Talk:Left–right political spectrum/Archive 5

Minor editing issues
I usually find it difficult to decide when I should put my edit on the discussion board, an when in doubt: just do it. I'm going to add "contemporary" 3 times in first 3 sentences the section "Differences between left and right". I do this because the meaning of left-right is not static, as is said later on in the section, but to place "contemporary" in front of every "left" and "right" would make the article less readable. --Tomvasseur (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "contemporary" especially when added three times, seems unneccessary. since the present tense is used.  Certainly class differences have been a defining feature since the aristocrats and sans-culottes, even if  issues, such as royalism vs. republicanism have changed.  Here (p. 7) is a link to the source used.  TFD (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, in retrospect I can see that "contemporary" is indeed superfluous. I'll remove it.--Tomvasseur (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of Left v. Right in US Wrong
Quoting the article:


 * The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category including New Deal liberals, Rawlsian liberals, social democrats and civil libertarians, and is generally identified with the Democratic Party. In general, left implies a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that favor the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary Left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.


 * The contemporary Right in the United States is usually understood as a category including social conservatives, Christian conservatives and free market liberals, and is generally identified with the Republican Party. In general, right-wing implies a commitment to conservative Christian values, support for a free-market system, and traditional family values. The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of banking, commerce, and industry.

These descriptions are bizarrely inaccurate and distorted. Libertarianism is definitely antithetical to the modern left; and has more in common with the goals of the right. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, along many other freedoms -- personal and economic -- are long standing conservative values. Right-wing does not imply a commitment to Christian values. Today's "religious-right" is an evolution of yesterdays "Southern Democrats". Christian views span the political spectrum.

This section of the article shows definite bias. Perhaps it would be best to have each description written by people more favorably disposed to each view.

BTW, the assertion that the left advocates "government intervention on behalf ... sexual minorities" suggests government should be intervening on behalf of men. Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.125.67 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You should provide sources. Incidentally, "civil libertarian" does not mean Libertarian and a minority group "is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power".  TFD (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also note the difference between a minority gender and a minority sexual orientation.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Equality of opportunity vrs equality of outcome"
um... I think this definition really shouldn't be here, because true equality of opportunity (a supposedly right wing thing here) would require very LEFT associated tactics. 100% inheritance tax, and raising all children in undifferentiated governmental creches comes to mind as possibilities... That is to say having wealthy parents gives you greater opportunity then having less wealthy parents. A more ACCURATE way to put it is that the Left believes Equality needs to be enforced, and the Right belives that Equality does the Enforcing (The left belives that the poor should get more money, the right belives that the lazy WILL get less money, and be poor, and that the hardworking will be the rich.)


 * This is really about the two sides' rhetorics, not what things would mean in practice.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it? Think that should be made clear then, otherwise it looks like WP favours a right-wing POV. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never head anyone suggest that "equality of outcome" is either possible or desirable. This is a straw man, thrown up by the Right. It suggests that those smart enough to be born into rich families start life on the same footing as those stupid enough to be born into poor families, and turn out rich not because of inherited advantage but because of inherited ability. And when someone such as Sotomayor says that you learn more if you struggle to the top, instead of being born with a silver spoon in your mouth, the Right calls that idea racist! Rick Norwood (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No offense, but this sounds a bit silly. And I honestly don't think ANY article will make readers walk away with the idea that WP supports the "right", lol. Let's tear our party membership patches off of our sleeves here for a moment. The idea that being born to wealthy and successful parents gives you a guarantee of success or even better chances is not verifiable, and anecdotal at best. How do you explain the masses of people who WERE born under such circumstances but turned out penniless, broken and in poverty? How do you explain all of the "rich kids" who got on drugs, stole from their families and were disinherited? How do you explain "rich kids" who were abused by their parents and became unstable? Many people would even suggest that "rich kids" are more likely to fail (though that's also not verifiable or factual). Nothing even suggests that wealthy parents will "spoil" their children, give them money, leave them their estates, help them start businesses or anything. One can even argue that someone from more modest roots with a high motivation is more likely to succeed than the "rich boy". Though it's "original research" (lol), I was born poor yet managed to start a successful business by age 20. The point is that your birth-family's wealth is of little importance; and quite often means nothing.


 * Be careful, you are in danger of making the same mistake that you warn against, namely relying on anecdotal evidence to make statements about a whole population. Undoubetdly there are a not insignificant number of people who rise from poverty to wealth, and vice versa.  Pointing this out does not negate the hypothesis that someone born into a poor socioeconomic backround is more likely to stay poor than not, and ditto to someone of middle class.  Annette Lareau is a good starting point for some studies on the impact of one's socioeconomic backround on their success in life.  Also interesting is Lewis Terman's studies, and Pitrim Sorokin's analysis of the termites who turned out as 'failures' in 'Fads and foibles of modern sociology' (if you can rustle up a copy). Frogsontoast (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Socialism, which most people identify as being "leftist", DOES believe in "equality of outcome" (to varying degrees). That is why social welfare programs exist, and why the wealthy are taxed more heavily under such systems. The idea is to reduce (or even destroy) class distinctions and boundaries; often per Marx's egalitarian ideology. Capitalism (in pure form) opposes these ideas. Under true Capitalism, social welfare could not exist (with the possible exception of the disabled/UNable to work). Individuals would also be taxed in equal proportion (i.e., 10% for all, 5% for all, etc). Capitalism is based upon the idea of "Economic Darwinism"; like in nature, the survival of the fittest. The lazy would either work out of necessity or live poor. It has *nothing* to do with the belief that people are "smart" for being born to rich parents, or "dumb" for being born to poor parents (which is your straw man, to be honest here). Whether "equality of outcome" is possible is up for debate, but it definitely IS desirable to many people. Read "The Communist Manifesto", and you will see this is absolutely the case. That is not to say you all desire it, but many people do.

Once again, this boils down to the inherent flaws of the "left-right" spectrum and its necessity to lump everyone/all ideals into a linear string. What is "left" and what is "right" is different to each individual, region and country. There is some consensus on particular things between certain "groups", but the spectrum is so poorly defined that its destined to cause ambiguity and even turmoil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.20 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your criticism of the Left contradicts your statement that the spectrum is flawed. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Criticism"? My apologies, sir, but that is outrageous. I did not "criticize" any group or ideology; the only thing I'm here to criticize is the lopsidedness of this article and the extreme lengths people are going to here to justify it. Are you here to deny that Capitalism is a "Darwinistic" economic system? Are you hear to deny that Socialism's goal is to either decrease or destroy class barriers? Are you here to deny that Marx outlined his set of egalitarian ideals in "The Communist Manifesto" and that it was explicitly oriented towards so-called "Equality of Outcome"? Are you denying that most people perceive Socialism and Communism as being "Leftist"? None of these things are in themselves negative. As someone who has actually read Marx ("Communist Manifesto", "Das Kapital" and excerpts), I admit the ideas are beautiful and alluring (even though I'm not a Marxist/Communist/etc). So it is quite honestly beyond me how to accuse me of "criticizing the Left", and in any case, how that contradicts my real criticism of the spectrum. The only contradictory statements I've seen on this page are from a few people defending their own political beliefs with valor and loyalty. And that is not what WP is for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are saying. You said that the political spectrum was flawed then point out differences between left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've simply mistaken what I said. I stated most people *identify* Socialists as being "left". I never outline any actual left-right distinction, which usually amounts to a game of "Pin the wing on the dictator". I'm not a left-right theorist, but I do realize many people are and I know where they think certain ideologies/parties reside. My concern here is that this entire article and the way it portrays different political groups and ideologies is almost exclusively written and controlled by those who support the "left". The slant is extremely evident. It would be totally fair for you and your peers to describe your *own* positions and ideals, but it's totally unfair that you all define your opponents and their positions as the ideal straw man. Numerous times factual statements have been made to the contrary of this portrayal but dismissed, and the arguments runs in circles. There's a reason why the article has the neutrality dispute tagged on it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Please put new posts at the bottom of the page.

2) Please use four tildes to sign your posts (upper left key on the keyboard, with the shift key, not counting the escape key, hit four times).

3) Conservatives can edit Wikipedia, and many do. But to edit Wikipedia, you need to cite reliable references, which usually means academic references, experts.  Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Factual error in Nolan chart
see []

Looking through which lens?

 * The contemporary Right usually defines itself as promoting deregulation of business, commerce, and industry; censorship of sexual content in the media and the use of government to support and promote the Christian religion; and government intervention on behalf of religious conservatives and the upper class.

