements of fact, even when the author/publisher are noteworthy and reliable. A political essay is a political essay. I've decided to stop editing here. The article exists to put forward the self-conception the left has of itself, rather than to say anything objective (which would include things critical). As such, it will never be taken seriously. Noloop (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah what would Leftists possibly know about Leftism? It's not like these other editors are saying "Let's edit this to say 'Leftism is the best!!!'", they're just making very objective statements about the diversity of Leftist politics, with many of strands that are specifically anti-authoritarian or based in cultural transformation instead of governmental. Government is one of many possible means towards the society Leftism idealizes, not itself the object or goal. And the 'politics' of Leftism are as much about the relationship between a manager and a wage earner in the office or the representative and voter in Washinton 98.236.191.219 (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition while conservative Christians and Reagan Republicans may support private charities to help the poor they still believe in a hierarchical society and the poor still have to climb up the ladder. Charities are seen as a way to give them a boost. Leftists and egalitarians on the other hand don't believe there even should be a ladder that people have to climb up. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

change?

"Social change" is a collective noun, like "progress" and so includes a variety of social changes, even though it has singular form. I'm not going to revert "social changes", because that it ok, too, but I think "social change" is better English. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The source (p. 30 of the book)[17] does not use the terminology in the article, but "changes" seems wrong, and I have not seen it used in descriptions of the Left. TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology to Spylab

Sorry. My bad. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was just a misinterpretation.Spylab (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party center-left coalition.

Under "History of the Term", the following quote is uncited and conflicts with the line preciding which does have citations.

"In the United States the Democratic Party is generally perceived to be a center-left coalition."

Any objectiong to deleting it? Dpky (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection. In the United States the Democratic Party is generally percieved to be right of center by those on the left and left of center by those on the right. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection. TFD (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The lede is a bit confusing. I dont think everyone understands the word "egalitarian" and not everyone has studied the "French Revolution". Why not have a lede that reads; In politics, Left, left-wing and leftist are generally used to describe support for social change to create a more equal society. PassaMethod talk 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

LittleJerry edit

Here is the problem with the sentence you added:

"They involve in varying degrees the rejection of social heirarchy and the social order promoted by right-wing politics, seeing them as unjust."

The phrase "seeing them as unjust" is a dangling participle. The way it is written, it sounds as if right-wing politics saw social heirarchies as unjust.

I suggest the following:

"They involve a rejection, as unjust, of the social heirarchy promoted by the Right."

By the way, thank you for correcting the grammar mistake over in "right-wing politics". Rick Norwood (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

When dangling, don't use participles. TFD (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

How do you go about disputing this article and it's validity. This article and the one on the "right" are not neutral, and should either be edited correctly, or removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.33.229 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The distinction of egalitarian should be made

Left wing politics favor equality of outcome policies such as socialism and communism and not equality of opportunity policies such as free market capitalism and meritocracy, with the exception of the center-left, which is "center" due to that right wing aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what people on the Right say people on the Left favor. But either they are wrong in calling people who favor the kind of mixed economy the richest countries in the world have had for the past seventy years Leftist, or they are wrong in saying Leftists favor equality of outcome. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Policies that left and right support may vary according to pragmatic concerns. TFD (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

History speaks louder than anything else when it comes to the Left. You have to look at the results, not just the professed "good intentions". TodKarlson (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and if you consider, for example, the US Democratic party to be on the Left, then the success is evident. If, on the other hand, you limit the Left to governments such as Stalin's and Mao's, the failure is evident. One of the problems with the use of "the Left" today is that, at least in the West, the mainstrem media use it as a synonym for the US Democratic party and the right-wing media use that usage to conflate the Democrats with Stalin and Mao. This is why this article needs to be crystal clear about the two ways the word is used. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"comedy group"

I removed the redirect that said "For the comedy group, see Liberal Democrats." Someone's awfully funny. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.3.141 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On That Ol' Bullshit

