Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

far left and extreme left

Per intro, this article is on far-left, radical left, extreme left, and revolutionary left. Why do you remove statements on extreme left, saying "source does not call them far left"? --RJFF (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the far left. You need a source that radical left, extreme left, and revolutionary left are the same thing. For example, far right refers to neo-Nazis and skinheads, radical right refers to American populist movements, extreme right refers to groups to the right of conservatism and revolutinary right is not a generally accepted term. We need to model articles on sources. TFD (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Then take out extreme left, radical left and revolutionary left from the intro sentence. But aren't you the one who always says that WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and WP articles are about concepts, not about words? Are far left, extreme left, radical left and revolutionary left different concepts or different words for one concept? --RJFF (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What does "far left" mean? Nug says it is anything between Social Democrats and Communists, but that excludes anyone to the left of Communism. TFD (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article so short and give basiclly no information

There should be at least paragraphs on socialism, communism, anarchism, left nationalism, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and various others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.97.75 (talk) 09:11, 1 July 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) 16:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not original research if the statements are supported by citations from reliable, published sources which are on topic. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet "far right" has an article with length. Sounds like excuses to me. --Tarage (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone took the trouble to find the literature on "far right" - find the literature on far left, that you seem to know exists. and then start editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So expand it. We're all volunteers here. You can't complain about the length of an article if you're not willing to put the work in yourself. freshacconci talktalk 21:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We DO try to expand it, but apparently TFD feels the need to delete every freaking thing we add. So I guess every country except France doesn't have a far left. Lothar76 (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed text that was sourced to an article that did not mention the "far left". If you can find literature that defines the subject, then by all means please tell us about it. TFD (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The source you included didn't provide any of the information that it was supposed to back, and it didn't even mention the word "far left". ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick response by no less than two editors on the talk page of a stub. In any case, In the United States, "socialism" and "far left" are synonymous. That's why I included that article. In any case, I will not continue an online discussion because those go nowhere. You can phone me if you want to talk about it. Lothar76 (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We have another article on Socialism since in most of the world the two things aren't synonymous. (Also your own edit seems to contradict the notion that socialism and far left is synonymous). I think it is more convenient to have the discussion here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What did I just say? The phone or nothing. Otherwise we'll be here for a long time. I've had it with Internet "discussions" Lothar76 (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Left of Social Democracy in Europe is considered far left such as socialism and communism. Left of Social Liberalism in the US is considered far left. Social Democracy and Social Liberalism are the same ideology, just different histories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Equal opportunity, or equal rewards?

"The far left seeks the complete equalization of the distribution of wealth, and a society where in theory everyone is to be provided with equal economic and social opportunities in life and where no one will have excessive power or wealth over others."

But either equal opportunity means opportunity to win unequal rewards, or it means nothing. Which is the Far Left wants? Equal opportunity, or equal rewards? Paul Magnussen (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To each according to their needs. That is the far-left mantra. It is neither equal opportunity or equal rewards but equal with respect to the needs. Arzel (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is actually, "To each according to his contribution" or as Lenin phrased it, "He who does not work shall not eat." "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" could only occur in the distant future. Even then it assumes that everyone will contribute according to their ability and imposes no obligation on anyone to contribute to the needy, because there would be no government. TFD (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

True, but I don't think the far-left lives by that mantra in this age and it could never exist in the future. Unless we eliminate those unable to contribute, which isn't going to happen, it is really a focus on the needs. Arzel (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

But the idea that people who do not work should be supported comes from the Right, because the left-wing view that individuals could come together and support one another independent of government was considered subversive. In any case, I cannot think of any far left groups today. Mostly they disappeared after the 1980s. They were more about what they were against than what they were for. TFD (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Going nowhere

I have never seen an article develop so poorly as this. If you check the revision history you can see its size going up and down significantly. We need to reach a consensus on what sections to have and what to cover. Once we have a plan the article should be able to expand more smoothly. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just ridiculous. MikeJamesShaw (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have gone out on a limb and did some research for this page. Most of what I have added is sourced to Google Books with inline citations which probably should be verified. The paragraphs on Southern American groups is mostly taken from their respective Wikipedia pages. The Ideology section still needs some work. I hope other editors agree my additions should remain and the basis for a better article has been made. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that the term "far left" has been used by different writers to mean different things. The only agreed meaning is that the far left is at the extreme end of the left-right spectrum. Articles are supposed to be about topics not the meanings of adjectives attached to verbs. Using Spiro Agnew's speechwriter William Safire as a source, without explaining who he was, is an egregious violation of POV. We need to determine the topic of this article. What do you think far left means? TFD (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a concept, which is discussed in the lead. It has a broad meaning depending on the political environment and economic conditions. We do not need to have a strict definition before expanding the article. Parties and movements are described as far, radical or extreme left, examples are provided. Please don't remove sourced material. I didn't add the William Safire source and besides its a dictionary not an opinion piece. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TOPIC: "Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)." We do not for example have one article covering both Portland Oregon and Portland Maine. This is not a dictionary. TFD (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is poor form to remove content because it has been described as non-core or not useful. The sources I have provided directly support my statements. References do not have to only be about the core topic. For example a book about sharks can be used as source for statements about species found in waters around particular islands. While agree more should be included about the core topic, it is not a valid reason to remove my additions. A more recent edit removed content because it wasn't neutral before discussion on the talk page had reached a consensus about bias. A short stub of an article without specific examples is less useful than one with. Please cite specific policy or guidelines breaches when removing content. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to show that the sources are talking about the same topic. In many cases your sources do not say far left at all, that is just your personal opinion. Your example btw misses the point. If a book about sharks mentions for example a specific type of fish then we can use that for the fish's article because we know that the topic is the same. But if the shark book talks about big islands or small islands then we cannot use it for our articles about big islands and small islands unless we can show that the meaning is the same as used in our articles. TFD (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity between what my sources talk about and this page. Radical, extreme and far left, as mentioned in the lead, were the search terms I used to find the references. What else could my sources be describing? What proof have you provided that those sources are discussing something else? None, so it is therefore your personal opinion. I notice you didn't mention any policy I hadn't followed. The sources I added were on-topic books about politics. Why are you excluding this without citing policy when the article is so short? You aren't improving the article, while I am. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's use right-wing politics as a comparison. "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society.... [T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[Clive Webb. Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10] Of course these terms can used interchangeably, but we do not want to have an article using the definition of the far right as racist, then include radical right groups that are not. You need to show that the sources are talking about the same thing. TFD (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just Flat Wrong

