Talk:Left-wing politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Parties[edit]

It would be nice if there could be added on the page a list of historically most important and current left-wing parties, possibly grouped under different left-wing ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.74.8 (talkcontribs) 10:00, 20 January 2013

the picture of Jacobins killing aristocrats used in general to depict the political left is obscene and slanderous[edit]

the first picture shown is a picture of Jacobins holding pikes with aristocrats' heads on them, this picture is shown in a general paragraph about left-wing politics. it is obscene and slanderous in that this choice of picture is being used as a general depiction of what left-wing politics is. even in the French Revolution there were moderate left-wing groups as well as extremist ones and the extremist ones persecuted the moderate ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.210 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find anything about this picture and will recommend its deletion unless it can be identified. I imagine it represents events of March on the Tuileries, 10 August, 1792. Ironically, the article on Liberalism uses the Women's March on Versailles, 5 October 1789.[1] The articles on capitalism and democracy do not even have pictures of the French revolution. In the women's march, they also put heads on pikes, although we see the before picture. It seems like a dual standard. TFD (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Views[edit]

' More recently in the United States, left-wing and right-wing have often been used as synonyms for Democratic and Republican, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism respectively.'

I have several contentions with this statement.

The statement is mis-sourced

Reference 17 directs to a blog from a Time journalist which contains the following text: RNC chair sends a letter to supporters Tuesday asking for contributions to stop Franken from “stealing” the Minnesota incumbent’s Senate seat.

“I’m no stranger to the gutter campaign tactics and shady legal maneuverings of the Left Wing.”

That is the entirety of the information which can only be understood contextually and does not prove the original statement. Time is a political publication that has been known for several years to push an elite or establishment viewpoint - it is ironic that this is being used on an article on 'The Left'.

Reference 18 details a Spanish judge who tried Bush administration officials under the premise of Universal Jurisdiction. The article does not make one reference to the Democratic party, the only relevant piece of information is 'but rather he intends to cement his reputation as a darling of the Left'. The source is neither from a credible source(ABC cable) or backs up the original statement.

Reference 19 simply says ' reported in Mother Jones, April 29, 2009' - could someone link this with access to the Mother Jones digital archive? This reference as it is does not help or prove anything.

Reference 20 details a study of the brains of supposedy 'left' wing and 'right' wing individuals. 'Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Ok fair enough, but what does this prove?

Does not Represent Views From the Left

If you actually ask someone involved with Left wing politics if they are a Democratic party supporter they would simply laugh you off - seeing as the Democratic party is not left wing at all. People actually involved with the left. Tariq Ali wrote an entire book on how Obama and the Democratic party are no different to the Republican party. Noam Chomsky describes all democrats as 'moderate republicans'. The list goes on. I simply find it disturbing that the article that is supposed to describe the activities of 'the left' in fact misleads the reader into thinking that something like the Democratic party is left wing in the traditional sense. It simply reinforces the dogma(in the Fox News style) that supposed 'liberals'(a non term)are just the counterpart of the right wing in an inclusive, self contained political system.

Either find sources that actually reinforce the point or move it completely. I think there should be some content dealing with the 'real' left wing. KingHiggins (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Cite error: The <ref> tag name cannot be a simple integer (see the help page).

it says that the terms are often used this way, it does not say Democrats are actually left-wing as the term is normally understood. The terms "liberal" and especially "conservative" are also used in non-standard ways. I agree the sourcing could be improved. TFD (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that the reason I have an objection to the paragraph is because that is all the material on left wing politics after Reconstruction. It seems a shame to miss out on a rich vein of history which could lead its reader to think that the Left is simply synonymous with 'Democratic Party'. How about if I drafted a paragraph on post war intellectual thought; I am thinking of people like Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn, Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky and many more. I feel this would bring a more balanced look(without pushing a particular POV). KingHiggins (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Any sourced addition is welcome. On the other hand, I think it is clear that the sentence quoted above has nothing to do with what liberal or leftist or Democrat mean, but rather with the common practice in American news media to use the three words as synonyms, and the same with conservative, right-wing, and Republican. It is commonplace to read a story in, say, Time magazine that begins with something like this: "The Republicans filibustered the Democratic nominee. The liberals did not have the sixty votes needed to overcome the conservative filibuster. This handed a victory to the Right over the Left." Rick Norwood (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"[The left wing] is often in opposition to social hierarchy" if this is true then all forms of government and virtually all forms of organized civilization is not left wing. This is more of a description of anarchism than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.239.214 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

cross-ref to abolitionism in U.S. should be changed[edit]

Social Progressivism cross-ref to "abolitionism in U.S." article should be changed to cross-ref to "abolitionism" Wikipedia article, because abolition of slavery was not only a U.S. phenomena or achievement, and because the other progressive achievements are not just U.S.-centric but, like the "aolitionism" article, are world-wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.6.11 (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources that opposition to slavery was left-wing, it cut across ideological lines. Nor does it make any sense to refer to progressives before the progressive movement (which also cut across ideological lines) was even created. TFD (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Left-of-Centre[edit]

There are various sources on this and other websites as well as in mainstream media and society that refer to the term "leftt-of-centre/center". Would it not be a good idea to include a new section in the main article to define the concept? It seems necessary to me because the terms "centre-leftt", "leftt-of-centre" and "left-wing", while sounding similar, describe materially different political positions. For example, in the European Parliament, there is the centre-left Party of European Socialists (PES) group, the left-of-centre European Green Party (EGP) and the left-wing Party of the European Left (EL). Each of these groups ideologies diverge significantly from on another, as such I believe it would be wise if terms used to describe said ideologies left little room for ambiguity. The term "left-of-centre" could also possibly include some of the parties in the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (ALDE) group as well as parties from elsewhere in the world that subscribe to certain schools of Liberalism. What I would like to see is the political spectrum content on Wikipedia include stand-alone articles for "Left-of-centre politics" as well as "Right-of-centre politics" alongside the established main poltical positions. Though, an alternative, and potentially better solution, seeing as they are both fairly short, could be for the articles Centre-left and Centre-right politics to be expanded and respectively renamed "Centre-left/Left-of-centre politics" and "Centre-right/Right-of-centre politics". If you agree with me, I would appreciate any assistance in this endeavour.

MBFCPresident (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no consensus about even basic Left and Right, much less about more complicated compounds. The best this article can do is present some of the ways left-wing has been used historically and a few of the primary ways it is used today. Trying to distinguish between "centre-left" and "left-of-centre" would, I fear, lead to nit picking. However, as always, if you can find an authoritative academic source, you should recommend it.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting take on what you are saying here: [2] (very recently published). It seems that this issue might need to be expounded upon substantially somewhere in the left / right wing WP articles. Jprw (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no consistency and it is more precise to distinguish the parties by their ideologies, in this case liberal, green, socialist etc. Hard to say the liberals are center-left when many of them are New Right, i.e., supporters of Hayek or Rand. And while both socialists and Left parties call themselves left-wing, Left parties say socialist parties are really right wing, while socialists say Left parties are far left. TFD (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)