Yo, who the fuck put this ol' Barry Clark nonsense in this bitch? That's some old bullshit, y'all know this is some slanted-ass bullshit orchestrated by those lame-ass conservative hos. Ain't no one tryin' to hear Barry Clark. I was like 'bro, the fuck is you?' when I heard dude's name. Dude is a nobody, ain't got shit goin'. I mean, real talk. Y'all on here like this is some professional or some shit. Naw, y'all need to address this immediately. Makin' leftists look bad and shit. No one tryin' to hear this old conservative nonsense. Yeah, we know y'all got good-ass computers... fuck y'all gotta rub it in our faces? Fuck out of here. Remove the ol' Clark bullshit, the fuck is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.91.147 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 25 November 2011

It's good to see someone contributing to the article who writes interesting prose. Maybe the old lady from the movie Airplane could translate for us? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Falconclaw5000 edit

Since the first words in the first sentence are "In politics", we hardly need to add that government is involved. And the Barry Clark quote is discussed above.

By the way, if you think "nobody" opposes equality, you haven't met any of my relatives. :)

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? I don't see it being discussed. Your Airplane! joke is funny, but not a discussion. For the record, I'll copy and paste my opposition to the quote here: "Why is Barry Clark significant, and why should Wikipedia sponsor a paragraph from a leftist saying why leftism is such a fantastic thing? The right wing politics article has no such monologue" Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC).

It is a quote from a standard textbook. It does not say leftism is a fantastic thing and I can find no evidence that the writer is a leftist. Even if he is, the book is written in a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an argument for leftism. Just because he says "according to leftists..." before each sentence doesn't make it neutral. Anyhow, fine, I'll leave it alone. I'd like to quote William F. Buckley in the right wing article, but he's obviously a right winger, so I'll leave that alone too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a William F. Buckley quote would be entirely appropriate in the article on right-wing politics. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, I misspoke. The Buckley quote is appropriate to the article Conservatism in the United States. While the use of left-wing to mean support for labour is international, the use of right-wing to mean anti-big-government is, as far as I can tell, unique to the US, and even there changes depending on which side is in power. When Bush was President, it was the Democrats who were anti-big-government. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't even true, the Democrats were only anti-Bush. They still favored Big Government in terms of welfare, entitlements, etc. They only opposed it, and by "they" I mean the very liberal wing of the Democratic Party which those such as Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid didn't belong to, they only opposed Big Government in the area of civil liberties. Nonetheless, you're not even letting me make that distinction in the Right Wing article, insisting on making it as Marxist and leftist as possible (I wasn't the one who raised the "did Karl Marx write this article" objection, by the way, although that was my initial reaction to the article), in contradiction of the relevant objections raised by such esteemed academics such as Thomas Sowell. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the famous ad in favor of the Democratic party where children in the future find their lives mortgaged to Republican Big Government. However, neither your opinion nor mine really matters. Find a reliable academic source for your assertions. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Does the Left always favor government action.

I reverted a recent edit that claims the Left wants to create equality through government action. Many on the left oppose the government, and those who do see a role for the government usually call not for true equality but for less extreme inequality. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Barry Clark quote

Why was the Barry Clark quote removed from the lead? Removing the quote leaves the impression that the Left has no rationale for its beliefs, while the rationale for the beliefs of the Right (inequality is natural) is given. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

We should avoid tertiary sources, in this case an introductory polisci text for American students, because they tend to oversimplify topics. The recent edit removed[18] is from a section called "Liberalism" (pp. 142 ff.). The section begins, "We will begin with the moderate Left. Supporters of this position are known as liberals in the USA and social democrats in most other nations". TFD (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote seems good to me. What is your objection? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It implies that US liberals and social democrats support the same position. Or it could mean that the center-left means different things in different countries. I looked at one time for sources for the article center-left and various sources say that it means the left of the center, the right of the Left, a position between the center and the Left, or a coalition of the center and left, where center is defined as liberal and Left as socialist. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cener-left vs far-left

I noticed that the lead in the right-wing politics article features a brief discussion on the differences between center-right and far-right politics, and I was wondering if the same could be applied for this article, but I'm not so sure how to word it or where to get sources. I understand that the center-left generally believes in abolishing certain inequalities they deem to be unfair while the far-left believe everyone should be equal and on the same level. Cadiomals (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Center-left and far left are not clearly defined. What one person considers far left another may consider just left. TFD (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think "far-left" generally refers to communists, and "center-left" to people who believe in social justice. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Gregcaletta's edit.

