Talk:Sinistrisme

Untitled

Isn't sinistrisme a former tactic used by the French communist party to be the most "far left" or "most republican" party of French politics in order to attract the peasantry and lower middle-classes? Intangible 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote Micaud: "...it assumed among large sections of the peasantry and lower middle classes the aspect of political "Leftism," the Republican reflex of voting as far left as possible. A deep and persistent mistrust of power in all its forms continued to keep the little man on the alert against the elite of wealth and birth. The best way to keep this elite from seizing power was to vote for the party furthest to the left, which by definition was the most Republican, the most trustworthy in the defense against reaction. First the Radicals, then the Socialists, and finally the Communists have benefitted from this Sinistrisme. Significantly, the Communist Party was most successful whenever it appeared to be left wing of a Republican coalition, as in the days of the Popular Front and again from 1947 to 1947."

Intangible 18:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Micaud is, but this seems to be a mishandling of the term. Micaud may be right (in this vote to the far left) although I'm not even sure about it, and stating that the "Communist have benefitted from" sinistrisme is probably as correct as saying that the left-wing in general has benefitted from sinistrisme. But, as explained here, sinistrisme, as a neologism invented by Thibaudet and subsequently used by political scientists, refers to this disavowal by the French right-wing of its being posited in the right-wing axe of the political board. The historical factor which explains this "bad consciousness" (mauvaise conscience) is probably to be found in the Republican/Monarchy conflict of the 19th century, where being in favor of the Republic automatically defined you as being a member of the left-wing. Therefore, in the beginning of the Third Republic, calling oneself "right-wing" was alike saying one was opposed to the Republic, which was not always well seen. The right-wing has since rallied itself to the Republic and no longer questions it (apart of bonapartism, which Gaullism can be seen as a continuation of, and which has always been suspected of being anti-Republican because of the direct link between the leader and the people, bypassing representary institutions; see also the boulangisme crisis), but the sinistrisme tradition has continued to this day (although it is less powerful than before). Sinistrisme was forged on sinistra, left in Italian. Tazmaniacs 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Another quote, Cerny (1972): "Changes have occured within the left also, as parties which originated as extreme left-wing groups have tended to gravitate toward the centre, to be replaced by new groups farther to the left. This continual replacement of old left groups by new ones (sinistrisme) has created a historical discontinuity in left-wing traditions which has made it impossible for the left to progress any farther toward ideological unity than the formation of electoral coalitions which have not proved viable in either Parliament or government. It has been easier for the centre-left to form coalitions with the centre and even with the centre-right at times, than to agree common action with the other left-wing groups." Intangible 21:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a direct quote from Remond? Because it seems sinistrisme means the replenishment of progressive forces with new ones, when the old progressives become conservative. Intangible 21:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I can (actually, I just did but an error blocked my edit), but he doesn't explicitly use the term in the quoted passage, only refers to the process itself (part of it, quickly: les ralliés élus en 1893 adoptent encore la dénomination de Droite constitutionnelle ou républicaine, mais ils l'abandonnent en 1899 pour lui substituer celle d'Action libérale sous laquelle ils iront à la bataille électorale en 1902. Ressurgit en 1910 un groupe des droites, qui rameute le dernier carré de fidèles de la monarchie. Depuis 1924 le terme de droite paraît avoir disparu définitivement du répertoire des appelations des groupes parlementaires. Aujourd'hui seuls des groupuscules d'extrême droite relèvent l'appelation tombée dans le discrédit et revendiquent fièrement leur appartenance à la droite: à l'élection présidentielle de 1974 un seul candidat se déclarait à droite: Jean-Marie Le Pen, en 1981 aucun., René Rémond, p.391 Les droites en France. The quotes you've provided are interesting, and could be mentionned I guess in the article as alternative significations, but they don't concord either. (ps: I left it in French since you seem to read it, I'll translate it in needs of). Tazmaniacs 17:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So what are Touchard and Winock saying? The Rémond piece is not really conclusive (WP:OR)...If you want to say that Le Pen was the only "right-wing" candidate in the 1974 presidential election, there is an article where to put this information, namely French presidential election, 1974. Intangible 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See this in the National Assembly website, this about Jean Touchard's book, [1], [2], or [3] from the Socialist Party website. Tazmaniacs 18:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

more quotes

It seems I should have checked the "right-wing" newspapers instead:

Le Figaro, 19 septembre 2005:

Enfin, la prochaine présidentielle impose aux candidats de se situer non seulement dans le parti mais aussi par rapport à l'électorat de la gauche tout entière et même du centre. Est-ce que l'union de toutes les gauches est la seule voie pour le PS ? C'est l'éternel problème de la vie politique française, marquée par une logique de «sinistrisme». L'émergence permanente de mouvements à la gauche de l'échiquier politique tend à déporter le PS vers la droite de la gauche, donc vers le centre. Certains pensaient que ce mouvement s'arrêterait avec la fin du communisme en Europe.

Le Figaro, 12 mars 2005:

Tout en rendant hommage au « courage » et à « la juste mesure » du penseur - « Je refuse le deux poids deux mesures et le « sinistrisme » qui envahit souvent une certaine pensée française, qui pardonne à la gauche et condamne la droite »

L'Express, 1 novembre 2004:

Les réformismes sont également sur la défensive. Les plus audacieux apôtres du changement sont désormais fermement ancrés à droite, tandis que la gauche campe sur les "acquis sociaux". Le "sinistrisme" historique n'est plus. Longtemps, un sens apparent de l'Histoire opérait un glissement à gauche de l'échiquier politique: les républicains cédèrent la place aux radicaux, ceux-ci furent ensuite dominés par les socialistes, avant que ces derniers soient dépassés par les communistes.