Far left is certainly not defined by the issue of equality (wrt to what?) any more than far right is defined by inequality. Rather to be poles of a continuum, they must both be relative to the same concept, which is in fact societal change, not equality/the class system. Current text makes you look stupid. The positions of the two poles on inequality/equality actually vary within established tendencies. There are highly elite/inequity oriented/supporting far left elements and highly egalitarian far right elements. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is indeed completely wrong. I object to the spurious claim that "far left" groups seek to overthrow inegalitarian systems in order to establish "egalitarian" systems? What evidence is there that communism is egalitarian in any way? The article is biased in an extreme way. Far leftist groups are revolutionary, in that they use violence to overthrow democratic governments, so they may put in place systems of centralized control where a minority (headed by a dictator)controls all aspects of society. This is not egalitarianism, it is despotism. The attempt to equate it with 'egalitarianism' is laughable.Troublemane (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The true end form of communism is just that. What you have seen in practice is the first step toward that goal which is socialism. Just because the end goal has not been reached, does not mean that this is what it is. Arzel (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not an article, it is a propaganda piece. Where are your examples to back up your assertions? Not a single thing said in this article bears any relation to real 'far left' revolutions or the results of those revolutions. We cannot judge practically the value of an ideology based solely on its intent, we must evaluate it based on the result of putting it into practice. And the result of far left radicalism in practice has always lead to the establishment of a police state, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. If this were not so, the Berlin Wall would have been built to keep those in the west from trying to sneak into East Germany, not the reverse.Troublemane (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source that supports your view. TFD (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Really this is a very ambiguous and pluralist article. Far left most likely means Left Communism i.e. Trotskyism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples of far-left politics

I had added both these examples to replace Communist Russia but there is no emergency to find examples and in any case, that should be sourced :

• Examples of far-left regimes and ideologies include the Khmer Rouge, who ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, and Maoism, which guided the policy of the Communist Party of China for several decades.

Pluto2012 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Gerd-Rainer Horn, The Spirit of '68: Rebellion in Western Europe and North America, 1956-1976, Oxford University Press, 2007, p.159 gave both the examples of Trotskyism and Maoism as ideologies that influenced the far-left political activits of the 68 generation. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

removed already even though those two examples are far left??? I have added them again unless I am told why they are not examples of far left politics please?

I had added these examples and contributors noticed (rightly) we needed sources to keep them. We still don't have these sources. So I remove them. Now, stop. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well we can argue the toss about semantics, eg far, extreme or hard left or whatever, but that sentence and the choice of those two as examples is not a controversial addition, surely. I'd happily leave them in there, with a cn tag if needed and; or ideally, with more detail and sources in the body eventually. There is such a thing as being too rigid in demanding an immediate source for every single sentence. N-HH talk/edits 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

edit war by editor who will not allow discussion

-Bryon Morrigan keeps removing any mention in the article that mentions far left goverments that are not shown in a good way. such as cambodia, russia, china etc. Can anyone help me make the changes the correct way please. (Trfc06 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

No, MULTIPLE editors keep reverting your edits, because they violate multiple rules of Wikipedia. (No sources, POV, etc.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think they are normally referred to as far left, they are more likely to be called Communist. Note the Google Books hit for ""far left" "khmer rouge"".[1] Most of the 482 hits are Wikipedia articles, use the term far left to refer to a physical direction or use it to refer to American progressives. Change far left to Communist and there are 74,100 hits. TFD (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That's right. I've never heard of those governments called far left. Interesting point. Trfc06, would you like to be called a far right editor? If you would, then I will, but I will still ask you not to label other editors in that way. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it surprises me that there aren't more matches with "far left" for the Khmer Rouge. There may be various reasons for that – not all of which would invalidate its relevance – but I'm not going to argue with the evidence, which is perhaps a lesson that others could learn. N-HH talk/edits 19:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I was also amazed by the lack of matches between "Khmer Rouge" and "Far-left"... I was also amazed that in English they were not called "Red Khmer". I am French-speaking and I wonder too why the French adjective is used for their name.

We learn everyday about "evidences" with wikipedia :-) Pluto2012 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There is more precise, unambiguous and noncontroversial terminology used by adherents to describe them than "far left". Similarly, we know what is meant be Khmer rouge, while "Red Khmers" could mean any left-wing Cambodians. TFD (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"Extreme left" crops up more regularly in association, although I know that could lead us to a debate about whether "extreme left" is the same as "far left", and there still aren't vast numbers of hits. My guess is that "far left" is more often used in association with fringe European groups and, as noted, other descriptive terms are preferred for the Khmer Rouge. As for that name itself, English has no logic of course when it comes to translation and creating names: see Bayern Munich et al. Again, that's an example for WP editors such as our late friend. Things are called what they are called, not what we think they should be called. N-HH talk/edits 12:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

addition to 2nd paragraph

added the following. I cant see anything wrong with it, but please let me know. The best know example of a far left wing party that governed is Russia, cant argue with that. And the Nazi part themselves named themselves as a socialist party, cant argue with that?

The most well know example of a far left party in power is communist Russia. The German Nazi party were actually named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, which would mark them as a far left party in ideas and aims. Many people disagree with this and place them as a far right party.(Trfc06 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

The latter part amounts to speculative commentary and makes assertions, eg "which would .." that cannot be supported. N-HH talk/edits 13:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We aren't going to move the Nazi party out of our article on the far right into this one. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis were not left-wing, despite their name. Many parties have names that don't match up with their actual ideology. The Nazis are commonly described as far right or extreme right. That has been established a long time ago.Spylab (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Introduction

I decided to compare the articles of far left politics and far right politics. Specifically, I wanted to look at whether they are accurate, equal, and fair. I'm posting this in both the far-left and far-right articles' talk sections as it pertains to both.

Here's the introductory paragraphs to far left politics:

"The far left (also known as the extreme left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification.[1] Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.[1] The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.[1]

The far left typically believes that inegalitarian systems must be overthrown through revolution in order to establish egalitarian societies, while the centre left works within the system to achieve egalitarianism.[1] In societies that tolerate dissent, far-left groups usually participate in the democratic process to advance their goals.[2] The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner.[1]"

Here's the introductory paragraphs to far right politics:

The terms far right, or extreme right, describe the broad range of political groups and ideologies usually taken to be further to the right of the mainstream center-right on the traditional left-right spectrum. Far right politics commonly involves support for social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism. Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views.[1] The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority.[2]

Both of these articles should shed equal light on these two opposing radical ideologies for the sake of balance. As it stands, I think the article on far right politics is much more negative then the far left one. Here are some changes I'm considering:

1). Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views."

