One solution - revolution! - where does this imply that the revolution must necessarily be violent? RickK 07:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• RickK is right: Revolution does not necessarily imply violence - this example should be removed.
• the "far left" is not restricted to socialist/communist groups , e.g. anarchist, and possibly militant green groups
• "far left" only describes a political group's position in relation to other political groups -- it makes no statement if a group is prepared to use violent methods. Most political groups will use violence in particular circumstances, e.g. in a situation of foreign occupation or dictatorship, many "moderate" groups will also use violent methods
• it is inaccurate to say that the far left tends to reject democratic means, there are many example to the contrary
• it is also inaccurate to equate "far left" with "radical or extreme socialist or communist" : "center/left" seems to designate social democrat, green or left-liberal ; so "socialist or communist" will do (without the radical or extreme)
• I think the SWP(UK) are far too insignificant to be named in this international encyclopedia as an illustration of "far left"
• references to the US and Israel should be removed as they are irrelevant and inaccurate.

pir 08:28, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of the points above - although militant Greens are not necessarily left-wing (perhaps the majority is, but the same can be said of pacifists). Djadek 20:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this article needs more balance. Far left is a perjorative, just like far right, and both sets of extremists have a lot in common. I was at a briefing recently where I was informed that the far right extremists include white power / nazi groups, and that the far left extremists include black power, islamist, or communism groups. That dicotomy is just an accurate usage of the terms as any way in which you or I might think of them to mean. The left-right false dictomy is not limited to one particular paradigm. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link that says "see Post-September 11 anti-war movement for a discussion of what 'far-left' means in that context" because there doesn't seem to be any discussion of it in the article. DJ Clayworth 21:41, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see the paragraph of accusations that the movement was hijacked by radical groups and Amir Tehari's article (link included). That explains pretty much the issue. MathKnight 22:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, someone has to learn that anarchism is far-right, while fascism (including communism and national socialism) is far-left... BECAUSE INCORRECT USE OF THESE WORDS ARE PISSING ME OFF!!! RRROOOOOOAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!11

Compadre, anarchists aren't left OR right- they oppose whoever's in a position of authority, regardless of if that person or group is of the left or the right. Nor is it required that every movement on each end of a political spectrum have a counterpart on the other end. Saying 'anarchists are right-wing, therefore fascists are left-wing' is very flawed reasoning. Personally, I don't much care for the left/right model- you run into authoritarians at both extremes, and the only significant difference between the two is if they use socialist jargon or capitalist jargon while stomping on your face.

Why anarchism is "far-right"? Most anarchists consider themselfs to be on the left (or simply denie the Left-Right dichotomy). In Spanish Civil War, anarchists fought in the Republican side, with Socialists, Republicans and Comunists (i.e, the left-wing) against the Nationalists (i.e, the right-wing). In day-to-day politics, is much more common to see anarchists with the same side with Trotskyists or Council Communists (far-left) than with Monarchists (far-right). What can be the reason to the anarchists be "far-right"???--194.65.151.17 12:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism is definitely not far-right, at least not traditional anarchism (there are some people who call themselves anarchists who have far-right ideas, such as white supremacy, but they are rejected by the anarchist movement and considered a joke). I personally reject the left-right model, but if I had to label myself, it would be far-left (though, like mentioned above, there are authoritarians and by extention, selective anti-authoritarians on both ends). The existence of post-left anarchy confirms the idea that anarchism is traditionally viewed as left-wing in nature. The Ungovernable Force 06:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "far-left" with a dash is an adjective form. As in "far-left groups". The proper title for this page is "Far left" or possibly "Far Left." Any discussion? I plan to change it otherwise and then run around and deal with all the redirects.--Cberlet 21:23, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed from "See also": * Wikipedia: Words to avoid

The page title really needs to changed as I noted last June. (How time flies). I have made a similar suggestion at Far-right. There are other issues that might affect bot the Left and Right pages. The biggest one is the idea of changing the pages Far left and Far right into disambiguation pages. The terms have many conflicting uses, even in academia, and are often used just as political epithets. There is also a huge area of study of the Extreme left which is distinct from the study of left-liberals and progressives. These would generally be communist cadre organizations or underground groups. Most of the current links to "Far-Left" should be divided up and most pointed to Left-wing politics. Some should go to the re-created Extreme left which would be a small page that parsed out links to various groups and movements and theories, while Far left would be a disambiguation page. I am not invested in a particular outcome, but the current sets of pages are very muddled (except for Left-wing politics) and both sts need an extreme makeover that pays at least some attention to scholalry research. Lot's of work, but it needs to be done.

Perhaps folks could first join in at Talk:Right-wing_politics --User:Cberlet|Cberlet]] 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Maoists and Trotskyists are not New Leftists, both were very definitely around before the 1960s.

The listing of parties should be removed. This is not a political blog. This about the concept of Far-left in political science. Intangible 00:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]