Talk:New Left/Archive 1

New Politics Convention
I removed this sentence from end of intro para. Seems important, but too specific for intro. Can it be fitted into US history section? "An example of this was the New Politics Convention (September 1967) wherein a list of un-refusable demands was presented by the black caucus, throwing the convention into turmoil." BobFromBrockley 10:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Extreme POV edit
An anonymous editor has done an extreme POV edit. I will start to restore lost info and remove POV language. BobFromBrockley 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to consider justifying your edit instead of simply asserting that you are a Marxist [100 million dead and still counting] called Bob from Brockley. Are we supposed to presume from this information that you are a malignant narcissist who can be expected to delete any interpretation with which you disagree?

Urgel Bogend


 * Feel free to presume what you like about me. I think my edits can be easily justified based on criteria like not pushing a particular point of view and giving information. BobFromBrockley 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think that deleting material because you do not agree with it is not pushing a point of view you need to see a psychiatrist.

Urgel Bogend


 * Actually, if you compare the versions, you will see I did not delete, I put back in deleted material. But enough already. BobFromBrockley 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Which of course is merely another way of saying you deleted material because you did not approve of it. Who are you trying to convince here? You do not even convince yourself! All I can say is that I pity your students.

Urgel Bogend

New Leftists (or those who inspired them)
Perhaps we should add people from the Frankfurt School, for instance Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, Marcuse, Benjamin and Jurgen Habermas. According to BLACKBURN, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosphy., the School profundely influenced the New Left. --El Chemaniaco 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me "New Leftists (or those who inspired them)" is a silly phrase. Should it be two lists, one of new leftists, and one of their inspirations? Latter list might include Frankfurt folk, cetrainly Marcuse.

BobFromBrockley 14:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I still strongly think this. Unless there are objections, I'm going to make the list two lists: one for those who inspired the new left, and one for new leftists as such. BobFromBrockley 16:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos
This era involved politics as fun and sometimes frivolous, such as colorful signs, painted faces and so on.

Let's try to find and upload some photos for this. Dogru144 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

no

Signing comments
Users, please sign your comments.Dogru144 16:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That was me. Sorry for the omission.--Hugo Estrada 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Legacy/Criticism
I changed the title of this section from legacy to criticism because it read too right-wing to me. For example, political correctness occurs in the right or the left, at least in the U.S. There are many terms and people who are considered off limits to conservatives, such us talking about "surges" instead of military escalations.

But I think that it is fair to have a criticism entry, so I left the text as it is. Hugo Estrada 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence:
 * In more recent times it has been claimed - for example by Nick Cohen - that contrary to their hostility to organised religion and their support for personal freedom just as the Old Left were apologists for Stalinism the New Left are apologists for Islamicism.

This is not a claim Cohen has made. He has criticised some sections of the contemporary left for something similar, but not the New Left, the subject of this article. BobFromBrockley 09:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisionists & Revisionist Historians
We need Disambiguation for the "New Left." --Ludvikus (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) What is your rationale for merging Historical revisionism into this article?
 * (2) Why on earth does "New Left" need a disambiguation page? Please respond by reference to WP:DAB. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