This sounds more like a left-liberal portrayal of the right, rather than a self-description. IIRC, the left has for many years branded the right as favoring the upper classes. Is there a source on the right which we can quote as saying, "We conservatives favor the politics that support the rich?" (If not, then this might be a case of putting words in someone's mouth.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed says the left has for many years branded the right as favoring the upper classes. That is exactly what right-wing means, favoring the upper classes. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Originally, the Right favored the upper classes while the Left favored the working class. Today, the words are tossed around so much that they have essentially lost all meaning.  Witness the idiots on American television who shout, "Keep your left-wing hands off my social security." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is Seymour Martin Lipset in Political Man (1960):


 * The fact that many interests and groups which are not social classes take part in the party struggle does not vitiate the thesis that "the rationale of the party-system depends on the alignment of opinion from right to left," as the sociologist and political philosopher Robert MacIver has pointed out. "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes." (p. 222)


 * This generalization even holds true for the American parties, which have traditionally been considered an exception to the class-cleavage pattern of Europe. The Democrats from the beginning of their history have drawn more support from the lower strata of the society, while the Federalist, Whig, and Republican parties have held the loyalties of the more privileged groups. (p. 220-221)

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that few who know what "right-wing" means call themselves right-wing. I cannot think of any mainstream politicians in any country who call themselves right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I love your quote from Lipset. But I must disagree that the Republicans were always the party of privilege.  Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, and at that time the Republican party was the anti-slavery party -- or at least opposed to the extension of slavery -- while the Democratic Party styled itself "The Party of the White Man".  Unless, of course, you see the lower strata of society as the strata most eager to deny rights to the lowest strata.  There may be something in that.  Also, the lower strata of society seem to be easily fooled, by those who tell them that God is a Republican. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even then, the Northern elites backed Lincoln and the Democrats did better among Irish Catholics and poor farmers in the North. (Tammany Hall were Democrats.)  But I accept the relationship between class and party is weak in the US.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Lipset was identifying the rich with the conservative "right". My question, however, is about how the right-wing in America perceives itself. Would anyone care to address this question? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's rather rich for a party one of whose principal platforms is always lowering the capital gains tax and, lately, eliminating the estate tax, to contend that it is not acting in the interests of the upper classes. My sense is that conservatives tend to hold to the idea that what's good for the rich is good for everyone, but they still tend to favor policies that favor the economic interests of the upper classes.  I'm not even sure they'd dispute that, if you put it in a careful enough way.  On the other hand, the sentence in question is specifically about how the right defines itself - that means, I think, that we need sources showing people on the right identifying the right in this way.  john k (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "right" in America would deny that they are right-wing. In fact very few people call themselves right-wing today.  But you will notice that the Conservative Party (UK) has always defended the right of aristocrats to form the upper house of the British parliament.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that it's at all true that the right in America would deny that they are on the right, although they might not use the phrase "right-wing." Nor, for that matter, would center-right parties in Europe, or Canada, or wherever, deny that they are right of center, although they certainly wouldn't describe themselves as "right wing."  This premise seems flawed. john k (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You just said "Nor, for that matter, would center-right parties in Europe, or Canada, or wherever, deny that they are right of center, although they certainly wouldn't describe themselves as "right wing"." So why do you then say "This premise seems flawed."  My point was that rather than try to redefine the right, the parties we call right-wing deny that they are right-wing.  They either accept the political spectrum and claim that they are centrists or they claim that the left-right spectrum is meaningless.  If they use the term "right" it is in relation to what they call the left.  For example the new American president is often called left.  On the other side, Tony Blair had no qualms about calling himself left-wing, although many on the left challenged this.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think this is true. In the United States, at least, the right pretty willingly accepts the label - do you have any evidence that they don't?  In Europe, "the right" is more taboo, and so parties like the Christian Democrats or the Gaullists tend to call themselves "center-right," but they still accept the basic label of being on the right rather than the left.  They still sit on the right side of their parliaments, though, don't they?  At any rate, what we have here is a sentence talking about how the right views itself.  That needs to be sourced, doesn't it? john k (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to show that the right in America call themselves right-wing. They have adopted the term "conservative", but not "right", although it is increasingly used in the media as a short form for US conservatism.  Christian Democrats call their international organization the Centrist Democrat International.  The other right-wing international, the International Democrat Union, which has UK, US, French and German members says its member parties are "centre and centre-right".  The historic right-wing parties, such as the German Conservative Party, have disappeared and the new parties claim to descend from liberal and Catholic centrist parties.  Even in Japan, the Liberal Democrats are a continuation of the old Liberal Party not the conservative parties.  Of course these parties sit on the right, the old right has disappeared.  One exception however is the far right, e.g., the National Front, although I think they too have dropped the term right.
 * The view of political scientists is that the bourgeousie has replaced the aristocracy as the ruling class. But the new right reject this and claim that they are middle class parties representing all the people and argue that their policies benefit everyone.  They cut welfare e.g. in order to encourage people to become self-sufficient.
 * The parties of the left otoh have not disappeared but have adapted.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, articles from the National Review which identify the conservative movement with the right -, , , , , . From the Weekly Standard: , , , , , .  Conservative publications in the United States are perfectly comfortable describing their own movement as part of the right. john k (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the founders of the National Review included Willi Schlamm, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, and Whittaker Chambers, it is unsurprising that would keep their Marxist terminology and call themselves the right. Similarly the founder of The Weekly Standard, Irving Kristol, like other neoconservatives, decided to call himself right-wing when he abandoned Marxism. Note that they applied the label right-wing to themselves, not to the Republican party at that time.  The Republican Party does not self-identify as right-wing and neither have their presidential candidates.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this has rather reached the point of total craziness. Your argument appears to have become the No true Scotsman fallacy.  Irving Kristol was not the founder of the Weekly Standard.  His son Bill Kristol, who has never been anything but a Republican hack, did.  The National Review was founded largely by William F. Buckley, not known for his youthful marxism, and the magazine is considered the flagship publication of the conservative movement.  Whatever connection with the former left it may have had in the fifties don't really do much to cast doubt on Jonah Goldberg or Ramesh Ponnuru's right wing bona fides.  You keep saying "right-wing," which I would agree few people ever use to describe themselves, but this article is about "the left" and "the right," which are both commonly used as self-designations in the United States.  The two leading conservative publications are happy to use the term, as I've shown.  So is George F. Will, another leading conservative writer.  So also is an article posted on the GOP's own website.  I can find plenty of examples of prominent conservatives referring to themselves as being "the right."  This is unproblematic, and your efforts to deny it seem to be based on no evidence at all. john k (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) My primary point is that the right do not accept the description. They do not see themselves as the party of the ruling class, supporting inequality or social hierarchy. Rather they see themselves as centrists, or reject the validity of the political spectrum as outdated, see their constituency as the middle class or society in general, support equality and oppose class systems. That is why Americans who consider themselves right-wing reject the description of the right as POV.

Incidentally although Buckley was never a Communist, his professor Willmoore Kendall who encouraged him to set up the National Review was close to the CPSU. He introduced him to James Burnham who enforced ideological purity at the National Review, Willi Schlamm who helped raise money for the magazine and Frank Meyer, who developed the ideology for the magazine. Sidney Hook, Chambers and John Dos Passos (who never became a Communist but was admired in the USSR) were also major contributers. So it is unsurprising that they would continue to use some of their older terminology.

Incidentally, before the NR no US conservatives called themselves right-wing (or conservative for that matter). BTW he US was founded before the terms right and left ever had any political connotations. The US conservatives who call themselves right-wing are writers not politicians and they actually represent a radical element within the US right.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * American Conseratives do tend to describe "the right" in different ways from how political scientists and such would, but you still have nothing but assertion to support your point that it's only "writers not politicians" who call themselves that, or the rather ridiculous claim that people like George Will represent "a radical element within the US right." As far as I can tell, no matter how many examples I give of Republicans and Conservatives saying they're on the right, you're going to keep coming back by saying that those conservatives don't count.  And whether or not use of "the right" emerged in the 50s is pretty irrelevant - it is certainly used now, and used basically all the time, and there's no reason to think that Republicans reject the label.  Obviously "left" and "right" are generally used less often in the US than elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that Republicans reject being on the right - they just don't. john k (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What the left and right are (and how the general public or scholars of political science view them) are sometimes at odds with (A) how each wing perceives itself and (B) how each wing describes the other. For example, conservatives (on the right) and liberals (on the left) disagree about which wing has contributed more to ending race discrimination in the US. Two Democratic presidents aided the US civil rights movement, so it would seem that the "left" did the most. But I've read a lot recently about conservatives (the "right") saying it was mo[re the Republican Right (particularly those in the middle class) who opposed race discrimination in its bastion, the US South.

There are many such disagreements. How can we describe these disagreements without making the article take sides? (Or should the article indeed take sides?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? Are you saying that southern Republicans were more opposed to Jim Crow than southern democrats in the 50s and 60s?  Because that's demonstrably false - every southern Republican in congress voted against the Civil Rights Act.  As far as outside the south, large majorities of both parties supported the civil rights movement, but pretty much the only legislators not from the south or border states to oppose the civil rights act were conservative Republicans (like Barry Goldwater).  And prominent non-southern conservative intellectuals opposed civil rights - the National Review, notably, and William Rehnquist.  And that's not even getting into the "southern strategy."  At any rate, we should not look at what "conservatives" or "liberals" believe on the subject.  We should look at what reputable scholars say. john k (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote:
 * "They do not see themselves as the party of the ruling class, supporting inequality or social hierarchy." - TFD


 * Yet I'm accused of "criticizing the Left"? This sort of thing is spread throughout the entire talk page, and I'm with John on calling it a 'No True Scotsman'. Self-proclaimed Republicans and "Conservatives" in the U.S. don't simply accept the label of "Right/Right-wing", but passionately defend it as well. I've never heard any Republican deny being "right" (no pun intended). People in America don't think of the term with the same spite and contempt you do. Your definition of "right" is heavily centred around the European "far-Left's" POV. I find it just as incorrect and distasteful as a "far-Right winger" coming here and describing all of their opponents as Bolsheviks. I'm also disturbed by the idea that the you hold concerning self-proclamations of political views. You say earlier in the talk that since Bolsheviks didn't identify themselves as "left" and/or the term was not applied at the time that, essentially, they could not be left. Yet every time someone presents either evidence [toward] or the suggestion that your portrayal of the "right" is incorrect, you say it doesn't matter; AND that it doesn't matter how they describe or think of themselves. Every time you speak of them, you try to outline a vast distinction from what they think/say and what they really are (according to your POV). Yet it matters immensely to you how the "left" thinks of and describes themselves. This wreaks of double-standard bias.


