This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page is very confusing. For starters why is it called "Historical radicalism"? Ewlyahoocom 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This page has been written, from a British POV, on the assumption that "Radicalism=Liberalism". It states, however, that the British Labour party was formed by Radical trade-unionists. Is the Labour party a liberal party? Concerning other countries, it states that "radicals are liberals advocating the republic" (i.e. "universal" manhood suffrage). Thus, Radicals would be these liberals in favor of the Republic, that is of universal suffrage (at least for men). Concerning France, this is false. Radicals were not liberals, but Republicans, and some "red republicans" became socialists. Hence Radicals in France were far from being all "liberals", which explains why the party was named Radical-Socialist Party. The same question than for Labour posits itself: are Radical-Socialists "liberals"? So being a socialist is the same as being a liberal? Actually, if you read the history of the movement as has been written here, Radicals were in fact first Republicans, then maybe liberals, and not the reverse. It is only a modern POV reading of history which deletes Republicanism and makes it a version of liberalism. This is a respectable POV, but we should be aware of this being a POV. If I withhold any ideological judgment and concentrates myself on the historical facts hereby exposed, I see that Radicals, whether in Britain or in France, were 1/ in favor of the Republic or/and universal manhood suffrage 2/ were some sort of what we would today call a "social movement", which preceded or overlapped the emergence of the Socialism movement. Thus, it refers to the Chartists, the Luddites, and Georges Clemenceau's break with "Republican opportunist" (moderate) Léon Gambetta (Clemenceau being more to the left than Gambetta). Let's quote the "Chartist" subsection to make my point:
From 1836 working class Radicals unified around the Chartist cause of electoral reform expressed in the People's Charter drawn up by six members of Parliament and six from the London Working Men's Association (associated with Owenite Utopian socialism), which called for six points: Universal suffrage, equal-sized electoral districts, secret ballot, an end to property qualification for Parliament, pay for Members of ParlÈiament and Annual Parliaments. Chartists also expressed economic grievances, but their mass demonstrations and petitions to parliament were unsuccessful. Despite initial disagreements, after their failure their cause was taken up by the middle class Anti-Corn Law League founded by Richard Cobden and John Bright in 1839 to oppose duties on imported grain which raised the price of food and so helped landowners at the expense of ordinary people.
So, despite this being written (which seems, in my naive view, to point out at the links between Radicals and the social movement, not to say "socialism" and "utopian socialism"), radicalism is still identified with liberalism. This section, however, makes it clear that Chartists were Republicans in favor of social reforms, i.e. close to socialism and which could easily be compared to today's social-democrats. They allied themselves with the liberal Anti-Corn Law League: this alliance presuppose that the differences between themselves and liberalism. Despite this history (this is only one quote & example), Radicalism is conceived here as being a subfamily of liberalism and of having nothing to do with socialism, while Republicanism itself is dismissed as a non-existent political tradition, or at least as a subsection of liberalism. Thus, the Republic will be liberal or not be. I doubt Republicans who joined the 1848 Revolutions were of this opinion. The word and reality of Socialism is hardly ever called in here, despite its obvious presence. Probably because authors of this article tended to assimilate Socialism with communism, which is , of course, a misunderstanding (in this sense, communism may be said a subfamily of socialism, but so does anarchism, and social-democracy). Tazmaniacs 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The article does not equate radicalism with liberalism. It says that radicalism eventually became absorbed in liberalism, which is true. The Radicals in France were, by the early 20th century, a mainstream liberal party, "radical" only in their anti-clericalism, and even that was basically a closed issue by 1914. The English radicals became largely absorbed into the Liberal Party. And the economic ideas of most radicals were definitely much closer to liberalism than they were to socialism. radicals differed from socialists on economic policy (radicals mostly advocated liberal economic policies, while socialists, obviously, advocated socialist ones), while they tended to differ from liberals on constitutional issues (radicals were avowed republicans, liberals were either constitutional monarchists or opportunists, willing to tolerate either a monarchy or a republic). Beyond this, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Chartists were on the border between radicalism and socialism, I think. More mainstream radicals like John Bright and Richard Cobden most definitely held liberal economic views. But I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you express your point more concisely? john k 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are quite right, I will add, that the issue of universal suffrage is important here, and should be mentioned. A big problem with the article is its focus on Britain, I think. john k 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the origin part. It appears as a misunderstanding considering the American colonies representational efforts. The due process to continue with governmental abilities were seemingly transformed as a departing agreement of which, perhaps started in England. Newspapers and Pamphlets brought an encouragement to the colonists basing the representation of Parliaments acquisition amongst different party relations. The colonies in effort of a government, perhaps now loosing the choice to conduct an affiliating system. If history has a displayed organizational governing in the american colonies it would in relation to the King of England and other authoritative countries be in recognition to have the power to form a governing system. As we know it factions were important in the coalition of governing, governments and the association of an authoritative relationship. When recognized this is a possibility in due process. The DeLancey Faction was part of this method to a standard obligational awareness, perhaps the beginning of a forming government. We will see the progress of it through the authoritative awareness of the King of England and the procedures of a justice. Such a justice in example is the self taxation and the authority to print the currency as to the part of commerce in recommendation towards the continued trade. A freedom in due course. The study continues. David George DeLancey ( talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that this article " CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left" (Michelle Goldberg on The Nation) argues an arguably misguided offshoot of radical left-wing politics it slipping towards far right goals. I noticed there isn't much (if any) mentioning of this on wiki and this article. I wondered what editors/watchers thought about it's place on the article? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Radicalism (historical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The links "The Transatlantic 1790s: Project: Loyalists – Radical Activities" and "USA: Readers Companion to American History – Radicalism" appear to be broken. I considered removing them, but perhaps the original contributor has working links he can use to restore them?
