Jump to content

Talk:Left-wing politics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lindknecht (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 9 July 2019 (→‎Definition of "left" isn't consistent with the article's content: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Parties

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 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 January 2013

Contemporary 21st opposition to left-wing politics section needed

The article currently focuses on the time period from the French Revolution to the end of the 20th century.

As far as the 21st century, the article doesn't given enough explanation of the contemporary conflicts between the left/right.

For example, issues such as Brexit, the rise of European right-wing politics[1], the emergence of the alt-right and the election of Donald Trump are all significant matters.

Politics is similar to Newtonian physics. For all actions, there are reactions. In other words, left-wing politics doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The article should have additional information on the various challenges that left-wing politics currently faces in the developed world. For example, there are the issues of right-wing opposition to Muslim immigration; aging populations putting additional stress on government retirement/health programs; public schools vs. privatization of school systems (Betty Devos), high levels of national government debt in many developed countries that are growing, etc.

In Asia, you have fundamentalist, Protestant Christianity quickly expanding in Communist China[2] (fundamentalist, Protestant Christians often have socially conservative views on various issues). And China is poised to increase its status/influence as a major power in the 21st century. And this same brand of Protestant Christianity is rapidly growing in Latin America/Africa which will affect right/left wing politics in these places too. Knox490 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty following you. You begin by mentioning "issues such as Brexit." The Left and the extreme Right supported Brexit (although not entirely). The center-left and the Right opposed it (although not entirely). How do you think the article should be re-written to explain that? TFD (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification about Brexit. Brexit can be mentioned with the caveat that the left was split concerning this matter.
The remainder of the material was straightforward and easy to follow in terms of its relevance/implications.
Finally, I added a footnote in my above talk page post as far as the rise of right-wing European politics. The footnote cites a 2017 New Statesman article. Knox490 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe such possibly essayish content has to be included. This is an encyclopedic article about the term "left-wing". This article should not portray or evaluate conflicts etc. That is what scientific literature, blogs, opinion mags etc. are there for. It does not seem to has a place here.--Joobo (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Joobo, facts such as right-wing politics ascending in Europe and other facts indicating left-wing politics is losing ground in the world are not "essay-ish". They are relevant data which should be incorporated in the article. These are seminal events which are shaping the political contours and political disourse in the world.Knox490 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the New Statesman article fits in. It says Golden Dawn won 7% of the vote in Greece in 2015. Syriza won. Who is the Left: Syriza, the Socialist Party, or the Socialists and Syriza? TFD (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, I don't know why you are having difficulty with the New Statesman article used as a footnote on this talk page. The title of the article, for example, is plain enough. Here is the article in question: Rise of the nationalists: a guide to Europe’s far-right parties by ANOOSH CHAKELIAN, New Statesman, 2017
The lead of the New Statesman article is straightforward as well. It declares: "We are seeing a rise of far-right parties in mainstream European politics. Playing on scepticism about the European Union following the eurozone’s travails, and using racist rhetoric to exploit a migration crisis that has become difficult to contain, these parties are gaining voters in countries across the continent." [3]
Factors such as high youth unemployment in some areas of Europe and backlash against Muslim immigrants is fueling the rise of right-wing political parties in Europe.Knox490 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Left-wing politics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism

Should leftist positions on Zionism, anti Semitism, and the Israel Palestine conflict be included? Benjamin (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say. It is a subject on which the Left is strongly divided. To try to generalize is difficult. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should mention the controversy, no? Benjamin (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite reliable sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So there is agreement, then, that it would be appropriate to include? I'd expect there to be plenty of sources. I put it on my to do list and will add it when I get around to it. Benjamin (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you add a section, it must show the full story, not just current right-wing talking points. It should cover for example the role of Jews in the development of socialism and anarchism, left-wing positions on the Dreyfus Affair and the Final Solution, the Civil Rights movement and the fact that most of the Left today is pro-Israel, and Israel itself has been governed by the Left for much of its existence.
Incidentally, I notice that there is no corresponding section in Right-wing politics. Anti-Semitism dominated the Right until the end of the Second World War and even today has a much stronger presence, especially on the fringe. You might want to put that on your list too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant when I said it is not really a left-right issue. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a "controversy" section focusing on a peripheral if not incidental aspect of something so broad, that would be entirely out of scope. It would be like having a controversy section on apartheid in the article right-wing politics. If it's systemic then of course that would be different, but what I'm saying is that this is only even applicable in some countries. Such a section would probably be focused on the US and Israel, perhaps along with some accusations against European parties. As for focusing on Jews and left-wing politics, we already have Jewish left. I honestly don't think this is a good idea. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly defined core ideology is missing from the article

Reading the left-wing and right-wing politics articles, they have tons of text which sounds more like they were taken from political marketing campaigns instead of explaining the core points of the ideologies. I feel it is very important to keep these articles as neutral as possible.

I propose that the following texts would be added to the beginning of the articles, to explain in brief simple terms the difference between the parties:


Left-wing politics supports systems and infrastructures, which are regulated and owned by the government.

Right-wing politics supports systems and infrastructures, which are regulated and owned by the private sector, such as businesses and corporations.


The core difference between these two parties is who has the power to control and own things. It should be clear from the beginning of the article, since everything else is based on that.

Zonk22 (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This claim, often made by the American Right, is not supported by references outside the American Right. Attempts to reduce the Left and the Right to single issue soundbites generally smack of propaganda far more than the Wikipedia articles do. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


If we compare two known polar opposites of the spectrum, USA and Soviet Union, it should give some kind of realistic indication what is the main difference between the two political views. In Soviet Union (far left) everything was owned and controlled by the government and profit from business was illegal. In USA (quite far right by our European standards) everything has been privatised for business and governmental decisions revolve mostly around business instead of improving permanent infrastructure for the country. Zonk22 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone on the Left is a Communist. Not everyone on the Right is a Capitalist. If you have evidence, please provide it. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's original research on your part. For the most part, sources describe the distinction between right-wing and left-wing politics as their position on hierarchy - left-wing politics supports a more equal or egalitarian society, while right-wing politics supports a more hierarchical one. This is why eg. both monarchism and capitalism are generally classified as right-wing (since they support hierarchical structures), while both Anarchism and Communism are generally classified as left-wing, even though in both cases there are major differences. Also, from that you can immediately see the flaw in your definition - anarchism is generally categorized as a far-left ideology, yet it clearly has no support for government ownership of anything. And, again, monarchism is historically right-wing - the first people called that name were monarchists. --Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Far-politics categoires

If on the right-wing politics page it is also categorized with the far-right politics (nazism / fascism), why can not the left-wing politics page be categorized with the far-left politics (communism / anarchism)?

Would not it be easier to categorize the pages of the far-politics with their respective ideological movements?

--83.41.227.101 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "left" isn't consistent with the article's content

Why is there mention of "Stalin" or other non-left leaders?

The first paragraph of the article clearly states "Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy. It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. The term left-wing can also refer to "the radical, reforming, or socialist section of a political party or system""

Why is Stalin later mentioned in the article, implying that Stalin is a leftist? Stalin's policies were not consistent with social equality, egalitarianism or anti-hierarchical ideology. It didn't show concern for those who were disadvantaged, it didn't reduce inequalities, etc.

Stalin also was opposed to workers' self-determination and workers' ownership of the means of production, so he wasn't a socialist.

Stalin also was an authoritarian who wanted a strong state and he didn't abolish money nor classes, so he wasn't a communist.

I don't understand why people like Stalin are mentioned in the context of left wing politics. It's better suited as an example of far right politics. Shouldn't the examples of Stalinist policies be removed from the article? I don't see how they are relevant at all to the discussion about left wing politics (except to serve as a counterexample to left wing reform).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left-wing_politics&oldid=905484959"