Talk:Far-left politics/Archive 5

Lead section
Hello fellow Wikipedians, The introduction requires some improvement. Although the article is experiencing constant improvement the lead section needs to be up to date nevertheless. I intend to give a clear overview of the contents of this article, as well as expand on the definitions of far-left politics and far-left terrorism. Considering that the reader spends only a couple of minutes in each page the lead section is the most important one and requires constant updating. I will summarize the most important points and introduce the sources. car4uso (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC) car4uso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Car4uso (talk • contribs) (Car4uso (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
 * I agree this article is really lacking, but I'm not willing to go near it. How we have an article on the far-left that does not mention Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism or Maoism is beyond me, it's totally and utterly ridiculous. But if you try and add them, you'll be wasting your time. Editing this article is gonna be a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I don't need the stress, incivility, edit wars and inevitable ANI reports that come from trying to improve an article like this one. Good luck and best wishes to anyone who is game. I'll certainly support any attempt by others to include the most prominent far left ideologies like Marxism-Leninism - I don't know what to say about such glaring absences. Bacondrum (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bacondrum, thanks for your comment, but I have to disagree with your edits to your comment about Marxism–Leninism et al. As noted by The Four Deuces, their governments were not far-left and the political spectrum was Communists on the left and anti-Communists on the right. As was noted elsewhere, anarchism, communism and socialism are left-wing ideologies, not far-left; only several traditions and currents are considered far-left and there is no real agreement because far-left is about being more left-wing than you and there is not a Handbook of the Far-Left like the far-right. I would consider some traditions within anarchism and communism such as autonomism or left communism as far-left rather than Marxism–Leninism et al. I do not see how being authoritarian makes one more left-wing; that would make one more right-wing and closer to the centre. I would say one that is consistent on means and ends is more left-wing than one who use right-wing means to reach left-wing ends.
 * And there is indeed this centrist bias that the far-left must be authoritarian and Stalinist so they can say there is no real difference between the far-left and the far-right and that both are authoritarian/totalitarian. A political spectrum that see anti-capitalism as far-left and social democracy and social liberalism as left-wing rather than centre-left or centre is one skewed so far to the right and biased towards the status quo. So I do not see what was particular far-left about Marxism–Leninism et al. They were left-wing and essentially took the place of 19th-century liberalism; both introduced capitalism. Nothing wrong about that. With the fall of the 1917–1924 revolutionary proletarian wave in Europe and elsewhere, the Bolsheviks were clear about following the state capitalist path to industrialize and modernize the country so as to make the future development of socialism possible. Just do not sell that as socialism when wage labour, commodity exchanges, the law of value et al are all part of the capitalist mode of production.
 * Note that it is mainly Marxist–Leninists and anti-Communists who say the Soviet Union et al were socialist, albeit for vastly different reasons. Many academics, including non-Marxist, dispute they were even socialist planned economies, hence the term command economies. They say they were essentially centrally-managed, not planned; hence, they called it the administrative-command system to refer to the Soviet model adopted by the Eastern Bloc, but I digress. Current sources used in the article do not make any specific mention to the Soviet Union et al, or Marxism–Leninism et al; they are essentially saying it is more left than the left but there is no agreement about what that does entail and I do not think that has changed by now. Davide King (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Davide, thanks for your thoughts. I respectfully disagree, but I'm not going to get too deep into it. Two things I will say: In my opinion claiming Stalin and Mao were not far-left is ridiculous obfuscation, it's as silly as the lunatic fringe right-wingers who claim fascism isn't a far-right ideology. I'm a socialist, for the sake of arguing the socialist case I wish Stalin, Mao et al were not, but they obviously were. I think the socialist denial comes from my parents generation of leftists who wholeheartedly supported the soviet union until the 90's when the true horrors of soviet cruelty became very well known in western nations and very hard to deny, at which point many people on the left started indulging in historic revisionism and denialism. I also believe the horseshoe theory is a joke - far-Left and far-right are not comparable, they have very little other than authoritarianism in common, ideologically they are antithetical. Bacondrum (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that just because Hitler and Mussolini were far-right, that does not mean that Stalin and Mao were far-left; I would not be surprised to find that many people, even on the left, say Stalin and Mao are far-left just so they are not associated to the left, the normal left, so as to conflate the far-left with authoritarianism and Stalinism and the moderate left with democracy and liberty, when both lefts include more democratic/libertarian and more authoritarian strands; it is simply not true and we need a source that defines within the Left where it can be called far left. I think was right when writing [p]eople did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left. The problem is that there is not agreement among sources about where [the Left] can be called far left. Some say social democracy (I find this a bit odd as I would consider social democracy centre-left and it would represent a spectrum skewed to the right and the status quo, in this case capitalism, with anti-capitalism considered far-left rather than left-wing).
 * As noted by The Four Deuces here, [b]oth in the world outside the U.S. and academic writing in the U.S., left-wing means socialist, communist or anarchist. They would not call politicians whose base of financial support is Walmart, Amazon and other corporations left-wing. So yeah, I find this far-left definition as anything to the left of social democracy as a bit odd and too broad. Others say anything left of the communist party. Again, there is a much wider and clearer literature about the far-right than the far-left. Note also for example that Stalin represented the centre but was probably closer to the Right Opposition, although in practice he did implement the program of the Left Opposition and even went too far by forcing the rapid industrialization and collectivization.
 * Again, I do not see anything far-left in the system they introduced as a step to capitalism; they may have been far-left only before overthrowing the previous feudal elite, but the liberals were not far-left and are not considered far-left when they did the same thing one century earlier (both were considered left-wing; I think far-left and far-right have been popularised exactly in the 20th century). Once they did that and overthrown the existing elite (something the far-right never did, hence they did not move on the political spectrum), they were no longer far-left and indeed there were many factions to their left. It makes no sense to speak of the Communist parties in the few remaining Communist states as far-left today; they would represent the centre or the right. I believe The Four Deuces can better answer any doubt you might have. I think we were left in trying to give a definition of both the far-left and the left.--Davide King (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll just have to disagree. If you treat political discourse as a moderation fallacy, then there's no far right either - this is circular logic, it's a false equivalence itself. I think these contemporary claims about Nazi's being socialists and Bolsheviks being state capitalists are nothing more than historic denialism. I certainly think the Bolsheviks were left and the extreme violence and other measures they took to implement their ideology makes them extreme ie "far-left". Bacondrum (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Both far right and far left are relative terms. So to Fox News viewers, mainstream media is far left. Luke March in his article about Left parties, used the term far left to refer to anything to the left of established social democratic parties, but has since abandoned the term because he thought it was pejorative. So this is basically an article in search of a topic.

