Hubbry Logo
Left-wing politicsLeft-wing politicsMain
Open search
Left-wing politics
Community hub
Left-wing politics
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Left-wing politics
Left-wing politics
Left-wing politics
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of the Politics Series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Syncretic
Major ideologies
Types
Leaders and organization
Internal elections
Party discipline
Party systems
Coalitions between parties
Lists of political parties
icon Politics portal

Left-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy either as a whole,[1][2][3][4] or of certain social hierarchies.[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished,[3] through radical means that change the nature of the society they are implemented in.[5] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, supporters of left-wing politics "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."[6]

Within the left–right political spectrum, left and right were coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly between revolutionaries and monarchists respectively.[7] Usage of the term left became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815, when it was applied to the Independents.[8] The word wing was first appended to left and right factions in the late 19th century, usually with disparaging intent, and left-wing was applied to those who were unorthodox in their religious or political views.

Ideologies considered to be left-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place. At the end of the 18th century, upon the founding of the first liberal democracies, the term Left was used to describe liberalism in the United States and republicanism in France, supporting a lesser degree of hierarchical decision-making than the right-wing politics of the traditional conservatives and monarchists. In modern politics, the term Left typically applies to ideologies and movements to the left of classical liberalism, supporting some degree of democracy in the economic sphere.

Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism,[9] including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism, and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries.[10] In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal and progressive social movements,[11] including the civil rights movement, feminist movement, LGBT rights movement, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, anti-war movement, and environmental movement,[12][13] as well as a wide range of political parties.[14][15][16]‌

Positions

[edit]

The following positions are typically associated with left-wing politics.

Economics

[edit]
See also: Anarchist economics, Comparison of Marxian and Keynesian economics, and Socialist economics

Left-leaning economic beliefs range from Keynesian economics and the welfare state through industrial democracy and the social market to the nationalisation of the economy and central planning,[17] to the anarcho-syndicalist advocacy of a council-based and self-managed anarchist communism. During the Industrial Revolution, leftists supported trade unions. At the beginning of the 20th century, many leftists advocated strong government intervention in the economy.[18] Leftists continue to criticise the perceived exploitative nature of globalisation, the "race to the bottom" and unjust lay-offs and exploitation of workers. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the belief that the government (ruling in accordance with the interests of the people) ought to be directly involved in the day-to-day workings of an economy declined in popularity amongst the centre-left, especially social democrats who adopted the Third Way. Left-wing politics are typically associated with popular or state control of major political and economic institutions.[19]

Other leftists believe in Marxian economics, named after the economic theories of Karl Marx. Some distinguish Marx's economic theories from his political philosophy, arguing that Marx's approach to understanding the economy is independent of his advocacy of revolutionary socialism or his belief in the inevitability of a proletarian revolution.[20][21] Marxian economics do not exclusively rely on Marx and draw from a range of Marxist and non-Marxist sources. The dictatorship of the proletariat and workers' state are terms used by some Marxists, particularly Leninists and Marxist–Leninists, to describe what they see as a temporary state between the capitalist state of affairs and a communist society. Marx defined the proletariat as salaried workers, in contrast to the lumpenproletariat, who he defined as the outcasts of society such as beggars, tricksters, entertainers, buskers, criminals and prostitutes.[22] The political relevance of farmers has divided the left. In Das Kapital, Marx scarcely mentioned the subject.[23] Mikhail Bakunin thought the lumpenproletariat was a revolutionary class, while Mao Zedong believed that it would be rural peasants, not urban workers, who would bring about the proletarian revolution.

Left-libertarians, anarchists and libertarian socialists believe in a decentralised economy run by trade unions, workers' councils, cooperatives, municipalities and communes, opposing both state and private control of the economy, preferring social ownership and local control in which a nation of decentralised regions is united in a confederation. The global justice movement, also known as the anti-globalisation movement and the alter-globalisation movement, protests against corporate economic globalisation due to its negative consequences for the poor, workers, the environment, and small businesses.[24][25][26]

Leftists generally believe in innovation in various technological and philosophical fields and disciplines to help causes they support.[5]

Environment

[edit]
See also: Eco-socialism, Green anarchism, and Green politics

One of the foremost left-wing advocates was Thomas Paine, one of the first individuals since left and right became political terms to describe the collective human ownership of the world which he speaks of in Agrarian Justice.[27] As such, most of left-wing thought and literature regarding environmentalism stems from this duty of ownership and the aforementioned form of cooperative ownership means that humanity must take care of the Earth. This principle is reflected in much of the historical left-wing thought and literature that came afterwards, although there were disagreements about what this entailed. Both Karl Marx and the early socialist philosopher and scholar William Morris arguably had a concern for environmental matters.[28][29][30][31] According to Marx, "[e]ven an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations".[28][32] Following the Russian Revolution, environmental scientists such as revolutionary Alexander Bogdanov and the Proletkult organisation made efforts to incorporate environmentalism into Bolshevism and "integrate production with natural laws and limits" in the first decade of Soviet rule, before Joseph Stalin attacked ecologists and the science of ecology, purged environmentalists and promoted the pseudoscience of Trofim Lysenko during his rule up until his death in 1953.[33][34][35] Similarly, Mao Zedong rejected environmentalism and believed that based on the laws of historical materialism, all of nature must be put into the service of revolution.[36]

From the 1970s onwards, environmentalism became an increasing concern of the left, with social movements and several unions campaigning on environmental issues and causes. In Australia, the left-wing Builders Labourers Federation, led by the communist Jack Mundy, united with environmentalists to place green bans on environmentally destructive development projects.[37] Several segments of the socialist and Marxist left consciously merged environmentalism and anti-capitalism into an eco-socialist ideology.[38] Barry Commoner articulated a left-wing response to The Limits to Growth model that predicted catastrophic resource depletion and spurred environmentalism, postulating that capitalist technologies were the key cause responsible for environmental degradation, as opposed to human population pressures.[39] Environmental degradation can be seen as a class or equity issue, as environmental destruction disproportionately affects poorer communities and countries.[40]

Global warming was the cover story of this 2007 issue of the Ms. magazine.

Several left-wing or socialist groupings have an overt environmental concern and several green parties contain a strong socialist presence. The Green Party of England and Wales features an eco-socialist group, the Green Left, which was founded in June 2005. Its members held several influential positions within the party, including both the former Principal Speakers Siân Berry and Derek Wall, himself an eco-socialist and Marxist academic.[41] In Europe, several green left political parties such as the European United Left–Nordic Green Left combine traditional social-democratic values such as a desire for greater economic equality and workers rights with demands for environmental protection. Democratic socialist Bolivian president Evo Morales has traced environmental degradation to capitalist consumerism,[42] stating that "[t]he Earth does not have enough for the North to live better and better, but it does have enough for all of us to live well". James Hansen, Noam Chomsky, Raj Patel, Naomi Klein, The Yes Men and Dennis Kucinich hold similar views.[43][44][45][46][47][48]

In climate change mitigation, the Left is also divided over how to effectively and equitably reduce carbon emissions as the center-left often advocates a reliance on market measures such as emissions trading and a carbon tax while those further to the left support direct government regulation and intervention in the form of a Green New Deal, either alongside or instead of market mechanisms.[49][50][51]

Nationalism, anti-imperialism and anti-nationalism

[edit]
See also: Anarchism and nationalism, Anti-imperialism, Internationalism (politics), Left-wing nationalism, Proletarian internationalism, and Anti-Stalinist left

The question of nationality, imperialism and nationalism has been a central feature of political debates on the Left. During the French Revolution, nationalism was a key policy of the Republican Left.[52] The Republican Left advocated for civic nationalism[7] and argued that the nation is a "daily plebiscite" formed by the subjective "will to live together". Related to revanchism, the belligerent will to take revenge against Germany and retake control of Alsace-Lorraine, nationalism was sometimes opposed to imperialism. In the 1880s, there was a debate between leftists such as the Radical Georges Clemenceau, the Socialist Jean Jaurès and the nationalist Maurice Barrès, who argued that colonialism diverted France from liberating the "blue line of the Vosges", in reference to Alsace-Lorraine; and the "colonial lobby" such as Jules Ferry of the Moderate Republicans, Léon Gambetta of the Republicans and Eugène Etienne, the president of the Parliamentary Colonial Group. After the antisemitic Dreyfus Affair in which officer Alfred Dreyfus was falsely convicted of sedition and exiled to a penal colony in 1894 before being exonerated in 1906, nationalism in the form of Boulangism increasingly became associated with the far-right.[53]

The Marxist social class theory of proletarian internationalism asserts that members of the working class should act in solidarity with working people in other countries in pursuit of a common class interest, rather than only focusing on their own countries. Proletarian internationalism is summed up in the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!", the last line of The Communist Manifesto. Union members had learned that more members meant more bargaining power. Taken to an international level, leftists argued that workers should act in solidarity with the international proletariat in order to further increase the power of the working class. Proletarian internationalism saw itself as a deterrent against war and international conflicts, because people with a common interest are less likely to take up arms against one another, instead focusing on fighting the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. According to Marxist theory, the antonym of proletarian internationalism is bourgeois nationalism. Some Marxists, together with others on the left, view nationalism,[54] racism[55] (including antisemitism)[56] and religion as divide and conquer tactics used by the ruling classes to prevent the working class from uniting against them in solidarity with one another. Left-wing movements have often taken up anti-imperialist positions. Anarchism has developed a critique of nationalism that focuses on nationalism's role in justifying and consolidating state power and domination. Through its unifying goal, nationalism strives for centralisation (both in specific territories and in a ruling elite of individuals) while it prepares a population for capitalist exploitation. Within anarchism, this subject has been extensively discussed by Rudolf Rocker in his book titled Nationalism and Culture and by the works of Fredy Perlman such as Against His-Story, Against Leviathan and The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism.[57]

The failure of revolutions in Germany and Hungary in the 1918–1920 years ended Bolshevik hopes for an imminent world revolution and led to the promotion of the doctrine of socialism in one country by Joseph Stalin. In the first edition of his book titled Osnovy Leninizma (Foundations of Leninism, 1924), Stalin argued that revolution in one country is insufficient. By the end of that year in the second edition of the book, he argued that the "proletariat can and must build the socialist society in one country". In April 1925, Nikolai Bukharin elaborated on the issue in his brochure titled Can We Build Socialism in One Country in the Absence of the Victory of the West-European Proletariat?, whose position was adopted as state policy after Stalin's January 1926 article titled On the Issues of Leninism (К вопросам ленинизма) was published. This idea was opposed by Leon Trotsky and his supporters, who declared the need for an international "permanent revolution" and condemned Stalin for betraying the goals and ideals of the socialist revolution. Various Fourth Internationalist groups around the world who describe themselves as Trotskyist see themselves as standing in this tradition while Maoist China formally supported the theory of socialism in one country.

