Misplaced Pages

Talk:American Left: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:37, 19 July 2011 editKiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)39,688 edits →Correspondence of July 18, 2011: Sources?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 August 2024 edit undoAidan9382-Bot (talk | contribs)Bots9,371 editsm Fixed archive location for Lowercase Sigmabot III (More info - Report bot issues)Tag: Manual revert 
(441 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=low}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=C|importance=low}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Organized Labour |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|American=yes|American-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject History|importance=High}}
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|counter = 3
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(28d)
|archive = Talk:American Left/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|search=yes}}


== No Mention of DSA ==
==Article moved==
An editor has moved this article to "Socialism and Communism in the United States", although it also includes anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism and related movements. The concept is clearly used in hundreds of books. E.g.,
*''Learning from the left: children's literature, the Cold War, and radical politics in the United States''
*''Writing from the left: new essays on radical culture and politics''
*''Crusade of the Left: The Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil War''
*''Assault on the Left: the FBI and the sixties antiwar movement''
*''Radical ambition: C. Wright Mills, the left, and American social thought''


??? ] (]) 03:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I will therefore restore the previous version and move the article back.
If you wish to re-name the article please gain consensus.


== "American Left": the Democratic Party ==
] (]) 12:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


In the sources of the article, the term refers not to the Left—Right political alignment in the European sense, but to the U.S. Republican—Democratic split. E.g., voters who identify with the "American Left" tend to be more opposed to e.g. charter schools, and this is seen as a current "Left" position, even though this distinct from the European Left—Right alignment. ] (]) 23:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
:I prefer this title (or some form of it). I placed a request at ] for help restoring the history and suggested that 'The' come out of the title. Not sure it is a good idea to do it all at once. <font color="purple">✤</font> ] <sup>]</sup> 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
:Similarly, there is a Left—Right distinction in Americans that tends to be pro/anti-race-blind admissions, especially for East Asian students. This also doesn't cleanly map onto European "egalitarianism". (Both proponents and opponents see their side as "egalitarian").
::I've repaired the cut-and-paste move, so all the necessary history is here, with the article. I'm happy enough to rename it, but I'd like to know exactly which title to use. First: Is there consensus to call this page either ] or ]? Second: If there is, then which capitalization shall we use? Please advise. -]<sup>(])</sup> 17:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
:::Thank you. I agree it should be moved, and would ask that the Left remained capitalized since that is treatment used in dictionaries and most of the source literature. ] (]) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC) :This isn't an argument about what the word ought to mean, just the word as it is used in the United States. The existing sources in this article are sufficient sources for this. ] (]) 23:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


== Why is there no mention of Mother Jones? ==
...And here we are. Please let me know if I'm required for any further assistance. -]<sup>(])</sup> 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
==Image copyright problem with File:CP logo.png==
The image ] is used in this article under a claim of ], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the ] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an ] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


it seems like a gross oversight to not be mentioning Mother Jones, one of the most influential leftists in US history. ] (]) 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
:* That there is a ] on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
<!-- Additional 10c images go here -->
*]

This is an automated notice by ]. For assistance on the image use policy, see ]. --01:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

:These images have been removed. ] (]) 14:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

== Solidarity ==

The ]-inspired Trotskyssant revolutionary socialist organization ] is missing. Its members have been courageous and largely successful in Teamsters for an Independent Union and they write '']'' and '']'', etc. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:21, 10 July 2011</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:You are referring to ] and ]. One of the difficulties with this article is a lack of available sources for modern history, and also the huge number of different organizations. You are welcome to further expand the article if you are able to find the sources. ] (]) 14:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