While Communism is considered a variety of socialism, the belief that they had established a socialist state is not widely supported outside Marxism-Leninism. It depends on whether or not one believes that the working class actually owned and controlled the means of production in the Soviet Union. Were for example factories controlled by workers collectively and profits distributed to them as they agreed, or were decisions made by political commissars? Were parliamentary bodies democratically chosen by the people or were they appointed by the party?

BTW the 1990s was late in the day to figure out how the Soviet Union worked.

TFD (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that many on the right think everyone left Hitler is a radical leftist. I also hear what you are saying generally, I simply disagree (by the way, the 90's wasn't late to figure it out for some, I know a few from the old school who still defend the Soviet Union with their hands on their hearts, they are out there...shit I have friends that defend the Soviet Union...but there weren't many left by the 90's ) and I really do find attempts to make it out like the Soviets were on the right or whatever very silly at best. But anyway, if there's no far-left? Nominate for the article for deletion? Bacondrum (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The way to resolve this dispute would be to grab a political science manual and go with the sources. MonsieurD (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * in response to this, could you please clarify how I committed the moderation fallacy? I thought my point was arguing exactly against that, that just because Hitler et al were far-right, it does not mean that Stalin et al were far-left rather than simply left-wing. Nevermind, I think you were not saying I did that fallacy, but you were more commenting about how many, especially centrists, see the far-left and far-right the same way, which is something you and I agree on (i.e. you and I agree that is nonsense) and which is incidentally also the views in academia, with only the more anti-Communists arguing Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were literally the same thing without any nuance. However, I have to disagree with your conclusion that then there's no far right either - this is circular logic, it's a false equivalence itself for the simple fact that, as again noted by again, there is an actual literature that clearly define the topic of the far-right, something that cannot be said to be the same for the far-left.
 * Also, discussing the nature of the Soviet Union et al is no denialism. Indeed, as I wrote above and as noted by The Four Deuces, it is mainly Marxist–Leninist (the ones who still defend the Soviet Union as socialist to this day or excuses other things) and right-wing anti-Communists that agree the Soviet Union et al were socialists (albeit with vastly different implications; the Soviet Union was bad, so it was socialist, etc.). That is notwithstanding Lenin himself and many Bolsheviks declaring the state capitalist development as a path for socialism and that it was Stalin who re-defined state capitalism as socialism, for example by saying the law of value would still exist under socialism, or how commodities exchanges, extraction of surplus value from the peasantry and the free labour from the Gulags, wage labour, etc. have much more in common with the capitalist mode of production than a socialist one. Again, neither I or The Four Deuces said they were right-wing (I simply wrote that current Communist parties in so-called Communists are not far-left either), we are merely saying that they were not far-left; and I think The Four Deuces and I agree that they were left-wing, not far-left.
 * This is really not at all surprising considering the right is more homogeneous and the left has so many factions and is so much broader (which I believe is just one more reason why it is so hard, even for scholars, to define the topic). Also, there were impossibilist groups like the Socialist Party of Great Britain who argued the Soviet Union was state capitalist by 1918 and many left communists who reached the same conclusion in the 1920s. Many academics reached the same or similar conclusions only later, for example in the 1980s with the administrative-command system. However, the death toll was really politicised and it is far lower than the estimates of 20 million (I always found this road to the death toll absurd, for even 600,000 or one million would still be awful and there is no need to conflate the number as many right-wing anti-Communists have done) or above which were made before the opening of the archives (there are still debate on which killings were deliberate and which ones were not, for example whether the Soviet famine in the 1930s which affected not just Ukraine was a genocide or not) and hopefully now this is less politicised from both sides.
 * The Four Deuces, it is really interesting that Luke March abandoned the term; is he using radical left instead? Maybe we should add this to the article and make more clear March's position? I really found it odd too and pejorative to define the far-left as anything left of social democracy.--Davide King (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey good sir, I wasn't saying you committed a moderation fallacy at all, you're a very reasonable editor. I was saying that political positions being subjective is a moot point, that the moderation fallacy doesn't apply here - if we apply that reasoning to the left-right spectrum, it is all subjective where ideologies sit on the spectrum because everyone thinks their view is the correct one. I hope that makes sense. Bacondrum (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments. I agree about that; one could easily say that Robespierre and Stalin were right-wing because they adopted right-wing means, but they are both seen as left-wing because that was their ends while, notwithstanding what right-wingers may claim, Hitler's ends were right-wing, hence why Stalin was left-wing and Hitler right-wing even though both adopted right-wing means. However, I see it is mainly right-wingers that do that, for example making the spectrum about how much big or small the government is, so Stalin, Hitler et al are on the left, following W. Cleon Skousen. Anyway, the point I was trying make was that, as far as I am aware, none of the ruling parties in Communist states are called far-left.--Davide King (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But yes, more back to the topic, we should go with the sources. What do they actually say? Problem is they seem to disagree on whether the far-left is the left of social democracy or of communist parties, so this article is still in search of a topic.--Davide King (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * u|MonsieurD, do you have a political science manual that has an entry for far left? Per disambguation, this article must be about a clearly defined topic. Instead the article attempts to conflate groups to the left of Tony Blair with terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * u|Davide King, March writes in Radical Left Parties in Europe (2012), p. 1724: "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." The term far left seems odd considering that he said the most successful far left parties were "pragmatic and non-ideological." But the most common term is "left parties," which is what they call themselves. Obviously his concept deserves an article, but in that case we should change the name.
 * TFD (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So maybe the topic of this article should really be those Left parties and we should add a section about them?--Davide King (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean my view of the contemporary "far-left" is that they argue for peace, social justice and equality, hardly comparable to the far-right, we don't have to have a far-left article just because there's a far-right one - symmetry is not essential. if what I think of as far-left isn't actually far-left, well I don't really care that much - I'd prefer to disown Stalin et al from the left anyways. I've been looking through my collection of politics books, but none of mine really cover left-wing ideologies in a broad sense, at least not like Cas Mudde's The Ideology of the Extreme Right does with the far-right. Even looking at books on the Soviet Union, they don't place Stalinism or Bolshevism on the political spectrum...whatever the case, we really shouldn't have an article that needs a topic. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not have a far-left article just because there is a far-right one; the far-right one has a bunch of bibliography and literature about a clear defined topic whereas the same cannot be said for the far-left. That research seems to confirm ' comment that [p]eople did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left. Still, I am not sure whether this should be turned into a disambiguation page like radical left. I find the Definition section more useful and helpful than a disambiguation.--Davide King (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not have a far-left article just because there is a far-right one; the far-right one has a bunch of bibliography and literature about a clear defined topic whereas the same cannot be said for the far-left. That research seems to confirm ' comment that [p]eople did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left. Still, I am not sure whether this should be turned into a disambiguation page like radical left. I find the Definition section more useful and helpful than a disambiguation.--Davide King (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