Good edit, Gregcaletta. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the Occupy movement in the intro instills recentism into it.

Why is the Occupy movement getting so much attention in the intro? It appears to be contrary to Wikipedia:Recentism policy.--R-41 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It does not appear to be left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So much attention? They get a bare mention. Not left-wing? They are all about economic equality, and the article defines left-wing as supporting equality. Certainly, those on the Right consider the Occupy movement left-wing. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be considered a major example of left-wing politics as a whole? It has only existed as a movement since last year and I am not aware of any major impact it has had on political decision-making within governments thus far, please look at Wikipedia:Recentism to get an understanding of the problem here that I am addressing. Occupy Wall Street may appear to be a significant example of a left-wing activist movement today, but there are plenty of historical left-wing activist movements that are confirmed by historians to be significant, and warrant more attention - take Chartism for example, the first mass working-class labour movement in the world, and most of their major demands were eventually put in place by the British government, such as ending property qualifications for voting and instituting secret balloting - things often taken as a given and expected in most democracies today.--R-41 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the article on Recentism. It gives both the pros and cons of covering breaking news. In any case, the Occupy movement is hardly breaking news any more. I don't think this article should go on at length about it, but it is a major left-wing movement. If you asked someone who keeps up with current events to name a modern left-wing movement, the Occupy movement is probably the first one that would come to mind. As for the Chartists, they belong in the body of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an opinion that it is the first thing that comes to mind, for different people, different things may come to mind. How much weight does the Occupy movement deserve for it to be included in the intro as an example of left-wing politics? It has existed for just over one year. If you believe that the Chartists, a left-wing activist movement that are known to have had a major influence in politics and whose goals of suffrage without property qualifications and secret balloting were achieved, belongs in the main body of the article, why shouldn't the Occupy movement belong in the main body as well?--R-41 (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not left-wing because they see the problem in the US as a result of corruption ("the banksters") rather than any inherent weakness in the system. In that sense they are in a long line of American radicals, from Bacon, Shay and the Whiskey rebellions, locofocos, populists, etc. TFD (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

IMO this is a fairly superficial reading of the "Occupy message". When I look over this page and read the various features of "left-wing" politics, I find that the "Occupy movement" agrees with many, insofar as it corresponds to specific political beliefs. Check out statements from as early as 17 September 2011 and 27 September 2011, from OWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 November 2012‎

I read the message and it is the same as other radical groups of the past. In what way does it differ? TFD (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The source used for the Occupy movement claims that socialism and republicanism as a whole are examples of revolutionary movements, not all socialists and republicans have been revolutionaries, reformist socialism was advocated by Eduard Bernstein who developed the basis of contemporary social democracy.--R-41 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What source is that? TFD (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this source is supposed to say that: "Eric Neumayer, The environment, left-wing political orientation, and ecological economics, Ecological Economics 51 (2004) 167– 175, Elsevier".--R-41 (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the source was written before OW began, it is OR to use it as a source. TFD (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice the 2004 part, so it cannot possibly address the Occupy movement that began in 2011, it clearly appears to be a fraudulent use of a source to say the least. Plus if it does describe socialism and republicanism as both being revolutionary - without accounting for reformist socialists or reformist republicans, it is completely unacceptable and should be removed shortly if these problems are not clarified.--R-41 (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would use the definition in the Encyclopedia of the American Left, p. ix. "Defined as that segment of society that has sought fundamental changes in the economic, political, and cultural systems, the subject does not include reformers who believe that change can be accommodated to existing capitalist structures, or who believe that an egalitarian society can be attained ultimately within national borders."[19] The current source does not define the Left but describes differences between left and right, and lists both "left-wing" parties, such as the Labour Party and "left-libertarian" parties, such as the Greens. The authors argue that ecological issues are more commonly associated with the Left. It does not say anything about revolution. TFD (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