European social democrats strongly support Europeanism and supranational integration within the European Union, although there is a minority of nationalists and Eurosceptics on the left. Several scholars have linked this form of left-wing nationalism to the pressure generated by economic integration with other countries, often encouraged by neoliberal free trade agreements. This view is sometimes used to justify hostility towards supranational organisations. Left-wing nationalism can also refer to any form of nationalism which emphasises a leftist working-class populist agenda that seeks to overcome exploitation or oppression by other nations. Many Third World anti-colonialist movements have adopted leftist and socialist ideas. Third-Worldism is a tendency within leftist thought that regards the division between First World and Second World developed countries and Third World developing countries as being of high political importance. This tendency supports decolonisation and national liberation movements against imperialism by capitalists. Third-Worldism is closely connected with African socialism, Latin American socialism, Maoism,[58][independent source needed] pan-Africanism and pan-Arabism. Several left-wing groups in the developing world such as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in Mexico, the Abahlali baseMjondolo in South Africa and the Naxalites in India have argued that the First World and the Second World Left takes a racist and paternalistic attitude towards liberation movements in the Third World.[citation needed]

Religion

[edit]
See also: Anarchism and religion, Buddhist socialism, Christian anarchism, Christian communism, Christian left, Christian socialism, Jewish left, and Islamic socialism

The original French Left was firmly anti-clerical, strongly opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting atheism and the separation of church and state, ushering in a policy known as laïcité.[7] Karl Marx asserted that "religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".[59] In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin originally embraced an ideological principle which professed that all religion would eventually atrophy and resolved to eradicate organised Christianity and other religious institutions. In 1918, 10 Russian Orthodox hierarchs were summarily executed by a firing squad, and children were deprived of any religious education outside of the home.[60]

Today in the Western world, those on the Left generally support secularisation and the separation of church and state. However, religious beliefs have also been associated with many left-wing movements such as the progressive movement, the Social Gospel movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the anti-capital punishment movement and Liberation Theology. Early utopian socialist thinkers such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier and the Comte de Saint-Simon based their theories of socialism upon Christian principles. Other common leftist concerns such as pacifism, social justice, racial equality, human rights and the rejection of capitalism and excessive wealth can be found in the Bible.[61]

In the late 19th century, the Protestant Social Gospel movement arose in the United States which integrated progressive and socialist thought with Christianity through faith-based social activism. Other left-wing religious movements include Buddhist socialism, Jewish socialism and Islamic socialism. There have been alliances between the left and anti-war Muslims, such as the Respect Party and the Stop the War Coalition in Britain. In France, the left has been divided over moves to ban the hijab from schools, with some leftists supporting a ban based on the separation of church and state in accordance with the principle of laïcité and other leftists opposing the prohibition based on personal and religious freedom.

Social progressivism and counterculture

[edit]
See also: Counterculture, New Left, Socialism and LGBT rights, and Socialist feminism

Social progressivism is another common feature of modern leftism, particularly in the United States, where social progressives played an important role in the abolition of slavery,[62] the enshrinement of women's suffrage in the United States Constitution,[63] and the protection of civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women's rights and multiculturalism. Progressives have both advocated for alcohol prohibition legislation and worked towards its repeal in the mid to late 1920s and early 1930s. Current positions associated with social progressivism in the Western world include strong opposition to the death penalty, torture, mass surveillance, and the war on drugs, and support for abortion rights, cognitive liberty, LGBTQ rights including legal recognition of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption of children, the right to change one's legal gender, distribution of contraceptives, and public funding of embryonic stem-cell research. The desire for an expansion of social and civil liberties often overlaps that of the libertarian movement. Public education was a subject of great interest to groundbreaking social progressives such as Lester Frank Ward and John Dewey, who believed that a democratic society and system of government was practically impossible without a universal and comprehensive nationwide system of education.

Various counterculture and anti-war movements in the 1960s and 1970s were associated with the New Left. Unlike the earlier leftist focus on labour union activism and a proletarian revolution, the New Left instead adopted a broader definition of political activism commonly called social activism. The New Left in the United States is associated with the hippie movement, mass protest movements on school campuses and a broadening of focus from protesting class-based oppression to include issues such as gender, race and sexual orientation. The British New Left was an intellectually driven movement which attempted to correct the perceived errors of the Old Left. The New Left opposed prevailing authoritarian structures in society which it designated as "The Establishment" and became known as the "Anti-Establishment". The New Left did not seek to recruit industrial workers en masse, but instead concentrated on a social activist approach to organization, convinced that they could be the source for a better kind of social revolution. This view has been criticised by several Marxists, especially Trotskyists, who characterised this approach as "substitutionism" which they described as a misguided and non-Marxist belief that other groups in society could "substitute" for and "replace" the revolutionary agency of the working class.[64][65]

Many early feminists and advocates of women's rights were considered a part of the Left by their contemporaries. Feminist pioneer Mary Wollstonecraft was influenced by Thomas Paine. Many notable leftists have been strong supporters of gender equality such as Marxist philosophers and activists Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin and Alexandra Kollontai, anarchist philosophers and activists such as Virginia Bolten, Emma Goldman and Lucía Sánchez Saornil and democratic socialist philosophers and activists such as Helen Keller and Annie Besant.[66] However, Marxists such as Rosa Luxemburg,[67] Clara Zetkin,[68][69] and Alexandra Kollontai,[70][71] who are supporters of radical social equality for women and have rejected and opposed liberal feminism because they considered it to be a capitalist bourgeois ideology. Marxists were responsible for organising the first International Working Women's Day events.[72]

The women's liberation movement is closely connected to the New Left and other new social movements which openly challenged the orthodoxies of the Old Left. Socialist feminism as exemplified by the Freedom Socialist Party and Radical Women and Marxist feminism, spearheaded by Selma James, saw themselves as a part of the Left that challenges male-dominated and sexist structures within the Left. The connection between left-wing ideologies and the struggle for LGBTQ rights also has an important history. Prominent socialists who were involved in early struggles for LGBTQ rights include Edward Carpenter, Oscar Wilde, Harry Hay, Bayard Rustin and Daniel Guérin, among others. The New Left is also strongly supportive of LGBTQ rights and liberation, having been instrumental in the founding of the LGBTQ rights movement in the aftermath of the Stonewall Riots of 1969. Contemporary leftist activists and socialist countries such as Cuba are actively supportive of LGBTQ+ people and are involved in the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and equality.

History

[edit]
See also: American Left, French Left, Left–right political spectrum, and History of political thought
The 5 May 1789 opening of the Estates General of 1789 in Versailles

In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat on its right.[73] That habit began in the original French National Assembly. Throughout the 19th century, the main line dividing Left and Right was between supporters of the French republic and those of the monarchy's privileges.[7]: 2  The June Days uprising during the Second Republic was an attempt by the Left to re-assert itself after the 1848 Revolution, but only a small portion of the population supported this.

In the mid-19th century, nationalism, socialism, democracy and anti-clericalism became key features of the French Left. After Napoleon III's 1851 coup and the subsequent establishment of the Second Empire, Marxism began to rival radical republicanism and utopian socialism as a force within left-wing politics. The influential Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published amidst the wave of revolutions of 1848 across Europe, asserted that all of human history is defined by class struggle. They predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually overthrow bourgeois capitalism and create a stateless, moneyless and classless communist society. It was in this period that the word wing was appended to both Left and Right.[74]

The International Workingmen's Association (1864–1876), sometimes called the First International, brought together delegates from many different countries, with many different views about how to reach a classless and stateless society. Following a split between supporters of Marx and Mikhail Bakunin, anarchists formed the Saint-Imier International and later the International Workers' Association (IWA–AIT).[75] The Second International (1888–1916) became divided over the issue of World War I. Those who opposed the war, among them Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left.

In the United States, leftists such as social liberals, progressives and trade unionists were influenced by the works of Thomas Paine, who introduced the concept of asset-based egalitarianism which theorises that social equality is possible by a redistribution of resources. After the Reconstruction era in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the phrase "the Left" was used to describe those who supported trade unions, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.[76][77] More recently, left-wing and right-wing have often been used as synonyms for the Democratic and Republican parties, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism, respectively.[78][79][80][full citation needed][81]

During the 20th century, war resulted in a dramatic intensification of the pace of social changes, and was a crucial catalyst for the growth of left-wing politics.[82] Since the Right was populist, both in the Western and the Eastern Bloc, anything viewed as avant-garde art was called leftist across Europe, thus the identification of Picasso's Guernica as "leftist" in Europe[83][page needed] and the condemnation of the Russian composer Shostakovich's opera (The Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District) in Pravda as follows: "Here we have 'leftist' confusion instead of natural, human music".[84][page needed]

Types

[edit]

The spectrum of left-wing politics ranges from centre-left to far-left or ultra-left. The term centre-left describes a position within the political mainstream that accepts capitalism and a market economy. The terms far-left and ultra-left are used for positions that are more radical, more strongly rejecting capitalism and mainstream representative democracy, instead advocating for a socialist society based on economic democracy and direct democracy, representing economic, political and social democracy. The centre-left includes social democrats, social liberals, progressives and greens. Centre-left supporters accept market allocation of resources in a mixed economy with an empowered public sector and a thriving private sector. Centre-left policies tend to favour limited state intervention in matters pertaining to the public interest.

In several countries, the terms far-left and radical left have been associated with many varieties of anarchism, autonomism and communism. They have been used to describe groups that advocate anti-capitalism and eco-terrorism. In France, a distinction is made between the centre-left and the left represented by the Socialist Party and the French Communist Party and the far-left as represented by anarcho-communists, Maoists and Trotskyists.[85] The United States Department of Homeland Security defines "left-wing extremism" as groups that "seek to bring about change through violent revolution, rather than through established political processes".[86] Similar to far-right politics, extremist far-left politics have motivated political violence, radicalisation, genocide, terrorism, sabotage and damage to property, the formation of militant organisations, political repression, conspiracism, xenophobia, and nationalism.[87][88][89][90][91]

In China, the term Chinese New Left denotes those who oppose the economic reforms enacted by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s and 1990s, favour instead the restoration of Maoist policies and the immediate transition to a socialist economy.[92] In the Western world, the term New Left is used for social and cultural politics.

In the United Kingdom during the 1980s, the term hard left was applied to supporters of Tony Benn such as the Campaign Group and those involved in the London Labour Briefing newspaper as well as Trotskyist groups such as Militant and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty.[93] In the same period, the term soft left was applied to supporters of the British Labour Party who were perceived to be more moderate and closer to the centre, accepting Keynesianism. Under the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the Labour Party adopted the Third Way and rebranded itself as New Labour in order to promote the notion that it was less left-wing than it had been in the past to accommodate the neoliberal trend arising since the 1970s with the displacement of Keynesianism and post-war social democracy. One of the first actions of Ed Miliband, the Labour Party leader who succeeded Blair and Brown, was the rejection of the New Labour label and a promise to abandon the Third Way and turn back to the left. However, Labour's voting record in the House of Commons from 2010 to 2015 indicated that the Labour Party under Miliband had maintained the same distance from the left as it did under Blair.[94][95] In contrast, the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the Labour Party leader was viewed by scholars and political commentators as Labour turning back toward its more classical socialist roots, rejecting neoliberalism and the Third Way whilst supporting a democratic socialist society and an end to austerity measures.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Left-wing politics

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Left-wing politics denotes a range of political ideologies and movements positioned on the left of the traditional , emphasizing the pursuit of , economic redistribution, and the mitigation of class-based hierarchies through and state mechanisms. The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" originated during the , when members supporting radical reforms and the curtailment of monarchical privileges sat to the left of the presiding officer, in contrast to those defending established order on the right. Historically, left-wing thought has evolved from Enlightenment-era demands for , fraternity, and equality into diverse strains including , which tempers market economies with robust welfare provisions, and or , which seeks the overthrow of and ownership. Core tenets often include advocacy for , progressive taxation, universal public services, and interventions to address perceived systemic injustices, though empirical assessments reveal mixed outcomes: models in have correlated with high human development indices and low income disparities via high taxation and regulated markets, yet without fully supplanting capitalist incentives. In contrast, more radical implementations under communist regimes in the , , and elsewhere produced authoritarian governance, economic inefficiencies from central planning, and on a massive scale, with scholarly estimates attributing approximately 100 million deaths to repression, famines, and labor camps across the . Notable characteristics of left-wing politics include a predisposition toward challenging existing power structures and promoting egalitarian norms, with psychological studies linking left-leaning orientations to elevated traits like and , though also to authoritarian tendencies when opposing hierarchies aggressively. Controversies persist regarding causal links between expansive intervention and outcomes like reduced economic dynamism, as evidenced by correlations between left-wing and constraints on market freedoms, alongside critiques of institutional biases in academia and media that may overstate progressive successes while downplaying historical failures. Despite these, left-wing movements have driven pivotal reforms such as expanded , workers' protections, and anti-discrimination laws, shaping modern welfare states while prompting ongoing debates over balancing equity with individual liberties and empirical efficacy.