 * Please don't be offended, as it is not at all my intention. I'm just pointing out that this is going in circles and you are being far too resistant re-analysis and suggestions for improving the article and making it neutral. I realize politics is a sensitive topic, and I sincerely apologize if I've upset you or came off as being belligerent. But the fact is the article is extremely slanted (and gives a very negative (and incorrect) portrayal of the "right" and an almost god-like portrayal of the "left") and all attempts to reason are being unfairly thwarted by partisan loyalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * he fact is that the term "right" derives from the reactionaries of the French Revolution and Marxists then applied it to people they believed were supporting the ruling class of whatever country they were in. It is interesting that the "American Right" decided to pick up this Marxist terminology.  It's probably because the majority of the founders of the New Right happened to be former Communists.  BTW I have never heard any politician in the US refer to themselves as right-wing.  The Republican Party is a member of a group of "center and center-right" parties.  They normally call themselves "Conservatives".  I did not say that the Bolsheviks were not left-wing, I removed the paragraph beginning "The Bolsheviks were certainly "of the left", and the advocates of Stalinist, Soviet-style communism considered themselves to be "leftist"."  The significance is that this was part of a section about how the term evolved.  They believed (in the 1920s) that they did not consider themselves leftist.  Do you have any specific suggestions or sources for this article?  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I most certainly do, which is why I'm here. I just want a bit of collaboration between us all to improve the article. I believe it's important, and a C rating and dispute of neutrality is unacceptable for it. To save some squabbling and headache, I will get all suggestions and material organized before presenting it. I will also create a valid account and contact you on your talk page to discuss it. Even though we're disagreed, you've been quite respectful, and I thank you for that. Just bear with me, as I'm a bit busy with work.


 * However, I wanted to notify you all that it appears we have some vandalism. I don't think this could possibly be right, lol. If you look at reference [8], you see this:


 * The Architecture of Parliaments: Legislative Houses and Political Culture
 * Charles T. Goodsell Says Fuck You British Journal of Political Science,
 * Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1988), pp. 287–302


 * I tried to access the edit page, but it's blank. I don't know how to fix it. :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.30 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I fixed the vandalism. You have to edit the text the footnote relates to, not the footnote section.  When you look for sources, remember that the article is about the left-right distinction.  Sources that state the distinction is meaningless are valid.  There are separate articles for left, right and center.  We have been unable to find many sources on this, other than the historical development of the terms.  BTW, when you come back you should begin a new discussion thread at the end of this talk page so that other editors will be more likely to read it.  The Four Deuces (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TFD. I will be back asap. I understand the context of the article, but thanks for the tips nonetheless. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.28 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was a socialist
The article should have a section making it clear that Hitler was a socialist and a strong pro-state anti-capitalist dictator, perhaps someone could copy the points of the NAZI party declaration of principles and compare it to other socialist parties.

A clear definition of socialism would help too.

In any case I expect john k will have a heart attack. Agrofelipe (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that Agrofelipe is turning this into a forum - he is making arguments about what should be in the article. Those arguments are wrong, but that doesn't make his comment a forum type comment. To address the substantive points, my heart is fine, Hitler was not a socialist, statism is not left wing, Hitler was not anti-capitalist except insofar as he scapegoated the Jews for the evils of capitalism, and discussing the Nazi Party program in this article would be an example of undue weight, especially as the party program was basically a propaganda document whose left-wing seeming elements were not actually implemented when the Nazis came to power. john k (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hitler was not a socialist"

Proof? I mean besides your comments

"statism is not left wing"

Then you are denying that socialism has dominated over the left wing policies for over 150 years? Perhaps you should post your definition of left wing.

"Hitler was not anti-capitalist"

This is absurd and easy to counter by Hitler's own words:

'''"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and prosperity instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -Hitler'''

Agrofelipe (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read reliable sources:
 * Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, statism and socialism are not the same thing. There are forms of statism that are not socialist, and forms of socialism that are not statist.  The Tsarist system, or Bach's bureaucratic police state in Austria, were hardly libertarian wonderlands, but they were certainly not socialist either.  And there's an anarchist tradition within socialism that is much older than either the social democratic welfare state or the Bolshevik party dictatorship.  As Four Deuces says, it's up to you to find reliable secondary sources to support your argument.  Just repeating Jonah Goldberg arguments doesn't cut it. john k (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a socialist, which would tend to make him lean toward the left, but he was also an anti-communist, which would tend to make him lean toward the right. He was also an authoritarian, an extreme nationalist, and an extreme racist, all views associated with the extreme right. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The "socialism" of Hitler was continuation of support for state-protected monopolies and the welfare state (also called State Socialism) that were introduced by Bismarck as Conservative chancellor for the German Empire. Whether you call this socialism or statism, it is right-wing. I am aware of the arguments that supporters of Louis XVI and George III were also left-wing but they have no credibility. Anyway even if you want to think of Hitler as left-wing, it is irrelevant to the article which is about the difference between left and right-wing viewpoints. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All of this debate does INDEED show that this "spectrum" is flawed. If you aren't familiar with it, look up its origin during the French Revolution. Being "right-wing" meant you were a monarchist who supported the king, which was a BAD type of person to be at that time (the guillotine comes to mind). When you define your opposition's platform (or "wing" in this case), your system is already flawed. Furthermore, it's flawed by its very nature; being linear. It's based upon no form of reason, logic, the scientific method or anything such; only upon opinion, convenience, bias and personal interest. If you are on one "side", it serves you well to put the most absurd-sounding ideals and the most notorious and ruthless people on the other. That is exactly what has been done, and exactly what this particular argument is about.

In truth, Hitler does not fit on EITHER end of this spectrum. Technically, you could get away with claiming either one. He was INDEED a socialist, but also a nationalist hellbent on preserving German pride and sovereignty. He was an enemy of Capitalism, but a supporter of aristocrats and "big business" he approved of (which served him well). He was very militant, but also dreamed of an international society (molded to his likings of course). If you attempt to force Hitler on to the spectrum, you would have to bend it into a sphere, which should tell us all something.

Personally, I believe a new political spectrum is needed; which can be tested with the scientific method and built upon mathematics. In my free time I'm working on the algorithm to solve it (the "Political Theory of Everything", if you will; analogous to the "holy grail" of physicists and their "Universal Theory of Everything"), and lay out a set of basic, theoretical, political laws. So far, it has proven flawless even against intense peer scrutiny; but it has not had enough testing for public revelation. The day will soon come though, when it shall be introduced and demonstrated in a computer program.

I also find it ironic that the same people (arguing against the idea that Hitler was "left-wing" or Socialist) who used the argument that Republicans claim to be on the right, therefore are on the right, totally ignored one of Hitler's own quotes proclaiming to be a Socialist. With this "wing" system, it always turns out that the "other side" gets the madmen on their "team". Demonstrative of its complete design failure; and yet I'm unsure of whether it was actually "designed", or just came into existence in the public imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.24 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are of course American. Although the US has no right or left wing political tradition they have for some reason decided to adopt the terms left and right (in fact all mainstream American politics is centrist).  They then re-apply their categories to foreign politics and - suprise, suprise - some left wing parties are really right-wing while some right-wing parties are really left-wing.  Their onclusion:  the spectrum is meaningless.  It is like someone watching a black and white TV and saying that they think blue and red are really the same color.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your last sentence is pithy, TFD, but you also ignore the existence of a large number of better informed Americans. Also, whatever else might be said about the US political system, it does operate a to left-right model in the same way as the European system(s) do(es). It is just that some Americans don't understand their own political system. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One may analyze American political groups along a left-right axis, but it forms only a portion of the poltical spectrum one would see in the French national assembly, particularly throughout history. One does not see an American Right that argues whether their head of state should be a Windsor or a Stuart.  Or an American Left that argues whether capitalism should be abolished immediately or phased out.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And you are obviously British? What does that matter? And what if you so happen to be dead wrong in your assumption (and rather ethnocentric remarks)? We all would like to think our own political system is the best or the only "right" way of doing things (no pun). This is an absolutely dead-end "argument" and a most unsavory one which ignores the points everyone has made. Based upon all of your arguments on this page, it's not difficult to ascertain which "wing" you support. The very fact that you are arguing from your platform of beliefs calls into question everything you are claiming here. I know, this usually is not valid ground to tread in a Wikipedia debate, but it's definitely within scope when the problem itself is bias.