R-41's "doubts"

I've provided one reference that environmentalism is left-wing. How many references do you need to alay your doubts. Also, note that the article does not say that "all" socialist movements are revolutionary, just that revolutionary socialist movements are called left-wing. I'll find a reference for that. As for republicanism, I share your doubts. I assume the inclusion of revolutionary republicanism goes back to the French Revolution, which was called left at the time. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I hope will satisfy R-41. Note that the article does not say that environmentalism "is" leftist, only that the term left-wing is applied to environmentalist. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We should say who calls environmentalism left-wing, in this case it is Jim Inhofe. The claim means that Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich were left-wingers, because both advocated environmental measures against acid rain and global warming respectively. While we are at it, we should point out that Reagan's former employer, GE, is a left-wing corporation, as are most DJII300 companies, all major parties in Europe, the traditional churches, the mainstream media, and of course Hitler. TFD (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD, and will add to TFD's statement that the centre-right Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney in Canada promoted environmentalism alongside neoliberalism - Mulroney pressed for the acid rain treaty and Elizabeth May the current leader of Canada's Green Party was Mulroney's key environmental adviser.--R-41 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the first reference I supplied. The point it makes is that the majority of people who self-identify as environmentalists also self-identify as leftist, and that those on the Right call them leftist because they support enviornmentalism. Yes, of course, many people favor some environmental issues who are not on the Left. The source says that. But at least in the US, the tag "leftist" is applied to those who want to protect the environment. Consider George W. Bush's statements about "tree huggers" and people who want to protect, in his immortal words, "furry feathery creatures". The idea that environmental interests are opposed to business interests is one I hear all too often. But, then, I live in the US and listen to NPR. Maybe the issue of enviornmentalism belongs further down in the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There have been many far-right figures who have condemned the destruction of the natural environment and the development of industrial urban societies. These people have promoted the salvaging of the more natural world, including rural areas where people have connection to the land, while they denounce urban industrialism for degenerating society - both physically and morally.--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The source presents and tests a thesis that left-wing and left-libertarian parties and their supporters are more likely than other parties (such as the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.) to support environmental issues. Ironically it found that Green Parties and their supporters were more concerned about the environment than left-wing parties. I do not think that we should use original studies, until their weight has been established. TFD (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2004 source used in the sentence mentioning the Occupy movement cannot possibly mention Occupy because it did not exist until 2011. And why are we using a book by a US Republican politician who believes that global warming is a leftist conspiracy - he is representative of a lunatic fringe. In Canada Preston Manning, former leader of the right-wing neoliberal and social conservative Reform Party of Canada, has recognized climate change and has publicly declared support for carbon capture and storage and carbon pricing through market mechanisms - so this lunatic fringe Republican's logic would therefore identify Preston Manning as a "leftist", that's laughable and sad to me who knows who Manning is.--R-41 (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2004 source is about the relationship between the Left and the environmental movement. It has nothing to do with the Occupy movement.

I certainly agree that the people who call the environmental movement "leftist" are fools, but they are hardly part of a lunatic fringe, when roughly half of all Americans believe what they say. A fringe movement is, by definition, a minority movement.

My only point is how the word is used by roughly half of my fellow countrymen. I am happy to believe that the rest of the world does not use it in this way, in which case it does not belong in the lead. Maybe we need a section further down in the article on how the US usage of "left-wing" differs from the international usage.

On the other hand, I think that the lable "left-wing" for socialism is far more widespread. I'll check for sources.

