Talk:Far-left politics

History by country?

I took a look at this article. I find it perhaps too short, but actually not bad. The lead is similar to the lead of far-right politics, which I think is probably appropriate. I notice that far-right politics has a history by country section. I think this article should have something similar. This could in turn go into genocides in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cambodia, for example, just as the far-right article goes into the Rwandan genocide. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The basic problem is that if you type "far right" into Google books, you get thousands of results, type in "far left" and you get nothing. The term far right and similar ones were coined to group a number of similar but unrelated groups, such as Italian neo-fascists and American Klansmen. But that problem did not happen for the Left, which is made up of related groups. So this article is about how the term far left is used. TFD (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a reason this is not done. Unlike the fascist movement, the far-left is composed of many different groups, often with wildly different ideologies. Even within the Stalinist branch which ruled over China, North Korea and the USSR there is a lot of variation in ideology and action. Cambodia is in many ways the exact opposite of Stalinism, and in some ways even the opposite of communism due to its repressive and ultranationalist nature. These branches, in turn, cannot even be compared to modern far-left politics, which often does away with authoritarianism, pursuing either a libertarian or idealist society. Thus, to add a summary by country is oversimplification to the point of becoming propaganda. Lucydesu (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is a farce

You will not find a single political science textbook that accepts "far-left" as a scientific term. This article should be deleted. 120.22.38.19 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in this article which use this term. — Czello 07:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

None of which explicitly define WHAT far left politics is, which is a farce. Anyone who had actually studied political science would tell you how much of a farce this article is and why it should be deleted. In fact this entire article is a hypothetical which goes against Wikipedia policy itself particularly Wikipedia:CRYSTAL on point four (4) in particular

"Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections."

On that basis alone this article due to its speculative nature should be entirely deleted... "Far Left" is not a term any political scientist would use (and it is a science, generally falling under systems science, due to the relationship with the way systems science, and systems theory works in general) however hard it is to observe what the machinations of politics do at a scientific level beyond qualitative analysis. There are literal effects on the world around us or "system" aka "biosphere" due to the results of politics. "Far Leftt" is just not a term any man of science actually uses though... Even this article states that it IS NOT clearly well defined enough yet.

Quoting reason enough itself for the article not to be here from the article itself

"The term does not have a single, coherent definition." --120.22.14.186 (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there is a term called "far-left" which is notable and used widely, given how well sourced it is. The fact that there isn't a single unifying definition doesn't mean the term doesn't exist or isn't notable - nor that we shouldn't discuss it. Indeed, part of the purpose of the article is to discuss the fact that it might not have a singular definition. — Czello 08:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

A lack of coherency often indicates a lack of cogent thought on the matter, lots of people have speculated about the term far left, but the frequency of its use (which often tells us a lot scientifically) in actual studies is usually in places such as Fox News and other non-mainstream news sources where it comes up far more frequently. And yes, frequency is something we can study scientifically in political science pretty much under any studying of cultural anthropology actually where frequency and terms specific to ideologies and politics often come up, along with views about conservatism, liberalism and many other things (and what makes these things). My argument is such, that while it may be a term, it's not a very good one, and using terms spuriously that have very little cogent and coherent meaning is often dangerous at best, and life threatening at worst (as we've already seen with the far right politics of this world) that come up with these bastardisations of terms. Just look at the January 6 riots or the Christchurch mosque shootings to see where misuse of terms actually gets us when some idiot (even the former President of the United States) takes misuse of terms way too far. That is why this topic lacks usefulness (and is dangerous) to the vast majority of the world.

If you missed the message misusing terms leads to ideologues (people who take ideologies too far) and bigots that do dangerous and stupid things. that much is self evident. Trying to create an alternate reality where an equivocal far left exists in the same sphere of influence as the far right (which is an actual thing) is dangerous and foolhardy at best... Even the Bay of Pigs Crisis (mostly spurred on by the United States) never killed nearly as many people, as in general, most, if not all modern conflicts have been spurred on by those from the far right, and even when it does lead to someone like Fidel or Raúl Castro these people are not nearly as dangerous or stupid as their right wing equivalent.

