Jump to content

Talk:Far-left politics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Soman (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 25 June 2008 (→Sindhian's 'references': s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Violent

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

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

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

left-right false dictomy

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


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

Please see the paragraph of accusations that the movement was hijacked by radical groups and Amir Tehari's article (link included). That explains pretty much the issue. MathKnight 22:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, someone has to learn that anarchism is far-right, while fascism (including communism and national socialism) is far-left... BECAUSE INCORRECT USE OF THESE WORDS ARE PISSING ME OFF!!! RRROOOOOOAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!11


Compadre, anarchists aren't left OR right- they oppose whoever's in a position of authority, regardless of if that person or group is of the left or the right. Nor is it required that every movement on each end of a political spectrum have a counterpart on the other end. Saying 'anarchists are right-wing, therefore fascists are left-wing' is very flawed reasoning. Personally, I don't much care for the left/right model- you run into authoritarians at both extremes, and the only significant difference between the two is if they use socialist jargon or capitalist jargon while stomping on your face.
Why anarchism is "far-right"? Most anarchists consider themselfs to be on the left (or simply denie the Left-Right dichotomy). In Spanish Civil War, anarchists fought in the Republican side, with Socialists, Republicans and Comunists (i.e, the left-wing) against the Nationalists (i.e, the right-wing). In day-to-day politics, is much more common to see anarchists with the same side with Trotskyists or Council Communists (far-left) than with Monarchists (far-right). What can be the reason to the anarchists be "far-right"???--194.65.151.17 12:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchism is definitely not far-right, at least not traditional anarchism (there are some people who call themselves anarchists who have far-right ideas, such as white supremacy, but they are rejected by the anarchist movement and considered a joke). I personally reject the left-right model, but if I had to label myself, it would be far-left (though, like mentioned above, there are authoritarians and by extention, selective anti-authoritarians on both ends). The existence of post-left anarchy confirms the idea that anarchism is traditionally viewed as left-wing in nature. The Ungovernable Force 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know these imbuciles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.49.208 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title is adjective form???

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

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

Muddled concepts, bad grammar, and tricky terms

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

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

New Leftists?

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

listing of parties

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

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

For clean-up

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

Hard left

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

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

Leftist, liberal, etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

merge?

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

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

Nazi Party as a Far Left Example

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phrase "support class warfare" extremely misleading

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

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

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

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

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

Ottawastudent 19:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the NPOV dispute?

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

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

O'Reilly

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

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

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

Perhaps we could agree that this would constitute an acceptable source for O'Reilly's description of the Daily Kos as "far left". Itsmejudith 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there are loads of other examples [2], but not sure what this would add to article? BobFromBrockley 10:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of parties (again)

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

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

CFD

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

India

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

Reply

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

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

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

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

Sindhian's 'references'

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

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

Sindhian did a posting, which messed up the sentences I wrote. It can be seen at [5]. As per what is a reputable source and what isn't; reading WP:RS is a good start. --Soman (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on this: there is a strong enough split between the RCPI and the Marxist branch that a comparison is inadequate? The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand your comment fully. Please elaborate. --Soman (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC) You're refering to [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/india.htm? I'd say that in the context of the late 1930, RCPI could have been classified as 'far left' or even 'ultraleft' in comparison with the Communist Party of India. Now those differences have been reconciled long ago, and RCPI is a member of the mainstream left Left Front. --~~[reply]

German iw Interwiki problems

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

Also, there seems to be some other confusing interwikis:

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

  1. ^ http://www.enhedslisten.dk/nyhed.asp?nyhed=7943
  2. ^ http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article533
  3. ^ http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3750
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Far-left_politics&oldid=221612626"