Talk:Left-wing nationalism

Merge with Nationalism

1. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This article meets notability standards, and is not a "dictionary entry." This is a distinct topic, with a great ddeal of material which has been in it. Oppose merge. Collect (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also oppose all the removal of prior discussion from this page as violative of WP protocol. Peole should be albe to read the prior posts here. The prior proposal was only removed all of one month ago. If there was no support for this merge a month ago, it is unlikely that it has support now. Collect (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There has never been a proposal to merge with Nationalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The article on nationalism isn't much better and is 31K, which is large enough to support sub-topics. Topics of this sort seem likely to sprawl and ramble and so it seems sensible to prefer a tighter focus. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Not even remotely a dictionary entry, but clearly an article about a topic. There's a lot more to be said, but it's a good start. DGG (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This topic is notable, and Nationalism is big enough and would be overly large if the material here were to be merged back in. Guidelines are that when the parent article gets too big, if the issue is notable, a sub-article should be spun out, with a short summary in the parent. Both articles badly need to be cleaned up, but that's not a reason to merge. LK (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge While this topic is indeed notable, their are no links to it from Nationalism. Much of the size of the article is reduced when one takes out the introduction (which is largely repetitive of what is in nationalism), and the list of organizations which can be merged with List of nationalist conflicts and organizations. In addition, left wing nationalism is a classification of nationalism, and the nationalism page already includes several other classifications, so why should this be any different? ClockSpire (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There is no generally accepted concept of left-wing nationalism. It is not a defined ideology and there is no academic literature about it. Certainly the term has been used but not in a consistent or agreed manner. Basically this article is a list of political movements or parties that are both left-wing and nationalist. Unfortunately there is no universal agreement of the meanings of those terms either. Therefore this entire article violates "no original research" (WP:NOR) and "no synthesis" (WP:SYN). The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Four Deuces, please don't go back over the deletion discussion. Left-wing nationalism is also called "left nationalism", and it is often discussed in scholarly sources, e.g. [1][2][3] On a topic when it is easy to rattle off examples such as the Irish Republicanism, the Basque nationalists, Civil War Catalonia, Milosevic's regime, the SNP, Plaid, you need a good reason to get rid of it. Left nationalism is distinct from right-wing nationalism, and deserves separate treatment. Fences&Windows 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find any definition of left-wing nationalism in any of these sources, nor is the term used consistently. If you want to keep this as a separate article it would be helpful if you added a definition to the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm not sure what to say about this one. I was initially opposed to merging or deleting the article because there are a few sources that acknowledge a different strand of nationalism with leftist attitudes, but preserving the article as it is now would imply that right-wing nationalism is its opposite pole, and I have yet to come upon an exact definition of what that is (equating general nationalism with right-wing nationalism, as our current situation implies, is nonsensical). So I respectfully bow down to neutrality on this one. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I oppose the merge, however I think the main Nationalism article should include something about Left-wing nationalism(s) under the "Types of nationalism" section. Same for the Types of nationalism article. -- Mathieugp (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• 'Oppose Merge*

I oppose the merge but I also think that it is important to recognise that both types are nationalism. It would be lying to say that they are the same or that they are completly diffrent. While Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is important to relise that people will want to research things separetly. If you are doing something on right-wing nationalism then you don't want to read through alot of stuff on left wing nationalism and vise verser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Bookworm (talk • contribs) 00:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I oppose the merge, and I plan to add something about Left-wing nationalism under the "Types of nationalism" section of the Nationalism article. Benny K (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the edits on Israel and Cuba because they lacked reliable sources and were original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge While the topic may be a large one, which can potentially take up a considerable amount of space in the article, "Left Wing Nationalism" is a type of nationalism, and therefore, must be placed under the article of "Nationalism" For example, one cannot create a seperate article for "Ham sandwich", when there is already a "Sandwich" article.--68.205.75.12 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Ham sandwich. Fences&Windows 00:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge- This is a very big and important topic, which must have its own page. Ive removed the merge tag.Willy turner (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please

write a paragraph about the diferences of Left-wing nationalism and National Sociolism (Naziism) cause a lot of peple don't see it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Lenf Wing Nationalism and Nazism are indeed different. Nazism fits more into the Fascism category of political ideologies, while Left Wing Nationalism has been historically charactesized by Communism and Stalinism. FAscism and Nazism are separate at the moment, and Nazism has its own seperate article, therefore there is no need to state any difference at the moment. If you would like to tedit the article and, with sources, explain the difference, it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.75.12 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding the Bellamy cousins to the North America section of Left-wing Nationalism

