Talk:American Left/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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[1]
• Writing from the left: new essays on radical culture and politics[2]
• Crusade of the Left: The Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil War[3]
• Assault on the Left: the FBI and the sixties antiwar movement[4]
• Radical ambition: C. Wright Mills, the left, and American social thought[5]

I will therefore restore the previous version and move the article back. If you wish to re-name the article please gain consensus.

TFD (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer this title (or some form of it). I placed a request at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Correcting cut&paste move 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. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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 American Left or American left? Second: If there is, then which capitalization shall we use? Please advise. -GTBacchus^(talk) 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. TFD (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

...And here we are. Please let me know if I'm required for any further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CP logo.png

The image File:CP logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale 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:

• File:Democratic Socialists of America.png

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

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

Solidarity

The Hal Draper-inspired Trotskyssant revolutionary socialist organization Solidarity is missing. Its members have been courageous and largely successful in Teamsters for an Independent Union and they write Labor Notes and Against The Currents, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 01:21, 10 July 2011

You are referring to Solidarity (U.S.) and Teamsters for a Democratic Union. 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. TFD (talk) 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 reliable sources. In the meantime I will remove the section. TFD (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally a lot of the material you recently added is unsourced or poorly sourced, and therefore fails WP:RS. TFD (talk) 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this

In left-wing politics in the United States, Solidarity is a socialist organization associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization based on the proposition that the Soviet Union was not a "degenerate workers' state" (as in orthodox Trotskyism) but rather "bureaucratic collectivism", a new and especially repressive class society.

Even if Lichtenstein may write for Against the Current occasionally, this seems to be a rather objective and obviously true description.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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. TFD (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the following subsection, which is unsourced. (I'm adding sources.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, and the New Left

In 1958 the Socialist Party welcomed former members of the Independent Socialist League, which before its 1956 dissolution had been led by Max Shachtman. Shachtman had developed a Marxist critique of Soviet communism as "bureaucratic collectivism", 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 "New Class" proposed by Yugoslavian dissident Milovan Đilas (Djilas). Shachtman's ISL had attracted youth like Irving Howe, Michael Harrington, Tom Kahn, and Rachelle Horowitz. The YPSL was dissolved, but the party formed a new youth group under the same name.

Socialist A. Philip Randolph led the 1963 March on Washington at which Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his speech "I have a dream".

Kahn and Horowitz, along with Norman Hill, helped Bayard Rustin with the civil-rights movement. Rustin had helped to spread pacificism and non-violence to leaders of the civil rights movement, like Martin Luther King. Rustin's circle and A. Philip Randolph organized the 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther King delivered his I Have A Dream speech.

Michael Harrington soon became the most visible socialist in the United States when his The Other America became a best seller, following a long and laudatory New Yorker review by Dwight Macdonald. Harrington and other socialists were called to Washington, D.C., to assist the Kennedy Administration and then the Johnson Administration's War on Poverty and Great Society.

Shachtman, Michael Harrington, 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 "social-liberal" or social-democratic positions, at least on civil rights and the War on Poverty.

Harrington, Kahn, and Horowitz were officers and staff-persons of the League for Industrial Democracy (LID), which helped to start the New Left Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). The three LID officers clashed with the less experienced activists of SDS, like Tom Hayden, when the latter's Port Huron Statement criticized socialist and liberal opposition to communism and criticized the labor movement while promoting students as agents of social change. LID and SDS split in 1965, when SDS voted to remove from its constitution the "exclusion clause" that prohibited membership by communists: The SDS exclusion clause had barred "advocates of or apologists for" "totalitarianism". 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. Afterwords, Marxism Leninism, particularly the Progressive Labor Party, helped to write "the death sentence" for SDS, which nonetheless had over 100 thousand members at its peak.

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?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored a shorten version of this material, since it now has appropriate references.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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. TFD (talk) 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).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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 Gitlin's The Sixties p. 387.

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".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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. TFD (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Schenck 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?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at NPOVN.[6] TFD (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Weight, neutrality and sources

An editor (User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz (K.F)) and I disagree on the application of policy to writing this article.