:We cannot add unsourced material to an article, even if it is part of another article. And there are limitations on the use of primary sources, in this case Solidarity's website. If you wish to add material on them, then please find ]. In the meantime I will remove the section. ] (]) 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
:Incidentally a lot of the material you recently added is unsourced or poorly sourced, and therefore fails ]. ] (]) 04:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
::I understand and concur.
::I can cite many authors referring to it, but I believe that all of these authors (usually senior academics) are closely connected with Solidarity, at least publishing in "Against the Current" or speaking at Solidarity events. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:::I wrote this
<blockquote><s>In ] in the ], </s>'''Solidarity''' is a ] organization associated with the journal ''Against the Current''. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of ], a ] organization based on the proposition that the ] was not a "degenerate workers' state" (as in ]) but rather "]", a new and especially repressive class society.<ref>
{{cite book|title=Labor's war at home: The CIO in World War&nbsp;II
|first=Nelson|last=Lichtenstein|authorlink=Nelson Lichtenstein|year=2003|edition=second|isbn=1-59213-197-2,ISBN 1-59213-196-4
|publisher=Temple University Press|page=xxiii (footnote&nbsp;2)|
|url=http://www.temple.edu/tempress/chapters_1400/1693_ch1.pdf|format=pdf|city=Philadelphia PA|ref=harv}}</ref>
<references/>
</blockquote>
Even if Lichtenstein may write for ''Against the Current'' occasionally, this seems to be a rather objective and obviously true description. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 07:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:The source seems fine. However, I have difficulty with the other additions you made, which are largely unsourced, provide undue emphasis on certain periods such as the sixties and do not appear to be neutral. I am therefore restoring the earlier version and ask that you use sources before re-inserting the material. I understand that sources are difficult to find, but that is an obstacle to be overcome. ] (]) 14:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

==Socialist Party 50s and 60s==
(Refactored)
However, I have difficulty with the other additions you made, which are largely unsourced, provide undue emphasis on certain periods such as the sixties and do not appear to be neutral. I am therefore restoring the earlier version and ask that you use sources before re-inserting the material. I understand that sources are difficult to find, but that is an obstacle to be overcome. ] (]) 14:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

::Certainly many of the additions were well sourced. I am surprised that you describe the role of socialists in the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty as undue or un-neutral. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;"> ].]</span></small> 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following subsection, which is unsourced. (I'm adding sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 21:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

===Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, and the New Left===
In 1958 the ] welcomed former members of the ], which before its 1956 dissolution had been led by ]. Shachtman had developed a ] critique of ] as "]", a new form of class society that was more oppressive than any form of capitalism. Shachtman's theory was similar to that of many dissidents and refugees from Communism, such as the theory of the "]" proposed by Yugoslavian dissident ] (Djilas). Shachtman's ISL had attracted youth like ], ],<ref>Isserman, ''The other american'', p. 116.</ref> ], and Rachelle Horowitz.<ref>{{harvtxt|Drucker|1994|p=269}}:<p>{{cite book|title=Max Shachtman and his left: A socialist's odyssey through the "American Century"|first=Peter|last=Drucker|publisher=Humanities Press|year=1994|isbn=0-391-03816-8|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Horowitz|2007|p=210}}</ref><ref name="KahnMS">{{harvtxt|Kahn|2007|pp=254–255}}: {{citation|title=Max Shachtman: His ideas and his movement|last=Kahn|first=Tom|<!-- authorlink=Tom Kahn -->|journal=] ''(merged with'' ] ''in 2009)''|volume=11
|issue=
|year=2007|origyear=1973|pages=252–259
|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/docs/d11Khan.pdf|format=pdf|<!-- ref=harv -->}}</ref> The YPSL was dissolved, but the party formed a new youth group under the same name.<ref>Alexander, p. 812-813.</ref>
] led the ] at which ] delivered his speech "]".]]

Kahn and Horowitz, along with ], helped ] with the ]. Rustin had helped to spread ] and ] to leaders of the civil rights movement, like ]. Rustin's circle and ] organized the ], where Martin Luther King delivered his ] speech.<ref name="Randolph">Jervis Anderson, ''A. Philip Randolph: A Biographical Portrait'' (1973; University of California Press, 1986). ISBN 978-0-520-05505-6</ref><ref name="Rustin">
* Anderson, Jervis. ''Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen'' (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997).
* Branch, Taylor. ''Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63'' (New York: Touchstone, 1989).
* D’Emilio, John. ''Lost Prophet: Bayard Rustin and the Quest for Peace and Justice in America'' (New York: The Free Press, 2003).
* D'Emilio, John. ''Lost Prophet: The Life and Times of Bayard Rustin'' (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004). ISBN 0-226-14269-8</ref><ref name="RHKahn" > {{harvtxt|Horowitz|2007|pp=220–222}}:<p>{{cite journal|title=Tom Kahn and the fight for democracy: A political portrait and personal recollection|first=Rachelle|last=Horowitz|authorlink=Rachelle Horowitz|url=http://www.dissentmagazine.org/democratiya/article_pdfs/d11Horowitz.pdf<!-- http://www.socialdemocratsusa.org/oldsite/Kahn.html -->|year=2007|journal=] ''(merged with'' ] ''in 2009)''|issue=Winter|volume=11|issue=Summer|year=2007|pages=204–251}}
</ref><ref name="NYTKahn" >{{cite article|title=Tom Kahn, leader in labor and rights movements, was&nbsp;53|newspaper=New York Times|year=1992|month=1 April|first=Wolfgang|last=Saxon|url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1992%2F04%2F01%2Fnyregion%2Ftom-kahn-leader-in-labor-and-rights-movements-was-53.html&rct=j&q=%22Tom%20Kahn%22%2CNew%20York%20Times&ei=wgPqTaeYEsnCtAaUr_DnCg&usg=AFQjCNEai5k3bXSuiUDmQZg3x_oZ2kqjaQ&sig2=GK8sbNNMq_Z77bDy0mtPGg&cad=rja}}</ref>