and, my understanding is that Marxism–Leninism et al are neither left-wing nor far-left but rather authoritarian left. While journalists and news may conflate the authoritarian left and the far-left (this is the centrist bias, that there more you go left or right, the more you go authoritarian, which may be true for the right but not necessarily for the left), authoritarianism is not a defining characteristic of the far-left the same way it is for fascism or the far-right; radicalism is, which is a different—not exactly the same—thing. This is consistent with The Four Deuces' comment that [p]eople did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left, i.e. they were considered (authoritarian) leftists (if put on a political spectrum at all) rather than far-left.--Davide King (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * comment There is a really poorly cited, dogs breakfast of an article Ultra-leftism, perhaps we could merge the far-left politics and Ultra-leftism articles into a radical left article and expand, culling the many dubious claims in Ultra-leftism while we are at it. Bacondrum (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Marxist-Leninists were considered to lie between social democrats (or whatever you want to call them) and Trotskyists. The article American Left lists numerous small left-wing groups in the U.S. that are considered to be to the left of the Communist Party. TFD (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is what I thought as well.--Davide King (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

, what does says that could be added to the article? How would you summarise or paraphrase it? Davide King (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, the problem with this article is that far left is not defined. Before we do that, we can't discuss content. TFD (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, but I would have hoped to hear from you what sources you found and what they say (I think you are very good at that).
 * Far-left politics (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Far-left (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Far left politics (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Far left (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Radical left politics (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Radical left (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Extreme left (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Extreme left politics (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Extreme left parties (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Far left parties (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Far-left parties (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * Radical left parties (Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR)
 * I tried all sorts of combinations. If there is no clear definition, then it would make sense to merge this into Left-wing politics (just because we have Far-right politics, which has a clear definition and literature, it does not mean we ought to have Far-left politics if it is not defined; it would also make sense if they only agree on being "left than the left"). So looking at those sources, what do they say? Davide King (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The term far right was adopted as an umbrella term because no other terms were available. That problem did not arise for describing left-wing ideologies. For example, on the left are socialists, communists and anarchists, each of which has named subdivisions, such as Trotskyists and Maoists. But you don't get the same thing on the right, where groups such as the American Nazi Party and the KKK developed out of different political traditions, even though they have converged. TFD (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree, too. Yet we see news media using the term far-left (antifa, communism, socialism, etc.) as if is the same thing as far-right, with the exception that with far-left it is never clear what is meant other than being to the left of something (left-leaning sources usually referring to the left of the Democratic Party and right-leaning sources to the Democratic Party itself); and this is also reflected in Wikipedians' understanding of the terms. You can see that with Maoism and Stalinism, for example, being listed as Far-left politics in Categories, despite the fact there is no mention of it in the body, nor discussion of the ideology's position on the spectrum. I wish this was made more clear at Left-wing politics with scholarly sources. Davide King (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

, for what is worth it, I also agree with your comment here. Davide King (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

, in reference to this discussion, I wondered if you could held us go through the links to Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR I posted above and summarise what reliable sources say, if there is some consensus, and what are the things most scholars agree on, to improve the article. Because I believe has a point that the article still does not have a main topic other than being to the left of the Left but then reliable sources and scholars disagreeing of what is part of it. Anything to the left of social democracy? Anything to the left of the communist party? Anything to the left of communism? Currents such as autonomism? Davide King (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * in an ideal world this would be right up my alley - but I just don't have the time. I agree that the media generally don't have a clue about the left, that it has many more discernible ideologies than the right, and I'll add our articles are at times confused. For instance, there has never been a communist state in the form visualised by Marx. Our article Communist state starts with "A communist state, also known as a Marxist–Leninist state, is a state that is administered and governed by a single communist party guided by Marxism–Leninism" and names several states. It also says "As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries and distinguish them from other socialist states. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism." Interestingly, nowhere in the article are they described as left wing. Marxism-Leninism says
 * Marxism–Leninism has been widely criticised by both the left and right. Marxist–Leninist history has been especially criticised, including by other socialists such as anarchists, communists, democratic socialists and Marxists. Marxist–Leninist states have been accused of authoritarianism or totalitarianism, mass repressions and killings of political dissidents and social classes (so-called "enemies of the people"), religious persecution, ethnic cleansing, forced collectivisation and use of forced labor and concentration camps. States have been accused of genocidal acts in China, Poland and Ukraine.   Anti-Stalinist left and other left-wing critics see it as an example of state capitalism  and have referred to it as a "red fascism" contrary to left-wing politics.   Other leftists, including some Marxist–Leninists, have criticised it for its repressive state actions while recognising certain advancements such as egalitarian achievements and modernisation under such states.   Doug Weller  talk 10:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , that is very true, I agree. Still, there is also this centrist bias that acts like the left and the right, and the far-left and the far-right, are the same thing, when it is the left that is more generally pro-science; that left-leaning sources tend to be more reliable than right-leaning ones; that it is the right that promotes much more conspiracy theories, misinformation campaigns, etc.; that there are much more right-wing sources that are red while more left-wing sources are yellow, or even green, with only a small percentage red; that right-wing violence and terrorism are much more widespread than left-wing ones, that it is right-wing extremist and white supremacist the greater or major threat. This is not to say that there has been no left-wing violence or terrorism; it just means that it pales in comparison to the right; that while there are a few anti-science leftists, they pale in comparison to the anti-science rightists; that while there are few left conspiracy theorists and red sources, they again pale in comparison to those on the right, in both numbers and claims made. It is no coincidence that the majority of deprecated sources are right-wing ones that promotes conspiracy theories, misinformation and propaganda. Of course, there are those who say this just goes to show how left-wing Wikipedia really is, but it is not really Wikipedia's fault that the right is anti-science; that it is the right who has much more unreliable sources; and so on. Now, why did I write all this in the first place? To reconnect to what you write about how the media generally don't have a clue about the left, that it has many more discernible ideologies than the right, and I'll add our articles are at times confused." This is reflected especially in Communist-related articles as I wrote gere and here; most Communist-related articles fail to adhere to the NPOV (which clearly states "[it] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.") by mainly relying on the "anti-communist", "orthodox", or "traditionalist" school. Of course, Wikipedia is not itself reliable, but what you listed, especially about Communist states, is not really controversial or absurd. It is just common for some news media to use far-left to refer to them and this is integrated in our common imagination to see them as such, even though, as correctly pointed out by, "[p]eople did not refer to the governments of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China after Mao as far left."  I think it was The Four Deuces who also noted that during the 20th century the left–right political spectrum saw the Communists on the left (not far-left) and the anti-Communists on the right. This common imagination to see them as far-left, even though there is no scholarly consensus or agreement the same way there is on the far-right, has resulted in edits like this version, full of original research and synthesis, just because the far-right rightly mentions the atrocities that are routinely mentioned and discussed in books about the far-right. Here, The Four Deuces also made a good point and another one here for why the criticism in the lead of Marxism–Leninism is problematic, especially that "Governments across the political spectrum have engaged in mass killings, but this is the only one that that gives it that level of detail or even mentions it. The topic of the article isn't why Communism is bad but what is their ideology."  And I may add, articles such as Mass killings under communist regimes, or similarly styled Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, are problematic because many scholars, without denying that mass killings occurred, deny that 'Communist' mass killings are a special category of mass killings (or that a main topic can be derived from it without violating NPOV, synthesis and other policies) and they would be better served at each country's article and history; in addition, this reconnect to 'Communist'-related articles violating NPOV by relying on the "anti-communist" or "orthodox" school I highlighted because it is mainly those same "anti-communist" or "orthodox" historians that push the 'Communist' mass killings as a new mass killings category (I believe The Black Book of Communism especially popularised this position). This was already pointed out by  in 2011, so it is not just me. I believe The Four Deuces also made the correct point that there were no mass killings under Gorbachev and another argument I have read is that it is mainly the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia (whom is even more ambiguous on whether it really was a Communist state) that did commit mass killings and that all others Communist states engaged in killings that did not fit the 'mass killings' definition and so the article should be deleted and the content merged to each country's article about political repression or history.  Again, Wikipedia is not itself reliable, but at Soviet and Communist studies we write: "It is a field rife with conflict and controversy. [...]  According to John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, writing in their book, In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, the historiography of Soviet and Communist studies is characterized by a split between 'traditionalists' and 'revisionists'. Traditionalists characterize themselves as objective reporters of an alleged 'totalitarian' nature of Communism and Communist states; they are criticized by their opponents as being anti-communist, even fascist, in their eagerness on continuing to focus on the issues of the Cold War. Alternative characterizations for traditionalists include 'orthodox', 'Draperite' (after Theodore Draper), 'conservative', 'right-wing' or 'anti-Communist'. Norman Markowitz, a prominent revisionist, referred to them as triumphalist', 'romantics', 'right-wing romantics', and 'reactionaries' who belong to the 'HUAC school of CPUSA scholarship.  Revisionists, characterized by Haynes and Klehr as historical revisionists, are more numerous and, furthermore, dominate academic institutions and learned journals.[citation needed] A suggested alternative formulation is 'new historians of American communism', but that has not caught on. They would describe themselves as unbiased and scholarly and contrast their work to the work of anti-Communist traditionalists whom they would term biased and unscholarly." In other words, this is not like climate change or the Holocaust, where there is overwhelming consensus among scholars. Now, going back to the far-left, it seems to be that the main topic is "the left of the left", which would result in either the article remaining like this (if no more clear main topic is proposed, there is not much more to add or expand) or being merged into Left-wing politics. Davide King (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?
Per Disambiguation, articles should be about distinct topics and when one term has more than one meaning, then there should be more than one article. As current discussions about including Left-wing terrorism illustrate this, since it is only a significant issue in one of the definitions. (Full disclosure, I recreated the article Left-wing terrorism after it had been deleted and replaced by a redirect page.)) Is it:
 * A politics to the left of social democracy, or
 * B politics to the left of Communism, or
 * C a relative term.