Le Figaro, 19 avril 2003:

Pourtant, rien de tout cela n'est totalement convaincant. Les choix auxquels la gauche, et le Parti socialiste au premier chef, se trouve confrontée engagent l'avenir et toute erreur d'aiguillage peut être lourde de conséquences et pour longtemps. Or, la gauche est taraudée par sa mauvaise conscience. Son histoire ou, plutôt, une histoire mal digérée, revient et déborde. Les réflexes priment sur la réflexion. Car il y a un point commun aux congrès par ailleurs si différents des Verts, du Parti communiste et du Parti socialiste. On y voit le retour de ce que l'on appelait, il y a près d'un siècle, le ' sinistrisme '. Ce mouvement correspondait, alors, à un déplacement vers la gauche de l'ensemble du champ politique : les radicaux déclinaient au profit des socialistes, puis les socialistes étaient devancés par les communistes. Il correspond, aujourd'hui, à un même déplacement, non pas entre les forces politiques mais à l'intérieur de chacune d'entre elles.

Mieux encore, le retour du ' sinistrisme ' s'accompagne d'un retour du discours ' révolutionnaire '. C'est Olivier Besancenot qui est starisé. C'est Marie-George Buffet qui, dans son discours de clôture, scande qu'il y a ' besoin de révolution '. C'est Jean-Luc Mélenchon qui, dans un article récent de la Revue socialiste, défend l'idée que ' pour réformer le capitalisme, il faut lui appliquer les méthodes qui étaient considérées comme l'apanage des révolutionnaires : mobilisation hors Parlement, actions hors la loi, rapports de force et, parfois même, violences '.

Intangible 19:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

None of these quotes contradict the definition given, although it could be made clearer. Sinistrisme refers to both, I don't know why you want to oppose one of these meaning to the other, except by cleverly trying to prove "I'm wrong" on a term you appear not to be familiar with. I will make some changes to the article to take out the "disputed" banner, please feel free to put it back if you disagree. Tazmaniacs 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I am not entirely confinced how the sinistrisme of the "left" implies that "right-wing" parties in France not calling themselves "right-wing." It's pretty bold to make such a conclusion, they might have gazillions of reasons not to call themselves "right-wing." Intangible 18:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should refer to Albert Thibaudet. Tazmaniacs 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. I cannot see why Thibaudet made that second clause in the introduction: "to disavow being a component of the right wing, claiming instead to be full participants of the left wing." Maybe you can enlighten me with a direct quote. Intangible 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Intangible, I've inserted the exact reference for Thibaudet, look it up in a library if you still feel it is your role to question the reality of a thing you obviously had never heard about before. I've provided various sources, in the article & on this main page, showing the legitimity of this use, and your stubborness (trolling, should I rather say? see this Rfarbitration against you) doesn't inclines me to believe in your "good faith" anymore. You seem to lack elementary understanding of French political life, so I do not see why I should lose time in pseudo-debate with you. If you don't believe that sinistrisme means what it means, than read Thibaudet's book, read Touchard & Winock's book, read René Rémond's book on the Rights in France, that might interest you and will give you at least some basics to discuss right-wing and left-wing in France, and then we may discuss about it. Please do not remove again the reference from articles such as Left-right politics where it is totally justified or in National Front, where it underscores that Le Pen was the only one to declare himself right-wing in the 1970s. A bon entendeur, salut! Tazmaniacs 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is and remains that the term "sinistrisme" in its broadest sense (the second clause of Thibaudet) is not used much, hell, I have found no newspaper articles from the last 20 years that use the term in its most broadest sense, only in the smallest sense (see above). See also Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. So until "sinistrisme" in its broadest sense is starting to become used again, it should not be used in other Wikipedia articles, as the Left-right politics or National Front articles. A bientôt. Intangible 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unreadable

Not to mention that several sentences of this article are currently so poorly written as to be unreadable. "…sieged in the 'Left-wing Republicans' group" appears meaningless. "Resurged", while comprehensible, is not English. "…the name of an ultra review…"? I can only guess that this refers to a politics referred to at the time as "ultra", which most times I've run across it in history means ultra-right wing (but which can, as in a Northern Irish context, mean something else entirely): unlinked and without apparent reference, it means rather little. - Jmabel | Talk 18:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. Does "sieged in the parliamentary group of the "Left-wing Republicans"" makes it clearer? The ultras, in this context, refers to the ultra-royalists (which is where "ultra" comes from, if I don't make any mistakes). Please point out others unreadable parts! Tazmaniacs 11:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

another quote

From David Hanley's Party, Society and Government: Republican Democracy in France:

"A final twist was provided with the emergence of a viable socialist current. By the early 1890s this had escaped from within radicalism, so to speak, rather as radicalism itself had escaped from within mainstream republicanism. The united socialist party would wait until 1905 for its official birth, but long before that organised socialism was playing a role in the party system. This sinisistrisme (the repeated emergence of new forces to the left of what was previously seen as the extreme) is a striking feature of the pre-1914 system."

This article remains factual inaccurate. Could someone please clean up this article's mess. Intangible 17:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)