I believe this sentence is irrelevant and factually incorrect considering Nazi's (the German SOCIALIST Workers' Party) and Fascists, were, in most regards, socialists who work to abolish religion. That's far left, not far right! I propose we move that sentence to the far-left article, where it belongs, noting raciest and nationalist views. I could also include a note about the KKK, a much more racially centered example. However we should keep the fact that the far right sometimes hold xenophobic, raciest, chauvinist, and fundamental religious views, as that is accurate.

2.) Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "The most extreme right-wing movements have pursued oppression and genocide against groups of people on the basis of their alleged inferiority."

This is certainly true, however I think it should also be added to the introductory paragraphs of the far left article. Far leftism, from Hitler to the Soviets, is certainly also guilty of genocide and oppression. Both radical ideologies share these traits.

3.) Regarding this statement in the far left article: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle unequal societies, including confiscation of wealth that is concentrated in a small elite, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."

I think this over glorifies the far left ideology. Also, far leftists don't seek to redistribute only money concentrated in a small elite; that's closer to center leftism. Far leftism often seeks to redistribute income as broadly as from people who have above median wealth to all who have below it.

I propose we revise that sentence to this: "The far left demands radical changes to dismantle perceived "unequal" societies, including confiscation of wealth held by wealthier segments of the population, and redistribution of that wealth in an egalitarian manner."

4.) I also propose we add this sentence to the far right article: "The far right favors virtually zero mandatory wealth redistribution."

The introductory statement of the far right article doesn't say much about economic positions, however the far left one does. So I thought this'd be a good starting point of something to add.

5.) Regarding this sentence in the far left article:

"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others."

Here the article contradicts itself. Earlier, the article says the far left seeks "equality of outcome." Here it essentially says they seek "equality of opportunity." To fix this, I propose replacing it with these sentences instead:

"The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social status and no one has excessive wealth or power over others. In practice, most far-left governments give large amounts of power to their leadership."

What do you think of these suggested edits? How would you change them? I welcome your thoughts.

Libertyboy100 (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be based on sources, not what we happen to believe. You need to provide sources for any changes. TFD (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems a good idea mate, much more balanced and fair. Should be no problem finding sources that agree with the view of far right as sometimes a force for good. And your quote of "In practice, most far-left governments give large amounts of power to their leadership." is spot on, and I cant think of a far left government that HASN'T done that, so again I can see how anyone could disagree. I say you re-write is fine and should happen. (86.139.204.106 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

And as for the sources used for this article! 6 in total, all by left wing writers. Its easy to find 6 articles by right wing writers that balance that, but I thought this was Wiki, supposed to be accurate, not just represent the opinion of the left minded editors, that this article does? (Trfc06 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

1). Regarding this sentence in the far right article: "Both terms are also used to describe Nazi and fascist movements, and other groups who hold extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist or reactionary views." The Nazis were a SOCIALIST party, this must be moved to the left wing page, no-one can disagree with this??? The full name of Adolf Hitler's party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). If thats what they are called, they are left wing. Please make the changes. (Trfc06 (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

The content of the article does. Just read it and read the references. Pluto2012 (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't even seem to understand what "Left" and "Right" means, so why should your personal "analysis" be given more weight than the scholarship of reliable sources? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither the far left nor the far right articles say anything about "force for good" or "force for bad". The articles explain what the terms mean and what their associated political stances are. The Nazis were not a socialist party, despite their name and some of their early propaganda. This fact has been established a long time ago. Lots of parties and regimes have had names that did not accurately reflect their ideologies.Spylab (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

npov check needed

marked it npov re the two talk sections above that have been completely ignored? Please don't remove the tag until there is an agreement. One main point is the fact that the Nazi party were called a socialist party, yet no mention is made on this page of this. Or indeed any reference to the communists either? Can anyone tell me why the two best know far left parties in HISTORY are not mentioned on this page? (Trfc06 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

The Nazis were not a socialist party, despite their official name and some of their early propaganda. The Nazis are commonly described as far right, not far left. Communism/communists are, in fact, mentioned in the far left article.Spylab (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

edit request

Think that the deaths caused by far left parties over the years should get a mention on here. The Nazis are mentioned on the far right page. This link says it all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes Many modern examples. Think an encyclopedia should explain why the far ends of both points of view are wrong, or at least always seems to lead to the deaths of innocent people for the parties to force their point of view. Can someone add a sentence of section re this please? Also, more needs to be said on this on the far right page as well. I can not think of one example where a far left or far right party actually benefited the people they said they were trying to! Thanks(Dave006 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

Recent edit

An editor has made this unexplained and unsupported edit,[2] which says that the far left seeks to establish a new hierarchy. I will remove it and ask that it not be reinserted without sources. TFD (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

clarify tag

The text on page 53 of Political Parties and Terrorist Groups by Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur:

"The period, the 1960s and early 1970s, during which a substantial number of far left parties spawned terrorist bands or perpetrated violence themselves was a time of unusual ferment in the communist worlds"

so it is not clear what needs clarifying. --Nug (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Define "substantial" and "spawn", and provide examples and details. Otherwise the statement is a vague generalization.Spylab (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose I could expand that into a paragraph. "substantial" could be elaborated upon, give concrete numbers, etc. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusion

There is confusion in this article between what is normally considered far left, groups such as the Weather Underground and Red Brigades, which were terrorist groups, and post-1989 political parties that include ex-Communists and other leftists and are considered to be to the left of social democrats. We need to determine what this article is about, rather than confuse readers. TFD (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stick to groups such as the Weather Underground and the Red Brigades, the Progressive Labor Party and a few others. I'm not even sure that the Communist party is far left any more. Certainly not "extreme left" which the lead suggests means the same. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A number of editors argue that if we have a far right article we should have one for the far left. The reality is that terms for left and right are not symmetrical. Far right is an actual term used to describe the ideological family perceived to be to the right of mainstream established parties. Books are written about the subject. But there is no equivalent "far left" - what each writer means by far left is contextual. Why write "far left" when one means Maoist? OTOH, what other word than "far right" can be used to describe the ideological family including the KKK, neonazis and the EDL? TFD (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any editors arguing that if we have a far right article we should have one for the far left. The article cites definitions of "far left" found in reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It conflates all the examples of where something has been called "far left", conflating for example the "Left" parties of Europe which participate in the Democratic process and terrorist groups such as the Red Brigades. So it is a propanda article, rather than encyclopedic. If you believe they are the same thing, you should provide sources. TFD (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The term far-right is quite as flexible as well: it includes extra-parliamentary violence-using groups like the KKK but in some texts also (what you say is contextual) European right-wing economically liberal parliamentary parties with populist rhetoric like the Progress Party of Norway. Isn't this exactly what you're saying about the far-left? So could your opinion of the far-left as a non-comparable "propaganda" term have more to do with your own political views rather than actual sources that already exist in the article? --Pudeo' 00:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The term far right has a specific meaning - groups associated with nazism, fascism and the KKK. Sometimes the term is used to describe groups to the right of the mainstream - the Tea Party, UKIP, etc. If that article confuses the U.S. Republican Party and the Nazi Party then it is POV. TFD (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This article doesn't confuse the U.S. Democratic Party with the Bolsheviks, so I don't see what the issue is. As I said, the definitions of "far left" are cited from reliable sources. --Nug (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It defines far left as further to the left than mainstream centre-left politics", "seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power," and "political groups to the left of the French Communist Party." Do you have difficulty understanding that these are three different concepts? TFD (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the differing definitions (which aren't mutually exclusive but rather show a degree of congruence) are properly attributed to the authors with due weight, per WP:YESPOV, what's the problem? Put four political scientists in a room and you will get five opinions, good luck in divining a "specific meaning". --Nug (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Academics may disagree over the concepts they use, but this is a matter of disagreement over use of terminology. For example, in one book "North American" may refer to Canada and the U.S., in others it may refer to Canada, the U.S, and Mexico, while others may include Central America or may add the Caribbean. When the article does not define the topic, it becomes garbage. WP:DISAMBIG, explains how to get out of this mess. TFD (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIG applies to single terms:

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous".

"Far-left politics" is a concept, so WP:CONCEPTDAB applies:

"If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page".

Indeed North America remains an article despite many books having differing definitions of "North America" as you hypothetical example suggests. --Nug (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the claim that 'far-right' is somehow better defined than 'far-left'. The opposite seems to be true in fact. The problem is that Western media have the habit of labelling anything not politically correct as 'far-right', e.g. Geert Wilders or even True Finns. From the politological point of view this is nonsense, which is why real political science positions Wilders' party somewhere in the centre of the spectrum (see graph). The far-left is also divided into many camps, however the truth is that some of these have zero electoral success but are still noteworthy as street protest/riot movements, by that I mean e.g. anarchistss. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Other than that, fully agree with @Pudeo:'s assessment of the gist of the problem here.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While the media may be very sloppy in applying terminology, Geert Wilders' party is not normally considered "far right" in academic writing. The term is normally reserved for parties that have a connection with historical fascism. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Peoples-Union is far right. One could argue that they are not right-wing they are secretly left-wing so why call them far right. Because there is no other term available that encompasses all these various groups. Wilders' party is considered right-wing populist. TFD (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have just illustrated that "far right" is a broader concept that often includes both Geert Wilders' radical-right party and the extreme-right Dutch Peoples-Union. --Nug (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Geert Wilders' party is not normally considered "far right"" did I not make clear? TFD (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Emphasis on Luke March

Most of the article seems to be taken up by Luke March's ideas, which almost seem to be being used to define the article. Looks like WP:UNDUE to me. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Only because somebody just yesterday added a graph[3]. --Nug (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Luke March's classification is very useful. The author is a reliable scholar. It takes large part of the article simply because the article is underdeveloped and I vaguely recall it has been shortened throughout the years.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It overwhelms the article, and a graph that size makes it look almost official. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop making your own rules! The graph is well-sourced, there's been not a single reason explaining per policies why we should remove it. That a certain number of commies want to prevent any development of the article and to keep it at stub level is well visible based on the history of the article, this however does not mean we should support this nonsense. Either find legitimate reasons for removing reliably sourced material or stop it. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an WP:UNDUE focus on Dr March's research vis-à-vis the many other scholars' work who have published on this subject. It is an undue focus on Europe, and it is an undue focus on far-left parties vis-à-vis the important far-left movements, currents and tendencies that are not organised as parties. I would argue that it is almost typical for the far left not to organise in parties, but in alternative, more informal or spontaneous groups and movements. Another strategy of the far left is entryism, especially for Trotskyists, which means not to found a separate far-left party but to join and found internal factions within mainstream left parties. This should all be discussed in this article instead of stubbornly inserting this graphic which does only represent a minor aspect of what may constitute the far-left. March's study has often been discussed. It is problematic because he includes many parties that are not usually considered far-left. His definition of the far left ("Far left is everything to the left of social democracy") is not mainstream. Btw, it does not help your argumentation if you attack other users personally ("commies"). --RJFF (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this most helpful contribution to the discussion. I really know nothing about how March's study is seen by others, but I agree that he is including parties that surprised me and that's clearly because he is choosing his own definition - in order to put a label on groups that many others wouldn't see as far left. I definitely agree about your comments on entryism. I've seen this myself in several situations where the SWP has caused great damage. We probably shouldn't include March's study at all without balancing comments by his critics. Lokalkosmopolit received a 24 hour block for edit warring and personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe", Luke March, writing for the Socialist Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung wrote ">>Far left<< parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy, which they see as insufficiently left-wing or even as not left-wing at all." Note that he is writing about political parties, and his concern is how social democrats should deal with these rival parties. The most commonly used term for these parties though is "left parties". See for example the Party of the European Left and note that 12 member parties used the term "Left" as part of their name.

March was not implying that these parties were necessarily extreme, just that they were to the left of social democracy. As he writes, "The far left is becoming the principal challenge to mainstream social democratic parties, in large part because its main parties are no longer extreme, but present themselves as defending the values and policies that social democrats have allegedly abandoned. „ The most successful far left parties are those that are pragmatic and non-ideological, and have charismatic leaders."

Obviously this group of parties warrants its own article, and I would suggest the title "Left parties". But conflating them with bomb throwers acting outside the parliamentary system is just tendentious.

TFD (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If it's 'undue' to have only March's classification, what would be offered instead? What I see now is removal of reliably sourced material with the apparent aim of reducing the article to a stub. Now call me a AGF rejectionist, but the fact that information of far-left politics is being removed by certain - to put it mildly - left-wing affiliated editors rings me the bell that the wellknown 'theory' is being pushed here that 'far-left does not exist' ('but far-right begins in the centre of the political spectrum'). Ein Schelm wer böses [4] dabei denkt! Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We should use the ordinary definition of the meanings of both these terms, that they are groups that generally operate outside the parliamentary system and rely on violence. Such groups - both left and right - do exist, and it is tendentious to conflate them with groups that are just to the left or the right of the Conservative-Liberal-Social Democratic center. TFD (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality desperately needed for this

How can the far-left definition not include examples of policy, such as "Stalism"? That's just for starters. For contrast review far-right politics. How can any honest individual say there's neutrality when juxtaposing these two definitions side by side?

