Jump to content

Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Stalinism?

Why are the Soviet communist movements described as being far left? Economically, they were, but socially these groups were extreme right wing. The left/right dichotomy implies that a group would be both economically and socially extreme leftist, so the "extreme left" would be anarcho-communist groups, and would never include authoritarian groups. Authoritarianism is right wing, not left. ReignMan (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Authoritarian is not restricted to right wing. All communist-led countries practice authoritarian socialism. Authoritarian right wing is non-existent in the world by the Western standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.197.124 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Violent

One solution - revolution! - where does this imply that the revolution must necessarily be violent? RickK 07:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • RickK is right: Revolution does not necessarily imply violence - this example should be removed.
  • the "far left" is not restricted to socialist/communist groups , e.g. anarchist, and possibly militant green groups
  • "far left" only describes a political group's position in relation to other political groups -- it makes no statement if a group is prepared to use violent methods. Most political groups will use violence in particular circumstances, e.g. in a situation of foreign occupation or dictatorship, many "moderate" groups will also use violent methods
  • it is inaccurate to say that the far left tends to reject democratic means, there are many example to the contrary
  • it is also inaccurate to equate "far left" with "radical or extreme socialist or communist" : "center/left" seems to designate social democrat, green or left-liberal ; so "socialist or communist" will do (without the radical or extreme)
  • I think the SWP(UK) are far too insignificant to be named in this international encyclopedia as an illustration of "far left"
  • references to the US and Israel should be removed as they are irrelevant and inaccurate.
pir 08:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of the points above - although militant Greens are not necessarily left-wing (perhaps the majority is, but the same can be said of pacifists). Djadek 20:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

left-right false dictomy

I think this article needs more balance. Far left is a perjorative, just like far right, and both sets of extremists have a lot in common. I was at a briefing recently where I was informed that the far right extremists include white power / nazi groups, and that the far left extremists include black power, islamist, or communism groups. That dicotomy is just an accurate usage of the terms as any way in which you or I might think of them to mean. The left-right false dictomy is not limited to one particular paradigm. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I removed the link that says "see Post-September 11 anti-war movement for a discussion of what 'far-left' means in that context" because there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it in the article. DJ Clayworth 21:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see the paragraph of accusations that the movement was hijacked by radical groups and Amir Tehari's article (link included). That explains pretty much the issue. MathKnight 22:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, someone has to learn that anarchism is far-right, while fascism (including communism and national socialism) is far-left... BECAUSE INCORRECT USE OF THESE WORDS ARE PISSING ME OFF!!! RRROOOOOOAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!11
wow your pretty retarded fascism is third way ie neither left wing or right wing, communism is far left and national socialism is far right. anarchism is not a single political theory so is neither left wing or right wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.96.128 (talk) 11:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You're confusing economic and political "left/right". Generally, when we refer to far left or far right, we refer to groups that fit the far end of both social, and economic spectrums. Soviet Communism, for example, was both far left and far right. Economically, they fell on the extreme left, favoring communism, while socially, they fell on the far right, favoring authoritarianism.
True anarchists are also neither far left nor far right, they are far left socially, far right economically. The true far left are anarcho-communists. And where you got that the facists were far left, I have no idea. Facism is the epitome of far right, both economic and social. Groups like the Nazis are far right socially, absolutely extreme far right, but centrist economically. The problem with the left/right dichotomy is that it implies that if one is X amount left economically, they should also be X amount left socially. This is not always the case. I wish the whole "left/right" two dimensional axis didn't exist, it's a major source of misinformation. ReignMan (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Compadre, anarchists aren't left OR right- they oppose whoever's in a position of authority, regardless of if that person or group is of the left or the right. Nor is it required that every movement on each end of a political spectrum have a counterpart on the other end. Saying 'anarchists are right-wing, therefore fascists are left-wing' is very flawed reasoning. Personally, I don't much care for the left/right model- you run into authoritarians at both extremes, and the only significant difference between the two is if they use socialist jargon or capitalist jargon while stomping on your face.
Why anarchism is "far-right"? Most anarchists consider themselfs to be on the left (or simply denie the Left-Right dichotomy). In Spanish Civil War, anarchists fought in the Republican side, with Socialists, Republicans and Comunists (i.e, the left-wing) against the Nationalists (i.e, the right-wing). In day-to-day politics, is much more common to see anarchists with the same side with Trotskyists or Council Communists (far-left) than with Monarchists (far-right). What can be the reason to the anarchists be "far-right"???--194.65.151.17 12:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism is definitely not far-right, at least not traditional anarchism (there are some people who call themselves anarchists who have far-right ideas, such as white supremacy, but they are rejected by the anarchist movement and considered a joke). I personally reject the left-right model, but if I had to label myself, it would be far-left (though, like mentioned above, there are authoritarians and by extention, selective anti-authoritarians on both ends). The existence of post-left anarchy confirms the idea that anarchism is traditionally viewed as left-wing in nature. The Ungovernable Force 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I know these imbuciles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.49.208 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Why is the Ku Klux Klan not metioned as a far-left or extremist-left organization? It was created by the Pulaski County Democrat Committee, Pulaski, Tennessee, 1865 to restore the left to power in the South. There seems to be a trend on Wikipedia of the leftists trying to disassociate their history from the truth. ZandoviseZandovise (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Title is adjective form???