The current North American section is only representing Canada, and I believe that there were active left-wing nationalists in the US. The cousins Francis and Edward Bellamy are prime examples. Francis wrote the Pledge of Allegiance and Edward started a "Nationalist" movement in the late 1800s. Below I list sources and block-quotes that back up these assertions:

Francis Bellamy [4]

Francis Julius Bellamy (May 18, 1855 – August 28, 1931) was an American Baptist minister and Christian Socialist[1] who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.

Edward Bellamy [5]

Edward Bellamy was born March 26, 1850 in Chicoppee Falls, Massachusetts. Son and grandson of Baptist ministers, Bellamy studied law and worked briefly in the newspaper industry in New York and in Springfield, Massachusetts. Although he published four novels and several essays in his lifetime, he is remembered most for his 1888 work Looking Backward, 2000-1887 and it was this novel which influenced the formation of the Nationalist political movement and several accompanying utopian living experiments during the 1890's. The novel became so popular that by 1900 only Uncle Tom's Cabin had sold more copies.

Looking Backward, certainly considered by many as within the genre of utopian fiction, anticipates a future America (the year 2000) of nationalized industry, equal distribution of wealth and the destruction of class divisions--this vision counters the problems Bellamy saw with his contemporary society. In this utopian world, loyalty to the solidarity of the state holds the society together. Bellamy called this philosophy Nationalism. Although his fictional story in Looking Backward is unique, Bellamy owes much of the philosophy behind his vision to an earlier social reformer and author, Laurence Gronlund, who published his treatise The Cooperative Commonwealth: An Exposition of Modern Socialism in 1884. Bellamy's novel gained so much attention after it was published, Gronlund stopped the distribution of his work and endorsed Bellamy's vision as the means to a new socialist society. The combined vision of Gronlund, Bellamy and the soon to be formed Nationalist movement helped to spark several utopian living experiments during the decade.

By late 1888, the first of the Bellamy Nationalist Clubs was formed and the movement soon spread across the country attracting such notable personalities as authors William Dean Howells and Edward Everett Hale. The main purpose of the clubs was to create and promote the practical realization of Bellamy's utopian vision. Members became involved with other reform political groups and the Nationalists were represented at the 1891 Populist Party convention. Eugene Debs, the up and coming Socialist leader, also advocated some of Bellamy's programs. However, the Nationalist movement stressed an evolutionary not revolutionary approach to social change. A small group of educated leaders, not masses of laborers or workers, would usher in the new society. This attitude alienated some of the more radical Socialist and Populist supporters of Nationalism. Despite temporary solidarity with these groups, the Nationalist movement lost popularity and was essentially dead by 1894.

So if nothing else, I nominate that the Bellamy cousins be added to this article.

DaveRazz (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another problem, it doesn't even mention the significance of Canadian nationalism which both historically and presently is a significant factor in Canada's political culture. The section on Canada, only mentions Quebec nationalism. Canadian nationalism as a political phenomenon is also largely associated as a leftwing or at least centre-left ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.55.244 (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You need a source that specifically discusses left-wing nationalism in Canada. Merely stating that there are leftists in Canada and there are nationalists and some people are both is synthesis. Note that the term "left-wing nationalism" was specifically coined to describe the unique form of nationalism in Quebec that was developed by the PQ and others.. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bellamy used "nationalist" in a different sense than is typical. Basically he was calling for centralized, national government and ownership of industry - nationalization. It was different than nationalism in the sense of enthusiastic support for a national entity or group. It was also different from socialism in that it wasn't necessarily calling for nationalization as a means to worker emancipation (although it predicted that nationalization would solve the "labor problem").108.3.147.98 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections

I have removed all sections that lacked any references. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a lead to describe the concept developed by the Milners in 1973 which they called "left-wing nationalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are the Nazis?

