Talk:Left-wing politics/Archive 1

Could someone please check if the notion that leftist in America means "new left" and in Europe means lefts organized in communist parties is right? Myself an European, I think this differs widely from country to country. There was a "new left" hereover, too. --till we *) 19:39 Oct 19, 2002 (UTC)

---

I do not object to the article as such, but the initial stub was misleading. What differentiates right and left is highly variable, and what constitutes right and left are also highly variable.

It is simply false to identify "left" with sympathetic to socialism or communism. This is certainly true of some leftists, but not all. It is an even more egregious error to identify this with liberalism in the US. Traditionally, US liberals were Cold War hawks staunchly opposed to communism, and far from agreed concerning socialism. Other leftists are anarchists who are oppsed to communism and socialism at least insofar as they have been practiced in Europe.

What "the left" means has changed over time, and it would be misleadint to readers to define "leftist" in a way that associates it with how some leftists in one place at one time understand themselves. SR

---

This is a vast vast vast improvement over the original, I am grateful to the person/those people who worked on it.

I made two changes.

US ambitions, and not solely Soviet ambitions, were responsible for the Cold War.

Also, I cut the last line that deprecated Nitzschian postmodernism. That it is NPOV is enough to justify deletion. But I would add that many claim that National Socialism was at best a perversion of Nietzsche, and at worst had nothing to do with it except some self-serving and ignorant claims. Whatever post-modernism's political claims are (and I do not think they are unified, isn't that the point of pomo?), and whatever its effects will be, I wouldn't blame any bad outcomes on Nietzsche's influence.

I am not qualified, but I hope that others will developm non-communist elements of leftism, including Democratic Socialism (or is it Social Democracy), environmentalism, feminism, and anarchism. SR

---

On reflection I added the fact that it was originally the right which defined the political spectrum. My point on communism, and the reason I spent so much time on it, is that it defined the left-right spectrum and to an extent still does. American liberals are on the left of American conservatives because they're relatively closer to communists. By now the ancien regime doesn't exist anymore, and there isn't yet something to replace communism as the defining point of the spectrum. A.J. (Oops, I thought the first part was an objection to mine, not the one he deleted. I certainly hope no one thinks I imply that all leftists, of any sort, actually support communism. For the most part they merely resemble it relatively more than those on the right.)

right, the first objection was to an earlier stub. The current article -- which I take to be mostly or entirely A.J.'s work, is I think quite good. Nevertheless, many readers will not be prepared for such a generic and broad understanding of "communism." I think the article is clear, however. Also, there may be other ways to define "leftism." One possible definition is any programatic opposition to structural inequality. I say "structural" because I think there are many conservatives who also claim to oppose inequality, but of course their critique is of a rather different sort, and many may still take issue with the definition I just proposed. Clearly, contemporary "leftism" is not merely a reaction to the ancien regime but to a whole set of political and economic developments of modernity (and despite the term "ancien," absolute monarchs of the mercantilist era are rather more modern than ancient). I think this comes through in the article although perhaps it could be developed. Also, one has to distinguish between different kinds of reactions to modernity -- truly reactionary ones as well as so-called conservative ones that are nevertheless more modern than traditional. As I said, I do not have any objection to communism broadly defined and clearly distinct from the CP. But I do wonder if this is enough -- as you admit, it doesn't fully serve the New Left or postmodernist forms of leftism. I think others who know more about these topics just have to contribute more. SR

It is mine, except for the part about the Cold War you altered. I would object to you your definition of leftism because, for example, the Soviet Union had a great deal of inequality, both in how many material goods people had and in how much power they had. Unless you want to completely rearrange how people use their words it won't work. Of course you're right that the left is more than a reaction to the ancien regime (and right that it was modern, but that's what people called it), which is why the ancien regime no longer defines the ideological spectrum. Communism won't either once something else comes along. A.J.

As you say, there was a good deal of inequality in the USSR -- this is why it is important to distinguish between communism in general and CP communism. I think my definition of "left" would work in the USSR not in spite of but because of your opposition -- after all, Trotsky, Preobrazhensky, Radek, and otthers identified themselves as the "left opposition." Clearly then the USSR was not "left" in any absolute sense, for within early Soviet politics there was a distinction between "left" and "right," and a good definition (and I am not saying mine is the best) has to account for this, SR

Just one point of historic fact. The Estates General was not the National Assembly nor a national assembly. A national assembly indicates a form of national participative representative body akin to a modern parliament. The Estates General was not a parliament in the modern sense; it was not democratic and it wasn't representative. Elements of it however broke away to become something akin to a national parliament. JTD 07:05 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

---

It would be nice to know what are/were each nation's left-wing political parties, and whom from said parties became a leader of state. Kingturtle 18:07 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

Right-Left together

Since the definitions of Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics appear so inextricably tied together, I am proposing a higher-level page called Left-Right politics whose purpose is to discuss their definition. That would allow the page for each wing to focus more on its unique characteristics (such as how it evolved in that country), rather than characterizing its opponents. What do you think? Drernie 21:13, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Left-Right politics now exists. - Jmabel 06:28, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Liberalism

Is 'Liberalism left-wing?