The term "far-left" with a dash is an adjective form. As in "far-left groups". The proper title for this page is "Far left" or possibly "Far Left." Any discussion? I plan to change it otherwise and then run around and deal with all the redirects.--Cberlet 21:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed from "See also": * Wikipedia: Words to avoid

Muddled concepts, bad grammar, and tricky terms

The page title really needs to changed as I noted last June. (How time flies). I have made a similar suggestion at Far-right. There are other issues that might affect bot the Left and Right pages. The biggest one is the idea of changing the pages Far left and Far right into disambiguation pages. The terms have many conflicting uses, even in academia, and are often used just as political epithets. There is also a huge area of study of the Extreme left which is distinct from the study of left-liberals and progressives. These would generally be communist cadre organizations or underground groups. Most of the current links to "Far-Left" should be divided up and most pointed to Left-wing politics. Some should go to the re-created Extreme left which would be a small page that parsed out links to various groups and movements and theories, while Far left would be a disambiguation page. I am not invested in a particular outcome, but the current sets of pages are very muddled (except for Left-wing politics) and both sts need an extreme makeover that pays at least some attention to scholalry research. Lot's of work, but it needs to be done.

Perhaps folks could first join in at Talk:Right-wing_politics --User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

New Leftists?

Maoists and Trotskyists are not New Leftists, both were very definitely around before the 1960s.

listing of parties

The listing of parties should be removed. This is not a political blog. This about the concept of Far-left in political science. Intangible 00:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's also extremely arbitrary. We can't possibly list every far left organization in the world, and the ones on this page don't correspond to the most important by any selection criterion I can think of.
Also, the distinction between "far left" and "radical left" made here seems very dubious to me. "Radical left" seems to be used as a synonym for anarchist or near-anarchist, thus suggesting that anarchists are "further left" than, say, Marxists. This is not a neutral claim. Kalkin 21:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the list... Intangible 01:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why arent far-left parties listed? All Communist parties that consider itself far-left. The only questionable parties would be Democratic Socialist parties since they are left of Social Democratic parties which are center left since they have moved to become welfare state capitalist parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.197.124 (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For clean-up

I have tagged this for clean-up. "Muddled concepts, bad grammar, and tricky terms" remains a good description of the page. Needs lots of work. --BobFromBrockley 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) i dont agree this helps paint a better picture for the non intellexuals who are not able to grasp simple concepts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.49.208 (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How interesting. The "Far Right" article includes a worldwide listing of groups. So, it's easy to tell who the Far Right is, but not worth bothering with the Far Left. Symmetry seems to support either inclusion or deletion of both lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.177.193 (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hard left

Currently hard left redirects here. I think there is a case for a seperate article. See soft left, curently a stub. BobFromBrockley 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hard left" isn't a term I've heard used here in the US; is the separate article you're proposing also related to the 1980s British Labour Party, like "soft left"? -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe this means the term is too obscure? BobFromBrockley 13:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, not necessarily. There's a lot I haven't heard of. I think things should be fine if you put in an {{otheruses}} link to this article. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 06:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Have finally created a hard left article. BobFromBrockley 16:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Leftist, liberal, etc

1. I moved ultra-left out of the first sentence, as this has its own distinct meaning. 2. Then I noticed that "confusion in the term" [1] already mentions ultra-left, but in a confusing way (I think). 3. Should "leftist" on its own be in the first sentence? 4. The list if isms in the second paragraph is now slightly odd:

The far left has often been associated in various degrees with liberalism, neoliberalism, radical feminism, anarcho-capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Post-Zionism, internationalism, populism, and mutualism.

Liberalism is often associated with the far left? Post-Zionism? Internationalism? Populism? Mutualism? Neo-liberalism? I've deleted neo-liberalism as completely off the mark. I'd suggest this list:

communism, anarchism and Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, and, for some commentators, liberalism and socialism.

I think a link to left liberal would work better, but that's now been absorbed by the liberalism article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC). (Oops, sorry, forgot to sign BobFromBrockley 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

Other users have made most of these changes. I'll do a couple more as no one responded here. BobFromBrockley 18:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

merge?

I am honestly unsure why we have multiple separate pages for the terms Ultra leftism, Far left, Radical left. Each of the articless explains somewhat redundant history and the fact that the terms are vague (used by different groups to mean somewhat different things). In other words, the terms are vague and to the extent they have substance it's largely non-evident from the name ("ultra"--what does ultra mean? it's a meaningless intensifier) or non-evident to people who don't use that particular term, and the groups intended to be covered by the term are similar in each set anyway (whether or not they really belong together). "Ultra left" is just never going to grow -- it's basically a meaningless phrase used simply as a pejorative; "radical left" just says it's lumping together anarchists, communists & socialists; and while there's a lot of content in "far left", it's largely redundant with left-wing politics. I propose that we just merge them all into a single page, redirect the other two terms to the single page, and have one page that defines each separate term. (I'm choosing "radical left" simply because it actually has a specific meaning and "radical" has a specific meaning, unlike "far" or "ultra".) That way we can be much more consistent within discussing each term and its discussions of other terms, and we can take a clear eye at figuring out whether the content currently on far left should be kept on the combined article, or moved into left-wing politics. --lquilter 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Radical left suggests agreement, other than on Ultraleftism. --Duncan 12:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the undoing of the redirect was simply against consensus. There fore I have implemented it C mon 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Party as a Far Left Example