LucasG2001 ( talk) 16:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
THIS IS A FICTITIOUS ACCOUNT OF - RADICALISM - WRITTEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PROPAGANDA OF POST 1848 LIBERALISM - THIS POLITICS IS GENERALLY ARGUED TO HAVE BEGUN IN AN ARGUMENT WHICH REJECTED BOTH REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION - RADICALS WERE RELIGIOS NOT POLITICOS IN THE 16C - RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION LED TO POLITICAL ARGUMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE AND SO CHRISTIAN CLERICAL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES ABUSING POWER WERE COMPARED UNFAVOURABLY TO JEWISH AND MUSLIM CLERICAL PRACTICES - RADICALISM WAS THE POLITICS IN THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS WHEN THE LIBERAL INDUSTRIAL ARISTOCRACY USED IT TO COERCE CONCESSIONS FROM CONSERVATIVE AGRICULTURAL ARISTOCRACY - AFTER WHICH THEY TURNED ON RADICALS AND CRUSHED THEM - THEN PRETENDED LIBERAL POLITICS TO BE AKIN TO RADICAL POLITICS TO OBTAIN THOSE VOTES
SPINOZA - IS OFTEN ARGUED TO BE THE FATHER OF RADICALISM BUT HE MERELY FORMULATED IT SUCCINCTLY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.93.240 ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
What about moving the article to "Classical radicalism"? It would be a more appropriate description of the subject and we would avoid brackets. -- Checco ( talk) 13:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Surely, "Radicalism (historical)" is an awkward name for an article, especially as there is no current radicalism or, to match the awkward name, "Radicalism (current)". This said, the article was moved by User:Mureungdowon without debate or consensus. Bold edits are fine, but, as Wikipedia:Consensus reads, "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The status quo ante is that the article was named "Classical radicalism". This discussion is much welcome, but, in the meantime, the status quo ante should be maintained. -- Checco ( talk) 21:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thus, I moved the article back to its established name (and I changed this thread's name). If anyone wants to change the article's name either to "Radicalism (historical)" or any other name, the more appropriate way should be to seek consensus in talk page first or start a Requested move (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). -- Checco ( talk) 21:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure as, in fact, the "radicalism" we are talking about is not a current ideology, but refers to a movement that was active mainly between the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. Its modern successors are social liberalism and, on some accounts, social democracy. Moreover, "classical radicalism" matches classical liberalism. Let's see how other users view the matter. If no-one comes in, you could propose a Requested move or a Request for comment (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). -- Checco ( talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I am not altogether opposed to "Radicalism (ideology)", but I surely prefer a name without brackets, the argument that "classical radicalism" matches "classical liberalism" strongly resonates in my mind and, most importantly, I would like to read comments from other users too. -- Checco ( talk) 21:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Classical radicalism be
renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Classical radicalism → ? – Radicalism (historical), Radicalism (ideology) or Radicalism – To use a more correct process for a rename, let's open this. @ Mureungdowon: @ Checco:. Please give your input at a comment. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 10:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. There's substantial opposition to "hijacking" the term Radicalism (currently redirecting to the dab page), and, noting a dislike of "classical radicalism" title, no consensus what the best one would be. No such user ( talk) 11:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Classical radicalism → Radicalism – Radicalism(=Support) or status quo(=Opposition). I want to make it more clear about the parts that are not agreed on in the above Talk. @ Dan100: @ PhotographyEdits: @ Autospark: @ Checco: Please give your input at a comment.. Mureungdowon ( talk) 11:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
"Radicalism (from French radical)" - is there a source for this? Radical was already a word in English, no? 163.1.120.19 ( talk) 05:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This page is very confusing. For starters why is it called "Historical radicalism"? Ewlyahoocom 19:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This page has been written, from a British POV, on the assumption that "Radicalism=Liberalism". It states, however, that the British Labour party was formed by Radical trade-unionists. Is the Labour party a liberal party? Concerning other countries, it states that "radicals are liberals advocating the republic" (i.e. "universal" manhood suffrage). Thus, Radicals would be these liberals in favor of the Republic, that is of universal suffrage (at least for men). Concerning France, this is false. Radicals were not liberals, but Republicans, and some "red republicans" became socialists. Hence Radicals in France were far from being all "liberals", which explains why the party was named Radical-Socialist Party. The same question than for Labour posits itself: are Radical-Socialists "liberals"? So being a socialist is the same as being a liberal? Actually, if you read the history of the movement as has been written here, Radicals were in fact first Republicans, then maybe liberals, and not the reverse. It is only a modern POV reading of history which deletes Republicanism and makes it a version of liberalism. This is a respectable POV, but we should be aware of this being a POV. If I withhold any ideological judgment and concentrates myself on the historical facts hereby exposed, I see that Radicals, whether in Britain or in France, were 1/ in favor of the Republic or/and universal manhood suffrage 2/ were some sort of what we would today call a "social movement", which preceded or overlapped the emergence of the Socialism movement. Thus, it refers to the Chartists, the Luddites, and Georges Clemenceau's break with "Republican opportunist" (moderate) Léon Gambetta (Clemenceau being more to the left than Gambetta). Let's quote the "Chartist" subsection to make my point:
From 1836 working class Radicals unified around the Chartist cause of electoral reform expressed in the People's Charter drawn up by six members of Parliament and six from the London Working Men's Association (associated with Owenite Utopian socialism), which called for six points: Universal suffrage, equal-sized electoral districts, secret ballot, an end to property qualification for Parliament, pay for Members of ParlÈiament and Annual Parliaments. Chartists also expressed economic grievances, but their mass demonstrations and petitions to parliament were unsuccessful. Despite initial disagreements, after their failure their cause was taken up by the middle class Anti-Corn Law League founded by Richard Cobden and John Bright in 1839 to oppose duties on imported grain which raised the price of food and so helped landowners at the expense of ordinary people.
So, despite this being written (which seems, in my naive view, to point out at the links between Radicals and the social movement, not to say "socialism" and "utopian socialism"), radicalism is still identified with liberalism. This section, however, makes it clear that Chartists were Republicans in favor of social reforms, i.e. close to socialism and which could easily be compared to today's social-democrats. They allied themselves with the liberal Anti-Corn Law League: this alliance presuppose that the differences between themselves and liberalism. Despite this history (this is only one quote & example), Radicalism is conceived here as being a subfamily of liberalism and of having nothing to do with socialism, while Republicanism itself is dismissed as a non-existent political tradition, or at least as a subsection of liberalism. Thus, the Republic will be liberal or not be. I doubt Republicans who joined the 1848 Revolutions were of this opinion. The word and reality of Socialism is hardly ever called in here, despite its obvious presence. Probably because authors of this article tended to assimilate Socialism with communism, which is , of course, a misunderstanding (in this sense, communism may be said a subfamily of socialism, but so does anarchism, and social-democracy). Tazmaniacs 14:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The article does not equate radicalism with liberalism. It says that radicalism eventually became absorbed in liberalism, which is true. The Radicals in France were, by the early 20th century, a mainstream liberal party, "radical" only in their anti-clericalism, and even that was basically a closed issue by 1914. The English radicals became largely absorbed into the Liberal Party. And the economic ideas of most radicals were definitely much closer to liberalism than they were to socialism. radicals differed from socialists on economic policy (radicals mostly advocated liberal economic policies, while socialists, obviously, advocated socialist ones), while they tended to differ from liberals on constitutional issues (radicals were avowed republicans, liberals were either constitutional monarchists or opportunists, willing to tolerate either a monarchy or a republic). Beyond this, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Chartists were on the border between radicalism and socialism, I think. More mainstream radicals like John Bright and Richard Cobden most definitely held liberal economic views. But I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Could you express your point more concisely? john k 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You are quite right, I will add, that the issue of universal suffrage is important here, and should be mentioned. A big problem with the article is its focus on Britain, I think. john k 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I like the origin part. It appears as a misunderstanding considering the American colonies representational efforts. The due process to continue with governmental abilities were seemingly transformed as a departing agreement of which, perhaps started in England. Newspapers and Pamphlets brought an encouragement to the colonists basing the representation of Parliaments acquisition amongst different party relations. The colonies in effort of a government, perhaps now loosing the choice to conduct an affiliating system. If history has a displayed organizational governing in the american colonies it would in relation to the King of England and other authoritative countries be in recognition to have the power to form a governing system. As we know it factions were important in the coalition of governing, governments and the association of an authoritative relationship. When recognized this is a possibility in due process. The DeLancey Faction was part of this method to a standard obligational awareness, perhaps the beginning of a forming government. We will see the progress of it through the authoritative awareness of the King of England and the procedures of a justice. Such a justice in example is the self taxation and the authority to print the currency as to the part of commerce in recommendation towards the continued trade. A freedom in due course. The study continues. David George DeLancey ( talk) 17:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that this article " CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left" (Michelle Goldberg on The Nation) argues an arguably misguided offshoot of radical left-wing politics it slipping towards far right goals. I noticed there isn't much (if any) mentioning of this on wiki and this article. I wondered what editors/watchers thought about it's place on the article? Jonjonjohny ( talk) 15:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Radicalism (historical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
The links "The Transatlantic 1790s: Project: Loyalists – Radical Activities" and "USA: Readers Companion to American History – Radicalism" appear to be broken. I considered removing them, but perhaps the original contributor has working links he can use to restore them?