Definition and Terminology

Origins of the Left-Right Dichotomy

The left-right political dichotomy originated during the in , stemming from the physical seating arrangements in the at Versailles. King convened the Estates-General on May 5, , the first such assembly since 1614, to address France's amid debates over voting procedures—by estate or by head. Following a deadlock, the Third Estate declared itself the on June 17, 1789, vowing to draft a and asserting of the nation over feudal privileges. In the assembly hall, known as the Salle des Menus-Plaisirs, deputies positioned themselves relative to the president's chair: those on the right supported the , aristocratic privileges, and gradual reform, including many nobles and clergy aligned with the . Conversely, deputies on the left advocated for , rejection of the royal , and greater equality, primarily comprising commoners from the Third Estate who opposed inherited hierarchies. This spatial division, initially pragmatic, symbolized ideological opposition: the right prioritized order, tradition, and preservation of social structures, while the left emphasized movement, liberty, and egalitarian principles against absolutism. The terms "left" and "right" entered political lexicon directly from these positions, with "wing" later denoting extremes as factions radicalized—left toward Jacobinism and the , right toward forces. Though the original divide centered on versus absolutism, it evolved into a broader , influencing global discourse despite varying national contexts. By , during debates on the king's veto power, the labels solidified, with leftists pushing for and rightists defending executive authority.

Core Tenets and Philosophical Underpinnings

Left-wing politics fundamentally emphasizes as its defining value, positing that disparities in wealth, power, and opportunity arise from systemic injustices that require active societal correction to foster a more equitable order. This commitment manifests in tenets such as the prioritization of economic redistribution through progressive taxation and welfare provisions, aimed at mitigating class-based inequalities rather than relying solely on individual merit or market outcomes. Proponents argue that unchecked perpetuates exploitation by concentrating resources among a class, necessitating interventions like of key industries or robust labor unions to empower the . Philosophically, these tenets draw from 19th-century socialist thought, particularly Karl Marx's , which asserts that economic base structures—modes of production—determine superstructure elements like law, politics, and , driving history through class conflicts toward communal . Marx and outlined in their 1848 Communist Manifesto that capitalism's internal contradictions, including falling profit rates and worker alienation, inevitably lead to , replacing with collective control to abolish exploitation. Dialectical reasoning underpins this, viewing societal change as arising from thesis-antithesis syntheses, where contradictions propel progress from to . Broader left-wing variants incorporate Enlightenment-derived , stressing human progress via reason and institutional reform to expand freedoms and , often extending to social domains like and race through state-enforced anti-discrimination measures. Yet, remains central, rejecting idealist philosophies in favor of empirical analysis of material conditions as the causal drivers of inequality and . This framework critiques hierarchical authority as serving elite interests, advocating decentralized or democratic collectivism—ranging from social democracy's regulated markets to anarchism's abolition of the state—to realize universal justice and pluralism. Empirical support for these tenets often cites historical data, such as pre-20th-century industrial wage stagnation amid , as evidence of inherent capitalist inequities requiring systemic overhaul.

Historical Development

Enlightenment Roots and French Revolution (1789–1848)

The Enlightenment, spanning the late 17th to 18th centuries, laid intellectual foundations for left-wing politics through critiques of and advocacy for reason, individual rights, and . Thinkers such as argued for government by consent and the right to revolt against tyranny, influencing demands for constitutional limits on power. challenged religious authority and feudal privileges, promoting tolerance and merit-based governance, though he favored over mass . Montesquieu's sought to prevent despotism via balanced institutions, shaping reformist agendas. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the general will emphasized collective sovereignty and equality, radicalizing views toward direct participation and inspiring later egalitarian movements, despite his ambivalence toward representative systems. The French Revolution crystallized these ideas into political action, originating the left-right spectrum on June 13, 1789, when members supporting the king and status quo sat on the right, while reformers favoring and Third Estate privileges sat on the left. Convened on May 5, 1789, amid fiscal crisis from wars and inequality—where the and evaded taxes while peasants bore burdens—the Estates General saw the Third Estate declare a on June 17, vowing in the on June 20 to draft a . The on July 14 symbolized popular uprising, leading to the abolition of on August 4 and the Declaration of the and of the Citizen on August 26, proclaiming liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression as natural rights. Radicalization intensified with the left-wing , who dominated from 1792, executing King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793, and establishing the First French Republic. Under Maximilien Robespierre's from September 1793 to July 1794, the executed approximately 16,594 people by via official tribunals, with total deaths exceeding 40,000 from related violence, targeting perceived enemies in a spiral of purges justified by defense against counterrevolution and war. This period highlighted tensions in left-wing : promises of fraternity devolved into authoritarian enforcement, economic controls via the Law of the Maximum (September 1793) failed to curb inflation, and fueled internal revolts like the Vendée uprising, killing up to 250,000. The on July 27-28, 1794, ousted Robespierre, shifting toward moderate Directory rule until Bonaparte's 1799 coup. From 1815 Bourbon Restoration through 1848, left-wing currents persisted in opposition to monarchical revival, blending liberal constitutionalism with emerging socialist critiques. The of 1830 overthrew Charles X's absolutist tendencies, installing Louis-Philippe's , which enfranchised only 0.25% of the population via high property qualifications, alienating radicals. Utopian socialists like and Claude proposed communities to address industrial pauperization, influencing 1848 demands. The of 1848 toppled Louis-Philippe amid and banquet campaign protests, establishing the Second Republic with universal male for 9 million voters and a including socialists like , who advocated national workshops for employment—though implementation collapsed into June Days clashes, killing 4,000 and underscoring class fractures within left-wing coalitions. These events entrenched left-wing politics as favoring expanded rights, , and state intervention against privilege, yet revealed causal pitfalls: revolutionary fervor often yielded instability and violence rather than sustained equality.

Rise of Socialism and Labor Movements (1848–1914)

The across Europe, triggered by economic distress from the 1846-1847 potato famine and broader agrarian crises alongside rapid industrialization, fused demands for liberal reforms, national unification, and early socialist ideals against monarchical and aristocratic dominance. In , the overthrew King Louis Philippe, establishing a that briefly enacted socialist-inspired measures like national workshops for the unemployed, though these collapsed amid June Days uprisings where 4,000-5,000 workers died in clashes with the bourgeoisie-backed . Similar unrest in German states, the , and Italian principalities highlighted proletarian grievances over factory conditions—12-16 hour workdays, child labor, and subsistence wages—but most revolts failed due to divisions between bourgeois liberals and radical workers, with restorations by 1849 reinforcing conservative order while fostering . Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in February 1848 for the Communist League, articulating a materialist analysis of history as class struggle culminating in proletarian revolution to abolish private property and establish a classless society. Though initial circulation was limited to about 500 copies amid the upheavals, it synthesized earlier utopian socialist critiques of capitalism's inequalities—evident in Engels' observations of Manchester's slums—with a call for workers to unite internationally, influencing subsequent agitators despite Marx's own assessment that the revolutions exposed bourgeois limitations rather than immediate proletarian readiness. The Manifesto's emphasis on inevitable capitalist collapse due to falling profit rates and overproduction resonated with empirical trends like Britain's 1840s factory output doubling while real wages stagnated for many, though its predictions of imminent revolution proved overstated as capitalism adapted via expansions in trade and imperialism. Labor movements coalesced through trade unions addressing concrete exploitation, as Europe's urban workforce swelled from 10-20% of populations in 1850 to over 30% by 1900, with unions in Britain forming "New Model" craft organizations like the Amalgamated Society of Engineers in 1851 to negotiate wages and hours via strikes rather than revolution. In , the Socialist Workers' Party (later Social Democratic Party, SPD) merged in 1875 from Ferdinand Lassalle's reformist and August Bebel's Marxist Eisenachers, growing to 1.1 million members by 1912 despite Bismarck's 1878-1890 banning their activities, which instead galvanized underground organizing and electoral gains to 34.7% of the vote in 1912. French socialists fragmented post-Commune (, where 20,000 were executed) but unified under ' Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière by 1905, while Belgian and Dutch parties emerged similarly, reflecting causal links between displacing artisans and demands for state intervention. The First International (International Workingmen's Association), founded on September 28, 1864, in by 2,000 workers including Marx, sought to coordinate national movements against divisions like the 1863 Polish uprising's national vs. class tensions, achieving early successes in advocating the eight-hour day and opposing strikes-breaking by scabs. Internal rifts—Marxists favoring political parties versus anarchists like prioritizing —led to its 1872 Hague Congress split and 1876 dissolution, yet it demonstrated labor's transnational potential amid events like Britain's 1860s cotton famine strikes and France's 1871 . By 1914, socialist parties held 25-35% parliamentary seats in , with union membership reaching 4 million in Britain alone during the 1910-1914 "Great Unrest" of 1,100 strikes involving 10 million workdays lost, signaling matured organizational power rooted in verifiable industrial pauperization rather than abstract alone.

Bolshevik Revolution and Interwar Divergences (1917–1939)

The , led by , seized power in Petrograd on November 6–8, 1917 (October 24–25 on the ), overthrowing the amid widespread discontent from losses, economic collapse, and peasant land seizures. This established soviet rule, with the consolidating control through decrees nationalizing industry, banks, and land, though initial implementation faced resistance from moderate socialists and liberals who favored a . The ensuing (1918–1920) pitted the against White forces and foreign interventions, resulting in Bolshevik victory by 1921 but at the cost of up to 10 million deaths from combat, famine, and disease, alongside the Red Terror's extrajudicial executions estimated at 50,000–200,000. Following Lenin's death in January 1924, a power struggle emerged between , who advocated "" to prioritize Soviet industrialization over immediate global revolution, and , who pushed for through international uprisings. , leveraging his control over party bureaucracy, outmaneuvered by allying with figures like and before turning on them; was expelled from the in 1927 and exiled from the USSR in 1929. Under , the (NEP) of limited market reforms from 1921 gave way to forced collectivization by 1929, which dismantled private farming and triggered the famine in (1932–1933), killing approximately 3.9 million through direct starvation and related causes amid grain requisitions exceeding harvests. These policies, aimed at rapid growth via Five-Year Plans, achieved output targets—steel production rose from 4 million tons in 1928 to 18 million by 1938—but relied on coerced labor and purges, exposing the Bolshevik model's prioritization of state control over individual incentives and leading to inefficiencies like agricultural output stagnation. Internationally, the (Comintern), founded in March 1919 to coordinate global proletarian revolutions, deepened divergences within left-wing movements by insisting on Bolshevik-style vanguard parties and condemning reformist socialists as betrayers of the class struggle. This split manifested in the formation of separate communist parties from social democratic ones post-1917, with communists viewing social democrats as "social fascists" during the early 1930s, refusing cooperation against rising authoritarian regimes like , where the German Communist Party's opposition to the Social Democratic Party (SPD) facilitated Hitler's 1933 ascent despite combined votes exceeding the Nazis in 1932 elections. By 1935, reversed course with the Comintern's policy, urging alliances against fascism, but underlying tensions persisted, as seen in the (1936–1939), where Republican forces—comprising anarchists, socialists, communists, and liberals—fractured internally over Soviet aid conditions, with Stalinist forces suppressing Trotskyist and anarchist militias in events like the 1937 Barcelona May Days, contributing to the Nationalists' victory under . These interwar developments highlighted a core divergence: revolutionary communism, tethered to the Soviet model of centralized terror and isolationist buildup, contrasted with social democracy's embrace of parliamentary reform, welfare states, and anti-revolutionary gradualism, as exemplified by the SPD's resistance to Bolshevism and successes in Nordic countries like Sweden, where the Social Democrats implemented mixed economies without dictatorship. The Soviet experience, while inspiring militants in colonial and industrializing regions, underscored causal limits of utopian collectivism—empirical data from famines and purges revealed how suppressing market signals and dissent eroded productive capacity, prompting some left-wing thinkers to prioritize pragmatic reforms over doctrinal purity, though communist orthodoxy dominated radical fringes amid fascism's threat.