Can we be intellectually honest that there's very evil examples of both far-left and far-right politics? It's so completely obvious the politics behind the wiki contributors themselves, which is okay within these notes pages; but how is it a service to anyone if contributors play politics with the actual writing of the definitions themselves? It's not. Please round out this page. I might add the far-right needs editing too, but fear that would be asking just too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinb3 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The far left is anti-state, that's why they are far left. TFD (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The far left advocates absolute social and economic equality. Stalin's Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship. Not very equal JDiala (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles are based on what reliable sources say, not our opinions. TFD (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. Compared to the far-right article which includes nazism and describes racism it doesn't convey the extremeness of the far-left. And your view that Stalinism was not far-left is just absurd. It has nothing to do with strength of state. Stalins philosophy was far left. Far-leftists can be very intolerant, not against race, but against class, religion, etc. Order has little to do with it. They are often violent anarchists, for example, as well as tyrants. The point is both want to fundamentally change or "equalize" (dehumanize) society (vs far right who believe in a gross implementation of a "natural order"). No matter how hypothetical far-leftism is it's killed far more than fascism. This source basically says all the nuerosis affecting the far-left. [5] --monochrome_monitor 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The article should also mention how far-leftists have become antisemitic, ie the New Antisemitism. It's just interesting since both fascism and far-leftism share this, and it also shows the extremeness of far-leftism (violence). [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome monitor (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If you call Stalinism far left, then what do you call their opponents who were more left-wing? Anyway Bogdor's view that the Left is anti-semitic is non-notable. TFD (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)'

Stalin's opponents were also far-left. Stalin is far-left. It's pretty much a fact. Whether or not you think communism was executed properly, Stalin's views were very left. The whole "tyranny" thing is actually how it's supposed to work. There needs to be a party making sure that socialism is followed, called the dictatorship of the proletariat. And it's actually a mainstream view that the left is antisemitic. See Soviet Antisemitism, New European Antisemitism. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Anti-Semitism-in-left-wing-online-media [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome monitor (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2014

Full disclosure here: I am an anarchist. Having said that, I think that since there is obviously a tension in terms of definitions, the best course is to identify and articulate the differing positions, as Wikipedia successfully does on various contentious issues. While I view Stalinism as essentially right wing, I recognize that there is a significant body of work that disagrees, and think that it is best to find sources to capture this disagreement. I will echo that since Paul Bogdanor has linked to his own heavily ideological website he is probably not very neutral in maintaining NPOV. Probably the best way to assess who is on the far left (and what their characteristics are) is a combination of how they identify themselves, how they are identified in scholarship, in mass media and in popular culture. All of these sources contribute to perceptions of what anarchists, communists and other far left groups are like. Disappointing to see everyone injecting nakedly ideological definitions of things rather than trying to correctly describe the controversy. 135.23.189.202 (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

IP, there are books such as The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, which provide definitions of the far right, list which ideologies and groups belong to it, distinguish it from the (non-far) Right and identify the literature on the subject. Can you please provide a similar source for "far left." TFD (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Monochrome monitor, what are we supposed to do with your sources? The National Review, The Jerusalem Post and The Commentator articles do not use the term "far left." Bale's article, which is probably the only reliable source presented, uses the term "far left" twice in the article, but does not define it. But since he is talking about Nouvelle Resistance, I assume he is referring to groups like Action directe (armed group), which at one time had connections with them. The JCPA article also uses the term "far left", but it appears to be referring to groups to the left of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

You need a reliable source that provides a definition of "far left" and provides examples.

As for your comment that the left is anti-Semitic, how do you explain the Israeli Labor Party and leaders such as Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan. Were they anti-Semites? TFD (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked through the discussions at both the Far Right article and this one. One of the main obstacles to true neutrality at both is, in my opinion, TFD. At every step, when users have made good-faith attempts to point out serious problems with the tone and tenor of either article, TFD has stepped in to "protect" the articles from needed change. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. The difference between the FR article and the FL article is just completely beyond the pale, and needs to be fixed straightaway, with our without TFD's assistance. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If editors want to make changes to this article, then they need to provide sources, which you have not done. I can go to Google Books and the first hit is Mapping the Extreme Right in Contemporary Europe (Routledge, 2012),[10] which contains a series of articles, that can be used to build an article. But there are no similar sources for far left. Even if there were, it does not mean that what is in one article should determine what is in the other. Neutrality btw means reflecting sources, it does not mean correcting any perceived bias in mainstream sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

    Your guardianship of these articles is counterproductive to the improvement of them. I will wait for other opinions (such as Pudeo's below) on the issue. Yours is clear, as you've prevented any real progress on the issue for awhile now. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

    • There are similar sources for the far-left, although in numbers indeed there are far less compared to the far-right. Luke March is a scholar of political science at the University of Edinburgh, he seems to be referenced in other academic work and besides that Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung book (that was discussed in the section above) he has published for Routledge: Radical Left Parties in Europe (Routledge, 2011). There is no reason why that couldn't be used as a source, although I agree that the party table from the other one shouldn't be added to this article. Those books aren't available in Google books, so the next person who wants to improve this could visit the library instead of this talk page. --Pudeo' 21:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

March's writing is already used as a source. He developed the concept of the "far left Party", which included any groups to the left of social democratic parties. This is a new political family that emerged after 1989. But that term never caught on. As your source says, he now calls them "radical left parties", and most sources call them "left parties", which is what they call themselves.

If you think March's definition should be used, then what complaint do you have about neutrality?

TFD (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"But that term never caught on." Atleast I've noticed that it's being used in mainstream media, for example the BBC: "Mr Bisky led the far-left European United Left group --", which is the left of the social democrats group in the EU parliament. Besides, it's a matter of controversy - the German Die Linke calls itself just a "left party" but it's classified as far-left by the German federal government and several German political scientists (see ref. #1 in the German Wikipedia). Radical left and far-left are overlapping terms, Radical left is a redirect to this article. I think the issues in this article mostly stem from the fact that the political spectrums are different in different countries, which indeed for example means there's a specific tradition in studying the far-left (linksextremismus) in Germany.

