Talk:Left-wing politics

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[1] or Google Scholar[2] 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[3], The history and future of the American left[4] 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,[5] 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)

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.