One of the most academically appalling parts of this article is the "Typical positions" section. It's not hard to decide who wrote it. In Britain, the official census states that 71.6% of citizens identify themselves as Christians. In the United States, it is slightly higher (roughly 73-75%). Other religions make up the majority of the remainder. This only serves to point out that the "Right" could not be "typically religious" or "skeptical of science" (in the light it is portrayed, because skepticism is actually a part of the scientific method when based on reason). Otherwise, nearly the entire population would be on the "right"! You will observe nearly equal numbers of Christians, other religious sects and atheists on both of these so-called "wings". This assertion was only provided to make the "right" appear to be uncompromising Biblical literalists who reject science. Again, pointing out the logical fallacies this "spectrum" is based on; and who wrote its rules.

We still have to provide the article, obviously, as we do with other debatable and controversial material. Ideally, we are obligated to find more independent and unbiased writers for the article; but this will be difficult due to the amount of people who were raised to believe in this system and their particular "wing". So we should start by loosening the partisan domination here. That alone will attract more unbiased eyes for analysis. There's nothing wrong with presenting the so-called "left/right"-wing ideals; but there's everything wrong with defining the "other side" as your ideal strawman. I will feel just as strongly about eliminating bias if this tables were to turn; or if I found it in any other condition.

Obviously, I'm just one person so I can't walk in and rewrite the entire article without support (though I would willingly do so if asked and present it for review). So I'm ASKING for your support. Please, lay down your own beliefs for a minute and think about things. Re-read the article and think about which "wing" looks the best and most "reasonable" when you're done. Don't try to claim it's just because your side is "correct" or "superior". It's because people have let their feelings slip into the facts and the grey areas the spectrum leaves. You can throw in your ideals when you describe what you believe in; but you should not be defining the other "side" with what YOU believe they are.

Thank you for your time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.22 (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your unsigned rant against The Four Deuces is entirely unjustified. His edits are based on fact, not opinion. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding, but I certainly do not apologize for "ranting" or "attacking" TFD. That is completely untrue, and nothing "unjust" has happened here. I could have academically appreciated a countering dissertation, but I'm not at all, with all due respect, impressed with an absurd accusation like this. I might hack away at someone's assertions, but I never personally attack a person or call names. Let's get back in bounds here, please.

And I'm sorry, but when it comes down to politics, practically EVERYTHING is a matter of opinion and point of view. The only "facts" in most cases are raw statistics, which are manipulated on all sides, often times (but not always). There's an incredibly thin line between reality and reality within one's own mind. It's not like chemistry where we can proactively test assertions and ideas and come to blunt conclusions. When I have more free time, I'm going to re-read in full, trace all of the citations and sources, and see if I can observe the same integrity of information you seem to. But for now, work calls, and I've got a production schedule to meet. :)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.32 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was anti-capitalist (Mein Kampf: "the attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State". Hitler made a clear distinction between "capital which is purely the product of creative labour and ... capital which is exclusively the result of financial speculation"). His ideals were collectivist, but not socialist - as he did not work to forward the interest of the working class. He was a protectionist, that's a better definition to explain what he was, which has been categorized both left and right by different political philosophers. Fact is that the political spectrum is stupid, as it is based on reactionary movement and progressive movement, which then just further shifts the problem of fascism into whether or not fascism was reactionary or progressive. There's no truth here, just opinions, no references will sort this out. Visf (Visf) 01:49 2011-01-12

Just a passing comment, but why does what Hitler claim to represent have to do with what he in fact does represent? He could put forward a completely communist manifesto, but his stance must be judged on policy rather than on propaganda. 95.151.160.120 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Typical positions
I agree that the wording can be improved upon, however I don't think that the entire section should be removed. Any thoughts? -Regancy42 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if someone could find a single source for them. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to talk about this. It seems to take a rather biased position and some of the examples given seem to be there just to spark conflict. Serious rewording needed, though not sure how. Also, I agree, this needs to be credited to a single source. Thanks! 75.71.179.210 (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording is terrible as-is. Someone is going to be able to go find a ton of books and articles to reference to back up any kind of political position, so the mere fact of having some references doesn't defend anything. Having wikipedia editors hand pick positions and references doesn't work. As the commenter above noted, a single or two reputable non-biased sources should be used to create this list of contrasting positions. I'm not sure if it's even possible to rewrite these without bias. Johnm4 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Murray Rothbard provided an interesting comparison:"...one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized, with liberalism on the extreme “left,” and conservatism on the extreme “right,” of the ideological spectrum."The Four Deuces (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't citing an anarchist economist make that little snippet a bit POV? Admittedly, those positions are accurate when referring to the old right of the Industrial Revolution, but half of what he describes as right-wing would seem anachronistic to today's right; the references to class oppression, statism and irrationalism are particularly provocative. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the April 1 issue of Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the only universally accepted difference between left and right relates to equality, which Bobbio identified as the only universal variable. All other differences were seen as relative to specific circumstances.  (That explains why views that are considered left-wing in one time or place may be considered right-wing in another.)  So perhaps we should abandon this section as something for which sources cannot be found.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Partially agree with Deuces here, so I've removed that section. Its main problem is actually repetition, not lack of sources. The article makes some of these points before that section (particularly about the left supporting social change and the right supporting traditional social structures, which is the main dividing line between the two) and so the entire thing seemed unnecessary. Moreover, it's a bad idea to include sections with lists, unless the article is specifically a list! If it's not a list, the information needs to be written in summary style per WP:SS. UBER  ( talk ) 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you explain the Quebec Liberal Party? In the 1970s their opposition changed from a reactionary conservative party {the Union Nationale (Quebec)) to a social democratic party (the Parti Quebecois).  (This process has occurred throughtout the world but Quebec is a very recent example.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, and frankly I don't care either. The point is that the deleted section was useless. I have no interest in discussing the Quebec Liberal Party. UBER  ( talk ) 21:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is that in the 18th century there was a left-right divide between tradition and progress. In the late 20th century the divide is between capitalism and socialism.  The parties of the left in 1789 became the parties of the right by 1989.  Why is it that liberalism is now considered right-wing?  You must explain why the left-right divide is meaningful since what was left in 1789 is right in 1989.  You seem to accept 18th century concepts as modern.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here was a silly section that we both agree had to be removed. There is nothing else to discuss. UBER  ( talk ) 02:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether the left-right divide is based on equality, tradition or private property. This is not a trivial issue.  The Four Deuces (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because capitalism came from the left in the late 1700s, while Marxist revolutionaries (hacks) started dismantling early concepts of the left-wing, specifically, bourgeoisie liberal capitalism, and won over a massive amount of radical leftist crowds with their socialism. Thus, the aristocracy, which stood for the original right-wing in Enlightenment times, sided with the middle-class bourgeoisie and adopted classical liberalism as their point doctrine, in turn leading to such ideologies as conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism to assist in bringing liberalism to the right, as we see it nowadays.--UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with The Four Deuces that the left-right divide has much to do with equality. Until the modern press got ahold of it, left always meant working class and right always meant upper class. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly that is what the terms Left and Right mean, and there are articles about both. But this article is about analysing any political spectrum.  If you look at the seating in the European parliament, most parties are neither right nor left, but they are still arranged from left to right.  Bobbio seems to be the only writer who has tried to explain the distinction.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

classical liberals in 1789?
I don't think "orthodox" should link to "classical liberalism" nor that "classical liberalism" is the best way to describe economic views in France in 1789. I'm not changing this because I am not expert in this subject, but I think a change should be made by someone who knows more than I. Were the two parties both anti-tarriff? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The section needs to be re-written. Marcel Gauchet wrote a good article about the development of the terms.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re-written the section. It was tagged for lack of citations in 2008 and lack of neutrality in March 2009 and none of these issues have been resolved.  A lot of the text seemed irrelevant since it related to opinions held by groups on the left and right side at different times, rather than how the terms evolved.  If I have deleted anything that may be relevant I ask that proper sources be found so that it can be re-inserted.  Also, it would be appropriate not to re-evaluate the tags.  We also need histories of the left and right.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good rewrite Deuces. Per your work, I've removed the tags since they're no longer necessary. UBER  ( talk ) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(out) I put in a new section about the differences between left and right. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your recent revert, TFD. After the revert, the Right sometimes capitalized, sometimes not, and my fixes of agreement of subject and verb are changed back. If your only objection was to the phrase "and they see government action to improve the lot of the citizens as harmful to personal liberties." I wish you had just removed that one phrase. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I reverted that. I had changed your edit because the source was different and I think the meaning was different.  TFD (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting back the purely grammatical parts of my edit. As for the disputed phrase, as always, I yield to your expertise on European politics. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Four Deuces edit
Excellent quote, The Four Deuces. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

what's the opposite of irony?
I was looking at the page for "right wing" and in the first sentence it defines the term.

I looked at the article for "left wing" and it has four paragraphs of preamble establishing the confines of the discussion, then it lists some political philosophies that might be considered "left wing", then it finally starts going into some details about what "left wing" actually means.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory and I don't mean anything derogatory by pointing out the difference in the two articles. I don't have a particular point nor any sort of ax to grind. I'm not suggesting that changes are needed. (Unless maybe "Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, mistrust of strong personal political leadership, and social justice." be moved to the first sentence of this article.)