Michael Harrington soon became the most visible socialist in the United States when his '']'' became a best seller, following a long and laudatory '']'' review by ]. Harrington and other socialists were called to Washington, D.C., to assist the ] and then the ]'s ] and ].<ref name="WoPMH">
{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/books/review/Isserman-t.html?_r=1
| work=The New York Times | first=Maurice | last=Isserman |authorlink=Maurice Isserman| title=Michael Harrington: Warrior on poverty | date=2009-06-19}}
</ref>

Shachtman, ], Kahn, and Rustin argued advocated a political strategy called "realignment," that prioritized strengthening labor unions and other progressive organizations that were already active in the Democratic Party. Contributing to the day-to-day struggles of the civil-rights movement and labor unions had gained socialists credibility and influence, and had helped to push politicians in the Democratic Party towards "]" or ] positions, at least on civil rights and the ].<ref>Isserman, ''The other american'', pp. 169–336.</ref><ref>{{harvtxt|Drucker|1994|p=187–308}}<!-- :<p>{{cite book|title=Max Shachtman and his left: A socialist's odyssey through the "American Century"|first=Peter|last=Drucker|publisher=Humanities Press|year=1994|isbn=0-391-03816-8}} --></ref>

Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the ] (LID), which helped to start the ] ] (SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like ], when the latter's ] criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change.<ref>Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', pp. 22-25.</ref> <!-- Gitlin, I think, notes that such public strong criticisms did not help and might have hindered their efforts at realignment. -->LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "''exclusion clause''" that prohibited membership by communists:<ref>Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', p. 105.</ref> The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism".<ref>Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', pp. 25–26</ref> The clause's removal effectively invited "disciplined cadre" to attempt to "take over or paralyze" SDS, as had occured to mass organizations in the thirties.<ref> Gitlin, p. 191.<p>]. '' (1987) ISBN 0-553-37212-2.
</ref> Afterwords, ], particularly the ], helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS,<ref>Sale, p. 287.<p>Sale described an "all‑out invasion of SDS by the Progressive Labor Party. PLers—concentrated chiefly in Boston, New York, and California, with some strength in Chicago and Michigan—were positively cyclotronic in their ability to split and splinter chapter organizations: if it wasn't their self‑righteous positiveness it was their caucus‑controlled rigidity, if not their deliberate disruptiveness it was their overt bids for control, if not their repetitious appeals for base‑building it was their unrelenting Marxism". Kirkpatrick Sale, ''SDS'', pp. 253.</ref><ref> Gitlin, p. 191.<p>]. '' ISBN 0-553-37212-2.
* Miller, James. ''Democracy is in the Streets: From Port Huron to the Siege of Chicago''. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994 ISBN 978-0674197251.
</ref><ref>Sale wrote, "SDS papers and pamphlets talked of 'armed struggle,' 'disciplined cadre,' 'white fighting force,' and the need for "a communist party that can guide this movement to victory"; SDS leaders and publications quoted Mao and Lenin and Ho Chi Minh more regularly than Jenminh Jih Pao. and a few of them even sought to say a few good words for Stalin". p. 269.</ref> which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

<references/>

===Unsourced, granted; un-neutral, ???===
I provided references. Of course this section can be improved by copy-editing, for example. But how it it un-neutral? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 18:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored a shorten version of this material, since it now has appropriate references. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the article needs expansions, e.g., by describing the contributions of Socialist Party members and other socialists to the organizing of the CIO, to (misguided) opposition to rearmament before World War II, to civil liberties, etc. (Now, it's a narrative listing organization splittings/mergers with a few mentions of electoral defeats.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