But what we probably both agree with is that it's pretty useless to discuss this without concrete changes being proposed to the article with sources. --Pudeo' 17:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The German government uses the term "Left-wing extremism." However if you follow the source in the German Wikipedia, the "Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution", their report does not identify the Die Linke as extremist but says, "Other [left-wing extremists], like the Trotskyist groups, attempt to gain and exert an influence on DIE LINKE (The Left) (a policy known as “entrism”)." (2013 Annual Report, p. 18)[11] I think you are correct about the maintream media, "far left" is shorter than "radical left" and "the left European United Left Group" does not read very well. But I do not think that most academic writing uses that term because it is ambiguous, and fails to distinguish between what the German government calls left-wing extremism and legal groups to the left of the Social Democratic Party.

Regardless, if you think we should use March's definition which includes Die Linke, then it would be wrong to confuse it with the German government's definition of left-wing extremism. So you need to decide which of the two topics this article is about, or whether it should be a dictionary entry explaining how different sources define the term and similar terms differently. What do you think?

TFD (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the current version of the article is that problematic, actually. The second section expands on that, it could have a paragraph about Germany too, as it has the French definition of the extrême-gauche, which is interesting. However, it's true that it's probably not a good idea to start different sections for France, Germany, UK etc... I'm pretty sure the dictionary entry option is out of the question because this isn't Wiktionary. :-) --Pudeo' 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Why isn't this mentioned in the artiole? Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why should it be? TFD (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Divide it into two articles

"Radical left" and "left-wing extremism" should be distinguished, shouldn't it? --Te og kaker (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a pointy article. Basically it pulls together examples where writers have used the term far left without actually being about a topic. TFD (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Far-left mass killings

I know of many far-left mass murder and genocides. Should these be included here? - The Soviets wanted to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, by genocide. This is called Holodomor, genocide by starvation. - Soviet murder of intelectuals and higher class people. - 20+ million unnatural deaths in the Soviet Union, starvation because of failed policies (they knew it would fail) and people who were enemies of the state. - The mass murders by Pol Pot and related unnatural deaths. Perhaps as many as 2,2 million. - Unnatural deaths because of failed policys and mass murders by the communists in China. Perhaps as many as 50 million deaths.

Totally far left regimes are responsible for around 70 million unnatural deaths. Perhaps as many as 100 million people died (all non-combatans). 129.177.38.26 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

To do that we would have to show that there is a generally agreed definition for "far left." While the term normally refers to groups to the left of Communist parties, this article identifies it as groups to their right, but to the left of Socialist parties. None of those parties have ever held power except in coalition in Greece. TFD (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that there is already a brief piece on this subject in the Violence section of the article. It contains a link to the article on Mass killings under Communist regimes where such issues are discussed in detail. The focus of this article is more on political ideology. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Shorten

I shorten various passages: 1) Left-right distinctions are always contextual. A political position that is considered as extreme in one society is not necessarily considered extreme in all others. There are no absolutes in the left-right continuum. 2) Far-left regimes/governments is an oxymoron. A party in power is per definition not a fringe group. 3) I've come across "American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists, & Others" before. It is not really a qualititative analysis. --Soman (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing the material. The problem with this article is that there is no topic, it just explains all the various groups that have been called far left. The reason the term "far right" has meaning is not that neo-nazis, Klansmen etc. necessarily occupy that part of the ideological geography but because that is most widely recognized term to describe them and has an historical basis in European parliaments where similar groups were assigned to the far right of legislatures. Neo-nazis and klansmen of course developed independently of each other. But we do not have the same problem with comparing the Red Brigade in Europe with the Weather Underground in the U.S., Maoists in Europe and Maoists in the U.S., etc. TFD (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

France

Is it actually mainstream thought in France that the Communist Party are not far left? Surely even the most moderate Communist is by definition far left, just as all Nazis and Fascists must be far right? 101.98.74.13 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This quote from the "Doctrine" section of the French Communist Party article explains the situation in a bit more detail:

The PCF, in contrast to weaker and more marginal communist parties in Europe, is usually seen as a left-wing rather than far-left party in the French context. While the French far-left (LCR/NPA, LO) has refused to participate in government or engage in electoral alliances with centre-left parties such as the PS, the PCF has participated in governments in the past and still enjoys a de facto electoral agreement with the PS (mutual withdrawals, the common practice since 1962 and in 1934-1939). Nonetheless, some observers and analysts classify the PCF as a far-left party, noting their political proximity to other far-left parties.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The term far left, like the term far right, generally refers to groups that operate outside the parliamentary system and rely on violence to achieve their goals. TFD (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So groups cease to be far-left because they gain power? This theory would also mean that the Nazis and fascists cease to be far-right because they gain power, which IMO is fairly absurd. Since you insist on deleting sourced material about well-known far-left movements in power (which is virtually 99% of the far-left's history), I am very interested to hear what you would describe Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. as? User2534 (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting edits concerning left-wing governments

This article often attracts edits which add material concerning left-wing governments. The edits usually have to be reverted as this article primarily concerns the politics of far-left opposition groups (as has been discussed above). I suspect that the majority of these edits are done in WP:GOODFAITH by editors who do not understand the specific subject of this article. Unfortunately this creates both unnecessary work and bad feeling. Perhaps we should:

1. Expand the lead to explain that far-left politics are generally the province of extra-governmental groups and that those espousing them are typically opposed to their own governments.
2. Expand the hatnote to redirect readers seeking articles on left-wing governments to a more appropriate page. Does anyone have any suggestions for the most appropriate page?

Any comments? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - as there have been no comments in the last month I have implemented these changes. Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

There's really no far left hate groups in America?