AND FYI, no this isn't a spurious matter off the top of my head, people have written entire books about this issue such as Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics with far more weight than my own voice about the moral bankruptcy of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and conservative iealogues in general who use these terms. --120.22.28.205 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that defining this term is challenging but the same can be said about thousands of other Wikipedia articles. That is why it is entirely appropriate to write in articles, "some reliable sources define the topic as A while other sources define the topic as B, or less commonly as C. An assertion that this topic lacks usefulness (and is dangerous) to the vast majority of the world should be ignored by all serious Wikipedia editors. We care not at all about Righting great wrongs terminology like "usefulness" or "dangerousness". We summarize what reliable sources say, period, end of story. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to right a great wrong though I'm here to point out why this article is stupid. As per the assertions on P. 147 of the book I mentioned about the tribalism of the modern media landscape and the ongoing cultural war like the failed war on drugs which was nothing more than another conservative attack on progressive people. The assertion as per P. 147 is that the radical left (another term for far left) is built into technology as per the preeminent discussion that it may be the "built in" perspective on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, that swirls around every US election cycle (without much evidence in terms of results to show that's the case by the way). These are problematic facts of trying to define any "far left" or whether it exists, in fact, as another analysis the author I suggested talks about "communicative capitalism" and using the media landscape to construct an alternative narrative which we know for a fact does happen through people like Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch Press and the endless scandals that eventually plagued orginisations such as News of the World... Which by any assertion presents me as a person of the middle of the road that is highlighting how dangerous and nefarious this term "far left" actually is... and before you ask there are a million and one other precedents I could use as example to support my position so don't go there that it's just one man standing on a soap box. It isn't. It does highlight the strong link between capitalism, money and being able to buy a conservative perspective that "ultra-left nationalists" may be hiding under your bed though... which is the problem with the term "far left" and where it stems from (in the modern sense). --120.22.28.205 (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In order to add any content about highlighting how dangerous and nefarious this term "far left" actually is, we need references to high quality reliable sources making that assertion. Claims made by random people on the internet, whether you or me or anyone else, must be ignored on Wikipedia. Our role as Wikipedia editors is to summarize published reliable sources, not to spout our own opinions. This is firmly established, and non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I just sumarised a position actually (with a page number) you can go and investigate for yourself, that says exactly what I'm saying, in far less words, in one of these amazing things called "credible sources" i.e. a book... Maybe you could try clicking on the link I placed above to said book where you can read the information I sumarised into the ideas presented in said book. I didn't rely on my own (quite extensive) thoughts, but a literal direct paraphrase of the general argument presented on P.147 of said book above. the good news is that p. 147 of said book which clarifies the matter I stated above is available for free. --120.22.28.205 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So what exactly are you proposing here? If it's still deletion of the article I can say that won't happen - despite disagreement on what the term means, it is a term that is used, rather notably so; indeed, part of the article discusses the fact it might not be precise. If, however, you're now just proposing a quote it's a quote from the aforementioned book - well I should think we could add that with attribution. — Czello 09:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the one that I've raised as per what is outlined in the book "communicative capitalism" and the use of the term "far left" in the modern sense (particularly in America) as a pejorative, widely used by media sources (e.g. the Murdoch Press) as I outlined above, to literally do nothing but muck raking. I think that at least deserves to be explained in this article, as it's a well known fact. I could sumarise it myself, but I don't have an account here, because I often feel, due to how difficult it is to interact with Wikipedians, that having an account here is often a waste of my intelligence.

I mean at the very least the perspective that it is a pejorative is a widely held belief (beyond myself) that can be atributed by multiple sources (even beyond the one I mentioned). That fact needs to be at least represented in this article.

Quite personally I maintain the fact that far left is a farce, but it doesn't seem you want to come on board with that, even if I provide you the evidence as such. Just because a term is widely used does not mean it is not farcical thought. --120.22.83.117 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the vast majority of current usage of the term in Western media is as a meaningless pejorative. That does not mean that the term has no actual meaning. With adequate sourcing, I think the wide usage as a pejorative used against anyone not on the far-right should be added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What an interesting discussion. I'll start by saying that statements such as "having an account here is often a waste of my intelligence" does little to advance any discussion, given that most of us here do have accounts. I am also one of those who is alternately amused and concerned about the use of the term “far left” in the media. But the same could be said about the term “socialist,” as in “Joe Biden is pushing the socialist agenda.” However this does not mean that wikipedia should remove the Socialist article. So user 120.22.83.117|120.22.83.117, I would be very interested to see you really have a go at the article, you do not need an account to do that, and use your intelligence and sources on the article rather than on the talk page. Carptrash (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary": "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title."

Speakers use the term far left to refer to positions that more left-wing than what they consider acceptable. Hence Soviet Communists refered to Maoists are far left, while Fox News presenters refer to Joe Biden as far left.

The solution would seem to be to say that it is a term that means different things depending on the speakers and leave out the details of everything that could be conceivably referred to as far left.

TFD (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Soviet Communists refered to Maoists are far left." Never heard that in my life, have you got a source for that? The Sino-Russian relationship is complex but in general the two sides are and always have been quite favorable to eachother and would be reported as such in most media sources, and journal articles, dating way back to when the Maoists took over mainland China. Now if you're talking about what Taiwan (which is the actual China that evacuated to the island of Taiwan) thinks about China or Russia that's a very different story, but you said China not Taiwan. --120.22.83.117 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that "far left" is a concept, it appears frequently in the media and I also think that the Soviet-China example is not such a good one. In fact, (opinion) a bad one. Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of Maoists outside China, such as in the New Communist movement. While I cannot find a source at the moment, here are some examples of Communists referring to people to their left: "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Left Opposition, Left communism in China (aka "ultra-left").