:While you have added references, there are no page nos. Statements such as the Communists were "Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially" and "the SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as the Weathermen and the Progressive Labor Party" need strong references. The emphasis on 1960s history when the party had 1,600 members as opposed to 1912 when they received 6% of the vote is disproportional. The emphasis of Shachtman over DeLeon and Debs is also disproportionate. Therefore I will revert to the earlier edition. ] (]) 04:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

:::SDS had 100 thousand members at its peak/nadir. More importantly, the civil rights movement and labor unions had more than 1600 members, and they actually won victories, which is different than the constant defeats of the socialists of 1912 (unless losing elections is the highest form of political action). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 13:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

::The phrase "Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially" glosses democratic centralism.
SDS was taken over by Marxist Leninists is so obvious, that if you don't know it, you should read something: Try .
::Your proportional representation argument betrays the electoralism harming this article. The socialists had more influence in the 1950s and 1960s working on civil rights and the war on poverty than in 1912, when they were having their constitutional rights removed, as in the notorious "Clear and Present Danger test". <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 05:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:::The phrasing is not neutral and your view that socialists had more influence in the 1950s and 1960s is your personal opinion. ] (]) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
::::On the contrary, the ] decision removed the first amendment protections from anti-war statements in WWI, unlike the Vietnam War era. This is a fact.
::::I have not reinserted the Gitlin citation. Are you referring to my latest edits on the article page, or the citations here, when you complain against non-neutral phrasing? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
:I have raised the issue at NPOVN. ] (]) 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

==Weight, neutrality and sources==
An editor (] (K.F)) and I disagree on the application of policy to writing this article.
#'''Weight'''. K.F. writes, "Devoting half of the SP history to SDUSA would be under-representation, because they had 2/3 of the votes at the 1972 convention...." My view is that the ] is a minor group in the history of the Left, which includes socialist, communists, anarchists and others. At its peak in 1912, the Socialist Party had over 100,000 members, numerous elected officials and received 6% of the vote in a presidential election, while the SDUSA had 1600 members and did not participate in elections. The Communist Party, the ] and anarchists from ] to the ] also exceed SDUSA in notability.
#:Please try to understand what I wrote. I wrote more about the civil rights movement, the war on poverty, and the new left (SDS), and you stated that my additions were from the "perspective of SDUSA". The statement about "representation of SDUSA" or the 1960s SP was in response to your charge that I had written a pro-SDUSA section, a baseless WP:PA and violation of WP:AGF., and I simply defended discussing the SDUSA and Rustin (not a "Shachtmanite") and Harrington (the latter not a member of SDUSA).I believe that what I have written now is a fair summary of the left's involvement in the 1960s, and a fair paragraph about SDUSA. I have asked others to expand the paragraph about DSOC, to mention its role in the 1978 Democratic Party mid-term convention and the draft-registration protests of 1979-1980.
#:If I new of anything notable done by the SPUSA during this time, I would mention it or ask others to do so. I know of nothing notable, honestly. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
#'''Neutrality'''. K.F. added, "LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (]s ]) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as ] and the ]." He made his views of Communists clear by calling them "left totalitarians" and comparing them to Nazis.
#::You are mixing statements made in an old draft of the article with statements made on the talk pages of the NPOV noticeboard and on this talk page. (It is conventional to refer to communists (small ''c'', notice!)/Leninists as left totalitarians, and you seem to be ignorant of the program and practices of the Progressive Labor Party and the Weatherman faction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
#:The tone of this writing does not appear to me to be neutral, and in fact the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) is not Leninist. K.F. also added "This conspiracy charge has been widely repeated on the internet". The source however does not say they were called Trotskyists, makes no mention of the internet, refers to the George W. Bush not the Reagan administration and does not use the term "conspiracy charge".
#::Please allow me to correct any errors. Thank you for drawing possible sloppiness to my attention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
#::I wrote the following revision, to clarify the Bush administration allegations and to avoid sourcing using Muravchik, whose quotation remains, because of its relevance to SDUSA and Shachtman, as T4D's "article" previously asserted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
<blockquote>
::::This conspiracy charge has been frequently repeated and even widened to assert a takeover of the ] by former Trotskyists.<ref>
{{cite journal|title=The weird men behind George&nbsp;W. Bush's war|first=Michael|last=Lind|journal=New Statesman|location=London|month=7 April|year=2003
|url=http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc
|ref=harv}}
</ref>
<references/>
</blockquote>
#'''Sourcing'''. K.F. originally substantially re-wrote the article without using sources. He rejects using '''' (], 2000) by saying, "Do you acknowledge that Busky was a SPUSA official and activist, and that you knew that when you used his book?" However the book was published by a reputable academic publisher that has a reputation for fact-checking and Busky has a PhD in political science. Yet he is willing to use non-academic writing by ], a leader of the SDUSA.
] (]) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