1. 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 Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA) 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 Wobblies and anarchists from Sacco and Vanzetti to the Battle in Seattle 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutrality. K.F. added, "LID and SDS split in 1965 when SDS voted to allow communists (Marxist Leninists organized conspiratorially) to vote; afterwords, SDS was taken over and destroyed by Marxist Leninists such as The Weatherman and the Progressive Labor Party." 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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 [that the Reagan administration's foreign policy was being run by Trotskyists] 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This conspiracy charge has been frequently repeated and even widened to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists.

1. Sourcing. K.F. originally substantially re-wrote the article without using sources. He rejects using Democratic socialism: a global survey (Praeger Publishers, 2000) by Donald F. Busky 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 Joshua Muravchik, a leader of the SDUSA.

TFD (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 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).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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 ILGWU 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.

    Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This conspiracy charge has been frequently repeated and even widened to assert a takeover of the foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration by former Trotskyists.

Two souls of anarchism: Virtuous (Kropotkin) and damned (Bakunin)

There seems to be a confusion between anarchists following Peter Kropotkin, apparently a nice fellow, and Mikhail Bakunin (a sociopath who delighted in throwing bombs into crowds).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither one is mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 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 Kropotkinesque anarchism as well as e.g. Dwight Macdonald (or Murray Bookchin, who used to be popular among some Greens).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Correspondence of July 18, 2011

Please consider looking at American Left. There are related discussions at the noticeboard on NPOV.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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. Carrite (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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 WikiProject United States. 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove personal attacks. TFD (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Cease bearing false witness against me, 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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. Itsmejudith (talk) 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.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 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 Socialist International 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 Bayard Rustin, who is mentioned here as chairman of SDUSA, had little involvement with that group (which itself did very little). TFD (talk) 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!)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link. Note that Mexico has a presidential, not a parliamentary system and yes, the socialists in Sweden are a major party too I believe. TFD (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV?

Many editors, including Judith, have helped with the article in the last month, helping upgrade the article to use reliable, high quality references (when possible) and improve the encyclopedic tone (and better compliance with due-weight and NPOV policies).

Would editors specify the actionable, present concerns that now warrant the NPOV tag on the article, please?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV issues seem to have been resolved. TFD (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

SDUSA

I question some of the editing on this topic. Why would we write, "Social Democrats, USA has a history dating back to Debs" (which is sourced to their website) rather than just say the SPA changed its name? And why mention the biannual conference (which one?) and not mention what resolutions were adopted? Most of the rest of the section is unsourced. I will restore the previous version that was properly sourced.

Also, what is the point of the lengthy comments from Muravchik? Massing did not write that the Reagan foreign policy was being run by Trotskyists. And Lind's article is hardly notable and probably did not notable. The reality is, as was presented in the WP article, that Shachtman was expelled from the SWP in 1940.

TFD (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please suggest which paragraphs are problematic and why. I think that we have reached agreement lately and I would like to continue cooperative editing.

I agree that the the quoted sentences can be edited or removed.

To answer your question: Please google SDUSA and look at the number of times you find references to Trotskyists/neoconservatives (typically by paleoconservatives). This has increased in the last few years. (Even In These Times's John Judis wrote a piece in Foreign Policy (if my memory is correct) on this theme.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You removed a lot of material that was sourced to reliable sources, with page references, and restored Busky, which was criticized at the RS noticeboard.