But I think that probably says more about the two different political philosophies than anything in the articles themselves. If nothing else, it definitely makes the case for the importance of "reason" for the left vs. the importance of "action" for the right.

In any case, thanks for humoring me. Yours, 71.182.136.214 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for improvement of this article not for discsussion of other articles. TFD (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a case can be made for parallel subjects getting parallel treatment. (I've mentioned before the lack of parallel treatment in parabola, hyperbola, and elipse.) I tend to agree that the lede to both articles should just state what each side stands for, and not get into the reasoning behind those stands. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see them as parallel subjects. The Left has a shared history, literature and symbols and cooperated internationally from the beginning.  Since then there have been divisions and evolution in ideology, but the resemblance remains.  The Right on the other hand was different in every country, had no shared ideology or literature, and became home to a variety of unrelated ideologies.  Much of the original right-wing ideology seems dated today.  There is no clear line demarcating the Right and no one calls themselves right-wing.  The exception to this is of course U. S. politics, but left and right are just synonyms for liberal and conservative.  TFD (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason mainstream media thinks the left are all somehow conspicuously related to each other is due to propaganda. Communists are not friends with anarchists, and socialists do not oppose capitalism. Of course there are some exceptions (Bob, a communist, is friends with Bill, an anarchist), but that doesn't merge the whole left together. Some people who considers themselves left may see the right as indifferent, even comparing capitalists to fascists, and some people who considers themselves right may see the left and indifferent, even comparing socialists to communists.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "In fact, a definition of socialism which most socialists would agree with would be one that stated that "the whole produce of labour ought to belong to the labourer" (to use words Thomas Hodgskin, an early English socialist, from his essay Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital). Tucker stated that "the bottom claim of Socialism" was "that labour should be put in possession of its own," that "the natural wage of labour is its product" (see his essay State Socialism and Anarchism). This definition also found favour with Kropotkin who stated that socialism "in its wide, generic, and true sense" was an "effort to abolish the exploitation of labour by capital." [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets, p. 169]

From this position, socialists soon realised that (to again quote Kropotkin) "the only guarantee not to by robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 145] Because of this socialism also could be defined as "the workers shall own the means of production," as this automatically meant that the product would go to the producer, and, in fact, this could also be a definition of socialism most socialists would agree with. The form of this ownership, however, differed from socialist tendency to socialist tendency (some, like Proudhon, proposed co-operative associations, others like Kropotkin communal ownership, others like the Social Democrats state ownership and so on)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.180.76 (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I usually resist changes in the meaning of words, but the word "socialism" as used today is seldom if ever used with that meaning, and so if we use it with that meaning, it might be better just to say "worker ownership of the means of production", so as not to be misunderstood. Here is Walter Lipman (1962) as quoted by William Safire: "The so-called socialism which is supposed to be creeping up on us is in fact nothing more than the work of making life safe and decent for a mass society collected in great cities."  Also according to Safire, when Eisnehower wrote a speech that used "socialism" in the old sense, one of his aides pointed out that the meaning of the word had changed, and so Eisenhower dropped the word from his speech.  Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In "Political parties in the political spectrum" the term is used for parties that call themselves socialist, and are recognized as such by competing parties and by socialist parties in other countries. TFD (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section?
I'm pretty sure not everyone like s the left-right spectrum. We should eventually add a criticism section.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed content
I removed the following: Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, mistrust of strong personal political leadership, and social justice. To the Right, this is seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The Right are skeptical about the capacity of radical reforms to achieve human well-being, which they see as harmful to personal liberties. They believe in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the Left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population, and a tendency to authoritarianism and repression.

This text is highly misleading, e.g. by adding a very close association between Right and Religion (which even in the US is not omnipresent and is not present globally) or by portraying the Left as believers in humanity and the Right as skeptics towards it. At best, the latter is highly misleading POV-statement. The reference is no excuse for being that far off the mark.

Feel free to re-add a NPOV and factually correct description, while bearing in mind that the Right is far less homogeneous than the Left (and that even the Left contains a non-trivial diversity of opinion). Michael Eriksson (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Knapp & Wright are accurate in their description of the difference between the Left and the Right. Certainly religion is a large part of the philosophy of the Right, as is support for the upper class, who often use religion to justify the unequal distribution of wealth.  Also, many right-wing writers express a belief in the impossibility of improving the human condition through reason, and use that as an argument any attempt to change the status quo.  I am not, however, going to revert your deletion, because Knapp & Wright are writing about the Right in Fance, not the Right generally. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Knapp & Wright are a reliable source on this issue. Removal shouldn't be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. LK (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rick: You express a very one-sided and disputable view of the Right. In particular, you ignore a large variation both between various Right factions (in my opinion, the Right can only be defined as in opposition to the Left, but not through true internal connections---certainly not religion) and between different geographical areas.


 * Lawrencekhoo: Even if Knapp & Wright are a reliable source, it does not follow that its opinions should be stated as truth---in particular, when it is so obviously wrong. Where controversy is concerned, the correct way of doing things is to say "X claims that Y", not a mere "Y" with a reference. This has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but with avoiding the abuse of references to push through a POV agenda (or, for that matter, honest mistakes). Generally, possibly the single biggest problem Wikipedia has is the misconception "I have a reference for Y; ergo, I can simply claim Y."; references, however, are not a sufficient criterion for unqualified claims---just a necessary one.Michael Eriksson (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on a preponderance of evidence, not on evidence from one single source. But when Lawrencekhoo cites WP:IDONTLIKEIT, he is pointing out that you have not cited any sources to back up your assertion that Knapp & Wright are "obviously" wrong. If they are obviously wrong, somebody should have said so.

Is my view of the Right one-sided? I applaud the Right's opposition to communism. But today the Right seems to be more interested in promoting nationalism and fundamentalism. The one constant over time is support for big business. One reason the Right opposed communism was that communism claimed to lead to a classless society. Another reason was that communism was "Godless". Neither of these reasons seemed to me good reasons. I oppose communism because the potato crop rots in the fields. But I still give the Right the credit for the fall of communism.

The trouble with defining the Right as opposition to the Left is that the Right often picks and chooses what to call the Left. Is the Left communism, or socialism, or gay rights, or National Public Radio? If the Right is opposition to the Left and the Left is anything the Right doesn't like, we run around in circles. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously wrong: One of the common principles of WP is that there is no need to reference the fact that the sun is yellow. Now, if I were to challenge a scientific consensus or a statement where most of us have no personal experience, then I would have to provide sources. In this case, I do not, nor for the sun being yellow, nor for humans not being one-legged---even if someone were to provide a reference about one-leggedness based on e.g. an unrepresentative sample.

But today the Right seems to be more interested in promoting nationalism and fundamentalism.

And again you focus on US politics, not the international right. For that matter, this does not refer to the entirety of the US right, but only to parts of it. (Another major problem with WP is the great number of editors who confuse the English language Wikipedia with a hypothetical US national Wikipedia.)

For the sake of talk-page relevance, I will not discuss the rest of your take on the right or matters of definition, but I stress for the record that your view is one which I very strongly disagree with, which the typical right-winger will be very likely to strongly disagree with, and which seems to be heavily influenced by an over-focus on one portion of the US right. (Again... I strongly suggest that you read up on international politics. For that matter, that you listen more to what the US right says about itself---not just what the US left says about the US right.) Michael Eriksson (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In short: no. That the sun is yellow is not in dispute.  In politics, there is no such consensus.  Rick Norwood (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * By which token the original claims were too categorical and should be deleted or rewritten to reflect that they were just the opinions of one source... Further, your claim is too categorical and does not apply in this case considering that the burden of proof is on the party who makes a positive claim: With an unbiased view, a non-specialist knowledge of politics, and a brief moment of reflection, it is immediately clear that the deleted text is not correct in its entirety (although the treatment of some individual claims may be more demanding or even resulting in a positive verdict). Here the analogy with the yellow sun comes into play.Michael Eriksson (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think reasoning by analogy adds anything. The author is an acknowledged expert. If you think his views are not generally held, it should be easy to show that. However, it is reasonable for you to ask for additional sources, and I'll try to provide them. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added another reference, from a well-reviewed scholarly source. It seems to me that the first paragraph of this section sums up the broad differences between Right and Left. The second paragraph does not seem to belong here, but rather in the following section. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I regret that I do not have the time and resources to counter your statements in detail. I note, however, that:

Michael Eriksson (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I have myself been politically active in Sweden (on the right) and, after moving to Germany, gained the political grasp of a highly educated German. I can say with certainity that your claims are too general, not globally valid, and not taking into consideration how diverse the right is in comparison to the left. There are very large portions of the world's "right" to which they simply do not or only partially apply (ditto for the left).
 * 2) One of your sources refers specifically to France (and specifically for France it may or may not be correct). The other is written by an active member of Labour who holds a chair for them in the House of Lords. (This, obviously, is no immediate disqualifier; however, it is a reason for caution and somewhat remarkable considering that I have asked you to listen to what the right says about the right---not what the left says about the right.) Further, the quotes in the citation are not convincing, using phrasings like "many continental European countries" (i.e. a not globally valid statement, which should be restricted), contrasting the US and European positions and diminishing your evidence, and relating hearsay ("Conservatism, it is often said, opposes rationalism.").
 * 3) A quick look at the Swedish Wikipedia page shows a differentiation based on equality of opportunity and equality of outcome/social justice. The German (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politisches_Spektrum, the side-bar link of the English article leads to a more general, non-political discussion) sees a main differentiation on three criteria: Egalitär – Elitär, Progressiv – Konservativ, Internationalistisch – Nationalistisch (translations obvious; the descriptions of the two latter indicate a blurring over time, the first a drift towards the "Swedish" differentiation.). Without making claims on who is right or wrong (let alone right or left), it should be clear that the claims made are too generalized and do not represent a consensus opinion.
 * Thank you for your comments. This explanation of your viewpoint was much more clear to me than your earlier comments.  On the other hand, it may be that your experience with the Right has caused you to see their variety more clearly, and to view the Left as monolithic.  In fact, just as the Right includes everyone from Nazis at one extreme to pro-business moderates at the other, the Left includes everyone from Marxists at one extreme to pro-buisness moderates at the other.  The two sides have more in common than either side will admit.  The whole Left/Right spectrum is flawed, as this article points out, and part of the problem is that both words began as insults and have only recently been given a positivie spin. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When I was politically active, I spent more time reading about the opinions (from their own pens...) of the left than the right, so I severely doubt that I would have a monolithic view. The left is simply more uniform---especially in readings that consider e.g. the Nazis right-wing, when the difference between them and e.g. classical liberals are far greater than those between the Nazis and many socialist groups. Notably, the "extreme right" cannot be seen as "more right" version of the moderate right; in contrast, the "extreme left" is a "more left" version of the moderate left. (Looking at opinions and ideology---not necessarily proposed means.)


 * Unfortunately, the article does a very poor job of pointing to how flawed the Left/Right spectrum is. Both the Swedish and German articles are better at this; and, had I had the time, this would have been were I intervened with improvements.Michael Eriksson (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that the left/right dichotomy is hopelessly flawed. On the other hand, it isn't going to go away, so this article needs to at least attempt to explain it.  I disagree with your view that the difference between, say, Hitler and Margaret Thatcher is intrinsicly greater than the difference between, say, Stalin and Barack Obama. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

American Patriot Party View of Left and Right; Also Views Nolan Chart as a Fallacy
Link: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/leftright —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.25 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

They have placed the "Locke Chart" which is based not upon vague political leanings, but on principles of property and other recognizable standards.

Several Charts are shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.172.25 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany
Hello! The German Interwiki ist incorrect. Please check it out! The right link goes to Politisches Spektrum in German Wikipedia. --31.17.103.2 (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascism as protrayed is not precise in this article
Fascism is either left, right or center. The fascist left comprises of radical environmentalists, female nationalism, black nationalism, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish nationalism, among others. The fascist right comprises of economic imperialism, male nationalism, white nationalism, Christian nationalism and Jewish nationalism, among others. The fascist center comprises of third way movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.241.148 (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia only reports the way words are used, it does not attempt to correct standard usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Separation of church and state is not a right
The article currently reads, "protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and separation of church and state...."

Separation of church and state is not a right, it's a governing principle. Freedom of religion is a right.

CNJECulver (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed to "freedom of religion". TFD (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Fascists in the Right?
Fascism is/was an Antireligious political movement. It's no way right wing. If a movement is antireligious, then there is no basis for calling it Right wing.--95.10.95.52 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Some fascists were anit-religious, others Roman Catholic, others had their own brand of Christianity. In any case, fascists have been called right-wing ever since Mussolini, and we can't rewrite history. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We are supposed to follow what sources say, not come up with our own analyses, per no original research. Having said that, clericalism was central to ultraconservatism, but that is only one element of the Right.  Ultraconservatism was only prominent in France and Spain and their former colonies.  Fascists in those countries were mostly clericalist.  TFD (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tadeusz Nowak edit and The Four Deuces edit
Please provide evidence that feminism and secularism are associated with the Left. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The edit provided no sources so I reversed it. TFD (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am under no obligation whatsoever to "provide evidence that feminism and secularism are associated with the Left" because I did not introduce this ridiculous claim into the article, on the contrary. Feminism and secularism are indeed associated with all sorts of ideologies on both the right and left. The introduction as written The Four Deuces does not actually provide any adequate sources that support its outrageous, highly US-centric and simplistic claims that e.g. feminism, secularism, green ideology and so forth can be grouped with communism and are always left. This sounds more like the claims of Tea Party republicans with no nuanced knowledge of politics, particularly European politics. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not write the intro, I merely reverted your edit. If you want to re-write the intro, I am fine with that, but you need to provide sources.  I agree though it is US-centric.  The US imported the terms liberal and conservative, left and right, and use them differently from elsewhere, hence the anomolies you describe.  TFD (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

No "general agreement"
There is no "general agreement" that the following ideologies are always left-wing:
 * Feminism (associated with many ideologies)
 * Secularism (many well known examples of right-wing secularism, e.g. in France or Iran under the Shah)
 * Green ideology (explicitly considers itself neither left nor right, and commonly perceived as centrist, at least in Europe)
 * Social democracy (explicitly abandoned "socialism", opposition to "capitalism" and so on in 1959 (Geoff Eley, "The Postwar Settlement," in Dan Stone (ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Postwar European History, p. 54, Oxford University Press, 2012, ISBN 0191625280), has always been considered to be part of the right by its left-wing opponents such as communists (see eg. Joseph Stalin: Zur internationalen Lage, Werke, Vol. 6, p. 253). At the very least, it is hotly contested whether Tony Blair was a left-wing political leader, and therefore simplistic statements should be avoided.

There is no "general agreement" that the following ideologies are always right-wing: Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Theocracy (can sometimes be associated with the left wing, e.g. the Iranian Revolution, supported by various leftist and Islamic organizations)
 * Nationalism (widely associated with ideologies on both the right and left, e.g. Putin (who also considers Stalin and the Soviet Union and those guys to be his heroes) and Hugo Chavez)


 * Partly agree. Social democracy, which is an ambiguous term, is considered part of the Left, even though Marx's traditional supporters accused them of abandoning socialism long before the term left-wing came into use.  Some of your examples are confusing though and it would be better to begin with sources about the Left rather than provide distractions.  TFD (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While it is true that social democracy evolved from what is called "the left", the situation has not been as straightforward since the mid 20th century, when social democracy had become firmly established as a distinct ideology increasingly opposed to socialist ideology. The Social Democratic Party of Germany, which practically invented social democracy, has defined itself as a pragmatic "people's party", a part of the political "Mitte" (rather than the left) since 1959. It does not oppose "capitalism" either. I think an article on "left–right politics" should not try to list all sorts of ideologies, ideas and concepts and group them as only "left" (stalinism together with social liberalism, which many would consider the very opposite ideologies) or "right". It should rather employ the more common and nuanced division which includes the political centre (e.g. far left, centre-left, centre, centre-right, far right). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about "left-right politics", rather than the Left. As such it describes all ideologies and correctly notes that socialists occupy ideological space between liberals and communists.  Certainly one can say that socialists, liberals and conservatives occupy the "vital center", but it does not affect their relative position.  Also, the split between socialist and communist parties goes back to the Great War, but the ideological split goes back to Lassalle and Marx, i.e., the very beginning.  TFD (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"De quand date le clivage gauche/droite en France?"
In a paragraph that explains that parties were named after their seating in the National Assembly, an editor added, "One finds the Radical Left on the Radical group’s right side, because it gathers Left membres who are closed to the Radical ideas. On the contrary, in the 20th century, the Radical Left will be located on the Radical group’s left side. As well, the Socialist Left will be located on the Socialist party’s left side.

Is the editor saying that the Radical Left Party sat on the right side of the Radical Party in the Natinal Assembly? If so the comment that this placed it closer to the Left makes no sense. What does it mean that they are "closed to the Radical ideas?" The main 19th century radical ideas were universal suffrage and republicanism (as opposed to monarchism), which were supported by the Left. In fact, the party chose the name Radical because rather than Republican because republicanism was considered subversive in a monarchy.

The edit then says, "The fact that, in the 19th century, the word « Left » refers only to a single political party, while in the 20th century it refers to almost half of the political spectrum explains this paradox." But that is already explained in previous paragraph: "The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology but only to seating in the legislature."

TFD (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Source quality
People, myself included, have been fighting about the claim that "the Right includes ... racists." It is a sourced claim; however, the trustworthiness of said source is quite questionable to me. Does Wikipedia REALLY have standards regarding similar situations, or is it just biased? 2601:192:4201:B40:DB1:7279:51CF:F68B (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has standards for reliable sources. Some editors however question what reliable sources say, for example whether climate change is man made, whether evolution occurred, whether al Qaeda was behind 9/11.  That however is an issue to take up with policy, not question policy on an article by article basis.  TFD (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to respond to the question above. I suspect that the author of the question is not a racist, is of the Right, and does not understand why Wikipedia does not describe "his" Right. It may help for him to phrase the question in a different way: not "the right includes ... racists", but rather has the phrase "the Right" been used, historically, to describe racists. Clearly it has. To understand why, you need to look at history. The phrases "the Right" and "the Left" were originally used by the other side to denigrate their opponents. It is only in relatively recent times that people have said "I'm on the Right" or "I'm on the Left". In the 1960s, when racism was much more open in the US than it is today, civil rights was the main political controversy. Those who supported segregation were called "right-wing" by their opponents, meaning "supporting the traditional social structure in which the Negro was considered inferior", while people who supported integration were called "left-wing", the implication being that anyone who supported integration was a communist, trying to destroy the American way of life by mixing the races.

