Talk:Leftist

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhatIsG0ing0n (talk | contribs) at 19:13, April 16, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a total contradiction:

Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists

People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. RobS 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.

Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:
  1. leftist?
  2. rightist?
  3. none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --Redblue 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --Redblue 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Communism

Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as Marxism ( or "Marxism-Leninism") and its history in countries like Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by People living under Communism are not "oppressed". --Ed Poor 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I was talking about this quote,
"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists
This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. RobS 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Definition

Here it is written that leftist "usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions." What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't support their economic interests, or personal values. Are such people leftist?
During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ... The phrase the left implies the left are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left attempted a dechristianization movement? (simply read the linked article Enlightenment) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks leftists are and are not an encyclopedic description of leftist thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene Commandment 5: Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
WhatIsG0ing0n 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. RobS 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Are you trying to say all leftists supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?
WhatIsG0ing0n 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ RobS 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.
WhatIsG0ing0n 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
RobS reverted it before I had taken my finger of the save page button.
I thought this definition:
The term 'Leftist refers to someone on the 'left' side of the political spectrum who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.
was somewhat better than:
The term Leftist refers to someone on the 'left' side of the political spectrum. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the political spectrum theory still has wide currency.
What can others add, what do they think?
WhatIsG0ing0n 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
change designed to promote the public welfare
That leftist utopia, North Korea is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". RobS 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Did you actually read change designed to promote the public welfare? Note the word designed. There is no implication in the sentence that the design will actually succeed. Kim Jong Il may weel believe his leftismness is designed to promote the public welfare - I belive it won't succeed.
George Bush is following a strategy designed to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.
WhatIsG0ing0n 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". RobS 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I think that the term leftist is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. AKjeldsen 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Would you agree the term theory is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move Political spectrum to Political spectrum theory by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. RobS 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of Commandment No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under Differences with Wikipedia No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create Essay: Political spectrum theory. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.
WhatIsG0ing0n 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. RobS 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I fear RobS believes they are all part of the same conspiracy.WhatIsG0ing0n 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)