Depends on whether in US usage, where it tends to mean center-left, or even Social Democrat, or European usage, where it means free-marketer, a position that would not be called liberal in the US. The European usage is probably more historically correct. This should all probably be discussed in Liberal. --Jmabel 06:28, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Political compass

The link to http://www.politicalcompass.org seems to me like it would more belong in Political spectrum than here, but for the moment I'm leaving it alone. I'd appreciate another opinion or two on this. -- Jmabel 06:28, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I placed it on both the left and Right wing pages to provide an alternate view of the dicotomy of politics left and right wing provide. Jack 06:55, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But isn't that precisely what the article "political spectrum" is about? I don't disagree with you on the issue, but it would seem to me that those articles should both refer to political spectrum (as does Left-Right politics), and that would be the place to discuss at some length the questionability of the perspective involved in these terms. -- Jmabel 07:32, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Definately. But I want each individual point of the political spectrum to have a link to the political spectrum site. Its a handy and fun way to learn about one view of all 4 (Libertarian, Authoritarian, Left wing, Right wing) types of politics. Besides, I love the test. It told my politics are identical to the Pope John Pauls (I'm a bit more authoritarian)! ;) Jack 07:42, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would seem to me that our various related articles should point to Political Spectrum and that only Political Spectrum should point to the external article, rather than pointing in four separate places to the same external article, but I'm not going to override you; still if a few more people weigh in on my side of this, I hope you will reconsider. -- Jmabel 00:47, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can't see any possible reason for your objection to my link. The fact that it would ALSO have merit in an article on the political spectrum in no way reduces its merits here. I wasn't looking to discuss the link, or the questionability of terms at length in this article. I do however insist opon the value of the link. I ask you, what is the detriment in having this link on this article? Jack 01:02, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The detriment is simply that we usually try to avoid the proliferation of external links unless they are highly relevant. But, as I said, I'm willing to let it drop. Can we just stop discussing this, given that I've agreed to leave the article your way? -- Jmabel 06:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If there are no objections, yes. I know of no policiy regarding the reduction of external links, and I of course regard this as highly relevent. I did add a disclaimer, as user:wik said it was POV, or some such. Jack 09:19, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Nietzschean philosophies"

I doubt that the phrase "Nietzschean philosophies" as it is now used in the article is informative. I think it needs to be either expanded on or dropped, and was hoping that the person who added the phrase would clarify what he/she meant to say. I'm guessing that the reference is to deconstructionism (which reasonably can be argued to originate in Nietzsche's work), but certainly Nietzsche himself was no leftist and most ideas that would be generally be considered "Nietzschean" are not embraced by any significant portion of the left, or even of the deconstructionists. I'm not going to edit this right now, but if no one responds in the next week or so, I'm probably going to reword this to refer to the immediately relevant deconstructionism rather than the tenuous intellectual ancestor, Nietzsche. The topic of the descent of desconstrucionism from Nietzsche would seem more fit for an article on deconstructionism than on left-wing politics. -- Jmabel 04:39, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Nietzsche is not best used as a example of the left. He was quite revoloutionary, and aggresive, things not shared by all leftists. But the nihilism which he shared with postmodernism and left-wing politics (really any form of moral relativism) is clear. He rejected God, stating "God is dead". And he provided the underlying philosophies for both humanism and Nazism. A mention of him here is necessary. Jack 06:03, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's wrong to mention him here, but it seems to me that if the reference is to remain, then the relevance should be explained in the article rather than just stated. I agree with the relevance of Nietzsche to post-modernism (especially in the form of deconstruction). Still, insofar as he was political, Nietzsche is a very slippery figure. Surely the tendency toward atheism and other similar anti-religious and anti-clerical views on the political left owes more to Voltaire and Marx than to Nietzsche. As for moral relativism, yes, clearly Nietzsche is an important figure in the history of moral relativism, but this is an article on left-wing politics, not on moral relativism. Are you saying that left-wing politics are inherently morally relativistic? I think that would be a difficult case to make, and certainly a controversial one.