The Nazi Party was a Socialist Party, and Socialism is always associated with the political left. The Nazi Party did not consistently implement Socialist policies, but neither do the majority of governments that profess Socialism. There are adequate valid supporting references that show that the Nazi Party was (1) a leftist movement and (2) an extreme, or far-left political movement. Does anyone object to it's inclusion within this article? Raggz 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The Nazi Party was not far left or a socialist party in the true sense of the word. It borrowed some left-wing ideas, but it was mostly a right-wing reactionary party.Spylab 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This a common belief, particulary among the left which is anxious to avoid this association. This is your opportunity to support your claim, so that the article can be useful and have a NPOV. (1)You claim that socialism is not associated with the Left? Please support your claim. May we have an example of a right wing socialist party?(2) Do you claim that National Socialism was not Socialism? Please support your claim. (3) Please support your claim that the Nazis were right wing? Raggz 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that fascism, although borrowing left-wing elements, is of the right, not the left. The Nazis used some socialist rhetoric, but had little or nothing in common with the mainstream of socialism. This has been thoroughly discussed on the talk pages of WP articles more directly relating to Nazism. BobFromBrockley 09:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a form of hack revisionism that emerged a few years ago in the United States, and is often discussed myopically in American right-wing radio talk-shows and reactionary small-circulation journals. One should procede with caution when someone comes forward with claims which propose to reverse major historical observations, turning on our head what we have always taken to be unquestionably true, and in fact undeniable. Even regarding the most rank information, we should consider: what is in a name? "Socialist" was indeed in the name "National Socialist Party". But let us consider the relative 'democratic' nature of the "German Democratic Republic" and the "Korean People's Democratic Republic". I suppose, we could find actual traces of democracy within North Korean and East German policies and practices, and then could dismiss and discredit democracy and any of democracy's proponents. But of course nobody, at least not yet, has tried to dismiss democracy this way. But this is the type of flimsy logic that is at the core of such outrageous claims. Of course, there is also the little matter of Nazi policy which included sending to the gas chambers: communists, socialists, trade unionists and any other leftist left. If all of this doesn't convince, I have a challenge to that small group of oddballs who claim that Hitler was inspired by the Jew who wrote Das Kapital: do some research and find the nearest skinhead bar (skinheads are nazis after all). Walk into the bar and start calling the young men there "leftists". Let us know if they nod their shaven little heads in agreement and we'll say you're right. If I (and just about any historian or schoolkid) are correct, then have your nurse email me from your hospital room. tipscommissar@yahoo.com.nospam—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.7.119.160 (talk) 19:22, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
VERY well put. ReignMan (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The NAZI Party was a German Aryan Nationalist and Totalitarian Socialist Party that practiced eugenics and imperialism. If Nazism was about black nationalism than it would be in totality a far left party. OR as I have heard before which describes it well, "Leftism in a Right Wing shell." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.197.124 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because Left-Wing politics are always based on Egalitarianism. There was as much "Socialism" in German "National Socialism" as there was "Democracy" or "Republicanism" in the "German Democratic Republic," (DDR), otherwise known as Communist East Germany. German political parties have a long history of naming themselves in odd ways that don't reflect their actual positions, and the Nazis were, if anything, so completely opposed to any form of Marxist thought that they burned his books and imprisoned Socialists and Communists. The idea that they have anything to do with "Leftism" is of no more historical merit than the idea that the Holocaust was a "hoax." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, egalitarianism goes across politics. Right wing favors equality before the law while left wing favors redistribution of equality (affirmative action) or equality of outcome. The core of Nazism was an egalitarian society for Aryan Germans. The only right wing trait of Nazis was the white skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

NAZISM in actuality was radical center left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

==Parties alleged to be "Far Left" or "Extreme Left"==

There was a section of this title which included the following two examples, the first referenced, the second (recently added anonymously) unreferenced:

I have removed the section, as it seems like a very bad idea. If all the parties were listed that have at some point be alleged to be far or extreme left, the list would be very very long. If only two or three parties are listed, it is meaningless. BobFromBrockley 11:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that these are relative terms, much more used by opponents than by proponents. Besides, most of the references don't even give a definition of "far left." I can give references for the Dutch Socialist Party being "far left," but what is the point in making such a list? Most of the parties will still largely differ, making any listing problematic, as the listing itself would suggest some kind of unity among these parties. Intangible2.0 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to readd it. WE have it on the far right page, and it specifically says "alleged". We can make sure we only use reliable sources, but the information is in fact quite encyclopedic, and indeed neutral. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What exactly would be the point of having the list? --Soman (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite encyclopedic; it helps the reader understand examples of what far left may look like. For this reason it should stay. If you believe this should not be a section, you're welcome to come over to far right and remove the material there as well. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't, since the listing is not based on a common definition but rather random casual mentions. The list is more confusing than educating. --Soman (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Would you be willing to remove the same list from far right then, as this is equally a conglomerate term? I fully expect so. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never edited the far right article, and never participated in the debates about that article. I have stated repeatedly that 'far left' and 'far left' are not directly analogous, and there is no reason for the two articles to be mirrors of each other. The term 'far right' has its own dynamics, and its own problems. Regardless of what is written or not written in that article, the problems of this listing remains. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Phrase "support class warfare" extremely misleading

At the end of this article there is a sentence which is extremely misleading and compromises NPOV.

The phrase in question states that "However, those labelled far left tend to support class warfare."

For those familiar with leftist scholarship, it is obvious that the key aspect which far leftists hold as central to their epistemology is not necessarily a desire for 'class warfare" but rather is a recognition or acknowledgement of the pre-existence of class struggle as a central component of contemporary politics. Thus, framing the issue in terms of the far left supporting class "warfare" while other political movements, by deduction, oppose this form of warfare, misses the whole point entirely and obfuscates one of the centrally important distinctions in far left politics.