Post-WWII Expansion, Cold War, and Collapse (1945–1991)

In the aftermath of , social democratic movements in capitalized on wartime consensus and electoral victories to construct expansive welfare states, emphasizing state intervention, universal , and labor protections. The British Labour Party, under , won the 1945 election and enacted the in 1948 alongside of key industries like and railways, drawing on the 1942 Beveridge Report's blueprint for cradle-to-grave security. Similar expansions occurred in , where Norway's Labour Party from 1945 built universal healthcare, pensions, and education systems, achieving near-full employment by the 1960s through Keynesian policies and resource revenues. These models prioritized economic redistribution and of labor, with public spending on welfare rising to 20-30% of GDP in countries like by the 1970s, though sustained by robust growth rather than pure collectivism. In contrast, left-wing politics in the United States faced via McCarthyism, limiting expansion beyond legacies amid anti-communist fervor. The Soviet Union's dominance in post-1945 imposed one-party communist rule across the region, solidifying the by 1949 through mechanisms including coerced coalitions, purges, and the 1947-1948 . Regimes in , , , and adopted centralized planning, collectivized agriculture, and suppression of dissent, resulting in Stalinist terror that claimed millions of lives via executions, gulags, and famines, with estimates of 20 million excess deaths under Soviet control from 1945-1953. This expansion extended globally during the , as communist victories in (1949), (1948), and (1959) created allied states, while proxy conflicts in Korea (1950-1953) and amplified ideological export, with Soviet aid fueling insurgencies in over 20 countries by the 1970s. abuses were systemic, including the 1956 Hungarian uprising's crushing (killing 2,500) and Romania's Ceaușescu-era surveillance state, where dissenters faced and forced labor, underscoring the causal link between authoritarian centralization and repression rather than mere external pressures. The intensified left-right divides, with the U.S.-led strategy—via the 1947 and (1949)—countering Soviet-led (1955) expansion, amid an that diverted 15-20% of Soviet GDP to military spending by the . In the West, the "" emerged in the as a cultural counter-movement, rejecting old-guard for , anti-Vietnam protests, and identity-based activism, influencing events like the 1968 global student upheavals and U.S. civil rights gains, though often fracturing over tactics like violence in groups such as the . Eastern bloc economies stagnated due to misallocation in command systems, with Soviet growth plummeting from 5-6% annually in the to under 1% by 1985, exacerbated by oil price crashes (from $35/barrel in 1980 to $10 in 1986) and inefficiencies like chronic shortages, rendering reforms under Gorbachev (1985) insufficient to avert fiscal collapse. By the late 1980s, nationalist revolts and economic implosion triggered the Eastern Bloc's unraveling: Poland's movement forced semi-free elections in 1989, the fell on , 1989, and Revolutions toppled regimes across the region without widespread violence. The Soviet Union's dissolution culminated on December 25, 1991, after a failed coup against Gorbachev eroded central authority, with republics declaring independence amid a 20% GNP drop from 1989-1991 and , validating critiques of unsustainable collectivism over market incentives. This collapse discredited revolutionary empirically, as GDP in former Soviet states lagged Western levels by factors of 3-5 even decades later, while social democracies adapted via market liberalization to avert similar fates.

Neoliberal Era and Contemporary Shifts (1991–Present)

The on December 26, 1991, discredited centralized socialist models for many left-wing movements, prompting a pivot toward pragmatic adaptations within liberal democratic frameworks. Social democratic parties in and largely abandoned rhetoric, integrating market-oriented reforms with residual welfare commitments under the banner of the Third Way. In the , Tony Blair's secured a in the 1997 general election with 418 seats, implementing policies like the and bank independence while endorsing private-public partnerships and light-touch financial regulation. Similarly, Bill Clinton's administration in the United States from 1993 to 2001 pursued via the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which imposed work requirements and time limits on benefits, alongside NAFTA's ratification in 1993 to advance . These shifts reflected accommodations to and fiscal constraints post-Cold War, though critics on the left contended they diluted egalitarian goals by prioritizing competitiveness over redistribution. The 2008 global financial crisis, triggered by the U.S. subprime mortgage collapse and ' bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, reinvigorated left-wing critiques of neoliberal deregulation, with unemployment peaking at 10% in the U.S. by October 2009 and sparking movements like in September 2011. This event fueled anti-austerity protests across Europe, including Greece's 2010-2012 mobilizations against EU-IMF bailouts that imposed spending cuts, yet several left-leaning governments paradoxically adopted conservative fiscal measures amid market pressures, contributing to their electoral setbacks. In response, democratic socialist currents surged in the 2010s: garnered 43% of delegates in the 2016 Democratic primaries, advocating Medicare for All and a $15 , while won the UK Labour leadership on September 12, 2015, with 59.5% of votes on a platform of nationalizing utilities and scrapping tuition fees. However, these insurgencies faced reversals; Corbyn's Labour secured only 32.1% of the vote in the December 2019 election, its worst result since 1935, amid divisions over and economic credibility concerns. European social democratic parties experienced pronounced electoral erosion from the 1990s onward, with average vote shares in declining from approximately 35% in the early 1990s to under 25% by the late 2010s, exemplified by Greece's plummeting from 43.9% in 2009 to 4.7% in 2015 amid the . This "Pasokification" stemmed partly from rightward policy drifts under high inequality, alienating core working-class bases to radical right and left alternatives, as well as competition from green parties on . Left-wing responses to neoliberal emphasized opposition to trade liberalization, as seen in the involving labor unions and environmentalists blocking multilateral talks, but such resistance often fragmented into localized actions rather than cohesive alternatives. Concurrently, a marked shift toward identity-based emerged in the , prioritizing issues like racial equity and gender norms over class solidarity; for instance, U.S. Democratic platforms post-2016 increasingly framed policy through intersectional lenses, correlating with working-class voter defections in states during the 2016 election. This cultural turn, while energizing urban professionals, has been linked to broader left electoral underperformance, as identity frameworks struggled to address material grievances amid stagnant wages—U.S. real median household income rose only 4.5% from 2000 to 2020 despite productivity gains. Recent developments, including backlash evident in the 2024 U.S. election where progressive cultural stances alienated swing demographics, signal potential recalibrations toward economic .

Ideological Foundations

Economic Collectivism vs. Market Realities

Left-wing economic collectivism posits that centralized and planning can efficiently allocate resources to achieve equity and societal needs, often rejecting in productive assets as a source of inequality. This approach underpins variants from to , emphasizing collective control over to supplant market mechanisms. However, market realities reveal inherent flaws: without private ownership and competitive , economic becomes impossible, as prices serve as signals for , preferences, and efficient resource use—information dispersed across millions of individuals that no central planner can aggregate. argued in 1920 that lacks a rational basis for valuing capital goods, leading to arbitrary allocations and waste, a Friedrich Hayek extended by highlighting the "knowledge problem," where planners cannot replicate the of markets driven by individual incentives and local knowledge. Historical implementations of collectivism demonstrate these theoretical shortcomings through systemic inefficiencies and crises. In the , forced collectivization of agriculture from 1928 resulted in the famine of 1932–1933, killing an estimated 3.5 to 5 million in alone due to distorted incentives that discouraged production and hoarding by peasants facing state requisitions without market prices. Industrial planning under prioritized quotas over consumer goods, yielding chronic shortages and black markets by the 1980s, contributing to the USSR's with annual GDP growth averaging under 2% from 1970–1989 compared to over 3% in the U.S. Venezuela's "Bolivarian socialism" under and , initiated with nationalizations from 2007, exemplifies modern failure: oil-dependent policies ignored diversification, leading to GDP contraction of over 75% from 2013 to 2021, peaking at 1.7 million percent in 2018, and mass of 7 million people amid shortages of basics like and medicine. These outcomes stem from suppressing price signals and profit motives, which erode productivity as producers lack incentives to innovate or conserve resources. Empirical cross-country data underscores market economies' superior performance in fostering growth and prosperity. Liberal market-oriented nations, with strong property rights and minimal intervention, achieve GDP per capita averaging $63,588, eight times higher than the $7,716 in socialist countries as of 2023, reflecting sustained and absent in collectivist systems. Comparisons like (collectivist GDP per capita ~1,300)versus[SouthKorea](/page/SouthKorea)(market−driven 1,300) versus [South Korea](/page/South_Korea) (market-driven ~35,000 in 2023) illustrate divergent paths post-1953 division, with the latter's export-led growth lifting millions from through competitive incentives. Even reformed socialist states like , post-1978 market liberalization, saw GDP growth exceed 9% annually for decades, reducing from 88% to near zero by 2018—gains attributable to introducing private enterprise rather than pure . Collectivism's disregard for these realities—human responsiveness to incentives, entrepreneurial discovery, and decentralized coordination—consistently yields lower output, technological lag, and dependency on , as evidenced by repeated policy reversals toward markets in formerly collectivist regimes.

Social Egalitarianism and Cultural Interventions

Left-wing social emphasizes the reduction of disparities in , opportunities, and outcomes across groups defined by race, , ethnicity, or other identities, often extending beyond formal legal equality to pursue through state or institutional mechanisms. This approach views persistent social hierarchies as products of systemic requiring proactive remedies, such as preferential treatment for underrepresented groups, rather than reliance on meritocratic processes alone. Proponents argue that such measures counteract historical injustices, as seen in policies like the U.S. , which prohibited discrimination but laid groundwork for subsequent programs aimed at balancing representation in and . Cultural interventions form a core strategy for achieving social , involving efforts to reshape societal norms, , media, and to prioritize inclusivity and challenge traditional hierarchies. In practice, these include reforms emphasizing identity-based narratives of , public funding for promoting progressive themes, and media regulations to enforce diverse representation, as exemplified by Venezuela's cultural policies under from 1999 onward, which subsidized leftist artistic productions to foster egalitarian consciousness. In Western contexts, initiatives like mandatory in corporations and universities seek to instill anti-bias attitudes, with surveys indicating that 38% of U.S. workers participated in such DEI programs in 2022, though hundreds of studies since show they fail to significantly reduce or boost diversity outcomes. Empirical assessments of these interventions reveal mixed results, often highlighting trade-offs between representation gains and efficiency losses. Gender quotas on corporate boards, implemented in countries like since 2003, have increased female representation to over 40% by 2010 but yielded neutral or negative effects on firm performance metrics such as profitability and stock returns, according to systematic reviews of quota-adopting firms. Similarly, affirmative action in U.S. higher education has been linked to mismatch effects, where beneficiaries admitted to selective institutions under racial preferences experience higher dropout rates and lower graduation success compared to attendance at better-matched schools, as evidenced by analyses of data showing reduced bar passage for mismatched minority students. These findings suggest that while interventions boost short-term diversity statistics, they may undermine long-term individual outcomes by prioritizing group equity over personalized fit, a pattern consistent across multiple studies despite methodological debates. Critics, drawing on outcome data, contend that cultural overlooks innate differences in abilities or preferences, potentially fostering or inefficiency, as younger left-leaning individuals show higher support (63% among those under 25) for disciplinary measures against viewpoint dissent to enforce inclusive norms. In socialist regimes, such as the ’s cultural purges from the 1930s, egalitarian rhetoric justified suppressing non-conforming art, illustrating how interventions can evolve into coercive uniformity rather than genuine pluralism. Overall, while left-wing approaches have advanced formal inclusivity in metrics like board composition, causal analyses indicate limited causal impact on broader social cohesion or mobility, with persistent gaps attributable more to behavioral factors than remediable structures.