codes showing near start of article
There are the strange codes " " and "Documentation" showing at the start of the article. I looked in Edit This Page but could not see the hidden codes that are creating such shown codes. If someone knows how, please delete such shown codes or otherwise make them not show. Thanks. Bo99 (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Globalise 2009
Would the IP editor who suggested the Globalise tag please come forward and enumerate the problems with the article per the globalise tag. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an "epithet"
"New Left" has never been an epithet in America, just a description of a social movement. The idea strikes me as absurd but it may reflect a reality in the UK, I wouldn't know, although I've never seen any kind of indication that that was the case. No reference. Seems to me like vandalism. 70.116.76.173 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Lists
The lists in this article are getting out of control. I just did a significant edit, mostly to remove repetition of names already mentioned in the main text, but there are still a lot of names that are not justified. More of an effort needs to be made to integrate the names in the lists into the text as prose, rather than lists, which are not terrible helpful. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Citations
This article suffers from an advanced lack of citation which affects its credibility. I wont say it's a canidate for deletion, but unless someone can provide some serious source material it may need to be gutted to preserve article quality. 76.78.120.162 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is well above the Wiki average of historical articles for documentation (33 inline cites and 40+ references in the several reference section). If there is a specific statement that needs a cite, please tell us. Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Kołakowski citations
"The German-Jewish critical theorist Herbert Marcuse is referred to as the "Father of the New Left". He rejected the theory of class struggle and the Marxist concern with labor, instead claiming, according to Leszek Kołakowski, that since "all questions of material existence have been solved, moral commands and prohibitions are no longer relevant." He regarded the realization of man's erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity, which inspired the utopias of Jerry Rubin and others.[10] Another prominent New Left thinker, Ernst Bloch, believed that socialism would prove the means for all human beings to become immortal and eventually create God."

Using Kołakowski to describe what Marcuse and Bloch believed, as is done in the "Theory and philosophy" section, is like asking Rush Limbaugh to explain what liberals believe in. This is simply a rabidly hostile source, and it is not representative of the average or mainstream view of Marcuse in any sense. The quote about morality being irrelevant because of material well-being is not a quote by Marcuse, it's a quote from Kołakowski's indignant "interpretation" of him - actually an accusation - and it doesn't even make any logical sense, nor does it express what Marcuse was famous for. Similarly, the bit about Bloch is not useful as an explanation of what his contribution to New Left thinking was, it's extracted specifically as an emotional trigger that will make a religious reactionary foam at the mouth ("How dare those lefties violate the natural prerogatives of The Lord!").--91.148.130.233 (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Chii
The user Chii has removed a lot of content, primarily about Britain it seems, and replaced it with stuff on Japan. The intro has also been edited in a similar way. Why?Noodle90 (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013
Please add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(cultural_theorist) under key figures. He edited the Universities and Left Review until 1962 and was an editor of the Mayday Manifesto alongside Raymond Williams and EP Thompson.

Please add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EP_Thompson under key figures. He founded the New Reasoner and was an editor of the Mayday Manifesto alongside Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall.

LBLBLBL (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Thus, you may boldly perform the change yourself, although if it is reverted you are required to discuss the content.  TB  randley  21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-Wikipedia style wording of lead
Wikipedia frowns on opening sentences that say "...was a term..." like the one in this article:


 * New Left was a term used mainly in the United Kingdom and United States in reference to activists, educators, agitators and others in the 1960s and 1970s who sought to....

I would suggest instead:


 * The New Left was a political movement in the 1960s and 1970s, mainly in the United Kingdom and the United States, consisting of educators, agitators and others who sought to....

208.50.124.65 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. The lead sentence has been reworded as you suggested.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA
The Swedish Article in Wikipedia is good!New Left-"Nya Vänstern" because it explains the origin New Left and New Left Revue,but even explain how the term has different meanings and the movement have moved different directens in different countries and have been used in a very wide range,but the focus in the article is on whats new with the NEW LEFT the founding of the Young Marx,and Alienation theorie,like it was in the beginning with New Left movement in UK. But Frankfurt school and Andre Gorz,Jean Paul Sartre and others had contact and were friends with E.P Thompson,C.Wright Mills,Miliband. So it was N0T isolated Anglo-American movement! with British heartbeat,Herbert Wells

I expanded the introduction to account for the origins of the term "new left" and the context in which it was first used. Thereafter it meant different things in different places and times. There is room for improvement. Some people consider the Prague Spring to be New Left, but I really don't know enough to say. There should be a paragraph on France and the June Days and the autonomist developments in Italy. The eurocommunist page covers the 1970's in Western Europe very well. A final paragraph could discuss the legacies of the movement. The term isn't really used any more, at least not in the U.S. DJ Silverfish 19:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree - really new more European context (Paris 68, Prague, Italian hot autumn, German autonomism, greens, Rudolf Bahro, new social movements. I don't know enough to do it! --BobFromBrockley 10:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have actually tagged the article with