#:Busky was a national officer of SPUSA and the PA state chair of SPUSA from 1978 until his death. His book is not serious, and his publisher is a known for weak books, below the leading history publishers (e.g. Princeton, in addition to previously listed publishers). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 16:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
#:Muravchik seems to have broken his leadership ties with SDUSA by the 1990s, perhaps earlier. He is quoted to provide color to the Lipset quote about the Trotskyist charge. It is not necessary to quote this here, however.
#:Quoting this is relevant, because of the preponderance of far-left and far-right conspiracy theorist websites that appear when I searched for "Social Democrats, USA" on Google. It is also relevant because '''T4D's WP "article" previously described the SDUSA as "Shachtmanite"''', despite the obvious leadership of civil rights activists (Randolph, Rustin, Hill) and more importantly the ] leadership, which in fact provided the bulk of the votes at national meetings, as a glance at old convention documents clearly suggests. Harrington's memoir also refers to the "needle trades" officials. The National Co-Chairman, Zimmerman, was an ILGWU officer, and again hardly a Shachtmanite.
#:<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
#::I wrote the following revision, to clarify the Bush administration allegations and to avoid sourcing using Muravchik, whose quotation remains, because of its relevance to SDUSA and Shachtman, as T4D's "article" previously asserted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
<blockquote>
::::This conspiracy charge has been frequently repeated and even widened to assert a takeover of the ] by former Trotskyists.<ref>
{{cite journal|title=The weird men behind George&nbsp;W. Bush's war|first=Michael|last=Lind|journal=New Statesman|location=London|month=7 April|year=2003
|url=http://www.oss.net/dynamaster/file_archive/030408/d431cc57ce9014da63b65ea39c1fd657/8%20Apr%2003%20The%20weird%20men%20behind%20George%20W%20Bush.doc
|ref=harv}}
</ref>
<references/>
</blockquote>

== Two souls of anarchism: Virtuous (]) and damned (]) ==

There seems to be a confusion between anarchists following ], apparently a nice fellow, and ] (a sociopath who delighted in throwing bombs into crowds). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

:Neither one is mentioned in the article. ] (]) 05:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::There are two very distinct traditions of "anarchism", which this article should do well to distinguish. Kids wearing masks and throwing rocks at shop windows or police officers probably do not represent ]esque anarchism as well as e.g. ] (or ], who used to be popular among some Greens). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 12:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

== Correspondence of July 18, 2011 ==

Please consider looking at ]. There are ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 16:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

: Hi, K-Wolf--

: There's been a bit of discord perking about the changes, particularly with respect to a purported overrepresentation of the 1960s and 1970s at the expense of older and newer periods -- at least that's what I've heard. in actually looking at things, I'm not terribly distressed, but I can see the point. It's more like the early period is underdeveloped rather than the latter period overdeveloped.

: I do have something of a problem with the dichotomy between "Social Democratic" and "Marxist-Leninist" parties. In my view this is a bit of a Cold War-era relic; it's hard to construct any reasonable definition of "Marxism-Leninism" that includes today's CPUSA, for example. They aren't for armed struggle, they aren't for the establishment of a Soviet system, they've formally renounced the concept of the vanguard party. They don't run their own candidates and the organization is largely composed of a new generation of younger people that didn't have much of anything to do with the Gus Hall-era party. They're basically, and you will roll your eyes but it's true, a Social Democratic Party in 2011. Instead of an undifferentiated ''list'' of parties which would allow that they were one thing and evolved into another, they are lumped into an objectively wrong category based on multiple decades of past history.

: Conversely, the Socialist Labor Party began as a Social Democratic Party and evolved into something different — and whatever you want to call it, I don't think the words "Marxist-Leninist" do it justice. Quasi-syndicalist? Not sure. Life is not as simple as the Social Democratic / Communist dichotomy that is represented on the page. They aren't even a functioning organization in 2011, as nearly as I can tell, although party head Robert Bills is still contributing DDL writings to Marxists Internet Archive in the name of the party, so neither can dirt unconditionally be shoveled on the grave.