Anti-Hierarchy Stance and Views on Authority

Left-wing ideologies typically critique hierarchical structures as mechanisms of exploitation and inequality, rooted in divisions of class, wealth, and power that favor elites over the masses. This perspective holds that authority in capitalist or traditional societies serves to maintain dominance by the bourgeoisie or aristocracy, necessitating their dismantlement to achieve genuine equality. For instance, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued in The Communist Manifesto (1848) that history is driven by class struggles against such hierarchies, with the proletariat destined to overthrow them for a stateless, classless society. While professing anti-hierarchical , Marxist variants accept provisional during the transition to . Engels, in "On Authority" (1872), contended that some form of command is inevitable and beneficial in complex organizations, citing examples like a factory's division of labor or a ship's captaincy, where uncoordinated equality would lead to inefficiency or disaster; he dismissed absolute anti-authoritarianism as utopian, targeting Mikhail Bakunin's specifically. This reflects a pragmatic view: is not inherently evil but must align with collective proletarian interests, as in the "" to suppress counter-revolutionaries. Anarchist strains within the left, however, reject all coercive authority outright, viewing the state and even temporary hierarchies as perpetuating domination. Thinkers like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin advocated mutual aid and federated, voluntary associations to replace top-down structures, emphasizing that any centralized power corrupts and undermines workers' self-management. This purist anti-hierarchism influenced movements like the Spanish CNT during the 1936–1939 Civil War, where collectives briefly operated without bosses, though external pressures and internal factionalism limited longevity. In practice, left-wing efforts to eradicate hierarchies have often engendered new, rigid ones, contradicting theoretical ideals. Soviet implementation under Lenin and centralized authority in the , creating a bureaucratic elite () that wielded unchecked power, with purges eliminating 700,000 perceived threats by 1938 alone, far from egalitarian flattening. Similarly, Maoist China’s (1966–1976) aimed to purge "old hierarchies" but devolved into factional violence and a personality cult, resulting in 1–2 million deaths. These outcomes suggest that enforcing anti-hierarchical equality via state mechanisms incentivizes authoritarian consolidation, as power vacuums invite control. Contemporary psychological research identifies "left-wing authoritarianism" (LWA), characterized by aggressive opposition to perceived hierarchies like or , yet willingness to impose dogmatic conformity through cancellation or state intervention. Unlike right-wing variants that defend status quos, LWA seeks to "invert" hierarchies, correlating with traits like and reduced in studies of over 7,000 participants. This dynamic persists despite institutional biases in academia and media, which historically underemphasize LWA compared to right-wing forms, as evidenced by delayed recognition until post-2016 . Empirical data from global databases show left-associated less lethal than right- or Islamist variants but still disruptive, often targeting symbols of like police or corporations.

Major Variants

Communism and Revolutionary Marxism

Communism, as theorized by and , envisions a achieved through the revolutionary overthrow of , where the seizes control of the to eliminate exploitation and ownership. Central to this framework is , which interprets societal development as driven by material economic conditions and class antagonisms rather than ideas or individual agency, positing that contradictions within —such as falling profit rates and worker immiseration—would inevitably lead to its collapse. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 outlined ten immediate measures for proletarian power, including centralization of credit in state hands, heavy progressive taxation, and abolition of inheritance, as transitional steps toward communal ownership. Revolutionary Marxism distinguishes itself from reformist strands like by rejecting parliamentary gradualism in favor of violent insurrection to dismantle the bourgeois state, which Marx viewed as an instrument of class domination incapable of self-reform. Marx and Engels argued that the —a temporary coercive phase—would suppress counter-revolution and facilitate the transition to , after which the state would "wither away" into a stateless communist order. This revolutionary imperative stemmed from the belief that capitalism's resilience required extra-legal force, as evidenced in Engels' emphasis on armed uprising in works like . Vladimir Lenin's Bolshevik adaptation in early 20th-century extended revolutionary by introducing the concept of a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries to lead the masses, compensating for 's underdeveloped industrial contrary to Marx's expectation of revolution in advanced economies like or Britain. Lenin's State and (1917) reaffirmed the need for smashing the bourgeois state apparatus while adapting Marxist dialectics to imperial "weakest links," culminating in the that established Soviet power. However, empirical divergences from Marxist predictions—such as the persistence of state coercion rather than its withering and the failure of global proletarian uprisings—highlighted causal disconnects between theory and historical outcomes, as centralized planning engendered shortages and authoritarian consolidation rather than abundance. Subsequent Marxist revolutionaries, including Leon Trotsky's advocacy for to export upheaval internationally and Mao Zedong's peasant-based variant in , maintained the core commitment to forcible expropriation but grappled with adapting urban-centric theory to agrarian contexts, often resulting in intensified class warfare and purges. These strains prioritized ideological purity over pragmatic concessions, critiqued by observers for underestimating human incentives under collectivism, where the absence of market prices obscured , leading to inefficiencies unobserved in Marx's abstract models. Despite professed internationalism, revolutionary frequently devolved into national bureaucratic elites wielding power, contradicting the stateless .

Social Democracy and Reformist Approaches

Social democracy emerged as a reformist strand within left-wing politics in the late , advocating the achievement of socialist goals through gradual, democratic reforms rather than revolutionary upheaval. Pioneered by , a German Social Democratic Party (SPD) theorist, it challenged by arguing that capitalism's predicted collapse was not inevitable and that parliamentary means could incrementally expand worker protections, public ownership in key sectors, and social welfare. Bernstein's 1899 work The Preconditions of Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy posited that evolutionary adaptation, including acceptance of markets under regulation, would foster greater equality than violent seizure of power. Unlike revolutionary socialism, which seeks proletarian dictatorship and abolition of , social democracy operates within liberal democratic frameworks, endorsing a where private enterprise generates wealth redistributed via progressive taxation, universal healthcare, , and . Core principles include strong labor unions for , state intervention to mitigate market failures, and policies promoting social solidarity, such as family allowances and pension systems. This approach views as reformable, not inherently doomed, prioritizing pragmatic gains like reduced income inequality over doctrinal purity. Historically, gained prominence post-World War II in , where parties like Sweden's Social Democrats, in power from 1932 to 1976 (with interruptions), implemented expansive welfare states funded by high taxes on growing economies. The , developed in the 1930s under social democratic leadership in , , and , exemplifies this through corporatist wage bargaining, generous social safety nets, and public investment in , yielding low rates—Sweden's at 0.5% in 2020 per data—and high life expectancies averaging 82 years. These outcomes stemmed from small, ethnically homogeneous populations, resource advantages like Norway's oil revenues (comprising 20% of GDP by 2010), and export-oriented , not pure collectivism. Empirically, social democratic policies have correlated with superior human development indices; ranked top in the UN's 2022 for education and health metrics, with Gini coefficients below 0.28 indicating lower inequality than the average of 0.31. However, sustainability challenges arose from fiscal burdens—Sweden's public spending reached 60% of GDP by the , precipitating a banking with 10% —and globalization's pressures, prompting market-oriented reforms like under center-right governments. Critics, including economic analyses, note that without capitalist (Nordic private sectors contribute 70-80% of GDP), welfare expansions risked stagnation, as seen in Sweden's GDP contraction of 5%. Recent electoral declines, with social democrats losing ground in (2019 election) and (2022), reflect voter shifts amid strains and welfare costs exceeding 25% of budgets for non-citizens in some cases.

Progressivism, Identity Politics, and Cultural Radicalism

Progressivism in its contemporary form represents a variant of left-wing politics that prioritizes state-driven reforms to address perceived social injustices, often extending beyond economic redistribution to encompass cultural and institutional changes. Originating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a response to industrialization's excesses—such as urban and —modern , as seen in figures like U.S. Senator , advocates for policies including universal healthcare, student debt forgiveness, and aggressive climate interventions, framing them as moral imperatives for equity. This shift reflects a departure from historical progressivism's focus on efficiency and toward a more ideologically driven agenda, where government expansion is justified as enabling human potential fulfillment, though critics argue it undermines individual liberty by redefining freedom through collective outcomes. Identity politics, a core element intertwined with , organizes political action around group-based identities such as race, , and sexuality, emphasizing shared experiences of marginalization over universal class interests. The term gained prominence with the 1977 statement by black feminist activists, who argued that traditional leftist movements overlooked intersecting oppressions faced by women of color, thus necessitating identity-specific advocacy. Key features include demands for representation quotas, reparative policies like —implemented in U.S. federal contracting since 1965—and cultural recognition of grievances, as theorized in Kimberlé Crenshaw's 1989 concept of . Empirical studies indicate that such approaches can distort policy evaluations, with individuals prioritizing group loyalty over evidence-based assessments, potentially exacerbating polarization; for instance, research shows identity-driven beliefs lead to biased perceptions of issues like immigration's societal impacts. While proponents credit with advancing visibility for underrepresented groups, as in increased minority post- civil rights era, detractors from sources like highlight its role in fragmenting broader coalitions, tracing origins to responses to urban unrest rather than organic evolution. Cultural radicalism complements these by challenging entrenched norms in family structures, education, and media, often through deconstruction of traditional authority and promotion of alternative lifestyles. Emerging prominently in the movements, such as U.S. campus protests against the and sexual liberation campaigns, it sought to dismantle hierarchical institutions viewed as perpetuating oppression, influencing policies like laws adopted across U.S. states by the 1980s. In modern iterations, it manifests in efforts to revise curricula for (DEI) initiatives, with over 90% of companies adopting DEI programs by 2023, though data from conservative-leaning analyses suggest these foster viewpoint suppression rather than genuine pluralism. Associated with postmodern influences critiquing objective truth in favor of subjective narratives, cultural radicalism has been linked to rising left-wing activism, including a documented uptick in related violence since 2016, per terrorism databases tracking incidents like property destruction during 2020 urban protests. Sources from institutions like the note that while aiming to erode conservative cultural dominance, these efforts often alienate working-class voters, contributing to electoral shifts as seen in the Democratic Party's losses among non-college-educated demographics in the 2016 and 2020 U.S. elections. Together, these strands mark a pivot in left-wing politics from primarily to pursuits, prioritizing symbolic victories and institutional capture over measurable material gains. This evolution, accelerated post-1990s in Western academia—where left-leaning viewpoints dominate over 80% of faculty positions per surveys—has drawn scrutiny for sidelining causal economic analyses in favor of narrative-driven interventions, with biased sources in mainstream outlets often amplifying unverified claims of systemic without empirical counterweight. Despite achievements like expanded civil rights frameworks, outcomes include heightened social distrust, as identity-focused paradigms correlate with reduced interpersonal trust in diverse settings according to cohesion studies.

