Last modified on December 10, 2020, at 15:06


Return to "Leftist" page.

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)


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)

So called communism as it has been practiced thus far is NOT true communism. Therefore it cannot be oppressive. For the former USSR to have been a communist nation their could not be a leader, since they would be elevated above everybody else. This goes in opposition to the definition of communism. All "communist" experiments thus far have been flawed because they have leaders. --Caznoob 13:48, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Interesting debate; kinda like Hell is not really Hell because, according to the Bible, God is light. Light generates heat, thus where God does not dwell, there is no light. Hence there are no fires of Hell, because God is the source of light, heat, and warmth. So, contrary to popular misconceptions, Hell is not really full of eternal fire, rather eternal darkness. Being dark, there is no light or heat. IOW, Hell really is a freezing cold place because there is no light.
Finally got that straighten out. RobS 14:02, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

For an interesting idea of hell read "Paradise Lost" by John Milton. Anyways, your post is very true about hell but regardless it says nothing about communism.--Caznoob 14:12, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


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)
For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.
An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of RobS wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article Political spectrum seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.
Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.
WhatIsG0ing0n 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
So one of these cites says, "reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , communism'". Can we factually say Cuba has failed in this regard?
  • "The article Political spectrum seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own"
ahhhh, those well sourced edits at Political spectrum were all added by me [1][2], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [3]
Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks? RobS 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough. Well at least the Reign of Terror stuff disappeared .WhatIsG0ing0n 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I fear RobS believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.WhatIsG0ing0n 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
RobS has a new ally. Me. Socialism is the mother of all the parasite leftist "ism's", including Nazism. FDR's concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans just didn't have gas chambers. Scorpio 18:41, 30 June 2007 (EDT)


I noticed "left-wing" redirects here. Do we have an article about left-right politics in general and not specifically extremists. For instance, yes, the extreme left is communism, socialism, and Marxism, but there is a moderate left consisting of most Democrats and some moderate progressives. And likewise, the extreme right is fascism, but there are Republicans, conservatives, some libertarians, etc. Gregkochuconn 20:23, 13 February 2012 (EST)

Ah, first of all, fascism isn't even close to being right wing, let alone the extreme right wing. It's a left-wing ideology. Sure, it's to the right of Communism, but that's like saying center-left is right wing and extreme left is left wing, that's just false (and just as an FYI, anarchism's closer to being on the far left as well). Now, with that being said, I think we've already covered far left as a separate article. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2019 (EST)

Leftism definition and ties to the Book of Revelations.


I remember reading a definition of leftism, and how it originated from the Book of Revelations, specifically the bit about Jesus turning people into goats if they did bad. I know it was on a website, and it dealt with the origin of the term during the French Revolution, and it dealt with some sort of book. I can't find it now. I do know that it had a paper-scape of I think a French castle, and the book had been written by a guy named David who apparently had been a fan of Woodrow Wilson's policies. That's all I have right now. If I can dig it out myself, I'll give the link, but otherwise, I'll have to let you find the source. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (EDT)

Jesus turned people into goats? I must've missed that part. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 09:36, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
Yeah, it's the one where Jesus has people split to those on his right side and those on his left side, the right side get turned into sheep, while the ones on his left are turned into goats. Jesus then lets the sheep into heaven since, as they aided those who needed their help, they essentially aided him, while he casted the goats out because while claiming to serve Jesus, they neglected to help those in need, and in essence failed to help Jesus. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I don't think it says He turned them into sheep and goats. I think it's using sheep and goats as a representation of the separation of the saved from the unsaved. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
The way Pokeria describes it, it's a gospel of works, nullifying the the doctrine of presdestination and the gospel of grace. Why God insists on using metaphors sometimes, I haven't a clue. K.I.S.S. RobSThe coup plotters won, for now 11:06, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Leftists = collective government?


The opening paragraph stated that Leftists tended to hold to collective government and promote government expansion. However, there are a few instances of leftists who if anything want to utterly get rid of any forms of government (in other words, advocating for Anarchism), including Jean Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky, heck, even Karl Marx. Think we should reword that opening paragraph to make note of that? Pokeria1 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Popular pages

The page is nearing 200,000 hits and the Top 100. Without butchering a successful page and content (meaning "bloating the page"), it needs regular maintenance and content. It is essentially a Portal page to other leftist ideas.

IOWs, keep all the successful historic content, but maintain one relatively small subsection that discusses the latest fads in Leftist thinking (my definition of the difference between Left and Right - the Left are driven by fads, the Right by principles and ideas). Example: because of its chronological order, a final section entitled something like ==New developments in Leftist thinking== with a few paragraphs and links to Green New Deal, AOC, Medicare for All to help drive page visits to other new and timely articles. When the Green New Deal gets stale, rotate it out (maybe leave a link under ==See also==, and add a few paragraphs on the next harebrained scheme Leftists cook up. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 02:26, 24 November 2019 (EST)

Leftists of today

The changes were reverted to reflect Leftism of today.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2020 (EST)