My answer here was declared to not have any evidence (despite it having such) and deleted without me having a chance to respond. I edited it to include reams of evidence, and yet it has not been undeleted.
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
The answer didn't address the question. The question is about parties that style themselves as "Labour" or "Workers", but which are in actuality conservative.
The American Solidarity Party doesn't use "Labour", and "Solidarity" isn't really in the same category as "Worker". The party identifies as "Christian Democrat", which is usually indicative of a right-wing or centre-right position (compare Germany's CDU).
You say that the ASP is left-leaning on economic matters, but socially conservative, which seems to be true (at least in a US context with a very right wing median in economic issues) But this isn't the question that was asked.
So as an answer to the question it would be (-1) from me.
You then describe the ASP as a "Christian supremacist hate group", and in your edits you provide numerous quotes to illustrate their intolerance. Whether these quotes prove your point or not, the matter of whether they are a hate group or not is irrelevant, and the quotes are irrelevant to answering the question.
What you need to do is establish that the word "Solidarity" used in the party name is understood to be the equivalent of "Labour", but nevertheless that the party is generally on the right in economic and social matters. Your quotes don't establish that.
It is probably possible to edit this answer to a form that could be undelete, but since the answer seems to be wrong, is it worth it?
-
3The question actually refers to "parties that have left-style words in their title like "Labour", Workers' etc.". I think it's fair to say that "solidarity" is a term that is widely, although not exclusively, associated with the left, so the ASP is an acceptable example, if not the best. In any case, it seems unfair to delete an answer for reason (a) then, when that has been addressed, claim it shouldn't be restored because of reason (b). Commented Dec 3, 2023 at 17:30
-
"The answer didn't address the question." As @CharlieEvans says, you are mischaracterizing the question. "The party identifies as "Christian Democrat", which is usually indicative of a right-wing or centre-right position (compare Germany's CDU)." Classification of CD is mixed, and the question asks about the name, not of self-identity. "But this isn't the question that was asked." How not? It asks about parties with Left-coded names that are conservative. Does been conservative, but having some left-coded position disqualify them? Commented Dec 3, 2023 at 20:04
-
"the matter of whether they are a hate group or not is irrelevant" ??? Is bigotry not something associated with the Right? "What you need to do is establish that the word "Solidarity" used in the party name is understood to be the equivalent of "Labour"," No, only that it's Left-coded. "but nevertheless that the party is generally on the right in economic and social matters" I read the question as asking about parties that are overall Right, not that have no Left positions. Commented Dec 3, 2023 at 20:04
-
"since the answer seems to be wrong" You spent your answer claiming that it doesn't satisfy the conditions of the question, but your final question seems to be asserting that it's factually incorrect. Commented Dec 3, 2023 at 20:04
-
6"Is bigotry not something associated with the Right? " -- There's the problem. I'm pretty sure that the many millions of right wing people, such as many of the supporters of the Republicn (and Democratic) parties of he USA don't consider themselves to be bigots.. You're using your answer to advance your point of view about which side is good and which side is bad.– James KCommented Dec 3, 2023 at 22:35
-
Yeah, the penultimate para is the important part missing. Others have given answers while not strictly matching the Q were reasonable enough like those that had the word "Popular" or "People" which is sometimes associated with the left-wing but not exclusively. Those were not the best answers but interesting enough. Commented Dec 3, 2023 at 23:31
-
AFAICR, 'Solidarity' often appears in the name of Catholic parties elsewhere, so establishing its connection with the left is a bit more complicated. Commented Dec 3, 2023 at 23:35
-
" I'm pretty sure that the many millions of right wing people, such as many of the supporters of the Republicn (and Democratic) parties of he USA don't consider themselves to be bigots." That doesn't make them any less of bigots. "You're using your answer to advance your point of view about which side is good and which side is bad." I'm simply stating the fact that they're a Christian supremacist hate group. That is objectively supported by my evidence. If you don't think that being a Christian supremacist hate group is bad, then you shouldn't have a problem with me calling them that. Commented Dec 5, 2023 at 2:24
I suggest you focus on showing that "solidarity" is a term that appears in left-wing parties names. IIRC it's traditionally associated with Catholicism, be it parties or other kinds of civic associations. (Albeit Caritas, probably the most famous of these, doesn't technically have it in its name.)
Tip: on a quick search I did find one other party that has this in its name and is left-leaning (and apparently not related to Catholicism either). And, yeah, the famous Polish labor union is perhaps interesting to mention in that regard, although they had a kind of connection with the Catholic church, even if somewhat informal. I see there's also a leftist US organization named like that (although not strictly a party), although I admit I had never heard of it before.
So, yeah, I guess you could write a fairly interesting answer on the contested/cross-sectional use of that word in party/organizations names. We did have some answers like that about other contested terms like "popular" or "people's", which were not strictly what I had asked about, but were interesting nonetheless. Albeit most answers like that were rather telegraphic.
answered Dec 3, 2023 at 23:45