Anarchism and Libertarian Left Alternatives

Anarchism emerged as a distinct political philosophy in the mid-19th century, advocating the abolition of the state, private property in the means of production, and all forms of hierarchical authority in favor of voluntary associations and mutual aid. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who coined the term "anarchism" in 1840, proposed mutualism as an early variant, envisioning worker-owned cooperatives and labor notes as currency to facilitate exchange without capitalist exploitation or state monopoly. Mikhail Bakunin expanded this into collectivist anarchism during the 1860s and 1870s, emphasizing federated collectives distributing goods according to labor contributed, while rejecting Marxist centralization as a pathway to renewed tyranny. Peter Kropotkin, in works like Mutual Aid (1902), advanced anarcho-communism, arguing from evolutionary biology that stateless societies could thrive through free distribution based on need, drawing on historical examples of non-hierarchical cooperation. Anarcho-syndicalism, a prominent organizational form, sought to achieve these ends through revolutionary trade unions coordinating strikes and expropriations, as seen in the (CNT) founded in in 1910, which by 1936 claimed over 1 million members. Historical attempts at anarchist governance, such as the of 1871—where workers briefly seized control, abolishing and rent while implementing participatory assemblies—lasted only 72 days before suppression by French state forces, resulting in approximately 20,000 communard deaths. During the (1936–1939), anarchists and syndicalists collectivized over 3 million hectares of land and 1,500 factories in and , achieving initial productivity gains through worker councils, but these experiments collapsed amid internal factionalism, economic disorganization, and military defeats exacerbated by Soviet-backed sabotage, culminating in Franco's victory and the execution or imprisonment of tens of thousands of anarchists. These episodes highlight anarchism's empirical challenges: without coercive state mechanisms, defenses against external aggression proved inadequate, and decentralized decision-making often led to inefficiencies, such as mismatched production in Spanish collectives where output fell short of pre-war levels by 20–30% in some sectors due to lack of coordination. Libertarian left alternatives to strict anarchism encompass broader anti-authoritarian socialist traditions that tolerate limited, temporary structures for coordination while rejecting permanent states or vanguard parties, distinguishing them from state socialism's reliance on centralized planning. Libertarian socialism, as an umbrella term, includes council communism—pioneered by figures like Anton Pannekoek in the 1920s—which prioritizes workers' councils (soviets) for direct democracy over party-led revolutions, as evidenced in the 1918–1919 German council movements that briefly operated factories and services without bourgeois or Bolshevik oversight but dissolved amid counter-revolutionary violence. Autonomism, emerging in 1960s Italy with groups like Potere Operaio, emphasizes autonomous base-level resistance and self-reduction of costs (e.g., squatting and fare-dodging), influencing the 1977 Bologna uprising where thousands occupied spaces, yet these efforts fragmented without scalable governance, leading to state crackdowns and co-optation. Left-libertarianism variants, such as mutualism's market-oriented forms, propose anti-capitalist free markets with occupancy-and-use property norms to prevent absentee ownership, but historical implementations, like 19th-century U.S. labor exchanges, failed to compete against state-subsidized capitalism, underscoring anarchism's kin's vulnerability to market dynamics without enforced equality. Unlike , which posits a transitional "" to wither away the state—a process anarchists contend inevitably entrenches , as in the Bolshevik consolidation post-1917—these libertarian left approaches prioritize immediate abolition of coercive institutions through , viewing any state apparatus as inherently recreating class rule. Empirical records show no sustained large-scale libertarian left societies; short-lived experiments consistently succumbed to external pressures or internal disputes over , with often employed to suppress , as in Spanish anarchist purges of perceived counter-revolutionaries numbering in the thousands. Proponents attribute failures to isolation and betrayal by authoritarians, yet critics from first-principles perspectives note that human incentives for free-riding and in uncoerced systems undermine scalability, a pattern evident across cases where voluntary participation eroded under scarcity. Modern iterations persist in small-scale affinity groups, intentional communities like the U.S. communes (over 3,000 established, most dissolving within five years due to interpersonal conflicts and economic unsustainability), and movements such as the Zapatistas in since 1994, which blend indigenous autonomy with limited hierarchies but rely on armed defense approximating state functions.

Policy Positions

Economic Redistribution and State Intervention

Left-wing politics emphasizes economic redistribution through mechanisms such as progressive taxation, where higher-income earners face steeper tax rates to fund social programs, aiming to diminish disparities. This approach posits that market outcomes alone exacerbate inequality due to factors like inherited and bargaining power imbalances, necessitating state action to reallocate resources toward lower- groups. Empirical analyses indicate that greater progressivity in taxes correlates with reduced income inequality, as measured by Gini coefficients, across various countries. However, the impact on overall remains debated, with models suggesting potential tradeoffs where redistribution mildly boosts short-term equality but may constrain long-term investment if tax burdens deter productivity. State intervention in left-wing frameworks extends beyond taxation to include direct involvement, such as subsidies, , of industries, and centralized planning, intended to prioritize social welfare over profit motives. Proponents argue these measures correct market failures, like monopolies or externalities, and ensure equitable access to essentials like healthcare and . In practice, expansive welfare states have demonstrably lowered rates; for instance, U.S. programs reduced the number of people below the poverty line by nearly 37 million in 2018, including millions of children, through transfers like food assistance and credits. Similarly, assistance lifted 45.4 million out of in 2021 under expanded supplemental measures. Yet, critics highlight efficiency losses, as redistribution can distort incentives by reducing the rewards for effort and , potentially fostering dependency and lowering labor participation. While moderate interventions in mixed economies, such as those in , have sustained high living standards alongside redistribution—evidenced by low post-tax rates—these successes often rely on robust private sectors rather than pure state control. Extreme applications, like comprehensive nationalizations in historical socialist experiments, have yielded inefficiencies, including misallocation and stagnation, underscoring causal risks from overriding signals. Empirical reviews find no consistent that typical redistribution harms growth on average, but high levels can amplify deadweight losses through behavioral responses like reduced work hours among high earners. Thus, left-wing policies in this domain balance equality gains against potential efficiency costs, with outcomes varying by implementation scale and complementary market freedoms.

Social Progressivism and Identity-Based Reforms


Left-wing social advocates for reforms that challenge traditional social hierarchies, emphasizing equality across identities such as race, , and through policies like expanded civil protections and anti-discrimination laws. This includes strong support for legalizing , which advanced in the United States following cultural shifts and judicial decisions aligning with progressive priorities. Proponents argue these measures rectify historical exclusions, though critics contend they prioritize group identities over individual merit, potentially fostering division. Identity-based reforms central to this framework involve targeted interventions, such as programs aimed at increasing representation of underrepresented racial and gender groups in and . In the U.S., such policies were implemented to address disparities stemming from past , but the ruled in June 2023 that race-conscious admissions in higher education violate the , effectively curtailing their use in college selections. Empirical assessments of these reforms often reveal mixed results, with studies indicating they can distort merit-based evaluations without proportionally closing broader socioeconomic gaps. A prominent area of focus is policies, where left-wing positions typically endorse "gender-affirming care" for individuals, including minors, encompassing social transitions, blockers, and hormones to align physical traits with self-identified . However, the 2024 Cass Review, commissioned by the UK's , systematically evaluated the evidence and found it remarkably weak, with most studies underpinning clinical guidelines rated low quality and lacking long-term data on outcomes like or regret rates. This led to recommendations for caution in prescribing interventions to youth, highlighting risks such as and issues without proven benefits over psychological alternatives. Despite such findings, advocacy persists in many left-leaning institutions, often prioritizing affirmation over exploratory therapy. Broader reforms extend to (DEI) initiatives in workplaces and public sectors, mandating training and hiring quotas based on demographic categories. Research links heightened emphasis on these to increased and belief distortions, where group loyalty influences perceptions of efficacy more than objective . Outcomes include backlash in electoral contexts and correlations with declining mental among adherents, suggesting causal tensions between identity prioritization and societal cohesion. These policies reflect a causal view that systemic requires identity-specific remedies, yet empirical scrutiny reveals frequent overreliance on anecdotal narratives amid institutional biases favoring progressive interpretations.

Internationalism, Anti-Imperialism, and Foreign Policy

, a foundational principle of Marxist theory, posits that the shares common interests transcending national borders and must unite globally against to achieve emancipation. Originating in the with and , who established the First International in 1864 to coordinate labor movements across , this doctrine emphasized solidarity over nationalism, viewing the latter as a tool of bourgeois division. The (Comintern), founded in 1919 by , institutionalized this approach by directing revolutionary activities worldwide, subordinating national communist parties to the goal of global . Anti-imperialism emerged as a , framing as the monopolistic, highest stage of that exploits peripheral nations for , per Lenin's 1917 analysis. Left-wing movements historically mobilized against European colonial empires, supporting efforts in and post-World War II; for instance, the Bolshevik Revolution's 1917 decrees renounced tsarist conquests and aided anti-colonial nationalists. In the 20th century, Western leftists opposed U.S. interventions, such as the (1955–1975), where protests peaked with millions demonstrating globally by 1968, framing it as neo-imperial resource extraction rather than anti-communist containment. However, this stance often exhibited selectivity, with minimal equivalent criticism of Soviet expansions, including the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact enabling Eastern European occupations or the 1979 invasion, revealing a prioritization of anti-Western axes over consistent opposition to . Left-wing foreign policy typically advocates multilateral institutions like the United Nations for conflict resolution, nuclear disarmament, and aid to developing nations, contrasting unilateral military actions by powers like the U.S. Social democratic governments, such as Sweden's under Olof Palme (1969–1976, 1982–1986), pursued "active neutrality" by critiquing both superpowers while increasing development aid to 1% of GNP by 1974. Revolutionary variants, including Trotskyism, endorse aiding insurgencies against perceived imperial states, as seen in Latin American support for Cuban revolutionaries post-1959. Yet empirical outcomes highlight tensions: left-aligned regimes like Fidel Castro's Cuba exported revolution via proxies in Angola (1975–1991), contributing to prolonged civil wars with over 500,000 deaths, while decrying U.S. "imperialism." Critiques note this "campism"—uncritical alignment against the West—undermines universal human rights, as in left silence on China's 1950 Tibet annexation or USSR's 1968 Prague Spring suppression, where 108 civilians died, prioritizing geopolitical binaries over causal accountability for authoritarian overreach.

Empirical Outcomes

Claimed Achievements in Welfare and Rights

Left-wing advocates credit social democratic welfare expansions with substantial alleviation, as cross-national studies indicate that robust social-welfare policies, including transfers and services, reduce post-tax rates by 20-40% in high-income nations compared to pre-transfer levels. In , social democratic governance from the 1930s onward implemented universal healthcare, , and income support systems that lowered relative to under 10% after transfers, versus 20-25% before, fostering high and Gini coefficients of approximately 0.25. These outcomes stem from progressive taxation funding decommodification of essentials, enabling workforce participation and buffering economic shocks, though sustained by underlying market economies rather than alone. Empirical data link generosity to improved health metrics, with U.S. state-level analyses showing that higher welfare spending correlates with annual mortality reductions of 1-2% , particularly among low-income groups through expanded access to preventive care and nutrition support. Internationally, greater social expenditures in wealthy nations from 1960-2010 associated with 2-5 year gains in , independent of GDP growth, by addressing social determinants like housing stability and early childhood interventions. The Affordable Care Act's expansions in the U.S., enacted under left-leaning policy priorities, yielded a 3-6% drop in all-cause mortality in expansion states within the first few years, averting an estimated 19,000 deaths annually by 2017 via broader insurance coverage. In , left-aligned union movements secured foundational protections, including the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which banned most child labor and mandated minimum wages and overtime, reducing exploitative work conditions that previously affected 20% of children under 16 in manufacturing. Similar reforms in , driven by socialist and labor parties, established the eight-hour workday by 1919 in countries like and the , cutting weekly hours from 60-70 and enabling family time, with subsequent declines in industrial accident rates by 50% over decades due to safety regulations. These gains expanded economic rights for workers, though implementation often required compromises with capitalist structures to avoid productivity collapses. Proponents also attribute civil rights advancements to left-wing pressures, such as labor federations' post-1940s advocacy linking union organizing to anti-discrimination, which influenced U.S. policies integrating Black workers into industries previously segregated by craft unions. However, historical records show mixed union records, with exclusions of minorities persisting until federal interventions like the 1964 , which built on earlier left critiques but passed via bipartisan congressional majorities amid broader public shifts. Welfare expansions further advanced social rights by institutionalizing entitlements to subsistence, reducing absolute deprivation in democratic contexts where revolutionary alternatives faltered.

