Talk:Far-left politics

Still no image... anywhere on article?

It feels wrong to just comment on "Regarding the lead image..." because the conversation seems to have gone grossly off topic and there seems to be an air of hostility, so allow me to restart conversation anew. I feel that the article most certainly needs any image, anywhere in the article. For an article this size, it seems very odd that there are 0 images, especially when compared to far-right politics. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been gradually adding to the article, and at some point I'd like to add images relevant to each section throughout the body, similarly to how I did at Centre-right politics. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful, good to hear someone is on it. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Be mindful of WP:SEETALK, it tends not to be good practice to open up a duplicate discussion as it could be considered WP:FORUMSHOPPING. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 02:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I do think sectional images make more sense than a lead image. The thing is that "far-left" doesn't describe just one ideology, and finding an image that would be representative of, say, Trotskyists would not be representative of Anarchists. Keeping images to the sections helps navigate that challenge neutrally and appropriately. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I second this. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I just thought that because currently the main talk section has users openly lobbing insults at each other, that it was best to simply attempt to restart meaningful discussion. It would be nice if you practiced some WP:FAITH in me please, accusing me right off the gate of forum shopping seems unnecessary. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

adding another point in relation to far-right, it seems confusing to me that multiple users on this talk page have mentioned the reason there are no images on this article is because "what is considered leftist is not agreed and should not be represented in a picture", but it seems what is considered far right has been agreed on, sure some people would disagree, but the consensus is there, ex: "Nazism is far right" is a general consensus, why is "socialism is far-left" considered an extremely controversial statement? ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@ModernManifestDestiny That's because you don't understand what socialism is I'm afraid. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There aren't many preferable images in the commons, but something may be better than nothing? Cheers. DN (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller elaborate please. Simply saying "you don't get it" is not helpful for discussion. I also second @DN, something is better than nothing, especially for an article of this length. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Socialism is left wing. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

"Socialism" itself encompasses a vast swath of Leftist political ideologies that don't reject governmentality and that may or may not reject the state form. This is broad enough to even extend beyond Marxist formations - there are Anarchist socialists. We should not be declaring socialism far-left because while (even many Maoists) might agree that Maoism is far-left and while Maoism is socialism, so is Democratic Socialism which skews much closer to the political center.

I do think one thing that confounds those people who want to draw parallels between the far-left and the far-right is that, in most cases, the far-left are pretty satisfied being identified as such while the far-right generally try to depict themselves as moderates. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making that last point. I’ll add that if one reads the very first section of the articl, and probably the article on ideologies of socialism kinked there they will understand it. It’s always better to read the whole article and not just the end. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, well if Maoism is considered far-left, then a picture depicting Maoism should be put in this article, yes?

I do not understand how far-right party behavior is relevant to this discussion. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hilariously, at present, the only mention of Maoism in the article is in the section on the cold war so before worrying about posting pictures of Mao into the article it might be wise to improve the article by (neutrally) mentioning some of the impact of Maoism on the world. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I will draft a section for it. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest posting such a draft to talk before including on the live page. That's a complicated ideology with a complicated legacy and the academic material is extensive. Ensuring neutrality will certainly require collaboration from multiple parties. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. I was planning to put the article in the Ideologies section, under "Communism and Marxism". I will post my draft here before publishing it to the main page. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This is what I have come up with so far. Should be plenty but am open to suggestions.

=== Maoism ===

Main article: Maoism

Maoism, rooted in the political and ideological practices of Mao Zedong, represents a distinct branch of Marxism-Leninism that emphasizes revolutionary strategies tailored to agrarian societies. While it has influenced Far-Left movements globally, its legacy is deeply controversial, marked by significant human suffering during its implementation in China.

==== Theoretical Foundations and Divergences ====

Maoism diverges from traditional Marxist-Leninist thought by prioritizing the peasantry as the primary revolutionary force rather than the urban proletariat. Key innovations include the concept of protracted people's war, continuous revolution through class struggle, and the mass line approach to leadership. These ideas were designed to address China's socio-economic conditions but were later adopted by various Far-Left movements globally. However, Maoism's theoretical emphasis on violent class struggle and authoritarian governance led to significant abuses during Mao's rule in China, including widespread famine and political purges during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution.

==== Global Influence on Far-Left Movements ====

Maoism found resonance among Far-Left movements in Asia, Latin America, and even Western countries. In agrarian societies like Indonesia, Maoist principles were adapted to local contexts but often diverged significantly from their original form. In Latin America, Maoism intersected with Guevarism but faced criticism for its rigid doctrines. Movements inspired by Maoist ideology frequently adopted violent methods of struggle, leading to prolonged insurgencies in countries like India and Nepal. While Maoism provided a framework for revolutionary action, its application often resulted in severe societal disruptions.