I removed the unsourced material about 2 groups trying to revive SDUSA, of course, agreeing with your notability concerns.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC) 08:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What resolutions are you talking about? They adopted resolutions all the time, apparently. Which reliable sources discuss any?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Massing, you should read more carefully. Please check my sources. I quote Lipset on Massing with a page reference, for example.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

EC. Regarding Shachtman and the SWP: I have no idea what you are talking about. Shachtman is often described as coming from a Trotskyist background. Most of Trotsky's intellectual associates broke with him or denounced his analysis, according to Leszek Kolakowksi's 3rd volume of MCM, if my 20 year old memory is correct. They are usually described as Trotskyist or Trotskissant, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The article already says that the party was renamed, we should avoid using organizations; webistes as sources, the criticism of Busky's book came from you, you were never able to explain why a non-controversial academic book by Busky was less reliable than say Muravchik's writings, and cannot find anything from his writing used in the article that is incorrect. TFD (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Read what Judith wrote.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. We can remove Muravchik and also the "state dept. socialist" and following criticism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We should also mention the rightward drift of SDUSA, at least of some of its leading members, e.g., Tom Kahn, Rachelle Horowitz, Carl Gershman, Bruce McColm, Douglas Payne, Arch Puddington, Bayard Rustin, Penn Kemble, and Joshua Muravchik. TFD (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like POV pushing. What are you going to do with the SDUSA people who became more left wing?

Please propose a sentence or two with the most reliable, high-quality sources. I would suggest your asking at the SDUSA talk page, first.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping in briefly. I wrote "history dating back to Debs" to summarise text that had been lengthier. I wouldn't have a problem if it was just left out. "If in doubt, leave it out" might be a way forward for this article, in the short term, until editors either settle down into the sort of grumpy agree-to-differ collaboration that is common in politics articles or escalate the differences until the big dispute resolution machinery clunks into gear. About the other substantive stuff, I might not know all that much about the American Left, but I do know that some people moved quite dramatically to the Right between the 1960s and 1980s. Some Europeans moved dramatically to the Right, too; it's a common phenomenon. I see Daniel Cohn-Bendit complaining this week that French politics is too confrontational. He's moved so far to the Right that he's arriving at the Centre. It's generally more about individuals than about the parties they originally belong to, am I right? Thanks to all for improving this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back, Judith!

I gave short biographical sentences about SDUSA hotshots, which explain that Gershman worked for Reagan on foreign policy, Kemble worked for Clinton, and Kahn helped Solidarity (as much as he could) with its struggles for democracy against communism. Given the space constraints in this article, shouldn't such facts suffice to describe what TFD would describe as "their move to the right". (I'm not sure that ignoring Cuba's treatment of gays, unionists, religious leaders, political opposition has anything to do with being "left", but that is just my opinion.)

Today, the New York Times has an op-ed piece explaining that Ronald Reagan would be a liberal Republican, because he supported the rights of public employees to bargain and offered pay raises to PATCO. Food for thought. Many people have moved to the right, indeed.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"[They] had moved sufficiently right by 1980, that many of their members served in the Reagan administration.[Busky, pp. 163-165]" It seems to be a fairly standard view of the SDUSA, rather than POV-pushing. If you are worried "what are you going to do with the SDUSA people who became more left-wing", then you need a source that says, "although some of the SDUSA people became more left-wing". Providing facts "to describe... "their move to the right"" is implicit synthesis. Your argument that they did not move to the right because Reagan was actually a liberal is original research, unless you can find a source that makes this argument. TFD (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am posting this to NPOVN. If you decide to comment, could you please keep your remarks brief and restrict them to the arguments presented, rather than the persons making them. TFD (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD,

Stop putting words in my mouth. I have asked you before to read more carefully. If you are dyslexic or poor vision or have another disability, it may help for you to identify yourself so that people cut you more slack when you (without fault) make mistakes.

I noted an op ed piece that wrote that Reagan was to the left of many present day Republicans. I did not say that Reagan was a liberal (objectively). I was commenting on Judith's thesis of a general rightword trend in world politics, noting an apparent rightward trend of the Republican Party in the USA. This was friendly chit-chat, without relation to this article. Why was that so very hard for you to understand?

Some SDUSA members worked with Reagan on foreign policy, where they did as much as they could to liberate Poland from communism, and support trade unions that were not controlled by the Communist regime. Some would say that helping the working class and professionals to organize unions was a prototypically leftwing practice..