LucasG2001 ( talk) 16:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
THIS IS A FICTITIOUS ACCOUNT OF - RADICALISM - WRITTEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PROPAGANDA OF POST 1848 LIBERALISM - THIS POLITICS IS GENERALLY ARGUED TO HAVE BEGUN IN AN ARGUMENT WHICH REJECTED BOTH REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION - RADICALS WERE RELIGIOS NOT POLITICOS IN THE 16C - RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION LED TO POLITICAL ARGUMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE AND SO CHRISTIAN CLERICAL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES ABUSING POWER WERE COMPARED UNFAVOURABLY TO JEWISH AND MUSLIM CLERICAL PRACTICES - RADICALISM WAS THE POLITICS IN THE 1848 REVOLUTIONS WHEN THE LIBERAL INDUSTRIAL ARISTOCRACY USED IT TO COERCE CONCESSIONS FROM CONSERVATIVE AGRICULTURAL ARISTOCRACY - AFTER WHICH THEY TURNED ON RADICALS AND CRUSHED THEM - THEN PRETENDED LIBERAL POLITICS TO BE AKIN TO RADICAL POLITICS TO OBTAIN THOSE VOTES
SPINOZA - IS OFTEN ARGUED TO BE THE FATHER OF RADICALISM BUT HE MERELY FORMULATED IT SUCCINCTLY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.93.240 ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
What about moving the article to "Classical radicalism"? It would be a more appropriate description of the subject and we would avoid brackets. -- Checco ( talk) 13:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Surely, "Radicalism (historical)" is an awkward name for an article, especially as there is no current radicalism or, to match the awkward name, "Radicalism (current)". This said, the article was moved by User:Mureungdowon without debate or consensus. Bold edits are fine, but, as Wikipedia:Consensus reads, "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The status quo ante is that the article was named "Classical radicalism". This discussion is much welcome, but, in the meantime, the status quo ante should be maintained. -- Checco ( talk) 21:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thus, I moved the article back to its established name (and I changed this thread's name). If anyone wants to change the article's name either to "Radicalism (historical)" or any other name, the more appropriate way should be to seek consensus in talk page first or start a Requested move (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). -- Checco ( talk) 21:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure as, in fact, the "radicalism" we are talking about is not a current ideology, but refers to a movement that was active mainly between the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century. Its modern successors are social liberalism and, on some accounts, social democracy. Moreover, "classical radicalism" matches classical liberalism. Let's see how other users view the matter. If no-one comes in, you could propose a Requested move or a Request for comment (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment). -- Checco ( talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I am not altogether opposed to "Radicalism (ideology)", but I surely prefer a name without brackets, the argument that "classical radicalism" matches "classical liberalism" strongly resonates in my mind and, most importantly, I would like to read comments from other users too. -- Checco ( talk) 21:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
Classical radicalism be
renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below.
result: Move logs:
source title ·
target title
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
Classical radicalism → ? – Radicalism (historical), Radicalism (ideology) or Radicalism – To use a more correct process for a rename, let's open this. @ Mureungdowon: @ Checco:. Please give your input at a comment. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 10:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. There's substantial opposition to "hijacking" the term Radicalism (currently redirecting to the dab page), and, noting a dislike of "classical radicalism" title, no consensus what the best one would be. No such user ( talk) 11:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Classical radicalism → Radicalism – Radicalism(=Support) or status quo(=Opposition). I want to make it more clear about the parts that are not agreed on in the above Talk. @ Dan100: @ PhotographyEdits: @ Autospark: @ Checco: Please give your input at a comment.. Mureungdowon ( talk) 11:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
"Radicalism (from French radical)" - is there a source for this? Radical was already a word in English, no? 163.1.120.19 ( talk) 05:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)