Shouldn't there be a mention of the national socialism? I think that would be the most obvious example of "left wing " (socialist) "nationalism" (in its most extreme form).--71.201.136.52 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly confused about your history and your ideologies. Nazism is a syncretic movement mixing elements of left and right. In practice, there was very little socialism in the Nazi government. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents must have reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazis should be on here I agree but so should black nationalist movements like the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.102.239 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Why fought Catalan left-wing nationalists Franco, when he was supported by German fascists? Why they have fought someone who should have the similar ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.76.86.57 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What is left-wing nationalism?

The definition in the lead is not supported by the source, which is a chapter called Nationalism and the Left.[6] In fact the term appears nowhere in the book. The only definition I could find for the term was from the Milners who wrote about Quebec. But it excludes most of the political groups described in the article. I will therefore put up an original research tag. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is in the book. This is what it is based on

• “For most of that century, nationalism was associated with the revolutionary rhetoric of popular sovereignty and used most effectively by the left, which was out of power. In the 1880s, however, after the creation of the Third Republic, nationalism became the preferred weapon of the new regime’s right-wing critics. Bonapartism, hostile to liberty but parasitic on the doctrine of popular sovereignty, provided an important bridge between left-wing and right-wing nationalism.” Pp. 17, Contemporary France: a democratic education, [7]

• “Popular sovereignty, national self-determination, and nationalism were linked doctrines. All soon became identified with the Revolution, but each was ambiguously related to liberty, understood as requiring the organized competition of ideas and interests, the limitation of public power through checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights.” Pp. 20

• “The citizen-soldiers of the Revolution’s promise of “liberty, equality, fraternity” in their rucksacks; theirs, they were told, was a war not of expansion, but of self-defense and then of liberation.” Pp. 20, describing Revolutionary France's war with Prussia in 1792.

These are the sections that I used for the definition.--R-41 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is synthesis. The author explains that both the Left and Right in France have adopted nationalism at various times but does not identify an ideology or movement called "left-wing nationalism. Also, the book is about the politics of France and the author does not generalize to other countries, as the Milners did. Furthermore, they are using the term "Left" in a way that cannot be applied to other countries. Essentially it is the political groups opposed to the Right. Over time some of these groups joined the Right, notably orleanists, bonapartists and radicals. New groups joined the Left, notably socialists and communists. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the question that is being raised by the discussion above is this one: Is the article Left-wing nationalism meant to treat of nationalism(s) on the left generally or of a particular conception of nationalism specifically termed Left-wing nationalism by various authors? Like all Wikipedia articles, the starting point before we even consider anything like a development plan is the definition. It seems to me that describing all nationalisms on the left (or how some left-wing political movements and thinkers have defined and conceived a positive nationalism they could approve of) is a huge subject. It is a challenge, but in the end it will help to demystify nationalism a great deal by contrasting the experience of it in all parts of the world. -- Mathieugp (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We cannot have an article about nationalists who happen to be left-wing or vice versa unless we have evidence that it is a clearly defined concept in academic writing. (See: WP:SYN). The Four Deuces (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the term left-wing nationalism has ever been developed as a separate and organic ideology, the fact is that there were (and are) leftists who absorbed a certain type of nationalism in their communism, socialism, liberalism or anarchism. Their particular nationalism followed left-wing practices, obviously, like non-aggression towards other nations or other national minorities, individual liberty and interventionism - most of which are not present in what we'd call right-wing nationalism. The article still looks like original research to me, but there's no denying that the current of left-wing nationalism does exist. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a way to find left-wing nationalisms as clearly defined concepts among the many Google book previews here:

"left nationalism" (628)

"left-wing nationalism" (632)

"socialist nationalism" (647)

"social democratic nationalism" (104)

"communist nationalism" (690)

"neo nationalism" (825)