Anyway, since far left is not an encyclopedic topic, we can only rely on our own experience and research to determine how the term is used. Maybe someday someone will write an academic article about the topic so we can put it into the article. But there is no reason for having an article for every possible juxtaposition of an adjective and a noun. Some people for example might describe Elizabeth Warren as very liberal. But that doesn't mean we need an article about very liberalism. TFD (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Just like we do not really need an article on the term far left, but it is here anyway, right? I mean by that logic... Look, the term IS problematic, ill defined, troublesome as I have pointed out through better experience than my own, and not really definitive of anything except political diatribe. I have never once heard anyone self-reference themselves as “far-left” or their ideology as far left, in any serious nature, and I do not think anyone ever will because it is just not really a term that is used by anyone other than far right extremists. Anyway, Marxism at its core is completely unproblematic as it has never really been tested in the way Marx or Engels intended it to be tested, and for all the pseudo-babel in the world going on here for god sake... I will highlight a point that is notable to this concept of far left as below:

Marx himself like other later revolutionary thinkers such as Keynes were only really testing their theories on economics as Marx did in his most prolific book Das Kapital (which was nothing more than a critique otherwise known as an analysis) which is really just a prediction of what is going on now which is Late capitalism and on the basis of that point, where people were assumed would get sick of capitalism considering we are all getting shafted by it as Marx predicted. It does turn out instead that the world is full of Sadomasochism and some people gather sexual arousal and gratification from being shafted as per the fifth addition of the DSM (DSM-5) by forces outside of their control (to meet the current definition of sadomasochism).

And I refer to the current interpretation anyways, of late stage capitalism, not the one Marx created when he was talking about it (I am not a Marxist). I am, however, a person with a degree in political science who understands what Marx was actually getting at and not the diatribe about communists hiding underneath your bed and yes as a person with a degree in political science I understand political sociology and how to read, interpret, and apply the DSM to this mess which is really just a critique on fascism and the Fasces (sometimes referred to as an axe) which is wielded over people's heads as a form of control (particularly in the United States where you will work, or you will die). This comparison was not achieved by me, but the world famous and highly reputable Atlantic journal in the article on this link.

It was McCarthyism that made Marx a swear word and nothing else and, to be frank, McCarthyism is nothing more than propaganda. There is nothing credible that makes Karl Marx a swear word today, the core of the concept has just been eroded by a bunch of hapless idiots who no longer have any reference point for what Marx was actually about. They read Marx as if its some kind of Manchurian prophecy of the assassination of society as we know it, when in reality it is a social analysis of why the people on the bottom level of any capitalism system are always going to be screwed by the 1% who own the wealth and all the tools to make wealth... Read without the bullshit, there is nothing wrong with Das Kapital and it is a fine analysis of where we are today. --120.22.83.117 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"where you will work, or you will die" Considering the country's overly expensive and inadequate healthcare system, that should probably be "you will work and you will die" or "you will work until your last breath". Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably the second one in actuality, if you don't have a good pension fund in the United States you will work until you die and then there is no guarantee even if that's the case due to chapter 11 you will ever receive your entitlements (unlike Australia). Living in the United States is much more like living with the burden of planning for a highly burdened, self managed Superannuation in Australia and then there is not even a guarantee in the United States that you will ever have a good enough job to achieve that either... and here we are decrying the left in this article as if its evil --120.22.86.177 (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• I mean, the article basically says that? The second sentence is The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to represent the left of social democracy, while others limit it to the left of communist parties. And the bulk of the article is saying "scholars don't agree on a single definition for the far-left" and then listing the various conflicting definitions they've proposed. Most sourcing covers this problem - the term is used to mirror "far-right" but lacks the same concrete meaning for a variety of reasons, mostly relating to the far-left encompassing far more things. But there's still enough coverage of the term to write an article saying these things. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "far left" as I mostly see it does not mean left of the Communist Party, not when it is employed, as was the case with Kamala Harris who " critics were quick to label her as far left." Also, I don't think it was Sen McCarthy who made Marx a swear word he just tapped into a pool that was already there. The same pool the "far left" users are drawing from. Carptrash (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

When I raised issue with this article the vast majority of my complaint was that the article fell under the rules based on crystal balls by stating that the vast majrity of this article is a hypothesis, in the worst sense. We're not here to create articles on what something "may" be to quote Wikipedia on what wikipedia is not:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions."

This comes from the literal policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not by the way, so I'm not going out swinging on some "branch too far."

I feel points three (3) and points four (4) are most relevant:

3. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on weapons in Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.

4.Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

I feel like the vast majority of this article is a projection in the worst possible sense, taken from the Oxford dictionary "the unconscious transfer of one's desires or emotions to another person" and while this may not be intentional, I still feel that's the type of projection going on here. --120.22.13.74 (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• A radical proposal. Let us just use RS and ignore the PAs. Not only does this follow PAG, it's easy as the article already does this. Although, with adequate sourcing, I think the wide usage as a pejorative used against anyone not on the far-right should be added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

A bare minimum would be to include the fact that the way the term is often used largely as a pejorative, I think we can find a consensus point on that. Sometimes such radical proposals are not so bad. --120.22.13.74 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)