 * before reading this talk page. Apologies.
 * Anyway, I fully agree. The German article could be a good starting point for the German situation, the Spanish article simply lists a number of Spanish organizations. --LucVerhelst 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can this tag be removed now or not? Article now has material on European/international new left. is this enough? Maybe the International section should be tagged as a stub, rather than the whole article tagged for worldview? BobFromBrockley 16:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The introduction should make it clear that "New Left" is a term used in different way in different countries. I edited that myself. The text makes it very clear: the British New Left seems to have very little connection with the U.S. New Left except for their rejection of the acceptance of the authority of the Communist Party.

I wil also re-write the introduction so that the language is less biased. At this time, the introduction reads with a slight right-wing bias in the use of adjectives to describe the New Left. --Hugo Estrada 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's much better now. Thanks Hugo! Can we remove worldview tag now? BobFromBrockley 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe you can write a line to LucVerhelst asking him to check the page over and remove the tag, since it seems that he was the person who put it there. --207.218.96.3 21:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the addition of a material pertaining to the "New Left" movement in Japan. 69.139.75.80 16:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we could continue to develop the sections on Europe? The "New left" tag was used by groups like the RAF and the June 2 Movement, specifically in Germany. They receive no mention in the article as of now. I wanted to see if anyone else felt this way and could contribute to the section. Thanks!

The privilege of US and UK is somewhat problematic. Certain French, German and Italian movements had greater impact. Even for the UK, many of the republican organizations in Northern Ireland are often considered to be part of the New Left, a situation that many English people have naturally struggled with. A brilliant source on the New Left is Chris Marker's documentary "Le Fond de l'Air est Rouge" which explores the connections and differences between many of these groups. It could really help improve the European sections. But yes, I'm surprised by this article. In general, I think the New Left is associated more with the Paris 68 groups, the neo-Maoists, the Red Brigades, RAF, certain subgroups of the IRA (e.g. Lynagh era East Tyrone Brigade), and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.74.53 (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, this: "The New Left rejected involvement with the labor movement and Marxism's historical theory of class struggle." And similar. This is not really true when considered in the wider Western context. As someone said above, the main characteristic of the New Left was a split from the Communist party. In Italy the situation seems to be even more complicated, since their CP was strong enough to include splits regarding Soviet led communism (whilst still receiving Soviet assistance.), yet these internal divisions mirror the wider European trends. The New Left was often included a theoretical re-evaluation according to post-Marxist thinkers such as the Frankfurt school. Marx's dialectical materialism was generally not rejected per se, although it was sometimes problematized. Most groups were certainly were okay with notions of class struggle, and it was a prominent issue in 68 - many of the protestors were students rather than workers, but the politics were largely Marxist, or class-struggle anarchist. Also, people were generally less fixated upon identity politics outside the States, and saw them in a broader context. I honestly think the introduction needs a rewrite if the article is to include European groups. And I think it needs the European groups, because that's kind of where the New Left happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.74.53 (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing intro
The intro gives no real indication of what the New Left is. As far as I understand, it says it was a reaction again the "Old Left"s focus on trade unions, though it's unclear if they're rejecting that or embracing it, it still gives no clear description of its own goals. - Dalta (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * seems the term "old left" is very ambiguous and needs a new page just to explain it. It could be focus on trade unions or it could be.  the communist left.  it could be FDR and Wilson democrats.  or all of those?
 * --OxAO (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the "further reading" a little too long?
... and I'm not sure whether the books mentioned are all influential enough to be placed here. Could someone who knows better help identifying and removing some of them? --Ahyangyi (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it is pretty long if you plan to read everything-- but that is not the goal. It is divided  by countries, and people who want to do a study of Australia or UK or Canada or Germany or the United States will have a small sample of the rather large literature available-- A sample that has been selected for quality and availability. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gorz deadlink removed
I removed the following dead link:


 * Interview with André Gorz, about The New Left

I believe the link above was also added at the same time to the Gorz article (by an IP user with no other edits), perhaps referencing what has now become linked in the Gorz article as this document (one which caused my eyes to glaze over in 2.5 seconds):


 * Farewell to the Proletariat

If someone with a dullness-defying leftist frame of reference thinks this is actually the correct replacement, and that it was relevant in the first place, feel free to add it back. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This page needs Truth Not CIA/Right Wing propaganda
I post a section headed "Debunking the Cultural Marxism/Frankfurt School Right wing propaganda and somebody who has political non neutral view deleted it. now it is well know that they do have people that don't fall for the idea that Cultural Marxism/Frankfurt School/ new left is left wing at all. so my neutral section NEEDS TO STEY. Torygreen84 (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

traditional left goals?
"revitalization of traditional leftist goals.[3][4]" What does this mean. Be specific. Do you mean Marxism-Leninism or Social Democracy or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C400:8C80:41A7:8879:4183:D9AD (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Left. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116170600/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=376 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=376
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705062937/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html to http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The Intro again, ...and noteability?
Reading the article, it seems that there are several subgroups (U.S., British, etc) of leftists that claim(ed) the term "new Left." They appear to be entirely separate, unjoined, other than self-identifing as leftists. The article seems to be about ""a term used...."", as it was (according to comment: "Non-Wikipedia style wording of lead" of 22 August 2014) in the original article, but then was changed to to being about " a political movement in the 1960s and....". In other words, the article is not described by the Lead. Again, the article seems to be about unjoined liberal groups claiming a common term.

I also get the impression that each group has a different definition of the implied "Old Left." Obviously this article can have no meaning unless the "Old Left" (being rejected?) is clearly defined. The article strongly and repeatedly suggests the "Old Left" is Marxism! And since it is spoken of in past tense, it's/their demise needs explaining.

Quoting Lead: "The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of activists in the Western world who campaigned for a broad range of reforms on issues such as civil and political rights, feminism, gay rights, abortion rights, gender roles and drug policy reforms." Guess what? Those issues are NOT 1960s and 1970s, that's close to current and traditional liberal and Democratic Party Platform stuff. What is this!?...A class in pure bullshit??...somebody just wants to be published!? And what's with all the terms like; "Some saw the New Left as....?"

Frankly, I've never heard of these so-called "new lefts," and wonder if it/they meet Wiki notability requirements, they certainly were no "Third Way or some-such movement. That would explain why the article is such a mish-mash of meandering ideas. Cheers! --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:291E:E80C:A45:B02 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * The fact you've not heard of it, Doug, is not really relevant to its notability. A quick Google search, or, better, Google Scholar search, reveals it is a widely used term for a movement or closely connected group of movements (Britannica: "New Left, a broad range of left-wing activist movements and intellectual currents that arose in western Europe and North America in the late 1950s and early '60s." Dictionary.com: "A radical movement of the 1960s and 1970s. New Leftists opposed the military-industrial complex and involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War; they urged more public attention to conditions of black people and the poor." Etc.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

it's libertarian
As someone who grew up in the 1950s and 60s and participated in much of what went on, I think it's wrong to attempt such a wide definition, or consider all these things part of a unified movement. What the term New Left means to me is a repudiation of the sort of amalgam of corporatism and Victorianism represented by the term "the Establishment," and a return to classic liberalism. There were of course excesses, such as Marcuse, Reich and drugs generally, as well as old Marxist influence, but in general, "the movement" such as it was, was more in the vein of people like Kolko, Lasch, Ochs and Foucault, and continues today, not in Antifa or Progressivism, but in the sort of libertarianism of Ron Paul and David Stockman, who continue to call out the hypocrisy of democracy Tocqueville first pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.57 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)