-- Mathieugp (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Milners identified Chinese communism as left-wing nationalism but it does not fit the description of "non-aggression towards other nations or other national minorities, individual liberty". Both Israel's Golda Meir and the PLO's Yassar Arafat were left-wing and nationalist, but no one would argue that they both meet that definition. Mathieugo, I have used the search engines and only found the Milners's description. If there is another definition, then it would be helpful if a source could be provided. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I found various bits here and there: [8], [9], [10]. I'll keep searching to try to find something better. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Political thought in Canada uses the term left nationalism to describe nationalism in Quebec, which is the subject of the Milner's book. "The revival of Black nationalism" describes nationalism among African Americans which was also discussed in the Milners' book. The use of the term in Specters of 1919 seems similar to the use in the Milners' book: "The "left" nationalism of the Bolsheviks, calling for colonial emancipation from imperialism..." although it seems they were at core leftists who used nationalism for political advantage. In any case none of these sources provide a definition. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be renamed "The Left and Nationalism." Bobisbob2 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the sources I provided for left-wing nationalism were good, they were from one source, but fine, if they are a synthesis, another source needs to be found. But DON'T jump to the conclusion that left-wing nationalism does not exist or that it is irrelevant. Left-wing nationalism is important in history because it has been an integral part of many states in the Non-aligned movement such as Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito and India under Jawaharlal Nehru.--R-41 (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You still must have a definition for left-wing nationalism drawn from reliable sources. It seems that calling Tito and Nehru nationalists may be contentious - they ruled multi-national states and were opposed by nationalists. I agree with Bobisbob2's suggestion which would eliminate synthesis in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, who says non-synthetic labels cannot have their own articles? We could keep the current title but have the opening sentence be Thoughout recent history some left-wing ideologies and movements have adopted nationalism. That would also eliminate synthesis. Bobisbob2 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to have doubts here. My understanding of left-wing nationalism would be that it is an actual type of nationalism, in which the proponents envision the betterment of a nation as implying/needing the radical social changes which a particular left-wing ideology proposes for all humanity. I would call nationalist left however an actual left-wing ideology probably derived from Marxist thought, that has been "merged" with aspects of nationalism, possibly to better meet the concerns of people who are motivated by concrete action within the nation. One would be a nationalist thought, possibly derived from secular humanism or some religious thought, springing from enlightened patriotism and not chauvinism, agreeing in essence with what some or all leftists are saying, yet not really rooted in the same philosophy. The other springs from one of the multiple ideological systems of the organized left trying a) to cope with nationalism (honestly or not) or b) to derive political gains from it by appealing to the non-bourgeois nationalists or maybe the simply hard-working patriot worker or farmer more concerned day-to-day with his family and his immediate community than the faith of the whole of humanity in the year 3012. -- Mathieugp (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a good distinction and they are very different concepts. The Milners' view was that Quebec nationalism had been right-wing as represented by the Union Nationale. But following the Quiet Revolution and the decline of tradional institutions like the church, Quebec nationalists found that left-wing policies were the best way to protect Quebecois culture and to organize as the PQ. The NDP on the other hand may find nationalism helpful if they see the US as a threat to social democracy in Canada. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

This article reads more like a political polemic than anything. Is anyone going to seriously argue that nationalism is ever "based on equality"? The only clear linking factor between these apparently "good" nationalisms is that they promote other left wing political objectives, in particular prior to 1990 the USSR's foreign policy. HMS Vanguard (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalists all over the world sure tend to think their nationalism is "based on equality". Take for example this 1920 speech by Eamon De Valera entitled The moral basis of the claim of the Republic of Ireland for official recognition[11]. As far as I know, this equal right to self-determination of the people of every nation argument is to be found at the core of most nationalisms except maybe when those nationalisms have turned into imperialisms (of whatever kind) and claim for one nation what they refuse to others. -- Mathieugp (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism is seperatist. It supports political divisions, based upon some (usually fairly arbitrary) distinction between people. It may be geographic, or racial, or ideological, or cultural, or whatever, and it may be somewhat permeable, but without the notion of difference nationalism falls apart. I'm sure many do also support other seperatist groups forming other exclusive political structures, but I'm not sure how this changes that. Many white nationalists, who want to deport all recent immigrants and their families, are happy for these people to build ethno-centrist fortresses in their own "native homelands", but it seems pretty ridiculous to me to classify this as an ideology "based on equality". HMS Vanguard (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all you could come up with while trying to disintegrate the ideology of nationalism; white nationalists? I suppose you associate any nationalist ideology with racialist extremism by default, judging by your opinion on nationalism as a whole. Not all nationalists are inherently ethnically or racially obsessed, but they are preoccupied with the welfare of the native population, sometimes along ethnic lines, other times along civic virtues. In the latter case is where the concept of left-wing nationalism comes in. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that nationalism simply amounts to wanting to separate (or remain separate), and that the distinctions for the separation are arbitrary. I do not see what could possibly rationally explain the fear of nationalism but the confusion that some people entertain in their minds between this vast and all encompassing concept and one other thing that is no more logically connected to it than gravity or bananas: hatred of others. Hatred of others feeds on fear of others, which in turn relies on ignorance of others. Ignorance of others is fundamentally ignorance of ourselves as humans, Knowing ourselves as humans implies being aware, acknowledging and respecting our differences. There are multiple ways to attack the humanity of a group of people and one of them is to deny the value of their differences. One way in which small nations, and minority groups inside nations are attacked is by denying the value of their difference, pretexting that we humans are "all the same". Actually, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights postulates the opposite by saying that we are all valuable and unique beings and that our differences should never become a pretext for an State to deny the dignity and the rights of any human person. And just to be clear, as far as I am concern, "white nationalists" are racist individuals who probably did not receive much love in their youth and found a way to hijack the word "nationalism" to mean that they want a State in which only white people (and by that they usually exclude white people who cannot speak English) can have power over other white people. -- Mathieugp (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationalism may also be a way in which "small nations and minority groups" protect themselves from dominant cultures. The fact that Scottish nationalists wish to maintain their legal and educational systems, while preserving their culture and language and exercising self-government on an island where 90% of people are English Is not "bananas hatred of others". The English government has always accepted some degree of difference in Scotland, in contrast to how the French and Spanish governments treated their minorities. Even the US allows Louisiana to use the civil code, despite the fact that the use of the civil code in Quebec was one of the reasons stated for the Declaration of Independence. TFD (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Article needs improvement about National Communism and Galiev