==== Cultural and Intellectual Dimensions ====

Maoism also influenced intellectual circles within Far-Left movements, particularly during the post-1968 period. In France, for example, Maoist ideas shaped cultural institutions like Cahiers du cinéma, reflecting broader trends among intellectuals disillusioned with Soviet-style communism. However, these cultural adaptations often sanitized or ignored the harsh realities of Maoist governance in China. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Now there is just the question of an image for the section. I am browsing Commons but suggestions are recommended. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been working pretty hard trying to remove hand-picked sources from this article and draw from the literature about far-left ideology in general. This would take it in the opposite direction, and it's written in a way that seems to describe Maoism in a negative tone. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I have concerns that this seems rather non-neutral. For a specific example (not being exhaustive) "sanitized or ignored the harsh realities" is non-neutral and particularly fails to engage with post-'68 French responses to Maoism in an appropriate way. Please also remember that Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline and there's absolutely no reason to rush just so you can put a picture of Chairman Mao on the page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I feel these sources accurately represent Maoism. Besides, a source directly about the subject should be better than one about a broader blanket term. Wikipedia is also about multiple viewpoints and user edits, I do not think it is fair to disregard my article simply because you are also working on it, Wikipedia is a collaboration.

It is also important to remember that Wikipedia is not a peachy upbeat website, it is factual. I apologize if the article is a bit morbid, but Maoism tends to be a bit morbid. @Simonm223 regarding my wording, I thought that was appropriate, the French often seemed to glorify Maoism–a supporting quote from Alain Badiou,

"The Cultural Revolution has been a constant and lively reference of militant activity throughout the world, and particularly in France, at least between 1967 and 1976. It is part of our political history and the basis for the existence of the Maoist current, the only true political creation of the sixties and seventies. I can say 'our,' I was part of it, and in a certain sense, to quote Rimbaud, 'I am there, I am still there.' In the untiring inventiveness of the Chinese revolutionaries, all sorts of subjective and practical trajectories have found their name. Already, to change subjectivity, to live otherwise, to think otherwise: the Chinese—and then we—called that revolution."[1]

This quote shows Badiou's admiration and idealization of Maoist China, which seem odd considering around the time this was quoted the world was learning of the great leap forward and cultural revolution (and the death toll). As I said, "sanitized" for French public viewing. ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The subject is far-left politics, so ideally all of the sources will be about far-left politics as a whole, not ones that are cherry-picked to shoehorn any particular aspect of it (let alone one that's explicitly negative). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, first off, WP:FAITH please, my sources are not cherry-picked, they are factual, neutral, reliable, and explicitly academic only. It seems silly to hang up on what you want the article to be, my sources are about the far-left because Maoism is far left, which was already agreed. I do not understand why you think that my sources are unreliable, SemanticScholar is very reliable.

I do not appreciate your tone, I have been civil, I advise you to do the same and to refrain from accusing other users of shoehorning and cherry-picking. MMD † (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

See the thing is that you are inserting all kinds of loaded value-judgment statements regarding Badiou right here. This is why I was cautioning you that handling this subject neutrally requires care. And, to BUA's point, Badiou is principally known for his philosophy of mathematics. His politics are not entirely incidental but it's not the principal thrust of his work. I will also remind you that Badiou is a BLP subject so please be careful with loaded language like "glorify". Simonm223 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

And Semantic Scholar is an "AI" product and as such inappropriate for Wikipedia as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Good point IMO. DN (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

We are getting off topic here, my original point was that the French glorified Maoism, but this is relating to about a sentence of the article, we should try to focus on the bigger picture. I just pulled up a supporting quote essentially. What do you mean Semantic is an AI product? Do you mean the summary? The text is the important bit, that is written by humans. MMD † (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I've run one paragraph throughs several AI detectors. They all suggest it was AI generated. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think MMD effectively admitted that it was AI generated when they said they used Semantic Scholar. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That one is new to me. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