Documented Failures: Economic Collapse and Human Toll

In the , forced collectivization of agriculture under from 1928 onward dismantled private farming incentives, leading to a sharp decline in grain production and widespread famine, particularly the in during 1932–1933, which killed an estimated 3 to 7 million people through starvation and related causes as grain requisitions exceeded harvests to fund industrialization. Overall Soviet famines and purges in the 1930s contributed to tens of millions of excess deaths, with economic output disrupted by the liquidation of kulaks (prosperous peasants) and inefficient state farms that prioritized quotas over sustainability. China's , initiated by in 1958 to rapidly industrialize through communal farming and backyard steel production, resulted in the of 1959–1961, with death tolls estimated at 30 to 45 million from starvation, overwork, and policy-induced agricultural collapse as local officials falsified reports and resources were diverted from food production. The campaign's rejection of market signals in favor of ideological targets caused grain yields to plummet by up to 30% in key regions, exacerbating a humanitarian catastrophe that reduced China's population growth and left long-term scars on rural economies. In , the regime under from 1975 to 1979 implemented extreme agrarian by evacuating cities, abolishing money, and enforcing collective labor in rice fields, leading to economic disintegration and the deaths of 1.5 to 3 million people—about 25% of the population—from execution, forced labor, and amid output failures from unskilled urban workers and obsessive harvest targets. The policies' disregard for specialized and incentives halted nearly all non-agricultural production, creating acute shortages that compounded the human toll. Venezuela's adoption of "21st-century socialism" under from 1999 and from 2013 involved nationalizing , imposing , and expanding state spending, precipitating GDP contraction of over 75% from 2013 to 2021, peaking at 1.7 million percent annually in 2018, and mass emigration of 7 million people amid food and shortages that affected 90% of households. These outcomes stemmed from currency overprinting to cover deficits and expropriations that deterred , reducing production from 3.5 million barrels per day in 1998 to under 500,000 by 2020 despite vast reserves. Cuba's centrally planned economy since the 1959 revolution has sustained chronic material shortages, with average monthly wages equivalent to $30–$40 USD as of 2023 and over 80% of the population in , reliant on ration cards for basics amid proliferation due to state monopolies stifling private enterprise and innovation. Agricultural output lags despite fertile land, with production—once a global leader—falling 90% from 1990 peaks after Soviet subsidies ended, illustrating the inefficiencies of prohibiting market-driven allocation. Across these cases, historians estimate communist regimes caused 85 to 100 million deaths in the through , executions, and labor camps, far exceeding other ideologies' tolls, as central planning systematically undervalued and productivity signals, though some left-leaning scholars contest the upper figures as inflated by including indirect war deaths. The pattern underscores causal links between suppressing and price mechanisms, which eroded incentives and invited in resource distribution, yielding repeated cycles of and rather than promised equity.

Mixed Results in Democratic Contexts

In democratic settings, left-wing policies have produced measurable advancements in social welfare metrics alongside persistent economic and social challenges. For example, in the United States, aggregate data from 1929 to 2023 show annual real GDP growth averaging 3.79% under Democratic administrations compared to 2.60% under Republican ones, with job growth also higher at 2.5% versus 1.0%. Similarly, Scandinavian social democracies achieved post-World War II prosperity through expansive welfare systems, contributing to high and low income inequality, as evidenced by consistently ranking atop global indices due to strong social and public services. However, these outcomes often coincide with high burdens and fiscal pressures; Sweden's 1990s banking , triggered by overheated expansion under social democratic governance, necessitated market-oriented reforms and welfare retrenchment to restore stability. Urban progressive strongholds illustrate drawbacks in implementation. , governed by left-leaning policies emphasizing and housing regulations, reported 8,124 homeless individuals in 2022, with 73% unsheltered—a rate far exceeding national averages—linked to lenient approaches on public drug use and restrictions that limit supply amid high demand. Critics attribute exacerbated addiction and disorder to these measures, which prioritize over accountability, resulting in elevated visible despite substantial spending on services exceeding $1 billion annually in the city. In contrast, broader empirical analyses of countries reveal ideological convergence, where left- and right-wing governments yield similar results in growth, , and inequality after controlling for global trends, suggesting differences diminish in practice due to institutional constraints. These mixed results underscore trade-offs: reductions in through redistribution, as in Nordic models with Gini coefficients below 0.30, come with slower dynamism and vulnerability to external shocks. Sweden's recent rise in gang violence and populist support reflects strains from open policies paired with generous benefits, prompting partial policy reversals like tightened asylum rules in 2022. remains relatively high at 43% in Sweden's national government as of 2023, surpassing the average of 39%, yet declining labor movement influence signals eroding foundational support for expansive left-wing agendas. Overall, democratic checks mitigate extremes seen in authoritarian contexts, but left-wing emphases on state intervention frequently generate inefficiencies, such as dependency cultures and uneven , without fully resolving underlying incentives like work disincentives from universal benefits.

Criticisms and Controversies

Theoretical Critiques: Ignoring Human Incentives

Left-wing political theories, particularly those advocating centralized economic planning and extensive state redistribution, have been critiqued for underestimating the centrality of human self-interest and material incentives in driving productive behavior. Economists in the Austrian school, such as Ludwig von Mises, contended that socialism's abolition of private property eliminates the profit motive, leaving individuals without personal stakes in efficiency or innovation, thus presupposing an implausible altruism that contradicts observed human nature. In his 1920 essay and subsequent book Socialism (1922), Mises argued that without market prices formed by self-interested exchanges, rational resource allocation becomes impossible, as planners lack signals to gauge scarcity or consumer preferences, leading to misallocation regardless of intent. Friedrich Hayek extended this by emphasizing not only calculation but the dispersed, tacit knowledge embedded in individual incentives, which spontaneous market orders harness through competition and self-interest, whereas collectivist schemes impose top-down directives that ignore motivational realities. Hayek's 1945 paper "The Use of Knowledge in Society" highlighted how prices aggregate incentivized actions into usable information, a process disrupted under left-wing models that assume coordinators can substitute for millions of self-regarding decisions without distorting outcomes. These critiques posit that left-wing optimism about engineering social harmony overlooks homo economicus—the self-interested actor—resulting in theoretical blueprints for systems prone to stagnation, as workers and managers prioritize shirking or short-term gains over long-term collective productivity. Public choice theory further indicts left-wing reliance on state intervention by applying incentive analysis to itself, revealing that bureaucrats, voters, and politicians respond to personal gains rather than public welfare, fostering and agency problems amplified in expansive welfare states or planned economies. and Gordon Tullock's framework, developed in The Calculus of Consent (1962), demonstrates how constitutional rules fail to curb without market-like checks, critiquing socialist assumptions of benevolent guardianship as naive given empirical patterns of power concentration and inefficiency in non-market bureaucracies. This lens exposes how left-wing policies, by expanding government scope, inadvertently incentivize corruption and overreach, as officials maximize budgets or votes over efficiency, a dynamic underexplored in egalitarian theories that idealize state actors.

Historical Atrocities and Totalitarian Outcomes

The implementation of radical left-wing ideologies, particularly Marxist-Leninist , has historically culminated in totalitarian regimes characterized by one-party rule, state control over all aspects of life, and systematic elimination of perceived class enemies, resulting in unprecedented mass atrocities. These regimes, emerging in the , prioritized revolutionary transformation through violent means, leading to engineered famines, forced labor camps, purges, and genocides that claimed tens of millions of lives. Scholars attribute these outcomes to the ideologies' rejection of individual in favor of collective goals, enforced via and , with no mechanism for internal correction due to the suppression of . In the under (1924–1953), policies such as collectivization and triggered the famine of 1932–1933, deliberately exacerbating starvation in to crush resistance, resulting in approximately 4 million deaths there alone from engineered food shortages and export quotas. The system of forced labor camps, operational from the 1920s to the 1950s, held millions in brutal conditions, with estimates of 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths from executions, overwork, and disease by 1953. The (1936–1938) saw around 700,000 executions of political rivals, military officers, and ordinary citizens accused of activity, consolidating totalitarian control through terror. Overall, is estimated to have caused 20 million deaths through repression, famine, and war-related policies. Mao Zedong's (1949–1976) exemplified similar totalitarian dynamics, with the (1958–1962) imposing communal farming and industrial quotas that led to the deadliest in history, killing 30 to 45 million people through , , and policy-induced collapse of . The subsequent (1966–1976), aimed at purging capitalist elements, mobilized to attack intellectuals and officials, resulting in 1 to 2 million deaths from mob , suicides, and factional strife, while displacing tens of millions more. These campaigns reflected the regime's ideological drive for perpetual class struggle, enforced by a and state security apparatus, with total deaths under Mao exceeding 65 million. In Cambodia, the under (1975–1979) pursued an agrarian communist utopia by evacuating cities, abolishing money and , and executing urbanites, intellectuals, and ethnic minorities in the Killing Fields, where over 1.3 million were murdered or died from and overwork out of a population of 8 million. This radical left-wing experiment, influenced by Maoist principles, achieved near-total societal atomization through forced labor and ideological indoctrination, representing one of the highest per-capita death rates of any 20th-century regime at around 25 percent of the populace. Similar patterns appeared in other communist states, such as North Korea's purges and famines under the Kim dynasty since 1948, underscoring the totalitarian logic inherent in unchecked state power justified by egalitarian rhetoric.

Modern Pathologies: Authoritarianism, Division, and Violence

In contemporary left-wing movements, authoritarian tendencies manifest through mechanisms of social and institutional control, including widespread of dissenting voices and pressure on private entities to enforce ideological conformity. Surveys indicate that nearly 60% of Americans familiar with perceive it as a growing threat to freedom of expression, with higher education institutions frequently attempting to disinvite or disrupt speakers holding conservative or heterodox views. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression () has documented over 1,000 deplatforming incidents on U.S. campuses since 1998, many targeting right-leaning figures and accelerating in the amid progressive activism. Revelations from the , released starting in December 2022, exposed extensive coordination between federal agencies like the FBI and executives to moderate content, including suppressing the New York Post's October 2020 reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop, often aligning with Democratic priorities to limit narratives challenging left-wing positions. Identity politics, a cornerstone of modern left-wing social theory, has exacerbated societal division by prioritizing group-based grievances over shared civic principles, fostering affective polarization where individuals increasingly view political opponents through lenses of moral inferiority tied to race, , or . Research demonstrates that ideological identities drive heightened hostility toward outgroups, independent of policy disagreements, with partisans exhibiting stronger biases against those of opposing ethnoracial or ideological affiliations. A 2018 study found that exposure to ideologues without substantive issue discussion amplifies partisan animus, as social identities reinforce tribal loyalties and erode cross-group trust. This dynamic has aligned racial, religious, and ideological affiliations more tightly with Democratic partisanship since the , amplifying perceptions of existential threats from opponents and hindering consensus on issues like or public safety. Violence associated with left-wing activism has surged in recent decades, particularly through decentralized networks like Antifa and unrest tied to movements such as (BLM). The 2020 riots following George Floyd's death, often linked to BLM organizing, inflicted $1-2 billion in insured across U.S. cities—the highest in —along with at least 25 deaths and widespread arson, , and assaults in over 140 locations from May to September. Antifa-affiliated actions, characterized by opposition to perceived via direct confrontation, have included violent clashes since 2016, such as the Portland protests where federal buildings were attacked with incendiaries and officers injured; a Center for Strategic and International Studies analysis of post-9/11 identified dozens of left-wing incidents, including assaults and property destruction, though most fell short of lethal . These events, while sometimes framed as defensive against right-wing threats, empirically resulted in disproportionate harm to urban communities and small businesses, underscoring a pattern where ideological commitments override non-violent norms.