The far right has the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazism, Skinheads, etc. but the far left has nothing? I'm kind of skeptical of this article. Ghoul flesh (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Nazis were far left for their time. Beep Boop 00:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon1122334455 (talk • contribs)

While hate groups, target minorities, the Left looks to minorities for support. Furthermore, they identify the source of social problems as capitalism, rather than minorities. TFD (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

What "The Four Deuces" says is factually inaccurate. Historically and today, the radical left identify higher earners and higher class as the enemy and target them. And that is definitely a minority. Furthermore, there are actual ethnic minorities, that the radical-left has historically pursued. Specifically, in Soviet Union post WWII, antisemitism was part of official doctrine of Communist Party. Antisemitism is ripe in radical leftist circles even now. This comment has nothing to do wih the article, but the comment above is untrue and biased, and I don't want a dangerous lie to keep spreading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.53.211 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2016‎

This comment is unlikely to stop the spread of a supposedly dangerous lie. This also seems like false balance. Antisemitism in the Soviet Union was a thing, and it's still undoubtedly around in many places left and right, but the idea that it's "ripe" in radical leftist circles would need context and substantial sources to be taken seriously as anything other than more overblown conspiracy mongering. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an etymological fallacy that the rich are a minority group. They are not considered a minority in social sciences. And they are not targeted by left-wing groups in the same way that minorities are targeted by hate groups. Rich people are not barred from joining left-wing organizations or assuming leadership positions, while homophobic groups do not allow openly practicing homosexuals to lead them. No doubt leftists have sometimes been as prejudiced as the rest of the societies they live in, for example the Socialist Party of France in the Dreyfus Affair. But there are no left-wing groups in the U.S. whose focus is on hate of minorities and none today that I am aware of that advocate it. If you know of any left-wing groups in the U.S. set up in order to oppose the rights of racial, religious or sexual minorities, could you please say who they are. TFD (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is indeed rife in far-left circles. Simply attend any university in the Western world and you will be bombarded with anti-Semitism from Muslims and their leftist allies. Also the left's embrace of Linda Sarsour and smearing of Zionism as a "white supremacist" ideology. The widely-adored Black Lives Matter movement and its blood libel saying that Israel is commiting genocide against Arabs. The left's championing of the 2017 Women's March led by Linda Sarsour, Angela Davis, and Harry Belafonte. UCLA championing Angela Davis as a hero and adoringly plastering her posters all over campus. Students bodies calling for boycotts of Israel. Leftist celebrities calling for boycotts of Israel. Supposed "human rights" organizations demonizing Israel, smearing it as "apartheid," and falsely saying it oppresses Arabs. Simply read any Jewish newspaper. I read Jewish newspapers all the time. There is far more anti-Semitism from the left than the right. And there are indeed many, many far-left hate groups. Far too many to detail in this article. But there is no point in attempting to add them because Wikipedia only labels right-wing organizations as hate groups or as extremist, sometimes correctly but also many times incorrectly. Furthermore, all self-identified socialist/communist groups in the U.S. oppose the rights of Jews, as do all groups that identify as "intersectional." This has been thoroughly documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.193.198.131 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Although some anti-Semites try to disguise their views as criticism of the Israeli government, criticism of the government is not anti-Semitism. The Labour Party for example has been critical of government policies, but is not anti-Semitic, in fact it played a major role in founding Israel and its leaders included Ben Gurion and Golda Meir. Similarly you would find it odd to be called anti-American if you said that Obama was not born in the U.S. Incidentally, when people like you call corporate Democrats supported by George Soros "far left," how do you describe socialists, communists and anarchists? TFD (talk)

Antifa is definitely an anti white and anti right wing terrorist group. Alexthill73 (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes to the introduction

For a long time, the introduction to this article has been very short, reflecting the difficulty of summarising the diverse usages of the term discussed on the page. A couple of days ago, an editor introduced an additional paragraph to the introduction, which was reverted by a number of editors, including me. The problem is that the introduced paragraph neither summarises the content of the article, nor is it sourced. Although there are some reference tags in the introduced paragraph, they are not actual sources supporting the material, merely links to Google books searches which happen to include some of the words being referenced. I'm adding this note as a place to start a discussion, if other editors think that some or all of the material in the added introduction can be appropriately sourced and so should remain. VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

A longer and more detailed lead that does manage to summarize the article is definitely something worth shooting for, but yes, the recent additions clearly didn't accomplish that. The relative weight and tone it took also didn't really seem to reflect the available sources. Comparing their proposed addition to Far-right politics makes me think this is probably a WP:POINTy edit, since they specifically seem to have tried to use the exact same wording, even when the sources didn't really support it. Of course, the entire page could probably use some attention given that the largest section is completely uncited... --Aquillion (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

While there are a lot of problems with this article, the addition is inaccurate and makes it worse. There is btw no symmetry between the terms far left and far right, which is obvious from Google books or scholar searches. The first is an actual topic of study, while the second is a term whose meaning depends on context. TFD (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Re-visiting the Unites States

What we have for the USA now is a section called Criticism of the Far-left in the United States. It seems to me that to have such a section and not define what the "far-left" in American is about is silly. That is, to criticize something without saying what it is. So I am inclined to move that section to here (the Talk Page) pending some sort of referenced clarification. That is, after I hear your thoughts, of course. Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now. I don't think a criticism section is the right way to approach it, and the one cite was to something that was just mentioned in passing in a larger paper that wasn't about the US. Possibly it could be included in a larger section (or in a section that compares the far left to the far right, which is what the paper is about in a larger sense), but I think a US section would probably lead with discussion of why the far left never took serious root in the US the way it did in Europe, which seems to be what most academic sources talk about. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

United States section

This is regarding this edit

@Lukacris: Hello. Content on Wikipedia must be directly supported by sources, not indirectly according to an editor's research of those sources. Nowhere does this source from the British Green Party say anything about being far-left, nor does it confer that status to the United States Green Party. Using this source to imply this is original research. Likewise, this source from NPR does not say that Antifa is "violent anarchists", nor does it actually say they are part of the far-left. These might seem reasonable interpretations to some, but this isn't what the source is supporting, so this cannot be used for this claim. Likewise, this source from Foreign Policy says nothing directly about the far-left, nor Marxism. None of these changes were acceptable for these reasons. Please discuss your concerns here instead of restoring this content again. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I take your criticism of the version I offered. Going forward, this section needs to be rewritten or removed altogether. First, the current text does not describe what the far-left in the U.S. is; it only describes the far-left from the perspective of an adherent (not to say such a perspective is not useful in proper context). The article capo defines far-left as being left of the political mainstream. This section should then describe the ideologies, movements, and organizations in the U.S. that are left of mainstream.