Rick Norwood (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Then why is a 2004 source being used for a sentence that mentions the Occupy movement? The sad state of American politics on the issue of climate change does not legitimize the view of this Republican politician that environmentalism is left-wing, and there is no point in quoting a person whose claim of conspiracy is completely illogical and false. As I said, Canadian conservative policymaker Preston Manning - who is economically neoliberal like many US Republicans and a social conservative who is an Evangelical Christian like many US religious right Republicans, Manning promotes carbon capture and storage to counter climate change, Manning is not a leftist. And the British Conservative Party under Prime Minister David Cameron officially recognizes climate change, here are two short video clip of Cameron in 2008 officially acknowledging climate change: [20] and in this video Cameron says he is promoting a "green" government [21]. Cameron has acknowledged climate change as a real environmental issue, and he is not a leftist, but a centre-rightest British Conservative Prime Minister.--R-41 (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And here is one of the most prominent figures of the contemporary neoliberal right, Britain's Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, openly addressing global warming: [22].--R-41 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The word "left" can have two meanings, one absolute, the other relative. On the one hand the "Left" refers to a specific group of ideologies and parties that developed from the First International, on the other hand any political differences whether in ancient Rome (Optimates and Populares) or Stalin's politburo (left and right opposition) can be analyzed using a left-right spectrum. Disambiguation requires us to have separate articles when words have different meanings, which we do by having separate articles for left-wing politics, right-wing politics, and left-right politics. Going back to R-41's example, Canadian liberals were often more "left-wing" on civil rights, the monarchy, gun control and the environment than the socialists, and more "right-wing" than the conservatives on government intervention and welfare. In class terms though that was consistent with being a middle class party opposed to the power of both the elites and unions, or more "liberal". TFD (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer R-41's question, when a sentence makes several assertions, each may need its own reference. Now, I have a question for R-41. In what sense to you doubt that "left-wing" is applied to socialism? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your quotation of my "doubts" in quotation marks in the headline is potentially violating Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith if you are insinuating dishonesty on my part. "Doubts" in quotation marks implies that while it is something that I indicated, that I do not have genuine doubts or that I have ulterior motives - if so that is violating policy of assuming good faith. And you are not supposed to use a person's user name in a headline, it is against Wikipedia policy because if makes it highly personal rather than topic-focused. I specifically objected to distinguishing revolutionary and "modern" socialism as left-wing. What is "modern" socialism supposed to be? The Occupy movement statement should not be in that sentence if it is not supported by the sources used in the sentence. Secondly, I have given multiple examples of prominent right-wing figures - including the neoliberal right's Margaret Thatcher recognizing the need to address the environmental issue of climate change - so the claim by that one source by a U.S. Republican politician of climate change being a left-wing conspiracy is absurd to even consider a serious source.--R-41 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No insinuation of dishonesty was intended. I didn't know there was a rule against using a person's name in a heading. I'll avoid it in the future.

I do not understand your objection to using more than one reference to justify the parts of a sentence that combines several topics.

The original meaning of socialism is government ownership of the means of production, a synonym for communism. Today, the word is used, rightly or wrongly, in a much broader sense.

And I have no objection to moving environmentalism to a section on American use of the term, if it is not so used in other countries. In countries that have a major Green party, is it considered on the Left?

Rick Norwood (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Socialism did not necessarily mean government ownership of the means of production, and certainly not any government, and communism means that there is no government at all. TFD (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford American Dictionary defines socialism as "a political and economic theory advocating that the land, natural resources, and chief industries should be owned by the people as a whole." The definition of communism from the same source is "a social system in which the property is owned by the community, and each member works for the benefit thereof". They sound pretty close, to me. Maybe you are pointing out that both are economic systems rather than governmental systems, and that there are communist anarchist as well as communist dictatorships. This brings up the interesting question of whether "Left-wing" is primarily about government or about society. Would a society in which everyone treated everyone equally be left-wing, no matter what the system of government? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is better phrased in the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp. 1-2, as "the general view that the solution to these problems lay in some sort form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution, and exchange."[23] No mention of government. But more importantly it is a political movement whose greatest agreement was their understanding of problems with capitalism. I think there can be confusion between the Left and policies which they have advocated at different times. TFD (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, anarchism is typically not a reformist ideology, it is typically revolutionary, so the source that is used to claim that it is reformist, is very out of touch with common descriptions.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

^ http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13676
^ ibid.
^ ibid.

[1] ttps://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=13676

[2] .

[3] .

[1]

[2]

[3]