Now, that said, if this article wishes to contend that the Far Left tends to be more supportive of tactics in line with a Gramscian "War of Maneuver" as opposed to a Gramscian "War of Position" then that's a different contention altogether and has nothing to do with "supporting class warfare"(but would still be, in my opinion, nevertheless incorrect).

I'm changing this sentence to "However, those labelled far left tend to posit class struggle as the central feature of modern politics".

Ottawastudent 19:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The actual idea of class warfare is ambiguous, and doesn't fall under any political ideal. Instead, it's an outcome of political transaction. ReignMan (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the NPOV dispute?

Article is tagged as disputed, but I can't easily see on the talk page what is disputed. My impression on a first reading is that it is not bad but like most articles on political subjects is short on specifics and long on generalities - reflecting the way that even good sources write about these questions. Itsmejudith 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the tags were brought in with material from Far right back in January. I've dropped them, but obviously if there's a fire somewhere that I can't see, tag at will. Trachys (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly and Fox News appear to be attempting to reframe the boundaries of the term by referring to websites such as Daily Kos as "far left" (thus excluding from the continuum entirely websites that are further left than Daily Kos). This might merit mention in the article. Badagnani 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What would the source be for such an addition? It would need a secondary source, simply noting the Fox News broadasts would constitute OR. Of course, anyone with any sense can see that "far" is a relative appraisal, varying widely in different spatial-temporal contexts. Itsmejudith 23:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly says "far left hate websites like Daily Kos" about 15 or more times per episode, every day for weeks. Kos is primarily a Democratic Party-supportive site, whereas other sites such as Common Dreams are demonstrably further left, supporting Green candidates, Ralph Nader, et al. Badagnani 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree that this would constitute an acceptable source for O'Reilly's description of the Daily Kos as "far left". Itsmejudith 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
All that article prooves is that O'Reilly is an idiot (I.E., television pundit paid to entertain, not inform), and should be taken lightly. If Jon Stewart said O'Reilly was "far right", it would have just as much clout... none. ReignMan (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
And there are loads of other examples [2], but not sure what this would add to article? BobFromBrockley 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Listing of parties (again)

Once again, a list of parties alleged to be far left has been added, consisting of two UK parties, to give the article parity with the far right article. I am against this, as the list is potentially extremely long: a list of two is meaningless, but a meaningful list would make the article overlong. It is especially problematic, because, as the article makes clear, it is extremely contested what counts as "far left", so a list of alleged far left parties could probably contain every existing party. This seemed to be the consensus when this issue was discussed before - in June 06 an May 07 - but don't want to simply erase without discussion. BobFromBrockley 10:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (P.S. If such a list is to be added, then references (as with the two parties in the new list) are essential. BobFromBrockley 10:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think one of them is Italian and it was just meant as a start. However I'm good with removing the list from this article and the far right article. I don't like there being a list on one and not the other though because it seems unbalanced. If it's wrong to list groups as far left it should, logically, be just as wrong to call them far right. (I'm moderately conservative, but I'm in the realm of say Chris Smith (U.S. politician) rather than say Tom Tancredo and I can't stand Ann Coulter)--T. Anthony 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Although I do respect Tancredo for things like the Sudan Peace Act and supporting Taiwan.--T. Anthony 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry, of course one is Italian - I was obviously reading too quickly!) I think a balance between the two articles is a fair proposition. I suppose, though, that part of the problem is that the far left has generated so many parties, whereas the far right has been a bit more disciplined in this matter! If there is to be a list here, I think there needs to be tighter criteria for inclusion than just having been called far left, otherwise the list is potentially endless. One possibility, for example, might be a list of larger parties of the far, trying to keep it to one per country. BobFromBrockley 12:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So far the list has remained just two. I'm considering adding things like Communist Party of Finland (Unity). Mostly I'm thinking of groups that self-identify as far-left, I've found a few that seem to, or that are called that by essentially neutral sources in a neutral way. Possibly one per nation is a good idea.
Also I think there are many parties that are deemed far-right and those lists could also get extensive. There usually isn't an overall banner the way the far-left has the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle) because the far-right is usually opposed to internationalism. Still the European National Front might come close to a transnational affiliation of far-right parties. Anyway finding neutral sources that refer to something as "far left" or "extreme left" isn't as easy as I was expecting so I doubt it'll get too long.--T. Anthony 04:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The terms 'far right' and 'far left' are not really exactly analogous. I think the difference lies mainly in that the urge of the mainstream rightwing to distance themselves from the far right in post-war europe. Thus the number of borderline cases were minimalized. That said 'far right' is not an uncomplicated term, and we can see emerging trends in europe were the term 'far right' becomes more difficult to define. The term 'far left' is far less cohesive. France is an interesting case, but this is also a unique. Otherwise, the term 'far left' depends on what you compare with. Any attempt to make a globally viable listing is doomed to be a failure. --Soman (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I agree with Soman that this is a doomed enterpise. For any party that is listed there, there are going to be sources saying it is far left, and sources saying it isn't. Do any parties actually self-identify as "far left"? And what really would constitute a neutral perspective, given "far" left is very much a question of perspective (far compared to what)? Most "neutral" views come from the centre, from which quite a lot of the left seems like the "far" left. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It also makes it difficult to adhere to the policy about articles taking a world view. In France the "far left" (extrême gauche) description is pretty uncontroversial, as is "far right". In most other countries it would be hotly contested. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CFD