The first faction that is punished by Stalinist regime is National Communism. Their leader was Sultan Galiev and he was accused of being a Pan-Turkist. Although Stalin himself promoted Russian nationalism, he declared that that was Soviet patriotism and other lef-wing nationalists of Tatars, Turks, Georgians or Ukranians were rectionary chauvinists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.196.180 (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Galiev was a religious (islamic) and nationalistic Socialist. And Ceausescu promoted Romanian Nationalism too like Hoxha promoted Albanian Nationalism and Mao did the same with Chinese Nationalism. The regime in North Korea is also nationalistic.--Bernd Winterstille (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not neutral at all

Based on equality and not racism? That is bogus. Left nationalism is based on minority dominance such as the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers.

98.87.102.239 (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Nation of Islam is a racist and islamist movement, which isnt left-wing at all.

Egypt under Nasser?

Nasser was a Leftwing Nationalist too.--Bernd Winterstille (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Revolutionary nationalism from Metapedia:

Is this the same movement? Or the Fascist wing of this movement (strongly attacked by Americans, but not in Ireland)? Probably. The French Wikipedia says: "Le nationalisme de gauche peut se décliner sous des formes autoritaires." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcin862 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Category:Revolutionary nationalism
• Subcategories
• This category has the following 4 subcategories, out of 4 total.

F

• Category:Fascism

N

• Category:National Bolshevism
• Category:National Socialism

T

• Category:Third Position
• Pages in category "Revolutionary nationalism"
• The following 14 pages are in this category, out of 14 total.

E

• European Liberation Front

F

• Fascism (broad sense)
• Frente Nacional Mexicanista

H

• Hugo Chávez

I

• International Third Position

J

• James Connolly

M

• Muammar al-Gaddafi

N

• National Bolshevik Front
• National-Anarchism

P

• Parti Communautaire National-Européen

R

• Russian National Unity

S

• Saddam Hussein
• Strasserism
• Syrian Social Nationalist Party

82.160.114.5 (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Arab, African and post-colonial nationalisms

I believe experts are required. -- Lestaad (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In Poland

The whole Communist party in Poland was somewhat in this movement. Did this lead to the anti-Jewish purge in 1968? Is this movement anti-Semitic? For example, Chavez in Venezuela - Jews have enormous problems there.Marcin862 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Belarus now? This is connected with the whole non-aligned movement, the third way, once strong, now weaker under the impact of globalization, capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement

the nato is left-wing national

the nato is left-wing national — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.66.61 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2018

Left-wing nationalism → Nationalism socialist – Apparently this title only fits in the United States, it is misplaced to say without sources that in the rest of the world the left does not result in socialism. Also the article does not speak of the United States and it is rash that this title with so much less results in google remains on the pretext of the politically correct. 2804:14C:5BB5:91BD:4455:ACEA:6507:FFC7 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)