As I say, I'm not objecting to this view being brought out, but its worth giving it some expansion and clarity. -- Jmabel 07:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be bold! Jack 01:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, Jack, you're the one arguing for the relevance; I gather it's your little darling, so I think you should expand on it in the article. Being bold, I'd just kill it, replacing "Nietzschean" by "deconstructionist". I gather you don't want that and I don't think either of us wants an edit war, which is why I gave fair warning here in the talk page. I could try to split the difference, but I bet you'll be happier with the result if it's your own edit. -- Jmabel 07:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nah, do what you like. I don't edit war if I can in any way help it. If I don't like what you put there, I'll edit it myself. My understandning of left-wing politics is from an outside perspective. I can see the influence on Nietzsche, for example, but I fear that if I expressed too clearly how I feel he has been involved (the brutal nihilism of atheism, moral relativism, and postmodernism, for example) I would probably do more harm than good, and likely bring a horde of neo-communists down opon my head ;). Jack 22:57, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've done my best to put an NPOV digest of the case you are making into the article. I have a feeling that it is going to be seen as bordering on trolling, though. -- Jmabel 02:32, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wow, good job, no edits needed (IMO). What do you mean by the trolling bit? Do you think telling the truth is overly provocative to the PC amongst us... berhaps there needs to be a PC-pedia for just such folks! hehehehe.... Jack 02:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What do I mean by trolling? Simple. I've now put in the article, as NPOV as I could without serious research a "some people say", which is true enough, but where I don't particularly agree with what they say. I do agree that moral relativism is more common on the left than the right, but I don't see anything bad about moral relativism, at least as long as it stays short of nihilism. I think moral absolutists are often rather dangerous people: religious extremists, for example. (I also don't see moral relativism as necessarily Nietzschean, although his concept of the "genealogy of morals" is certainly a thread into contemporary moral relativism. I think Hegelian dialecticism (which is not, in itself, particularly left or right) also leads to a certain moral relativism, unless you believe you are living at the end of history.

As for "god is dead": well, I'm an athiest myself, more of the Voltairian "god is a superstition" viewpoint than the Nietzschean "god is dead" viewpoint. I don't think atheism is particularly more widespread on the US left than on the US right, maybe a 15% rather than a 5% opinion, or something like that, the US being a lousy place to be an atheist in any case: I'm a lot more at home in that respect in much of Europe. But still, there are plenty of religious leftists: look at liberation theology, for example. I will agree that the right is bigger on public displays of religiosity, but those are hardly a moral matter by any sane standard. -- Jmabel 03:10, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, as I see it you did the opposite of trolling. You became aware of a less than perfectly expressed POV different than your own within the article, and rather than simply deleting it (that would be deletionism) you posted a question regarding it on the talk page, amazingly enough reasonably discussed the subject with someone who actually held the POV you disagreed with (absolutist/theist here), and at their suggestion (and after suggesting I try), you made an excellent NPOV edit. At least thats how I see it :) Trolling would have involved alot more abuse, illogical argument, and POV stuck all thru the article. Jack 08:55, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I AM left wing, according to that political compass test ;) Jack 22:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neo-leftism

The newly added "Neo-leftism in China" seems, at a quick read, like good material, but this article seems the wrong place for it. Is there somewhere more appropriate we could put it, get it down to a few sentences here and a link? -- Jmabel 07:19, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I copied it to Neo-leftism, you can trim what is here if you feel it necessary. I don't know a thing about it, outside of what I read here, BTW ;) Sam Spade 07:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

typo correction - I think...

In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the section "History of the term" I added the word "be" to the following sentence right after the word "ways" because it just didn't read right to me the way it was. I suspect this was just a typo and "be" was inadvertently left out but maybe I am reading the sentence wrong somehow.

The "left" of 1789 would, in some ways [be] part of the present-day "right", liberal with regard to the rights of property and intellect, but not embracing notions of distributive justice, rights for organized labor, etc.

Yes, thanks, my typo. -- Jmabel 18:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

NAACP removed from list of U.S. leftist groups

As far as I know, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People still claims to be "outside politics" and thus the link's placement here is inappropriate. Even if you are convinced the NAACP is a leftist group, I think there is little reason in this case not to give them the benefit of the doubt. Also, the link doesn't add much to begin with. -- Spleeman 11:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leftism, Pacifism and "War on Terror"

The section "Leftism, Pacifism and 'War on Terror'" seems to be degenerating into a very POV not-quite-rant. I'm busy elsewhere, but someone should take this on with NPOV in mind. -- Jmabel 11:31, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of the information in this section needs to be factchecked, and refactored into other articles on the anti-"War on Terror" movement, and this section restricted to just dealing with the Left itself. Pyrop 22:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Given the titles of sections here such as "Leftism and the Soviet Union", "Leftism and postmodernism" etc there is certainly a place here to discuss about leftism and the anti-war movement (no dispute that they are highly connected to each other) and the relationship between left-wing groups and Islam (it is a problamatic relationship but it excists). MathKnight 00:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Its a very interesting relationship, and one which Ann Coulter explores in her recent book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Sam [Spade] 01:30, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would hope we can all agree that Ann Coulter is a polemical writer and not particularly a scholar. -- Jmabel 02:39, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of her expertise and various qualities, she makes an interesting point. The american left is clearly not chauvanistic, and in fact err's on the part of siding w the enemy, rather than on the side of patriotic nationalism. Sam [Spade] 02:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)