TFD (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we would first have to establish what each category roughly includes. i.e. is left of socdem the socialists and communists, "radicals" in general, or what? and for B, what is to the left of Communism? Left-Wing Communism (Bordiga etc..)? It would be useful to define what these mean and all that.
 * forgot to sign the aboveAxderWraith Crimson (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Not B: I don't think a definition of far-left that starts left of Communism is credible. By some definitions Communism is maximum left and that would leave far-left as an empty category. I don't feel qualified to say exactly where far-left starts but I feel that it is uncontroversial that it has to include Communism. In my mind the far-left starts to the left of old style Socialism. So, left of, say, Tony Benn. Wanting to nationalise some industries for specific reasons is not enough to be labelled far-left but wanting to nationalise them all for general reasons is. That's just gut feeling though. I'm not sure where serious people who actually know stuff draw the line. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anything left of, and including Marxism-Leninism ie: Gonzalo Thought, Maoism and Stalinism I think these are indisputably the far-left ideologies. Socialism is not, it is a mainstream left ideology (perhaps not in the minds of The USA's extreme right-wing lunatic fringe, but the American's tend to have a deranged view of what socialism is, IMO) Bacondrum 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think this is a case of "more than one meaning" in the sense of two distinct things with a similar name: it's the same thing but there is dispute where the edges are. We might want to be a bit clearer in the lead, e.g. "Far-left politics are politics further to the left of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political left. There are different definitions of where the far-left begins and ends. Some scholars include the left of social democracy while others limit it to the left of communist parties." BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am adding C a relative term. In that sense there is no topic in reliable sources, just different instances of the term used with its meaning dependent on context. So a party that is referred to as far left by one author may be called left-wing or center left by another. We know what they mean because we know the context in which they are writing. One writer might use it to refer to the democratic socialist members of the U.S. Congress, while another may use it to refer to antifa but not moderate socialism. TFD (talk)
 * While I agree that the term can be used in a relative way, I don't think that this relative use is the same as the subject of this article. There is an absolute concept of The Far Left, which is the topic here. It is just that different people have different ideas about what it is. It may not have received as much scholarly attention as the far right but surely it must have enough to base an article on? I don't see how an entirely relative definition makes a coherent article possible and we would risk giving the impression that the term is entirely meaningless or giving credence to those who misuse the term in bad faith.
 * When a person, speaking in good faith, says "The far left of party X" they generally don't mean to invoke the absolute far left. As you say, this is normally obvious from the context. For example, if somebody in the UK were to say "The far left of the Conservative Party" they would not be implying that the Conservative Party has a Marxist-Leninist wing. They would mean to refer to those Tories so "wet" that the other Tories roll their eyes in despair. They would be talking about centrists and would expect that to be understood. On the other hand, there is use of the term in ignorance or deliberate bad faith. All the talk of "far left Democrats" in the US is clearly designed to invoke The Spectre of Communism but it is, at best, rhetorical hyperbole and, at worst, cynically dishonest nonsense. We should acknowledge that the term is sometimes used in such ways but not let it colour our view of what the subject actually is. The subject here should be the far left as written about by reliable sources who have covered the topic in a serious and rigorous way. Disagreements between such serious sources should be covered with appropriate weight while the hyperbolic dissent of people speaking from real or feigned ignorance should be much less emphasised. I feel that the second paragraph of the intro does a good job of explaining the ambiguity in a clear and easily understood way. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * agree with DanielRigal here, let's not get distracted by US definitions of "far-left" that are essentially an extension of red scare hyperbole. No serious political scholar calls "democratic socialist members of the U.S. Congress" far-left. Acousmana (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The term far right is used because it includes a variety of parties with unrelated histories and ideologies unlike the Left. Note the nine major political party categories as described by Cas Mudde in The Ideology of the Extreme Right (2002), "The extreme right party family," p. 2: liberal and radical, conservative, socialist and social democratic, Christian democratic, communist, agrarian, regional and ethnic, right-wing extremist and the ecology movement." Luke March added the category of far left parties in "Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe"(November 2008), but renamed it radical left in "Radical Left Parties in Europe" (2011), because he considered the term far left to be pejorative. So no unlike far right, far left is not a defined topic and there is no body of literature about it. If I am wrong, please provide a book or article about the topic, so we can discuss it. TFD (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My contribution to this discussion:
 * On this paper, it's described how according to Mair & Mudde «party families» can be defined based on four different approaches:
 * 1) identification in terms of shared origin and/or sociology, 2) classification by the international links parties forge across national frontiers,  3)  by party policy and ideology and 4) by party labels.
 * The author chose to use the «definition of party families by party policy or ideology», mainly by «Comparative Manifestos Project». However, imo, this strengthens TFD's point - «far-left», in Europe only, is defined within a «checklist» of positions. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 22:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's Cas Mudde, the author I mentioned, and the approaches are used together to distinguish the party families I mentioned. Where this approach stumbles though is with extreme right parties, since they have different origins, sociology, etc. It works best with socialist and social democratic parties since they had international links from the beginning through the Internationals, have similar names (Socialist Party, Social Democratic Party, Labour Party, etc.), were formed as mass democratic parties with working class membership, and have at least nominal support for some form of socialist ideology in their constitutions. TFD (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that rather than focusing on this, we should first think about what sort of sources we rely on to define the far-left, and then get our definition (or definitions, if the page has to cover multiple) from that. My feeling is that ideally we want sources focused on the far-left specifically, not passing mentions. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said above, no such sources exist. TFD (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * you cite March, who does appear to define the term. Are you perhaps conflating term definition with the matter of divergent political aims amongst parties on the "far-left"? Acousmana (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He used it as a relative term rather than a concept. I might talk about major political parties for example and define them as Labour and the Conservatives. Someone else may define it differently and include the SNP for example. A book on comparative politics may mention the major parties of each country, maybe have major political parties in its title. It doesn't mean that we have a concept in the same sense that there are social democratic parties or liberal parties. Objectively, some parties are larger than others. Where to draw the line is subjective.TFD (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * March states that far/radical left parties are, "those defining themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy."
 * He notes that, "All the concepts in the term ‘European radical left’ are problematic!...although this term is nevertheless preferable to any other available...I will outline a clear definition of the term ‘radical left’ and explore the nature of this ‘radicalism’ throughout the book:"
 * The broad working definition he employs is: ''"RLPs are radical first in that they reject the underlying socio-economic structure of contemporary capitalism and its values and practices (ranging, depending on party, from rejection of consumerism and neo-liberalism to outright opposition to private property and capitalistic profit incentives). Second, they advocate alternative economic and power structures involving a major redistribution of resources from existing political elites. RLPs are left first in their identification of economic inequality as the basis of existing political and social arrangements and their espousal of collective economic and social rights as their principal agenda. Second, anti-capitalism is more consistently expressed than anti-democratic sentiment, although a radical subversion of liberal democracy may be implicit in the redistributive aims of many parties. Finally, this left is internationalist, both in terms of its search for cross-national networking and solidarity, and in its assertion that national and regional socio-political issues have global structural causes (such as ‘imperialism’ or ‘globalization’)."
 * That seems like a pretty clear definition to me, nowhere does he suggest that RLP is a "relative term." Acousmana (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will reply in a discussion section below. TFD (talk)