SDUSA members did not work on and had no influence on domestic policy. Lipset has noted this simple dichtomy. Go to the library and read Lipset on JSTOR. There is more to the world than Busky's hack work.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Page references

Some of the page references provided are too broad. For example, footnote 35 lists four sources but no page nos. Footnote 36 lists pp. 204-251. Footnote 38 lists four sources but no page nos. Footnote 40 lists pp. 169-336. Footnote 41 lists pp. 187-308. Footnotes 42 and 44 refer to multiple sections. TFD (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the notes

• 35 is a non-contentious fact; 3 acclaimed biographies are listed.
• 36 does specify 220-220 as pages.
• 41 describes the War on Poverty and other parts of the 1960s; the reference is to Harrington's life, by Isserman, so they occupy a lot of pages.
• 42 and 44 specify pages describing the phenomena cited.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Democratic Party?

While I'm sure many would laugh at the idea, isn't it worth mentioning that in the modern United States, most Americans would consider the Democratic Party (United States) 'left-wing'? While it may not be officially associated with socialism or communism in any way, in practice it broadly represents the left of modern American politics, and I expect that most Americans who identify themselves as 'left-wing' vote for the Democrats. For that reason, the sentence 'there are no major left-wing political parties in the US' in the lead of this article looks like a POV statement. Robofish (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead then says, "As a result, Americans frequently use the term "left-wing" to refer to radicalism or even liberalism". From an international perspective and in academic writing, the Democrats are generally categorized as a liberal rather than left-wing party. TFD (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Democratic Party, there are caucuses that could be listed as left: The Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucuses, etc.

The United States does not have a parliamentary system, where each party selects a list of candidates (often in the order in which they would serve); in such systems, when a party holds a majority (or a coalition holds a majority), it will often accomplish nearly all of its campaign promises. In a parliamentary system, the party leadership has extraordinary power and it is extremely rare for a member of parliament to vote against the party in parliament; such "rebels" are usually punished in the next election, by being either left off the list or set so low that they can never be re-elected.

The U.S. lacks a parliamentary system and therefore does not have parties that can even act (during each congress) as cohesive parties.

Some labor unions could be listed as left, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Democratic Party is centre to centre-left, not really Left-wing at all. The Progressive Caucus advocates many social liberal policies but does not stray into what many would consider the middle Left-wing (e.g. social democracy). The Dems are commonly seen by outsiders (who do not have political biases in the U.S.) as centrists.--Drdak (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

[7] This edit changes sourced material and adds unsourced material. For example for the Communist Party, "the best-financed" is changed to "most influential". Also, a sourced paragraph about the Communist Party that includes the fact it received funding from the Soviet Union is replaced with an unsourced paragraph that omits that information.

I will therefore reverse the edit and ask that unsourced material not be added.

TFD (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

CPUSA

People's World, Political Affairs, and International Publishers are owned by the Communist Party, as well as having the Young Communist League as its youth wing. Also, the claim that the CPUSA is the "best financed" party is unsourced. I'm not sure why the Party's media and youth wing need sources but baseless claims like that do not. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is sourced, notice the use of footnotes in the paragraph. And unsourced material should be avoided in articles, per the policy "reliable sources". "Weight" is another issue. Unless reliable sources pick up on what the party does, then it lacks weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ISO?

This article is missing the ISO—which is remarkably strange, given this is widely seen as the largest American socialist organization. This is quite an egregious oversight. If there is no opposition (and I can't imagine why there would be), I am going to add the ISO to the list of Trotskyist organizations. Starvinsky (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"We do not envy the future historian of the American revolutionary movement when he faces the problem of tracing the course of the ephemeral sects." -Max Shachtman, 1938. It was probably overlooked because of the lack of sources on current groups. If you have any then it would be helpful. TFD (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of Article - Sourcing

Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US.

Why it written like above, without a page and as a note, instead of like either below:

Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US

Or

Although left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, there are no major left-wing political parties in the US

The lead is a short summary of what the article states. It is not the place for insertion of claims. It is not the place for cites where the body of the article is sufficiently clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere do I see "Left-wing" used when referencing 19th century, no where do I see how "left" and "left-wing" was used and has changed over time the article seems to use the terms interchangeable and arbitrarily.