: A further critique would be that the ISO is missing altogether — this a quasi-Trotskyist, quasi-Social Democratic organization. The Sparts think that the ISO are SDs; many would call them Trots. I'm not sure labels are all that valuable myself. The lack of specificity about anarchist grouplets is also less than desirable.

: I'm just not sure that my venturing into this is worth the time and effort. I can appreciate what you're doing and I think it's fine. I can appreciate the critique of the end result, and I think that has merit. I can see a number of flaws, mostly fixable by what I think would be a contentious position — that the SD/ML dichotomy should be ditched and that organizations should be listed alphabetically. But that's one person's opinion.

: I will paste this correspondence to the talk. Maybe it will provide a tiny bit of food for thought. ] (]) 02:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

::Can you read through K.F's edits, because they appear to me to be poorly sourced and slanted toward one view. And seriously, 1972 was not the apex of socialist influence in the U.S., and SDUSA does not deserve 2/3 of the history section, as K.F. claims. ] (]) 05:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::TD4, you are lying again. Please retract your lies that I have ever asserted such nonsense. (I stated that having 1/2 of the material about SDUSA/DSOC/SPUSA about SDUSA, as you previously charged, might be reasonable because the majority had more than 2/3 of the votes.
::I have asked for help at the ]. You continue to label Rustin and Zimmerman as Shachmanites, a particular case of willful ignorance, despite your having been warned of your naive credulity many times. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 05:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Please remove ]. ] (]) 05:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::Cease ], and I will cease describing your darned behavior. You know that I did not ever state that half the article should be about SDUSA or that the apex of left influence was in 1972. Willfully and consciously telling lies about another's behavior is a particularly evil form of lying. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 05:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Carrite's post is a very welcome dedramatisation effort. I hope regulars and newcomers will be able to stand back and have a good look at what the article does and doesn't do. In my opinion the History section should be continued, in sections breaking either at key turning points in US history (end of WW2, end of VN war, etc.) or in decades. It should go up to 911 or to the turn of the millennium. Then, as Carrite suggests, the present-day organisations that make up the American Left should be outlined, removing the distinction between social democrats and marxist-leninists. I would like to see less minutiae of party splits and more on the relationship between the various parties and the social movements. The Left may not be very visible in the USA, but feminism, Civil Rights and Black Power, the student movement, the peace movements, and the environmental movement have all been quite noticeable. ] (]) 06:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:::::Judith, I have tried to discuss social movements, which has been the primary activity of the American left since the 1930s, and I appreciate your comments.
:::::I would suggest moving the minor groups (e.g., RCP, Spartacists, DeLeonist SLP, etc.) to a list on another page. It is useful to distinguish between the communist and socialist lefts, since this distinction is important in all western industrialized contries. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 07:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::The SLP is significant as the first socialist party in the U.S. which included all the major figures of the socialist movement and unions in the late 19th century. The truth is that the Left in the U.S. is better known for factionalism, than for political influence. The ] affiliate in the U.S. for example has fewer than 5,000 members and does not run political candidates, while in neighboring Canada and Mexico, they are the main opposition parties. Even ], who is mentioned here as chairman of SDUSA, had little involvement with that group (which itself did very little). ] (]) 13:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Sources? (You may wish to learn about the differences of parties in the U.S. versus in parliamentary states. Come to Sweden!) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">].]</span></small> 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:00, 5 August 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Left article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 28 days 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUnited States Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconOrganized Labour Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconHistory High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

No Mention of DSA

??? Dvdkrz (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

"American Left": the Democratic Party

In the sources of the article, the term refers not to the Left—Right political alignment in the European sense, but to the U.S. Republican—Democratic split. E.g., voters who identify with the "American Left" tend to be more opposed to e.g. charter schools, and this is seen as a current "Left" position, even though this distinct from the European Left—Right alignment. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, there is a Left—Right distinction in Americans that tends to be pro/anti-race-blind admissions, especially for East Asian students. This also doesn't cleanly map onto European "egalitarianism". (Both proponents and opponents see their side as "egalitarian").
This isn't an argument about what the word ought to mean, just the word as it is used in the United States. The existing sources in this article are sufficient sources for this. DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Mother Jones?

it seems like a gross oversight to not be mentioning Mother Jones, one of the most influential leftists in US history. 2600:8803:4013:1900:47EC:A319:5E48:2C49 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:American Left: Difference between revisions Add topic