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

India

The added 'India' section has little actual content relating to the usage of the term. [3] points that CPI(M) is sometimes refered to as 'far left', but this is by no means overwhelming. My own OR feeling is the term 'far left' is used similarily in India as in English-speaking countries, but that the term is not particularily loaded. One could well argue that CPI(M) holds the leftmost position in the national parliament of India, but stating that CPI(M) is the 'far left' of India is far more complicated. The very point of using the term 'far left' is the distinguish between the mainstream left and dissident left (like PCF and LCR/LO in France). In India CPI(M) arguably represents the mainstream Left, they are frequently refered to in Indian medias as 'the Left' (no-one refers to Congress, Samajwadi Party, George Fernandes, etc. as 'Left' in Indian politics today). To the left of CPI(M) there is a myriad of other left groups, some quite notable, which could be said to better represent the term 'far left'. In absence of any established and sourced defintion, I'd suggest removing the India chapter altogether to avoid listification of this article. --Soman (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

That is not true. Congress led United Progressive Alliance has been labeled as center left. Far-left is not just relative but also refers to extreme left wing political parties which means left wing parties that use violence and threats against their opponents and are perceived as irrational, extreme or fanatic. As the reference shows congress and media in India have labeled CPI(M) as far-left.

Which is not what I said. Does anyone, seriously, call Congress 'the Left' (without further description) in Indian politics? When Indian media talks about 'Left', they refer to CPI(M)/Left Front. This article is about the term 'far left', not a listing of parties/organisations that have occasionally been refered to as 'far left'. --Soman (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
A quite typical example of usage of the term 'Left' in Indian media: [4] --Soman (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no Justification for removing a referenced material —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 08:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Touché!. Sindhian's logic = "If there is a reference, anything goes". To bad that reality is sligthly more complicated than that. --Soman (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Somans your communist style bulllying will not work here, please debate rationally- When a cabnet minister who is a ally of communists calls his ally a far left there is substance to it. Besides I have also provided an additional reference of an independent journalist who called CPI(M) as far left. There are many other references which I did not feel the need to provide since I had provided more creditable references. Also note that it is not me that have called the parties as far left but simply pointed that these parties have been called far left by respectable sourcesSindhian (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
So far no actual response to my postings of June 23. I rest my case. --Soman (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sindhian's 'references'

Withstanding that this article should not included listings of parties/movements/organisations which at some point 'have been called far left', we could also have a look at the so called references posted by Sindhian;

--Soman (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sindhian did a posting, which messed up the sentences I wrote. It can be seen at [5]. As per what is a reputable source and what isn't; reading WP:RS is a good start. --Soman (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on this: there is a strong enough split between the RCPI and the Marxist branch that a comparison is inadequate? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand your comment fully. Please elaborate. --Soman (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC) You're refering to [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/india.htm? I'd say that in the context of the late 1930, RCPI could have been classified as 'far left' or even 'ultraleft' in comparison with the Communist Party of India (in the sense that it called for immediate armed insurrection). Now those differences have been reconciled long ago, and RCPI is a member of the mainstream left Left Front. --Soman
What I'm saying is I'm not clear on the split in the Communist Parties in India, so I'm not sure if using a term for the umbrella group, for the original group, or for one group instead of the other could rightfully refer to CPIM. For example, this soruce, which is about as reliable as we can get. I will admit to being a bit befuddled by such an abrasion to calling a self-styled Marxist group far left. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Indian left is divided in many, many different factions and parties (i'd assume we are talking 100+ current groups). My personal understanding is that CPI(M) and its allies (primarily CPI, AIFB, RSP) can be said to represent the mainstream left (in the sense that PCF represents the mainstream left in France). In English-language media the term 'the Left' is used to identify CPI(M) and its allies, the term 'far left' is seem much more seldom. If one accepts that CPI(M) is the mainstream left, then the communist factions that criticise CPI(M) from a leftwing position can be identified as 'far left' in an international comparison (note that this is OR, not something I'd like mentioned in the article namespace without source). If we were to identify the Indian equivalent of LCR, I'd suggest it would be the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, which held an MP in the national parliament 1999-2004 and which is represented in state-level assemblies. CPI(ML) Liberation is also the mother party of AISA. In West Bengal, the 'far left' in the state legislative assembly and main 'far-left' group in state-level politics would be the Socialist Unity Centre of India. And so forth. I would doubt that we would find an academic definition to the term 'Indian far left', but if there is a such a source then I'm willing to compromise. --Soman (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will probably look into this. However, as a note, the PCF certainly does not represent the mainstream left in France, the PS does. It would be just as accurate to call the PCF "far left" as the National Front far right. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
From fr.wiki, "Selon Serge Cosseron (Dictionnaire de l'extrême gauche, p. 20), le terme sert à qualifier « tous les mouvements se situant à la gauche du Parti communiste »." --Soman (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[6] and [7] are the same text. I don't object to Alexander's wordings, but as stated before a lot has changed since the 1930s. --Soman (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideally a communist party which is still militant and uses authoritarian repression and organized violence against civilians should be called "far left". </ref . Times of India India's largest newspaper has described the methods and actions of CPIM in Nandigram as red terror [8]>>Sindhian (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

far left ≠ red terror. --Soman (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides classification of left or far left is subjective. That is why I have only written that these organizations have been called far left by reputable sourcesSindhian (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