Neither of these well sourced article use notes and references in the summary. It is possible to paraphrase incorrectly to where the sentence doesn't mean the same thing as the original parts of the body, so even paraphrased lines aren't immune being asked for citation. The line has a note referring to a book but it fails to mention page numbers which is improper citation.

Compare it to these pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics#cite_note-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-McGowan-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#cite_note-Kathleen_G._Donohue-2 Would be the most comparable article to this in reference style from a quick glance. However American left fails to include pages for the Archer citation.

Are you saying that page number is irrelevant to the note placed in the article or that there is no need for the note to even be there? If the former why add the note in the first place? If the latter why not remove it?Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see where the term left is used inconsistently in the article or inconsistently with the way it is used in the 10 first books in the Google books search for "the american left".[8] And the article is about a topic, not about what you think the term should mean. I do not know btw why a citation was added without a page no., but it is irrelevant since the lead does not need to be sourced, merely must reflect what is in the article, per WP:CITELEAD. Not following your mention of the 19th century. TFD (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "left is used inconsistently" I said left and left-wing is used incorrectly because it is used interchangeably.

You don't follow "19th century"? Did you fail to read this section? I was quoting the lead.

Yes the topic is not left, left wing, but American Socialism (Am Soc) from its arrival to modern day including slinters and off shoots like the anrachist group (chaos group, not to be confused with anarchism the govermentless idea). Terms can change a sentence. For example "No socialist party" and "no left-wing party" do not mean the same thing. As socialist is a more rigid while left-wing is not.

I'll reiterate: No where in the article does it say "left-wing" politics arrived in the 19th century except the lead. Left-wing is not used in the article until talking about the 1960s and "new left".

The second and third line seem to contradict each other. Where one says there are no left-wing parties, yet says that American's call radicals and liberals left-wing. Are liberals left-wing or are there no left-wing party? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Both. There is a radical left, but there is no party, or at least no party with influence, to represent them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It says no major left-wing parties. All major U.S. parties have been liberal, ranging from classical liberal to social liberal. TFD (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So you want left-wing to exclude liberalism? In the US, left is liberal, while right is conservative. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And of course liberal and conservative also mean something different from the rest of the world. Books about the U.S. left normally do not include liberals, which is properly covered in two articles in the United States" (using the standard definition) and "Modern liberalism in the United States". TFD (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

(to DairyFarmer777) Modern liberals tend to be to the left of modern conservatives on most issues, but that does not equate liberals with an American Left. When you're part of the American Left or an American Left, you aren't toward the left. You are there, at the Left. Occupy is a recent American Left movement. They're radically egalitarian in practice with all that mic-checking during protests, a complete lack of a formal hierarchy, and other things they do such as breaking the law by trespassing which they viewed as civil disobedience. Occupy is there, at the American Left practicing radical equality while also attempting to steer the US toward radical equality. With regard to Banking Reform, Elizabeth Warren is a modern liberal, but, of course, she's not part of (the or an) American Left because she's not part of a movement that goes about its business in a radically egalitarian way. This terminology and understanding is clear in the academic world, among the Left itself, and among most modern liberals. It's not controversial, and it's a big part of the reason why there is no major party of the Left in the US. By the way, after looking at Zaretsky and learning a bit, my own opinions have changed, and a few of the things I wrote just a few days ago are not correct. Flying Jazz (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Zaretsky's terminology and definitions (what the American Left is) are not sacred. An NPOV article would include others. However, in terms of achieving clarity and also achieving correctness, embracing Zaretsky's terminology in the lead would be considerably more sound than this mistaken emphasis by the article's creator of the top ten Google Book hits over and over again. The top ten Google Book hits demonstrate the facile commercial appeal of the unacademic and ahistorical attack on the American left by the neo-conservative movement. Good for the authors! Let 'em sell as many books as they can. But the only reason why an encyclopedia article would base its scope on those top ten books would be if the editors involved share that clear but incorrect point of view. Flying Jazz (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)