 * Not B or C to the best of my knowledge, so A-ish I guess. What would even be left of Communism? We can look to political science and political philosophy sources to define the term, as well as sources already in the article. Crossroads -talk- 05:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anarchists, left-wing terrorists such as the Weather Underground and the Red Brigade, Communist splinter groups that backed Albania's Hoxha after he denounced China for moving away from Mao, antifa, people that Lenin wrote about in Left-wing communism: an infantile disorder. Basically groups that have never enjoyed any degree of political support. TFD (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * C: After thinking on this a bit, and looking at the above discussion, I'd say it's a relative term (as a lot of terms are at times) and I think a good way of showing it would be to have sections on what could be considered far left, including those "left of social democracy" and "left of communism/socialism". i.e. Left-Wing Communism, Right-Deviationism (Bukharin/NEP-Advocacy), things like this for examples that could be left of either socdem or communism, respectively.AxderWraith Crimson (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
, March uses the term in a relative sense when he says that "Far left parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy." He then defines two subtypes of far left parties: radical left and extreme left parties. You were quoting his definition of radical left parties not far left parties. Note that is specifically speaking about viable political parties. The paper was written for a think tank of the German Social Democratic Party which was concerned about losing support to The Left (Germany), which was a coaltion of former Communists and left-wing former Social Democrats. He's not interested in non-party groups to their left such as Antifa (Germany). March has since rejected the term far left parties, which he now says is derogatory and uses the term radical left parties. Most sources though use the term "Left parties," which is what they call themselves. We could use March's definition. But then we would have to exclude far-left terrorism which operates outside the party system. We would also have to reconsider the name of the article, since even March has rejected it. At the very least, we would have to rename it as "far left parties." TFD (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This appears to be your interpretation of what he means.
 * Correct, he does, and states exactly which parties sit in which set, but both sets sit within the radical left superset. 
 * That's a fudge, it's the same thing, he states "I prefer the term ‘radical left’ to alternatives such as ‘hard left’ and ‘far left’ (e.g. Hough 2005), which can appear pejorative and imply that this left is necessarily marginal. Richard Dunphy’s (2004: 2) ‘transformative left’ refers to parties ‘to the left of social democracy that have historically called for a transcendence of the capitalist economic system and that still voice such aspirations.’ This term is derived from the Italian Communist Party (PCI)’s linguistic practice in the 1980s, but has not been much used since (although the German Left Party (LP) increasingly employs it). Its meaning is essentially analogous to my understanding of ‘radical left’."
 * The source I'm referring to is his publication, Radical Left Parties in Europe (2011), not the think-tank paper.
 * See above
 * Separate discussion, I still don't see justification for the notion that it's a relative term, there's a pretty good working definition provided above. Acousmana (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you please not enter comments in my postings.
 * So are you saying that we should use March's definition of radical left parties (RLPs) in Radical Left Parties in Europe (2011)?. Then shouldn't we change the name of the article to "Radical left parties?" And since the COMMONNAME for them is Left parties, wouldn't a better name be "Left parties?"
 * TFD (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So are you saying that we should use March's definition of radical left parties (RLPs) in Radical Left Parties in Europe (2011)?
 * No, I think that's what you think I'm saying, not the same thing, the suggestion is that you appear to be wrong in asserting that 'far-left' is a 'relative term'. Consider another source, March & Keith (2016): Compared with the ‘war of words’ over the precise definition of the radical right party family, the definitional and conceptual consensus concerning RLPs is now high. There is still a plethora of terms in use (e.g. Far Left’,‘extreme Left’. ‘Left’). However, many academic works now employ the term 'radical Left’, and even those that do not concur, albeit with nuances, with the essence of the term as outlined by March and Mudde, that this radical Left is left by its commitments to equality and internationalism and radical in its aspirations to fundamental transformation of capitalism. There is also general agreement over the core members of the radical left party family, not withstanding several 'fuzzy cases’, such as the Danish Socialist People’s Party (which became a full member of the European Green Party in 2014 and therefore ceased to he an RLP). Acousmana (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