From our Wikipedia page on them Semantic Scholar uses modern techniques in natural language processing to support the research process, for example by providing automatically generated summaries of scholarly papers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, their summaries of texts are AI generated, but I neither quoted nor used the summaries, just the text. MMD † (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So read the original texts yourself instead of getting a chatbot to do it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I did, there seems to be confusion here. MMD † (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This does not appear to be accurate as you used Semantic Scholar for every single cite in your proposed, extensive, section. I do think Maoism deserves greater attention than it has now but this quantity would be undue for an overview page even if it weren't "AI" assisted. With the AI... I appreciate your eagerness but this is really a tear it up and start again sort of situation. Furthermore, to my prior point, Badiou, while he's written a lot about the intersection of love, politics and communism, is principally a philosopher of mathematics and, as such, is rather undue as the sole-representative of Mao-spontex. If other authors feel such a segment is due at all I'd suggest the work of Sartre (such as in the Critique of Dialectical Reason) or of Althusser (such as in Écrits philosophiques et politiques) would be better choices. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll be continuing to add content based on overview sources about far-left politics and replacing content not based on such sources. I'm almost finished going through a book about Western Europe specifically (Chiocchetti (2016)), though I'd love if I could find some that had a greater focus about other parts of the world. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, I will write it again, hopefully you find that more satisfactory. MMD † (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I find "AI detectors" unhelpful, its a form of pseudoscience almost, because writing that "sounds like AI" is usually just something written in a professional tone. I wrote this myself, no AI. MMD † (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Tracking back to the original topic of the section, there seems to be general consensus for placing images into relevant sections of the article. It is clear we cannot form consensus for a lead section image. Discussion of other topics, such as new content (i.e. Maoism) should be split into a new talk section. –Vipz (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Sans lead image, I've thrown in a few images of individuals and events further down in the article that are mentioned in text. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion.

if you try to add any lead image to this article, you'll just have the leftist partisan go "erm we actually can't define what far leftism constitutes" just because his communist friends would throw a fit despite 99% of people acknowledging what the far left constitutes just as well as they can for the far right. Very funny from an outsider's perspective, and then they'll wonder why people still say Wikipedia is an unreliable source, it's full of biased editors like him 186.84.20.26 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC) Yep, I am aware of this odd behavior. Currently the left holds a iron grip on Wikipedia lol ModernManifestDestiny (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

References

New Solution

If there is so much controversy, how about we have 4 lead images? 1 of communists protesting, 1 of socialists protesting, 1 of anarchists protesting, and 1 of libertarians protesting? That way we encompass everyone on the far left. DotesConks (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggesting that all of them are always protesting is out of the question. And the right-wing libertarians won't think much of being characterized as far-left. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Objective3000 I think it would still help. If we can't include one to generalize the far left, then lets include all. DotesConks (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That only seems to add different issues rather than create a clear solution. DN (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I question why the assumption is all that they should be images of "protest" frankly this is a reductive view of the activities of a broad group. Certainly far-let figures protest but, beyond that, we have the Black Panther breakfast program, food not bombs, we have so many mutual aid networks, union organizing (via IWW and other radical organizers), and, frankly, we have military activity. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Never seen libertarians Milton Friedman, David H. Koch, Rupert Murdoch, Ron Paul, and Thomas Sowell protesting and surely wouldn't call them far-left. Quite the opposite. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Concur that what is generally called "libertarian" within the anglosphere is a right-wing philosophy. There are European sources that intermix the term "libertarian" with "anarchist" but in these cases they would generally identify people like Friedman and Sowell as right-libertarians rather than libertarian without adjectives. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Revert concerning thebiguglyalien

Hello Thebiguglyalien,

Your edit, which I reverted, seemed to confuse consolidation of paragraphs with shortening paragraphs. It is important to avoid loss of info when consolidating, as in this particular situation you have mostly deleted whole paragraphs without rephrasing or re-entering said info. Alongside this, I do not see how the info you removed is 'redundant', and discussion should be conducted before making edits around the opinion of redundancy. You may benefit from reading WP:REMOVAL on what constitutes as good removal of info.

MMD † (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The version by @Thebiguglyalien was clearer, more concise and better written. I have restored it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

My process right now has been to get the info from each source to the article, and then do some fine-tuning afterward to address redundancy where the sources overlap. The main change with this edit was combining four nearly-identical lists into one paragraph. Among other examples, the version you restored listed "Red Army Faction" four times. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Classification of the German parties PDS and WASG as left or far-left

I propose changing the following paragraph

Among the European great powers, Germany was the only one where the far-left made strong electoral performances in the 2000s, with the prominence of the Party of Democratic Socialism and WASG, which merged to become Die Linke in 2007.

to

Among the European great powers, Germany was the only one where parties that some observers classify as far-left made strong electoral performances in the 2000s, with the prominence of the Party of Democratic Socialism and WASG, which merged to become Die Linke in 2007.

The reason being that their classification as far-left is a matter of dispute. See the sources in article Die Linke (and also the discussion page there). ImmerOrdentlich (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Concur. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)