Talk:Ultra-leftism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have done a fairly big edit of the page. Looking over the history of the article, it seems that it has been troubled by two essentially different, if overlapping, usages of the term, which meant that the aricle became confused. I have edited it to reflect these two different usages. What do people think? --BobFromBrockley 09:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although it would benefit from a clearer explanation of the ultra left's relationship with left communism. Warofdreams talk 23:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work Bob. Thanks for taking the time to do it! --Duncan 15:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Bob, you're not quite right actually. Barrot/Dauvé never says that fascism and liberal democracy are equally bad, only that you can't choose which one of the forms capitalism will take in the course of history. See this quote:
The point made by communists, from 1918 onwards, is not that dropping a ballot paper in the box (an act which is indeed a dispossession of oneself) would be the same as being sent to Dachau. The point made by Bordiga and Pannekoek alike is that the most open election system, with lots of debates, meetings, street demos, etc., has never prevented and will never prevent the creation of concentration camps. Every democratic country has had and can have its Dachaus in one form or other. Supporting democracy in order to avoid dictatorship just doesn’t work. It never has and never will. Here lies the essential. To prove this essential, there is no need to relativise, minimise or deny the all too real horrors of fascism. (What’s it all about)
Thus, the article should be changed -- by me or by someone else. --Felix, 10 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.66.171.118 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we have a list of such parties? Over here we've had/have the Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the [{Socialist Party of Serbia]]. --PaxEquilibrium 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Few people would describe the Communist Party of Yugoslavia as ultra-left. --Duncan 15:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
PaxEquilibrium may not have read the article before making that suggestion! I wouldn't support that idea. BobFromBrockley 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)