International Socialism journal is not an Indian media publication, and cannot be said to represent the India media discourse. The article as such is quite good, its usage of the term 'far left' is similar to mine ("The far left in India is a patchwork of deeply divided organisations, all loosely committed to the legitimacy of armed resistance to the state, but some more open to the question of parliamentary participation than others."). Sarkar uses the term as a euphemism of the term Naxalites, i.e the leftwing opponents of CPI(M). Usage of Sarkar's article as reference contradicts using the term to describe the CPI(M). Having a listing of parties that at some point have been called 'far left' by someone has no encyclopediatic value. --Soman (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)



I have updated the references and the language. I have stated facts and have not made any subjective conclusions. Therefore please do not delete the whole section. Let us discuss if you want any changes to section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

German iw Interwiki problems

There are apparently to German articles which have interwiki links to this article ('left extremism', 'left radicalism'). Can this be sorted out somehow? Perhaps neither is directly analogous to the English-language term 'far left'? I feel both German articles are quite different from this one, and this article is really more about the usage of the term 'far left' than describing a cohesive political movement. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be some other confusing interwikis:

--Soman (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


India Section- Please do not delete the whole Section =

I have updated the references and the language. I have stated facts which would be of interest to politically unbiased user and have not made any subjective conclusions. Therefore please do not delete the whole section. Let us discuss if you want any changes to the section before deleting. Do you dispute that the facts or the validity of new references ? 192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Sindhian (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a Marxist, although of the Groucho variety! To put CPI(M), CPI, RSP, AIFB or even SUCI in the bracket of far left parties would be totally preposterous. If you want to talk about Indian Far Left, then the list will most definitely exclude these and include the MCC, PWG, a few factions of CPI(ML) etc. Manishankar Aiyer was definitely trying to score some brownie points when he claimed CPI(M) as far left and can't be taken seriously. Thanks.

Shovon (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Can we agree to analyze the "far left" in India based on the definition in the introduction. Main article defines Far left as "The terms far left and far right are often used to imply that someone is an extremist."192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Note the words 'used to imply', this clarifies that we are talking about a term that used as a pejorative (like in the case of Aiyar's commentary), a fact that makes listing on organizations at some point called 'far left' meaningless. --Soman (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The references I have provided clearly prove that CPIM and other organizations are percieved as extremist by mainstream politicians and media" Do you disagree?192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, obviously. You have not provided a single reference to that claim. --Soman (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
provided nowSindhian (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Where? http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/17827.asp doesn't back up that claim. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The heading also says "In the current context, those labelled far left tend to posit class struggle as the central feature of modern politics. 192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you dispute that both CPIM and Maoists posit class struggle as the central feature of their politics192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No. But class politics in not unique to the 'far left'. The wording in the heading is quite anglo-centric. --Soman (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Definition is on "left tend to posit class struggle as the central feature of modern politics", please comment on the complete definition.Sindhian (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not following you here exactly. But, do note the word 'tend' (which denotes ambiguity) and that there is no claim that this would be an exclusive feature of the far left. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Further definition says "The term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, social anarchism, anarchist communism, left communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism.[1][2][3] Some groups and organisations on the left define themselves as revolutionary socialist."
CPIM and Moaists fit in this definition as well. Any disagreement over this?192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But communist parties are not per se part of the far left. The reference from Larousse is quite clear on this. --Soman (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is circular logic, Who is larousse, what authority does he have to define what far left is "Sindhian (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
<ref>Cosseron, Serge (ed.). Le dictionnaire de l'extrême gauche. Paris: Larousse, 2007. p. 20</ref> --Soman (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Aditya Sarkar's definition is quite good, "The far left in India is a patchwork of deeply divided organisations, all loosely committed to the legitimacy of armed resistance to the state, but some more open to the question of parliamentary participation than others." However, would there be any source that usage of such a definition is widespread in Indian media or Indian academia? --Soman (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
googling The Hindu on 'far left' there are no references to Indian far left at all. In Times of India it is used in some articles, like [9] and [10], seemingly as a euphemism to Naxalite. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
These arguements are irrelevant as I said let us stick to the definition agreed for this article and not some ones openion or liking. If you have disagreement on the definition provided in this article you can raise objection to that first. I am trying to classify Indian organizations according to the main definition of this article. Also you can add your objections to the main article rather than removing the whole section which is arbitarary and amounts to Vandalism192.11.225.116 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, as you may not classify Indian organizations yourself. You have to rely on how published sources classify them. It would be great if the article could have a section on India, but see the posting above from Soman about how the mainstream press do not use the expression very often. The references Soman found from the Times of India are the only definitely reliable sources that have been suggested so far. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

:::::This is a global website and I think a global reader may need to know which leftist organizations are seen as extremist or called 'far left'. Therefore the section on India should specify organizations from left which are percieved as extreme, militant or violent. As you must have observed I have refrained from calling any party 'far left' on my own but have just provided information facts. I believe this information is important for any one who is searching for 'far left' politics in India. Ultimately I have left it on the reader to make his interpretation after reading the facts and That I believe is the purpose of an unbiased encyclopedia Sindhian (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself has stated, the definitions are highly subjective. There is no point at all in having a list of parties/organisations/individuals who at some point have been labelled 'far left', since there wouldn't really be any common denominator between them (whats the common trait of a U.S. liberal democrat and an Indian Maoist?). This article is about the term far-left, and the country specific subsections are about variations in usage of the term in different countries. The Italy passage could go in my understanding (mainly as Sinistra Arcobaleno probably will disappear without much noice in the coming futue), but the core passages are the contrast between the usage of the term in English-speaking countries (in which in this context, India and the usage in Indian media would be covered) and France. In the English-speaking context the term has a negative connotation, in France it doesn't. If you are able to come up with a source that shows that there is real difference in how the term is used in India than in the anglosphere in general, that would be interesting for an Indian subsection. For example, can the quote from Sarkar ('Indian far left'='Naxalites') be backed up by other, preferably acadmic, references? --Soman (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Not that it matters that much, as the India subsection is still based only on causal mentions, but where exactly is the source for the claim that AISA has been have 'called far left for being militant or having relations with militant organization'? --Soman (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused?