March defined far left parties as "Far left parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy." That's a relative defintion because it defines the far left relative to it's position along the left-right axis compared with social democracy. IOW they are relatively more left-wing than social democrats. Having done that, he then looks for common factors in these parties. However, that's a diversion.

First, March has abandoned the term far left for radical left, because far left is pejorative and the term radical left is more common. Per Article titles, we should "Use commonly recognizable names" and "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words." Therefore "radical left" is preferable to "far left," per policy.

Second, March was writing about political parties not the entire ideology. Not all people to the left of social democracy support RLPs. Some in fact (such as in the UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ) may in fact belong to social democratic parties, since the first past the post system discourages multiple parties. So it would be more accurate to call the article "Radical left parties."

Third, we could consider calling them "Left parties," which has some support in the literature and is what they call themselves.

TFD (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "That's a relative definition because it defines the far left relative to it's position along the left-right axis,"
 * we can of course apply a general relational frame to any position on the axis, but that's not what you meant, you implied that the term far/radical-left cant be defined. When it was suggested that we "should first think about what sort of sources we rely on to define the far-left, and then get our definition" you stated: "no such sources exist." This is a false assertion, because evidently they do exist, and examples are offered above. Not trying to be difficult, simply not convinced by the "relative/no definition" argument.
 * "March was writing about political parties not the entire ideology" .
 * The parties are representative of the ideology and he defines what it is that makes them radical/far-left, so again, not convinced.
 * The question of whether or not the article should be renamed is a separate debate. Acousmana (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

So you think we should use March's definition. What about the article title? TFD (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * that's the third attempt to divert discussion after breaking this out to address the matter of "relative term. Acousmana (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My concern about that is that each article should have a distinct topic.
 * Another option would be to have this page basically list a bunch of other related topics (all the various ideologies that are called far-left reasonably often in the literature, plus related terms like "radical left parties" and "revolutionary left" and whatever else we can find specific definitions for), but avoid going into too much depth on them here, instead linking to the appropriate pages, and generally avoiding trying to give a single unified definition of "far left", because there isn't really one. That would avoid most of the problems and would point readers to more specific articles that can state things more definitively. We already sort of do this with far-left terrorism, which is its own clear topic. --Aquillion (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be argumentative, but March was clearly talking about political parties that had emerged since the fall of commumism. Before then socialist/social democratic and communist party families were distinct. The end of the Cold War saw a realignment as social democratic parties moved to the right and communists became willing to work with left-wing former members of social democratic parties in new coalitions which unlike ther earlier parties had no hard ideologies. Meanwhile, Trotskyists and other leftists who had been outside both party families joined the new organizations, often assuming leadership positions.

In Germany for example, more liberal Communists had assumed the leadership of East Germany and held elections which they lost. After reunification, they re-formed the as the Party of Democratic Socialism (Germany), which no longer had a communist ideology. Meanwhile Oskar Lafontaine a former leader of the Social Democratic Party, led the left out of the SDP to form a new party, which merged with the PDS to form The Left.

So now there is a new party family, which calls itself The Left and occupies a position in the political spectrum between social democratic and hardline Stalinist parties, which March called extreme left. Since there are almost none of the latter (March identified parties in Greece, Slovakia, Portugal, Latvia and France), and they work with radical left parties, and they oppose social democratic parties from the left, March grouped them together with radical left parties. OTOH he briefly mentions antifa, black bloc and other groups that remain outide the RPPs, because they don't join/aren't encouraged to join.

While you may be right that March defines far left to include party and non-party groups, it's not the focus of his study. Bear in mind his original essay was written for a think tank of the SPD, which was worried about competition on their left. In fact no such studies exist, which makes the topic difficult.

