Talk:Left–right political spectrum
![]() | Politics C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Conservatism C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
Neutrality?
Most of the article is fair but it seems to be a left-leaning article. No one on the right states that plutocracy is on the right, only the left states that so that should be revised. As well fascists is disputed, historically only compared to communism has it been called right wing and it has been common to refer to fascism as the radical center. Right anarchism is not mentioned, also referred to as anarcho capitalism or individualist anarchy. Left wing nationalism is not mentioned, only right wing nationaiism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.216 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Articles must reflect sources. If you have sources that describe the topic differently then please provide them. TFD (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Rebalancing
A major edit, this.
First, I have replaced a lot of 'X observed Y' with 'X claimed Y' or similar.
Second, 'Reactionary', by definition, is neither left nor right - it depends on what is being reacted against. - deleted as a type of 'right'
Third, on 'differences' The idea that "The main factor dividing left and right in Western Europe is class" is a piece of Marxist dogma and should be self-evidently absurd. Marxisms is not electorally significant in Western Europe, and yet, somehow, a left-right division remains.
I have written a brief para outlining the high-level disagreement between left and right. The key issue is that saying nationalism or capitalism are left or right misses the point - they have been both depending on the circumstances. A proper explanation has to start by talking about how these sorts of issues are symptoms of the deeper difference in approach. Otherwise you get an article claiming that free trade is a right wing project, when for most of European history it was a progressive project
I have deleted the whole section "Parties in the political spectrum'. I know this is harsh, but read my reasoning, First, it appears to be almost entirely a summary of the argument made by one book. Far too much of this is simple taken as fact rather than as argument. The second paragraph is a truism The third is almost entirely nonsense. The first 'parties' in the UK formed in the 18th century (and arguably earlier), not the 19th. The idea that conservative parties 'have only been able to achieve power in cooperation with other parties" is self-evidently untrue. The first communist parties formed FAR before the first world war. Many Green parties are explicitly socialist. And so on. I have no problem with an accurate discussion of this issue, but this is simple rubbish.