Give me a break, in what english speaking context (this is English wikipedia) could these terms have a meaningful distinction outside of somebodies burning need to define one? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cambodia

Not sure if the term is used in Khmer language, and if so how it is used. Googling [11] doesn't turn up anything, nor using the french term 'extreme gauche'. Of course there are Cambodian websites using .com or similar domains, any tips here would be appreciated. --Soman (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Removed some pictures

Some idiot provocateur had put up pictures of Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot in the article. That's not serious or representative for the far left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.191.150 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

far left groups

on the far right page, there is a long list entitled " Parties and movements alleged to be far right or extreme right". I was wondering if someone could compile a list like that for this page. I'm interested in the crazy extremists of every party, religion etc, and it would make this page much better and different topics better accessable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.234.79 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a list, which was removed. I think the error here is rather in the far right article. The criteria for inclusion are extremely arbitrary. --Soman (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Completely agree. We had this discussion this time last year (and before that). See above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The term "far right" is very clearly used in the literature as a synonym for neo-fascist and in the US the modern Klan. They are clearly distinct from the rest of the Right, including the radical right. I removed groups from that article that did not meet the criteria[12] except for Asia. The "far left" however does not have the same clear definition. If you define it as left-wing fringe parties then you will have numerous entries for every country, and it should be subcategorized by Maoist, Trotskyist, Anarchist etc. (and they have subcategories too). But the real corresponding category on the Left would be extremist organizations like the Weathermen. Perhaps it should have its own article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly and Beck

O'Reilly and Beck aren't right-wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley M. Curtus (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: removed "usually democracy"

I made an edit, and here I'll provide an oppurtunity for revising or discussing the edit. I removed, "usually democracy" from the following sentence: Some groups considered to be far left do not wish to govern within the current institutional framework, usually democracy, and this may be what distinguishes them from other left-leaning groups. 'democracy' is not the proper descriptor for what the author was trying to say; further clarifications are needed to describe the current institutional system (so that, presumably, one can infer what members of the far left do not like about it): representative democracy, power in the hands of the rich, democracy represented mostly by men, social policy is made by or has strong influences from corporations and other concentrations of economic power, etc. Considering all the neccessary clarifications, I simply deleted the "usually democarcy" addive, as it seems to be misleading, and the point is conveyed more clearly without it. In addition, far left groups often advocate a form of democracy for a replacment social economic order, or a means to achieve a new order. 125.243.118.66 (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is "democratic means" not far-left?

Why is it so in the article (perhaps and even in typical discourse?) that a political party which wants to do something "traditionally considered far left" but through democratic means, is not considered far-left? It seems to me that this is very, very far from the case about the far-right, where anyone who says e.g. "we want to ban abortion by democratic means" would be called far-right, regardless of democratic means or not.158.143.133.241 (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the article Far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Economic vs. Social

I feel it's highly important to make a distinction between economic and social far left. A lot of people have mentioned that this does not fall into the "common parlance", but the common person is uneducated about politics, and believes people like Stalin to be "extreme left" (while he was extreme left economically, he was extreme right socially).

I made an edit, but it was reverted. I think this is, by far, the most important thing to understand is that the one dimensional political spectrum is flawed, and the two dimensional Nolan Chart is far superior in every way, explaining everything clearly, and without bias. ReignMan (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We are supposed to use terms as they are used and not conduct original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, as The Four Deuces says, the criteria here is the way terms are used by reliable sources. You may think the Nolan chart is superior, I might disagree; but, to base the article on this distinction, you need to provide sources showing that this distinction is used by the majority of serious discussions of the far left.VoluntarySlave (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How should this subject be presented?

The sources for the lead do not support the assertions. For example:

  • "The far left promotes social justice and egalitarianism..."[13]
  • "...complete opposition and aggression towards stratified economic, political and social establishments..."[14]
    There does not appear to be any agreed concept of the "far left", which makes it similar to "center-left" and "center-right". I suggest therefore that this article be re-written to explain how the term is used rather than trying to describe the far left. TFD (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

merge proposal

...See it over here. Kikodawgzzz (talk)

Weeding

I'm doing a massive weeding edit, to remove unsupported or insufficiently supported passages. The article is full of arbitrary definitions, which leads nowhere. Some points:

  • 'Far left' is a term that has no inherent value. It denotes the leftwing fringe position in any given political context. 'Far left' is not synonymous or inherently linked to any particular ideology or political movement. The passage "Examples of radical left ideologies include" is thus not relevant.
  • The passage "Far left politics have certain characteristics that distinguish them decisively from moderate liberal or social democratic politics." is completly unsupported. Notably a person like Bernie Sanders is labelled as 'far left' in US politics, but would be considered a center-left moderate in most European countries.
  • The passage "In the 20th century, the definition of radical was revised in response to the models of communism and the Soviet Union." refers rather to how the term radicalism has been used, which is a rather different concept.
  • 'Left Wing Authoritarianism' is a psychological concept, rather than a strictly political one. The article on its was prodded, but Right-wing authoritarianism gives some indication.
  • The Italian Rainbow coalition no longer exists, and had a rather short period of existence. Thus removed.