It was Russell Kirk, primarily who made took the phrase "the Right" and turned it into a movement, where people were proud of being on "the Right". At first, this conservative Right included many people who considered the Negro inferior. Even William F. Buckley, Jr. thought so, though over time he changed his mind. The phrase "the Left", however, remained an insult. It was essentially a synonym for "communist". The word used to describe the shared values of most Americans: patriotism, freedom, and progress, was "liberal". It was not until the Reagan era that politicians began to call "liberals" "the Left". The intent was clear: people who vote against Reagan are communists. For a long time, Democrats resisted the label "leftist". They were not (and are not) communists, and so should not be called "the Left". But language changes in unexpected ways. Now, "the Left" means "liberal" and "the Right" means "conservative", and there is no going back.

There are many reasons why people self-identify as being on the Left or as being on the Right. One reason is racism: racists generally self-identify as being on the Right. This is not to say that everyone on the Right is racist, or even that all racists consider themselves on the Right, but that there is a tendency in that direction. One reason people consider themselves on "the Right" is that they want to go back to the "good old days". And in the "good old days", according to the racists, the races did not mix.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it fair that the term "racial supremicist" is used as it is a more politically ideological term and is less pejorative? It is also the term that is used on the main "Right wing politics" article. Also, I would like to know why you reverted all my edits, which didn't even relate to your point at all besides relabelling "racist" as "racial supremicist", which I now changed back to "racist" until we reach a consensus. Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You added, "In addition, left-wing and right-wing stances may vary in different countries, so that a left-wing position in one country may be considered right-wing in another.[Leo P. Ribuffo, "20 Suggestions for Studying the Right now that Studying the Right is Trendy," Historically Speaking Jan 2011 v.12#1 pp. 2–6, quote on p. 6] But it is not a quote.  The page is quoted in another article as "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism."  Is that what you are referring to?  If so, it does not support your text.  TFD (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Marquis de Faux edit
Thank you for correcting my error. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you okay with using "racial supremacist" in place of "racist"?Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that term is preferable? Is it commonly used outside the U.S.?  While saying for example that 19th century England was a racist society would seem adequately descriptive, saying it was a white supremacist society might confuse readers.  TFD (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Because it is a more political and ideological term. "Racist" is pretty much used as a pejorative, and while racial supremicism is not any less nefarious, it is more NPOV and specific to an ideology. While you can find articles calling the right sexist, you wouldn't group "sexists" or "homophobes" here in the list of right-wing ideologies for similar reasons "racist" is not a preferable term. While it would be fine to say that 19th century England was a racist society, this article describes modern political ideology which is a different context. "Racial supremicist is also the term used in the main "Right wing politics" article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The reality is that the term is not used outside the U.S. It could be that racism in the U.S. emphasizes "white" supremacy, while in Europe it is more specific ("Anglo-Saxon" supremacy, "Aryan" supremacy, French or Russian or Slavic supremacy.)  And of course there are right-wing groups that view the racial hierarchy differently, specifically Japanese nationalism, the Turkish Right, African American racial nationalists and some extreme Zionists.  TFD (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of a consensus. I'm do not wish to be argumentative. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Christian Democracy
I question the addition to the lead, "Christian democracy is viewed as a centrist movement." While the lead is supposed to summarize the article, the only mention of Christian Democracy in the article says that they are generally placed between conservatives and liberals in the political spectrum which is the reason they were originally called the Center Party - they were seated between the conservatives and liberals. The term Center is ambiguous. In one sense, moderate Conservatives, liberals, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats are centrists, while right-wing refers to extremists and left-wing to Communists. On the other hand, Christian Democrats are the Right in Germany and other countries in the same way that Conservatives are the Right in the UK and Canada, Liberals in Australia and Republicans in the U.S. TFD (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Predatory open-access journal
I've removed the insertion of a paragraph that summarizes purported "Evolutionary perspectives on left-right spectrum," all sourced to a single study.

The study was published in the "Journal of Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology" (which is a predatory open-access journal by the notorious OMICS Publishing Group). These sorts of publications are not known for rigorous peer review. The fact that "The Hindu" picked up on the story makes little or no difference; even if the popular press picks up on a dubious article, we are not obliged to include it.

Exclusion is especially required because the article (or at least the summation of it that previously appeared in this article) makes some broad and extraordinary claims about science (psychology, biology) (i.e., claiming that the amygdala is "responsible for rightist behavioural traits" while the cerebral cortex is "responsible for the leftist traits"). That sort of bold claim requires much stronger sourcing. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"); see also Identifying reliable sources (science).

And, finally, even if this were a legitimate study published by a real journal, there are significant due-weight problems with giving a single study an entire paragraph, especially on a very broad topic like "left-right politics" for which there are thousands and thousands of sources out there.

Finally, look at the IP user who originally inserted this content. The IP user inserted links to the research of the same person in multiple articles over a short period of time.It's subtle refspam. Neutralitytalk 23:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. In the edit I reverted, it was not clear that "predatory open-access journal" was not intended to refer to The Hindu, the only citation in the paragraph.  With the fuller explanation, I agree with you. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I should have explained more clearly before. Best regards --Neutralitytalk 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If another source can be found, then it might be worth adding the information. However, we would need to explain that it is only only of the perceived determinants of left-right support.  For example in the U.S. being African American is a strong determinant for voting Democrat.  Also, studies have shown that in former Communist states,  conservative personalities are more likely to support post Communist parties.  So psychology may determine that people support the status quo or change rather than the Right or the Left.  TFD (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Green politics
This article states that "Green politics is often seen as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to categorise as left or right". It could state that many Greens used to say that they were "neither left, nor right, but out front". Vorbee (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of the terms today
Under the sub-heading "Relevance of the terms today", the first sentence reads "Some political scientists have argued that the classifications of left and right are no longer meaningful in today's modern complex world". It could refer here to a book by Samuel Brittan called "Left or Right: The Bogus Dilemma". Vorbee (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC) The fourth line under this sub-heading says "social democratic caucuses" - should this be "social democratic causes"? Vorbee (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No because it is a reference to legislative groups of social democrats. It may be that it is not clearly written and perhaps you could re-read it and tell me what you think. TFD (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This article looks sick to me. The first paragraph does not provide much or any definition for the terms "left" and "right". The closest approach to a definition: "the party of movement" and "the party of order" is euphemistic for the original meaning from the French Revolution, and not obviously sensible in relation to modern political events (i.e. a definition that does not define). A definition is given in the second paragraph, which is the French historical origin as royalist and anti-royalist. And as noted in many places 20th Century usage places various dictators (Mao, Stalin) as "left", in contrast to any sensible meaning of royalist in the 18th Century meaning of the word being on the 20th Century continuum of authoritarian, to dictatorial. I see no alternative but to structure the article around the original meaning of royalist and anti-royalist, and then catalogue all the various inconsistent and propagandistic redefinitions of "left" and "right".

Pwfen (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao are not categorized as left because they are dictators but because they are communist. In the 1960s, the most common meaning of the words used "leftist" to mean "communist" and "right-wing" to mean an extreme anti-communist. Both liberals and conservatives, in the 1960s, were anti-communist. That was considered mainstream, due to the mass murders committed by Stalin and Mao. One could, therefore describe a member of the John Birch Society as right-wing, and describe a French communist politician as a leftist.


 * I am aware of the usual 20th Century "definition" (really just a list of fairly arbitrary rules). However: (1) Das Kapital was half a century in the future when the terms "left" and "right" were coined, so communism in and of itself is not an original definition of "left". (2) The Intro to the article does not provide a usable or workable definition. Your listing of a handful of mappings for what is left or right does not provide a definition. Pwfen (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This does not correspond either to the meaning of the words when they were first coined, nor to the various meanings of the words as they are used today, though it pleases some people to pretend that the meaning has not changed. The introduction to this article needs to cover both the historical meaning and the way that meaning has changed. If you would like to do this, be bold. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The terms were developed because observers place political groups along a continuum, as do the groups themselves. This is reflected in the fact that political groups are more likely to cooperate with other groups seen as closer in the continuum than with those further away. Ultra-royalists for example were more likely to align with liberals than they were with Communists. Also, this article is about left and right as relative rather than absolute terms. It's not about which groups are defined as left or right, but about their relative position. Soviet Communists were more left-wing than U.S. Democrats, regardless of whether or not one chooses to call Democrats left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