TFD (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * what concerns me is that intellectual dishonesty is possibly at play here, and that sense is reinforced when statements like "Bear in mind his original essay was written for a think tank of the SPD" are made. Two WP:RS publications have been cited above, March (2011), March & Keith (2016), the original essay is not the publication cited above. To reiterate, "the definitional and conceptual consensus...is now high... many academic works now employ the term 'radical Left’, and even those that do not concur...that this radical Left is left by its commitments to equality and internationalism and radical in its aspirations to fundamental transformation of capitalism." It was asserted that no sources exist with respect to defining the term far/radical left, are we in agreement that there are indeed sources? Acousmana (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not use personal attacks. It's entirely possible for two people to read the same sources and come to different conclusions. March used the term "far left" in his article ("Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe" 2008) for the SPD's Friedrich Ebert Foundation. In the two later sources you mention (Radical Left Parties in Europe 2011 and Europe's Radical Left 2016), he uses the term radical left because the term far left "can appear pejorative and imply that this left is necessarily marginal." (Luke's own words in the Radical Left Parties in Europe 2011.)
 * So can you please explain why this article should be called "Far-left politics" instead of "Radical left politics" when the two sources you mention use the latter term?
 * TFD (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * for the forth time you have attempted to redirect discussion toward article renaming when it's a breakout discussion on the matter of "relative term" and an assertion that no sources exist for defining what the term far/radical left means. It's OK to admit you are wrong, the stonewalling is kinda tedious at this point. Acousmana (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Please excuse me if I am not on your intellectual level. Are you saying that far left and radical left are the same thing? TFD (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * pfft. Laughable. Acousmana (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I entirely support the change of title from far-left to radical left based on the ' arguments here. Based on my research, March is the most (and almost sole) quoted academic in this topic, so if in his opinion «far-left» can appear pejorative and imply that this left is necessarily marginal, so much that led him to drop the usage of the term — then Wikipedia should follow suit per WP:NPOVTITLE. Far-left politics would become a redirect to Radical left. -- BunnyyHop ( talk ) 22:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, March is not writing about the radical left, but about a category of political parties he calls "radical left parties" (RLPs). See his and Daniel Keith's introduction to Europe's Radical Left, pp. 1 ff. His scope is limited to political parties post 1989. He says that they mostly do not have clear ideologies and aren't particularly radical. Why they reject the neoliberal paradigm, they mostly prefer a return to the previous social liberal paradigm. The more left-wing section of the group, mostly Communist parties, meanwhile no longer advocate transition to a socialist economy.
 * Another book, Radical Left Movements in Europe does cover non-party groups such as anarchists. These groups tend to be more left-wing than RLPs. But again, it's starting date is 1989.
 * Another issue is that all the literature is about Europe. Québec solidaire clearly fits the model. Perhaps so do the chavistas and sandinistas. China's governing party and those of several other countries remain communist, but studies on the groupings of political parties rarely cover one party states.
 * What I would like to see is a book or article called "The far left" or even "The radical left" that goes back before 1989 and travels beyond Europe. We have that for conservatism, liberalism, socialism etc. What we have is an article title in search of a topic. As I said before, the reason such a topic does not exist is that the term far left is used in a relative sense. Each author will draw the line between moderate and far left in different places and we understand what they mean based on the context of their writing. So for example in the U.S., far left may run from the DSA to Socialist Alternative and beyond, which make it overlap with the Democratic Party. or it could mean to the left of the Democratic Party. Or it could mean the most left-wing of groups outside the party.
 * What we want to avoid is taking a definition from one source and fitting in everything we think applies to it taken from another source, which would be synthesis. For example, if we use March's definition, which includes Communist parties, we can't then talk about the 1848 revolutions because he doesn't consider it important enough to mention in his writings.
 * TFD (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * the reality is "far-left" is frequently used interchangeably with "radical-left" - March views them as one and the same (''"I prefer the term ‘radical left’ to alternatives such as ‘hard left’ and ‘far left’").
 * Again, to discuss RLPs March first has to provide a general definition of radical/far-left, which he does, in March (2011,7-12 ), a similar definition is also provided in March & Keith (2016,5-12), and is further acknowledged in Charalambous & Ioannou (2019,6), and also reinforced in the same publication (p.7) via note of March & Mudde's (2005) depiction of the far/radical left:"From a two-level perspective, the fundamental characteristics highlighted for contemporary radical left parties and movements by Luke March and Cas Mudde offer a useful depiction of left radicalism’s ideational core, in spite of its unaccounted for historical evolution and internal reconfiguration (March and Mudde 2005): the radical left today is said to either reject consumerism and neoliberalism, or even fundamentally oppose capitalist profit; it advocates major redistribution and the establishment of alternative (political and economic) power structures; it identifies economic inequality as the basis of existing arrangements and espouses its elimination through the establishment of collective economic and social rights; it is more anti-capitalist and less anti-democratic but does articulate a critique of capitalist and representative democracy; it embraces international solidarity and asserts that national and regional socio-political issues have global structural causes. According to the authors, the first two characteristics denote left-wing radicalism and the latter four a left-wing identity. Indeed, this conceptualisation, which takes seriously the positional understanding of today’s radical left but moves beyond it, is useful precisely because it can be used to frame the evolution of left radicalism from its inception until today – both at the party and social movement levels."
 * the idea that it's a relative term is false, some random editor on Wikipedia offering a personal opinion on the matter doesn't change this. Acousmana (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please not that "Far left parties are those that define themselves as to the left of, and not merely on the left of social democracy" is not a false statement by some random Wikipedia editor but a direct quote from March. Also, are you aware of any books or articles about the far left/radical left, other than those about its existence after 1989. Or do you think that it came into existence then? Because policy requires a body of literature to establish the notability of a topic by showing that there is a body of literature about it. TFD (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENTISM as an excuse to dismiss WP:RS definitions? Non-existent definitions according to you... scraping the barrel here matey. There's academic consensus, and then there is your POV, not much more to it really. Acousmana (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not mention WP:RECENTISM. Certainly we can have artcles about recent topics. But if we do, the article would read something like: "Radical left, far left or 'Left' parties is a classification developed to describe political parties to the left of mainstream social democracy following a realignment of left-wing political parties after the end of Communism in Eastern Europe." [Then we can describe their properties such as opposition to neoliberalism.] TFD (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * we should deal with the matter of "far-left politics" as it stands today - pertaining to the age in which we live - historical context requires nothing more than a preamble in this article - feel free to develop such content. A contemporaneous - rather than historical - treatment of the subject matter should be the focus here. There is a significant, and growing, body of literature, building on decades of research, I don't think we can pretend otherwise. Acousmana (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am still waiting. TFD (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * for what? the revolution? Acousmana (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For your identification of a body of literature that defines and establishes the notability of the topic. Otherwise it appears to be a relative concept with no definition. Compare with the far western side of Manhattan. Where exactly is it? Other than being farther west, does it have any other identifying characteristics? TFD (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * you appear to be sitting on a dead horse, recommend dismounting. Acousmana (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no sensible definition of the term "far left"
It is not equivocal to far right, and you won't find any scientific definition of the term "far left" in any political science textbook or journal. The term "Far-left" is unencyclopedic and should therefore not be on Wikipedia. It just promotes conspiracy theories and extremists.

At the very least, the entire lead has no sources what so ever and therefore just represents hearsay and nonsense and should be deleted. At the other end of the spectrum I don't see any future for this article at all. As a person with a qualification to speak on this matter this article is a load of bollocks. --120.22.186.12 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Antifa
Helper201,

Anarchism or hard-left is as well not necessarily far-left, however, antifa is descibed as well as far-left.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC))
 * However, this below is quoted directly from the Wikipedia page on Antifa (United States):

"'Antifa involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents and the police has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left and militant.   '"