References

  1. https://www.history.com/articles/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate
  2. https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115013015
  4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rego.12494
  5. https://www.cato.org/commentary/100-years-communism-death-deprivation
  6. https://academic.oup.com/book/9859/chapter/157143833
  7. https://www.hudson.org/national-security-defense/100-years-of-communism-and-100-million-dead
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8837383/
  9. https://repository.digital.georgetown.edu/downloads/193300b3-8539-41af-bff5-add3bc6464eb
  10. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp66681.pdf
  11. https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/4807/4807.html
  12. https://billpetro.com/history-of-the-left-vs-the-right/
  13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique/article/new-conceptualization-of-the-political-left-and-right-one-dimension-multiple-domains/7AAADE3062B55DC7A201B1213263A079
  14. https://justice-everywhere.org/distribution/what-are-the-values-of-the-left/
  15. https://www.literatureandcriticism.com/fundamental-principles-of-marxism/
  16. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm
  17. https://www.orfonline.org/research/an-intellectual-history-of-modern-leftist-politics-in-the-us
  18. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-enlightenment-and-how-did-it-transform-politics
  19. https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/philosophes/
  20. https://polsci.institute/modern-political-philosophy/influential-political-thinkers-enlightenment/
  21. https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution
  22. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17299605
  23. https://guides.loc.gov/women-in-the-french-revolution/revolutions-rebellions/1789-1830-1848-timeline
  24. https://revolution.chnm.org/exhibits/show/liberty--equality--fraternity/legacies-of-the-revolution
  25. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Mizzou_Academy/AP_European_History/16%253A_The_Politics_of_the_Nineteenth_Century/16.03%253A_The_Revolutions_of_1848
  26. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=contemporary_sec16
  27. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01968581v1/document
  28. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-communist-manifesto-170-years-later/
  29. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/images-of-liberty-and-power-new-socialist-ideas-in-1848
  30. https://www.erih.net/the-dark-side-of-industrialisation/workers-misery-and-labour-movement
  31. https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/social-democratic-party-spd/
  32. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/first-international-founded
  33. https://marxist.com/theory-first-international.htm
  34. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/november-6/bolsheviks-revolt-in-russia
  35. https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Revolution
  36. https://www.britannica.com/event/Russian-Civil-War
  37. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/trotskys-struggle-against-stalin
  38. https://www.thecollector.com/leon-trotsky-joseph-stalin/
  39. https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor
  40. https://holodomor.ca/get-started/holodomor-basic-facts/
  41. https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/comintern/
  42. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/lenin-establishes-comintern
  43. https://www.britannica.com/event/Spanish-Civil-War
  44. https://origins.osu.edu/article/soviet-collapse-yeltsin-putin-gorbachev-russia
  45. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/06/02/bill-clinton-tony-blair-warning-for-progressives-00036616
  46. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/third-way-dlc-bill-clinton-tony-blair-1990s-politics/
  47. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-big-idea/
  48. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-third-way/
  49. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-the-2008-financial-crisis-fuels-todays-populist-politics
  50. https://theloop.ecpr.eu/left-wing-austerity-during-international-crises/
  51. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/dec/17/the-next-left-socialism-in-the-uk-and-the-us
  52. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13691481211044643
  53. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/decline-of-europes-social-democratic-parties/
  54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2021.1916294
  55. https://jacobin.com/2018/08/left-political-party-economists-neoliberalims-keynesianism
  56. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/identity-politics-isnt-working
  57. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/identity-politics-all-thats-left
  58. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/02/us/politics/election-2024-harris-progressives.html
  59. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-on-the-impossibility-of-economic-calculation-under-socialism
  60. https://www.mercatus.org/hayekprogram/research/books/socialist-calculation-debate-theory-history-and-contemporary-relevance
  61. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=ger
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014292189900883
  63. https://www.bu.edu/eci/files/2021/08/Comparative-Economic-Systems.pdf
  64. https://aier.org/research/venezuela-socialism-hyperinflation-and-economic-collapse/
  65. https://institutodelibertadeconomica.org/en/publications/gdp-per-capita-is-eight-times-higher-in-liberal-countries-than-in-socialist-countries/
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268015001123
  67. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
  68. https://iep.utm.edu/egalitarianism/
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/egalitarianism
  70. https://oxfordre.com/latinamericanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-353
  71. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/05/17/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace/
  72. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_diversity_programs_doomed_or_ready_for_a_revamp
  73. https://wol.iza.org/articles/gender-quotas-on-corporate-boards-of-directors/long
  74. https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/VerBruggen_Does-Affirmative-Action-Lead-to-Mismatch.pdf
  75. https://gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/123rothstein.pdf
  76. https://manhattan.institute/article/does-affirmative-action-lead-to-mismatch
  77. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-politics-of-the-culture-wars-in-contemporary-america
  78. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8040796/
  80. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
  81. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/thomas-pulliam-anarchy-against-hierarchy
  82. https://developmentalist.org/article/hierarchy-and-its-discontents/
  83. https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/09/esc_left_wing_authoritarians_psychology/campus.html
  84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x
  85. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12951
  86. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2122593119
  87. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
  88. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
  89. https://heidelblog.net/2014/02/the-ten-points-of-marxism/
  90. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kun-bela/pamphlets/1932/12.htm
  91. https://www.rbth.com/history/333616-how-did-lenin-plan-to-apply-marxism
  92. https://isreview.org/issue/72/lenins-marxism/index.html
  93. https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-socialism-collapsed-eastern-europe
  94. https://marxist.com/lenin-100-years-on.htm
  95. https://www.hoover.org/research/false-appeal-socialism
  96. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eduard-Bernstein
  97. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/birth-social-democracy
  98. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy
  99. https://broadbentinstitute.ca/about/social-democracy/
  100. https://nordics.info/show/artikel/social-democratic-parties-during-the-twentieth-century
  101. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-myth-scandinavian-socialism
  102. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/can-social-democracy-win-again/
  103. https://www.thoughtco.com/progressivism-definition-4135899
  104. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism
  105. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-american-politics
  106. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/
  107. https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/uncovering-the-origins-identity-politics
  108. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/136/4/2371/6368349
  109. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/columns/higher-ed-gamma/2024/05/30/identity-politics-pluses-and-minuses-and-continuing
  110. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-history-of-twentiethcentury-political-thought/identity-politics/87935FD2D385475FFEE81317AC3AF300
  111. https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us
  112. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-progressives-lost-their-story/
  113. https://www.aei.org/articles/why-progressives-are-making-a-mess-of-the-culture-war/
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308010520_Identity_causality_and_social_cohesion
  115. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/
  116. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-anarchism-a-history-of-libertarian-ideas-and-movements
  117. https://libcom.org/history/historical-failure-anarchism
  118. https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm
  119. https://libcom.org/article/1936-37-war-spain-exposes-anarchisms-fatal-flaws
  120. https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html
  121. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm
  122. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sheldon-richman-libertarian-left-free-market-anti-capitalism-the-unknown-ideal
  123. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2023.2208328
  124. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2013/retrieve.php?pdfid=394
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165188922002172
  126. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/economic-security-programs-cut-poverty-nearly-in-half-over-last-50
  127. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/09/government-assistance-lifts-millions-out-of-poverty.html
  128. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/rethinking-redistribution
  129. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Inefficient%2520Redistribution.pdf
  130. https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialDemocracy/comments/poeva3/what_are_some_examples_of_successful_left_wing/
  131. https://libcom.org/article/leftist-history-us-economy
  132. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2014/02/26/treating-inequality-with-redistribution-is-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease
  133. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/jep.25.4.165.pdf
  134. https://helpfulprofessor.com/left-wing-vs-right-wing/
  135. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/
  136. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12502890/
  138. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/gender-medicine-built-on-shaky-foundations-cass-review-finds
  139. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2025.2504397
  140. https://segm.org/Final-Cass-Report-2024-NHS-Response-Summary
  141. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf
  142. https://www.aaihs.org/false-choices-identity-politics-and-lessons-from-the-left/
  143. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/socf.12966
  144. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2022.2065318
  145. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adu9409
  146. https://study.com/academy/lesson/proletarian-internationalism-definition-principle.html
  147. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/marx-and-lnternationalism/
  148. https://cpusa.org/article/proletarian-internationalism/
  149. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/
  150. https://newpol.org/issue_post/internationalism-anti-imperialism-and-the-origins-of-campism/
  151. https://bylinetimes.com/2021/03/29/why-does-the-anti-imperial-left-so-often-end-up-denying-genocide/
  152. https://jacobin.com/2019/02/left-foreign-policy-internationalism-security-solidarity
  153. https://cetri.be/The-Unbearable-Manicheanism-of-the
  154. https://www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/188.pdf
  155. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33444/w33444.pdf
  156. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-and-cons.asp
  157. https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/the-nordic-exceptionalism-what-explains-why-the-nordic-countries-are-constantly-among-the-happiest-in-the-world/
  158. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8490313/
  159. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5739520/
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629619306228
  161. https://keck.usc.edu/news/medicaid-expansion-linked-to-reductions-in-mortality-according-to-usc-research/
  162. https://aflcio.org/about-us/history/labor-history-events
  163. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/eric-schickler-racial-realignment-reuel-schiller-forging-rivals-review/
  164. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/organized-labors-complicated-history-with-civil-rights/
  165. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28019/chapter/211823562
  166. https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor
  167. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/world/europe/ukraine-holodomor-famine-memorial.html
  168. https://www.britannica.com/facts/Great-Leap-Forward
  169. https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/chinas-great-leap-forward/
  170. https://www.hudson.org/node/34988
  171. https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/cambodia
  172. https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/countries/cambodia/forced-labor-and-collectivization
  173. https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-did-venezuelas-economy-collapse
  174. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/venezuela-crisis
  175. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/how-maduro-and-chavez-wrecked-venezuelas
  176. https://actualitica.com/en/politics-en/communist-utopia-in-ruins-cubas-economy-on-the-brink/
  177. https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/latin-americas-socialist-experiments-leave-devastating-trail-economic-collapse-poverty
  178. https://www.kas.de/en/web/auslandsinformationen/artikel/detail/-/content/die-vergessene-krise-in-kuba
  179. https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
  180. https://jacobin.com/2025/01/black-book-communism-courtois-history
  181. https://www.epi.org/press/new-report-finds-that-the-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidential-administrations/
  182. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/The%2520Making%2520of%2520Social%2520Democracy.pdf
  183. https://prospect.org/2022/03/18/homelessness-meets-cluelessness-shellenberger-review/
  184. https://www.heritage.org/housing/commentary/how-san-franciscos-progressive-policies-made-the-homelessness-crisis-worse
  185. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268025000291
  186. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402387808424186
  187. https://www.idea.int/news/still-top-class-swedens-democracy-global-perspective
  188. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-survey-on-drivers-of-trust-in-public-institutions-2024-results-country-notes_a8004759-en/sweden_11ca1946-en.html
  189. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/rise-of-swedish-social-democracy/E23DC4E61E896BA5C674D373B27D33B3
  190. https://www.nassauinstitute.org/the-centenary-of-ludwig-von-misess-critique-of-socialism/
  191. https://mises.org/mises-daily/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
  192. https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/the-enduring-relevance-of-mises-and-hayeks-critique-of-socialism/
  193. https://fee.org/articles/why-socialism-is-impossible/
  194. https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Public_Choice_and_Socialism.pdf
  195. https://fee.org/articles/public-choice-theory-not-the-whole-story/
  196. https://iea.org.uk/blog/%25E2%2580%2598the-left%25E2%2580%2599-and-public-choice-theory/
  197. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP23.HTM
  198. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM
  199. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-10684399
  200. https://www.thefire.org/news/national-fire-survey-cancel-culture-widely-viewed-threat-democracy-freedom
  201. https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database
  202. https://mikejohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1238
  203. https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/82/S1/866/4951269
  204. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8643655/
  205. https://iop.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/Elected_Officials_Retreat/2018/Mason_et_al-2018-Political_Psychology.pdf
  206. https://www.axios.com/2020/09/16/riots-cost-property-damage
  207. https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/we-need-congressional-investigation-the-2020-riots
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.