and you have both focused on the second half of my posting. The first part of my post reads: This wikipedia article does not give a definition in the Intro! There is an analogy, or maybe a parable, about "movement" and "order" in the wikipedia article, but those terms are not definitions! Pwfen (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked about definitions for the Left and the Right but the article is about the left-right spectrum and there are other articles about the Left and the Right. TFD (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An excellent observation: the definitions in those articles are much better than what is found on this page. It isn't clear to me how one can give a good definition for the continuum between two things that are not defined. If I read the first sentence of the left-wing politics and right-wing politics pages, they look to me like simply copying to the intro here would be the first step to solving the problem that bothers me (no definition). The political spectrum page gives a reasonable general definition that could be adapted to use on this page. Pwfen (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have followed Pwfen's suggestion, which seems reasonable. Let's see what happens.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Equality on the left, social hierarchy on the right".
This phrase has no citation. It's incorrect, and to post such a broad statement in Wikipedia is irresponsible. Please refrain from re-adding it, and report if this change has been reverted. I'm monitoring this page. (sentence redacted for privacy reasons). Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mildare (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * (I hope you don't mind that I've redacted your contact details for privacy reasons. People can still contact you using the "Email user" option.)
 * I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with what is pretty much the standard high level definition of left and right. It may be that somebody has been trying to confuse you with non-standard definitions. You are asking for citations, and I can understand why you would want that if you are trying to reconcile differing definitions. First up, this article is a little unusual in that it has several citations in the lede section. More normally, the citations go in the body of the article as the lede is only meant to be a summary of what is already well referenced in the body. So, there is nothing suspicious about the lack of a citation for that in the lede section. If you look in the Ideological groupings across the spectrum section there are citations there. If you want more citations then you can follow the links to Left-wing politics and right-wing politics straight from the lede section and see that the same definitions are more comprehensively referenced there. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Mildare's complaint, which I think is sincere, if you listen to only one side -- only liberal or only conservative -- the definition is obvious: my side believes everything that is good, the other side believes everything that is evil. I'm sure you see why that is not the correct definition, but I am left in doubt about what you think the definition is. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't Fascism be listed as left-wing?
I admit that there isn't much I know about fascism, but I am aware that the basic idea is that everything, and everyone, is devoted to the state. All that matters in a fascist society is the state. Considering the fact that left-wingers prefer larger, more centralized governance, and right-wingers prefer smaller, less centralized governments. This is, of course, without acknowledging fascism's left-wing roots. It is linked by historian Zeev Sternhell back to the late 19th century as a revolt against the bourgeois, a left-wing idea, and also to the 'fin de siècle' theme of the time. It considered the individual to be only part of a larger collective, and condemned individualism. This, too, could be linked to left wing--specifically communist--thinking. Right wingers are capitalists. Fascists? Not so much. They despised capitalists, and violently opposed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricallyAccurate (talk • contribs) 20:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:HistoricallyAccurate 14:18, 7 April 2019 (United States, Mountain Time)


 * See the FAQ at Talk:Nazism for a related discussion: perhaps it's time to extend the FAQ to Talk:Fascism and this talkpage, since it's a favorite revisionist talking point among some partisan commentators.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before. We call them right-wing because that is what sources call them, including Sternhell. TFD (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it may help HistoricallyAccurate to understand if he reads up a little on Hitler. Hitler was a rabid anti-communist, hated the communists almost as much as he hated the Jews. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The left-right distinction really doesn't work, and is generally propounded by left-leaning scholars. By most definitions, China in 2020 is far left. But what would need to be changed for China to be a fascist country? China is absolutely ruled by a single party, with no free speech and no representation of the people. Yet, China is second only to the U.S. in the number of billionaires, and in some provinces, workers receive only a fraction of the U.S. minimum wage. China ruling establishment's symbiotic relationship with business and use of near-slave labor, has made it an economic powerhouse which will soon dwarf the GDP of the U.S. It is a system that Mussolini could only dream about. So how does China get from the extreme left to the extreme right, while changing almost nothing? The Nolan Diagram is a better representation of the interplay in these political and social constructs, but it still falls short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.158.114 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Argument for the removal of an image from this article


Please see the centralized discussion here for the argument to not use the above image in en.wiki articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The following RfC concerns this article: . Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Difference in Europe and the United States
Isn't the left vs. right spectrum different in the U.S. compared to in Europe (different from how the article says)? In Europe, the size scope and ability of the government stays the same from the left to the right (as a rule of thumb), so the major distinction is who is it for. While in the United States the argument from left to right is much more an argument of what should the government be able and what should they do. Basically the Europian right will still fit in the American left. At least that is the appearance. If I'm wrong then what am I missing, and if I'm correct can the article be changed to reflect that? (I know how to but I don't want to without any feedback because I'm probably not seeing something) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadavMeiri1 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Change intro sentence
Proposal to change the intro sentence to this: The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, from, relatively, a belief in equality on the left to a belief in inequality on the right.

This is better because:
 * It has more sources backing it up than the original sentence (3 vs 1)
 * The original sentence source doesn't actually say the right is in favour if social hierarchy per se, it just talks about the right representing aristocracy and clergy. So the new sentence is more accurate
 * Social hierarchy is a bit more specific than inequality - opposition to gay marriage would make things unequal but I wouldn't say it's really a social hierarchy (because gay people weren't seen as a lower caste in a sort of ranked system, they were generally seen as sexual deviants akin to pedophiles). Rightists don't always think of themselves as promoting social hierarchy - they think that if someone gets rich, then they deserve it. Inequality is a better descriptor therefore I think.
 * The note of how this is all relative is important because otherwise you have problems - if the left-wing believes in equality, why does it not ban any income differentials? Why does it not allow votes for children? Sure some leftists think this but most don't. Leftists would accuse you of strawmanning them if you said they didn't believe in this. The source by Bobbio actually points this out specifically and talks about it.
 * It's not really a big change to the intro - there is a difference in what the sentences say but it's not radically changing it, more clarifying. You'll note I still said the left believes in equality, I just changed what the right believes in. Also, my claims are all sourced.

So I think it should be changed.Sdio7 (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should remove the mention of equality because it is an empirical observation rather than part of the definition. We know for a fact that political parties perceive themselves and are perceived as placed on a left-right axis from communist to socialist to green to liberal to Christian democrat to conservative to extreme right. And each ideology itself has its own left and right and center and there are other parties that occupy the space between the ones I mentioned, such as left parties. But why this is and what drives it is a matter of speculation. While Bobbio provides one explanation (equality vs hierarchy), other observers see two axes (social and economic freedom vs control). TFD (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, what do you think the intro should say instead?Sdio7 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What about something like: "The Left-Right political spectrum is a common way of classifying political positions, political ideologies, or political parties along a one-dimensional line. The concept developed out of the observation that in the French parliament, the more conservative parties tended to physically sit on the right and the more radical parties on the left and more moderate parties sat in the center. Furthermore, the more conservative the party was the farther to the right it sat, while the more radical it was, the more to the left it sat. TFD (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good, though I'd add clarify the context of the French Revolution - "The concept developed out of the observation that in the French parliament, during the French Revolution, the more conservative" etc. That would work well I think.Sdio7 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Except that isn't strictly true. Although the seating arrangement developed during the French revolution, The left-right concept developed in the early 20th century. TFD (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's true but it has its origins in the French revolution, that's why parties of the right are sometimes referred to as the parties of order, so I don't think it would cause too much a problem. Sdio7 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's confusing to say that when the terms were not used then. TFD (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, don't include that sentence I guess. Sdio7 (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What about we add, "This seating arrangement dates to the French Revolution of 1789, although the concept of a left-right spectrum developed in the early 20th century?" TFD (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds reasonable. Sdio7 (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The intro is completely unsupported by the cited source, which is the most pressing issue, as it creates confusion for readers (who generally don't read the talk page), and damages the validity, and verifiability of the article. The intro has been edited to now read:
 * The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties on a single left-right axis, with the left typically characterized as progressive and the right characterized as conservative, although the content of the two terms has changed over time, and can depend heavily on cultural context.
 * While this may not be the most accurate description, it more accurately reflects the cited source, as well as the wide variation in meaning, both historically, and between cultures, ideologies, individuals, etc. Remember, this article is describing a spectrum which by its very nature is relative. It has no absolutes, only hypothetical extremes (something, or someone, can always be further to the left or right). This is why there is no consensus here, or among academics, and the article should reflect that. I encourage any improvements, or constructive changes to the intro (especially the characterizations of "left and "right"), and continued discussion on how to do so, but I think we can all agree on the need to cite sources and ensure that statements are supported by their sources, in order to maintain the integrity of the article. Mikwehttam (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Since information in the lede of an article is not required to be sourced (per WP:LEAD) as long as it is supported by sources in the body of the artice, I have removed the specific source from the lead and let the statement stand on its own. Yur suggestion was basically a tautology: "liberalism is progressive" says nothing interesting or informative to the reader. Beyond My Ken (talk)


 * The first sentence of the lede says:


 * The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right.


 * The first seentence of the section titled "Ideological groupings across the spectrum" is:


 * Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".


 * This is sourced to:


 * Andrew Heywood, Key Concepts in Politics and International Relations (2d ed.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), p. 119


 * So the sentence in the lede is supported by sourced information in the body of the article, and your revert with the edit summary "not supported by the body" is inaccurate.  Further the source that was there doesn't in any way contradict the lede sentence, as you claim, but simple focuses on other aspects of the differences between the two ideologies.


 * Please do not WP:Edit war and restore your preferred version again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)