--Soman (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is really a dictionary term rather than an encyclopedia article. TFD (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Emptiness???

Where is the information? Where is minority nationalism such as black nationalism and female nationalism? Where is communism? Where is anti-capitalism? Where is detailed socialism? Where is radical environmentalism? Where is radical anarchism? Where is the information and why is egalitarian mentioned when that stretches across politics? I will add more if you wish but this is not my page so I need your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no agreement on the meaning of the term, the article should only relate how the word is used. See also Right-wing politics which has the same issue. TFD (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

How to improve this article

Some observations about term far-left that should help with improving the article:

  • The term "far-left" refers to those on the far-left of the left-right political scale but due to limitations with the left-right scale, there is not a lot of disagreement as to which political parties or groups qualify as far-left, just as there is with the label far-right. It seems to be largely subjective as to who is far-left and who is not and their is no simple criteria you can apply to determine if a political groups qualifies as far left. As such, a lot of people on the left view the term is a pejorative, rather then simply descriptive, and I don't hear many allegedly far-left groups or individuals self-identifying as far-left, though if there are any then the article should mention them.
  • Various commentators, political writers, etc. have offered definitions of the term "far left" and we can reference those without taking any position as to their accurateness.
  • We should avoid categorizing any particular political party or group as "far-left" ourselves but we can mention groups that have been labeled as far-left by others notable individuals or groups, with inline references include referencing examples where the label was used. For example, if the several prominent conservatives have called some communist party "far-left" then we can quote sources that support them as having used the label against this group.
  • We should also mention groups or individuals who have expressed disagreement with the use of the label far-left by others against themselves or others groups or individuals.

--Cab88 (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the sentiment here. My only doubt is the practicality of the penultimate bullet point, as so many notable figures have used the words "far left" that it would be impossible to decide. I think better to avoid specific groups and parties.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Although the term "far left" is found in dictionaries, there is no body of literature that uses the term in a consistent way. Unless one can find an article explaining how the term is used, any expansion of the article would be original research. TFD (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Linksextremismus

This edit appears to be misleading: "The German political scientist Eckhard Jesse includes anarchists, different trends of communism (communists of pro-Soviet orientation, Maoists and Trotskyists) and the Autonome among the (German) far-left".[15] Jesse, who is an expert on terrorism and extremism, was not classifying ideologies as "far left". TFD (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have source that claims Jesse isn't well qualified to comment on the German far-left? --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Try to correctly interpret text, whether written in source or by other editors. TFD (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? Eckhard Jesse is an expert the study of German political parties and the German political system, he is well qualified to comment on the German far-left. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed he is. But that does not mean that you should misrepresent what he says. TFD (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
And on what basis do you claim Jesse was misrepresented, do you have a copy of his German language book Linksextremismus on hand? Perhaps a review of WP:AGF would be in order. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Original quote: „Unter die Sammelbezeichnung Linksextremismus fallen Anarchisten, für die zentrale Organisationsformen generell von Übel sind, ‚autonome‘ Gruppierungen, die sich nicht an Autoritäten ausrichten und ein hohes Maß an Subjektivismus predigen – die Grenzen zum Terrorismus sind fließend – sowie verschiedenartige Spielarten des Kommunismus. Diese berufen sich in unterschiedlicher Ausprägung auf Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotzki oder Mao Zedong. Dabei ließen sich in der Vergangenheit grob drei Hauptströmungen voneinander unterscheiden: der an der Sowjetunion orientierte Kommunismus, der Maoismus und der Trotzkismus. Die erste Variante strebte mit Hilfe des Konzepts der friedlichen Koexistenz einen allmählichen Sieg des Kommunismus an. Der Zusammenbruch des Moskauer Kommunismus hat diese Strömung massiv erschüttert. Der Maoismus warf dem Kommunismus der sowjetischen Prägung vom Ende der 50er-Jahre an Revisionismus vor: Die Weltrevolution sei aufgegeben worden. Der in viele Richtungen zersplitterte Trotzkismus erteilte der Politik des ‚real existierenden Sozialismus‘ in der Sowjetunion und in China eine entschiedene Absage und beklagt(e) deren ‚bürokratische Entartung‘“

Your interpretation: "The German political scientist Eckhard Jesse includes anarchists, different trends of communism (communists of pro-Soviet orientation, Maoists and Trotskyists) and the Autonome among the (German) far-left."

TFD (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of the German text. Thankyou. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It is not clear whether he calls these ideologies extreme or whether he says that lw extremists hold these ideologies. You also have to explain how his definitions fit in with "far left". TFD (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly where does the text "The German political scientist Eckhard Jesse includes anarchists, different trends of communism (communists of pro-Soviet orientation, Maoists and Trotskyists) and the Autonome among the (German) far-left." you dispute actually mentions the term "ideology" let alone "call those ideologies extremist" as you claim? This text is merely stating that the Jesse deems the same groups to be on the far-left as the French term "extrême-gauche". In case you didn't know, linksextremismus is the German word for extrême-gauche. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving talk

As the current article is a mere shadow of its former self (following what looks to have been a 3/4ths "weeding" by Soman some time ago, not that I disagree with their notion that "listification" of articles is a disservice to any topic), perhaps one of the current discussion participants could archive threads no longer applicable to the content so article talk can just reflect and focus on what needs to be written to grow the article? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.enhedslisten.dk/nyhed.asp?nyhed=7943
  2. ^ http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article533
  3. ^ http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3750
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far-left_politics/Archive_1&oldid=597597249"