 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calatayudboy (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 September July 2020 (UTC)
 * , as discussed above, there is no consensus about scholars on what exactly far-left means; there is not yet a Handbook of the Far-Left the same way there is The Handbook of the Far-Right. Furthermore, I could just as easily list you a bunch of reliable sources who say antifa is left-wing rather than far-left. —Davide King (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Honest question here: is not the far-whatever a subset of the whatever-wing? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, both the far-left and centre-left are subset of left-wing politics and the same applies to right-wing politics. However, we have articles for each thing, so we cannot put "Antifa" (which should be a link to Post-World War II anti-fascism, not to Antifa (United States) as it is argued) because there is no agreement among sources on whether it is far-left or left-wing (and in general, far-left, unlike far-right, is more like "more left than thou"; is it to the left of social democracy? Or is it to the left of the communist party?). In general, this request seems to be based more of yet another attempt to label "antifa" as far-left, even though as pointed out by here, Even far-left, which has better citations, is not presented as a universal or even widespread descriptor in the sources (part of the reason the previous RFC failed to reach a consensus.) In conclusion, I see this more as an attempt to label "Antifa" far-left (it failed several times at Antifa (United States) than one based on sound arguments and reliable sources. Is "Antifa" even routinely mentioned in books about far-left politics to warrant it? That would be a base for what to put as "See also". Davide King (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , might the reason there are no books labeling Antifa as far-left be that the phenomenon of Antifa is so new that there are not yet many books about it to sufficiently judge its leaning based solely on books? It has, however, in that time, managed to shift the Overton window so far to the left that it views itself as perfectly and legitimately outside of the radical echelons of the political left, a view that is shared by many left-wing pundits and political candidates. wolf (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is nonsense. In the United States, antifa dates back to the post-war period and the 1970s and 1980s. The rest is just conjecture and speculation, and personal opinion on your part. Davide King (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you could compare it with the far east and far west. The first term has a specific meaning (China, Japan, etc.), while the second has meaning only in context. The same with far north and far south. So while it is meaningful to say that China is a far eastern country, it is not meaningful to say that the U.S. is a far western country.
 * The other issue is that antifa is a single issue group and does not promote an ideology. We wouldn't describe the Democrats or Republicans as Christian parties, even though most of their members are Christian.
 * TFD (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Single issue movement, not group, but yes, the movement isn't anti-capitalist even if some members might be. Doug Weller  talk 19:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per our article "[t]he vast majority of antifa militants are radical anti-capitalists who oppose the Democratic Party" which is sourced to Mark Bray the author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. There are also several strong RS that state that as well. So yeah I would go with they are anti-capitalist in as a main part of the groups ideology. PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As you know, the "far left" designation has been extremely contentious in the antifa US article so making this article contentious by importing it here seems like a dangerous move. Also remember this is not an article about the US and antifa is global and only a couple of the Antifa articles here mention "far left". BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are against the spread of fascist states, fascismo and fascism in general then congratulations, you are now a member of AntiFa... How this got so far out of hand that people believe it means more than this is utterly ridiculous but representative of NeoTrumpism and Trumpet ideology. --120.22.186.12 (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Extreme-left
This article should add "Far-left politics, also referred to as the extreme left or radical left, in the lead. Information from this RS can be included.

Here's a few quotes from the source on the "extreme left":
 * "The vandalizing of the Oregon Democratic Party headquarters by extreme-left demonstrators on ­Inauguration Day has split Portland liberals"
 * "Violent and destructive activity among far-left groups has been increasing nationwide, according to a recent study by the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies" . This source mentions that "Anarchists, anti-fascists, and other like-minded extremists orchestrated 20 percent of the plots and attacks, though the number of incidents grew from previous years as these extremists targeted law enforcement, military, and government facilities and personnel." though I know wikipedia prefers secondary sources.
 * "Portland has been a hotbed of both extreme-right and extreme-left activity, a trend that Wednesday’s destruction suggests will continue."
 * "Gregory McKelvey, a political consultant and vice chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon’s Black Caucus, noted that some activists “who want to empathize with the extreme left finding it hard to do so right now.”"
 * "Three of those arrested as a result of the destruction in Portland on Wednesday were accused of damaging the offices of the Democratic Party of Oregon. Austin Nuchraksa, 25, is accused of smashing a window at the party headquarters with a “silver metal baton,” according to court documents, after marching with a group that carried banners declaring “WE DON’T WANT BIDEN — WE WANT REVENGE” and “WE ARE UNGOVERNABLE.” After Nuchraksa was detained by police, officers said they smelled gas and found four green beer bottles, wrapped in socks, with cloth wicks protruding from each bottle’s mouth, according to court records. The homemade molotov cocktails were “leaking gasoline all over the inside of the backpack,” prosecutors wrote. Nuchraksa was charged with participating in a riot, first-degree criminal mischief and unlawful possession of a destructive device." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoJuicy (talk • contribs) 16:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC))


 * The actions of a few dozen people in Oregon are not significant in world historic terms but is recentism and and Americentricy. The article is not about what happened last week in the U.S. Even in Northwestern terms, it pails against the Battle of Seattle or the Everett massacre, neither of which is mentioned in the article are more important. In the U.S. in general, the Haymarket Riot, the bombing of Wall Street, and the Weather Underground's bombing (twice) of Haymarket Square are also more important. TFD (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Different variants of Far Left?
The main article is mostly focusing on Far Left Communism, however, there can be other ideologies such as Anarchism & Woke culture which can be considered different variants of far left. What are the views of others? Hellobunny001 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Woke culture? It's like Feminazis or Social justice warriors, they are anti-left slurs rather than actual political movements. Bacondrum 09:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor
The Holodomor is an example of genocide carried out in a far left political stance by the Soviet Union in 1932-33. Yeshua&#39;s Son (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Minuscule article
Hi all. Compared to the Far-right politics and Radical centrism articles for example which are both on the Party Politics template this article is very small. I intend to change that when I have time.

In regards to the structure this article should have, the far-right article has sections on history by country and intellectual history and so on. I think this article should mirror that, with the various forms of Marxism, and Anarchism represented for example. Of course there is this article which definitely overlaps with my idea but still, that article is a general view on socialism, not necessarily far-left politics so there's plenty more detail that can be put on this (far left politics) article. So I don't think it's needlessly redundant.

Posting this as a sort of call to others who might be sympathetic to the massive expansion of this article. Interested in your thoughts. Have a nice day. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the term is rarely used in academic writing and therefore there is no body of literature to sourcre an article. TFD (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Link preview is incorrect
When not logged in to Wikipedia, the link preview for "Prima Linea" under the "Far-left militants" section is of the World Trade Center during the 9-11 attacks. I haven't looked why that's technically the case, but I'd like to draw attention to it here since it may be a childish attempt at political messaging, and could be a more widespread issue than this single instance.

Is the link preview NOT generated from the target link page, but is specified separately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perspectival (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about starting sentence
When the Article says "Some scholars define it as representing the left of social democracy", does that mean, the Far Left is according to these scholars "To the left of Social Democracy" or "On the Left of Social Democracy"? Or, can Social Democracy by included under the "Far Left", at least according to some definitions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.25.236 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It means that social democracy is not included as far left, which is understood to be a critique of the former (in this sense, the far left is not marginal, which is why some scholars like March prefer this limit); however, others put it to those who criticize Communist parties from the left (e.g. anarchism, left communism, and other dissident Marxists critical of the mainstream Communist party) because it is hard to draw a line other than further left than the Left. Davide King (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)