For instance, overt communism and neo-marxism are left of the political mainstream. Radical feminism (distinct from Marxist Feminism) is also left of mainstream. Radical environmentalism also exists left of mainstream politics-- whether the American Green Party is fairly labeled far-left is a good question that should hinge on whether they are not mainstream and, if not, whether they run left or right (with this rubric, the far-left label is probably apt). With respect to Antifa and the NPR article, I disagree with you because the article does support the fact that Antifa uses violence and that the movement is left of the political mainstream (I can see why the "anarchist" label is not supported though). For example, the article reads: "Antifa rarely talk to reporters and rarely give their names, at least not while wearing masks. But in online discussions they say the far-right activists are being disingenuous." This directly supports Antifa being far-left. The article also gives direct accounts of violent tactics used by the group. So that article gives ample support for the conclusion that Antifa is far-left and is violent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukacris (talk • contribs) 18:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR, as I said. If sources do not say a group is far-left, Wikipedia should not include this. Believing that the far-right is disingenuous does not "directly" support that a group or movement is far-left. It is not up to you to decide where the mainstream lies, or what is left of it, right of it, above it, or below it. This spectrum is, by design, a simplification, and its an oversimplification, at that. Even with sources, this needs to be handled carefully, and not every passing mention in a Googled news article will be sufficient for broad claims about the entirety of the far-left. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Then remove it. The problem with this article is that there is no clear definition of far left and the article conflates a lot of unrelated groups. TFD (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As an alternative to outright deletion, this could work as a starting-point:

• Since World War II, certain far-left groups have fallen under the ideological umbrella of anti-facism (usually shortened to “Antifa”). In the 1980s and 90s, these groups operated as clandestine watchdogs of emerging neo-Nazis. “Since the 1990s, many antifa activists have combined antifascism and general anti-racism/anti-prejudice sentiments.” . The New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness described Antifa as “a subset of the anarchist movement [who] focus on issues involving racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, as well as other perceived injustices.”

Again, it's not clear to me that this page should even exist.(talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Certain far-left groups have fallen under the ideological umbrella of anti-facism (usually shortened to “Antifa"). Where is the source? Certain groups are usually shortened? What does this even mean?

In the 1980s and 90s, these groups operated as clandestine watchdogs of emerging neo-Nazis inside the United States. Where is the source? This is pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTH and a clumsy shoehorn of the "antifa" buzzword. Blackguard 21:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's a mess, but these additions have some serious problems that need to be resolved for this to be a positive change.

Nowhere does the NJ homeland security post state that antifa is "far-left", making this yet more WP:SYNTH. We have an article on Antifa, where this source has already been discussed in some length.

The Wired article does not say they were clandestine, and only says that it "often leans way left" and "many" are anarchists. Yes, they may be far-left, but you still need to find a source which specifically spells this out instead of trying to find a source which supports a preconceived narrative. This Wired source is a intentionally simplified overview from a pop-culture focused outlet, and as I said above, these kinds of things need to be weighed cautiously before being used to insert contentious sweeping claims about the latest hot-topic in an article about something with decades of history.

Instead of finding sources that align with a conclusion, find sources that actually directly state the conclusion. Find a reliable source which says "antifa is a recent example of a far-right political movement in the United States" or similar. This is the simplest way to avoid OR and editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is far left. Rational (conservative voices) are not welcome. 47.137.185.148 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible sources for expansion

This article is a mess; I think most people agree with that much. There's four issue templates on it, all of which still apply, and almost every discussion we've had acknowledges the problems. But it's a tricky subject to summarize, so I thought I'd do a quick search and throw together some possible sources for expansion. Note that I haven't read these in-depth, so I can't attest to their accuracy, neutrality, or even that they necessarily pass WP:RS, but they all looked usable at a glance. Note that several of these are by the same author (Luke March). Also, it seems like most of the academic attention on them is in Europe (where they have seen at least some political success), rather than in America. Finally, the term "radical left" seems to be used far more frequently than "far left". Also, there's a lot about South America, so we should probably have a section for that in the article. To the extent that these sources talk about the US at all, they generally focus on why the United States has no meaningful far-left to speak of. Anyway, cites:

References

In order to have a good article we would first need a topic. Basically this article is original research drawing on examples where someone has used the term in order to somehow conflate them. March at least defined his topic before writing about it. Those are political parties to the left of social democratic parties and include Syriza and PODEMOS. Unfortunately, few writers call them far left. If we want to have an article about them, I suggest using the neutral term "left parties," which is what they call themselves and are referred to in many sources. TFD (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

There was recently a large amount of changes by user - Corriebertus. Firstly the article was changed so that the introduction only concerned Europe. The article is about a worldwide topic and therefore should reflect this and not focus on only one area. Furthermore, there is no one universally accepted definition of far-left by political scientists. There are plenty of left-wing parties in Europe that are not far-left and left-wing parties that are democratic socialist, and again, not far-left. Political parties in France to the left of the French Socialist Party are also not all far-left. There are multiple parties to the left of this party that are not far-left. Helper201 (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You were right to remove the additions, in my opinion. The problem with this article starts with the lead, where it says far left can mean different things. If that is the case, then the article should be about these different meanings. Alternatively, per disambiguation, it could be about the topic covered by one of the definitions. I think some editors expect there should be symmetry in describing the Left and the Right, but there isn't. While the Right developed by unrelated and competing parties coming together, the Left developed through splits and divisions. Hence the need to create terms such as far right to describe sections of the Right. TFD (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Oddly, I think it the issue might be the opposite of that - there have been a lot of distinct, successful far-right parties, each of them flavored by their own sort of nationalism and the like; so "far-right" became necessary in the literature as a way to encompass all of these (since you can't uncontroversially lump them all together as Fascist, but some term to encompass their commonalities is necessary). The same isn't true for the far-left - while there's a lot of differences, the only really successful movements universally recognized as "far-left" would be communism and perhaps anarchism, which are distinct enough that lumping them together isn't really useful. So unlike scholars studying the right, scholars writing about the left would tend to just write "communism" or "anarchism" and make that their topic. I seem to recall that March (one of the few scholars to repeatedly use and define the term "far-left") mentioned that the general failure of far-left movements to gain traction in the west was one reason why there wasn't much scholarship on it as a broad grouping. Actually, maybe I should dig that cite up and put it in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

March used the term "far left" in 2008 to refer to Left parties, such as The Left (Germany), which developed after 1989 and brought together Communists, left-wing Social Democrats and supporters of other left-wing parties, as well as reformed and unreformed Communist parties. However he later stopped using the term, saying, "I prefer the term 'radical left' to alternatives such as 'hard left' and 'far left', which can appear pejorative and imply that the left is necessarily marginal." (Radical Left Parties in Europe (2012), p. 1724.)[12]

I didn't say left-wing parties should be lumped together, just that they are related. Anarchists were part of the First International, but were expelled. Communists broke from Socialists in 1919, while Maoists, Trotskyists etc. are all forms of Communists. Furthermore, the names are applicable in every country. For example, there are Trotskyist parties in France and in the UK. But there is no similar term that groups the National Front in France and the BNP in the UK., except far right.

TFD (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)