Jump to content

Talk:Italian Radicals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Left libertarianism

[edit]

It seems to me a bit contradictory to claim that the radicali are "left-libertarian", if they describe themselves as liberisti. Also it doesn't seem to accord very well with the alliance between radicali and polo in the early 90s (which I know struck some as incoherent, but I never agreed; I thought it made a lot of sense at the time, given that polo was the only tendency trying to reduce the statist nature of the Italian economy). --Trovatore 07:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The party slogan is that remembered in the article. The party is liberal in governmental, institutional and judiciary issues, free-market libertarian on economic issues, and left-libertarian (=social-liberal) on social and moral issues. What is strange? Also in the US there is a party that combines economic libertarianism with social liberalism: the Libertarian Party. The political position of Radicals in Italy could be contradictory, but why a liberal party has to be liberal only on economic issues and not on social issues? Certainly that position is difficult to sustain for Radicals, as that for the US Libertarian Party, becuase both the right and the left disagree with half of their program. That is why, between 1995 and 2006 (11 years), Radicals were affiliated neither with the centre-right nor with the centre-left. Now Radicals are part of the centre-left alliance, but I am sure that they will fit best in the centre-right: they will reinforce the free-market tendency represented by Forza Italia and they will gain some important results on the economic side (half of their program). In the centre-left they will probably gain nothing on the social side for the opposition of Democracy is Freedom and other centrists, so it is probably better to join forces with the centre-right in order to make real at least half of their ideas. More in the centre-right they will reinforce a social-liberal tendency, which is minoritary but not negligible. --Checco 09:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about the Italian Radicals, but I know something about left-libertarianism and social-liberalism: they are not issue stances (like Social conservatism is, it is just being conservative in social and ethical matters), but they are fully fledged ideologies (social-liberalism sees "a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals." by investing in social welfare, education and health care and left-libertarianism goes a bit further and wants f.i. to give every one a basic income to make them free(er)). So one can only be a social-liberal or left-libertarian if one is oriented at such policies, using state intervention to make people free, by fighting trusts, or investing in education or reducing the power of the church. It is all about combining government intervention and free market economics to make individuals free. I don't know where the Italian radicals go then, but esp. Rosa nel Pugno appears to be social-liberal in that sense. C mon 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding mostly to Checco here: While those (like me) who identify with the US Libertarian Party tend to reject the right-left spectrum entirely, it would be quite unusual to describe the LP as "left-libertarian". It's generally thought of as right-libertarian (although "socially liberal" in the American sense of the word, meaning a disinclination to meddle in people's personal/cultural/sexual/pharmaceutical choices). If the RI are really analogous to the LP, then I think the claim that their ideology is "a form of left-libertarianism" is misleading, at least to American readers. --Trovatore 12:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but in Europe things are quite different, as I said before. Anyway what we call "libertarismo" is a political ideology that underlines personal, cultural, sexual and pharmaceutical choice. This political ideology is historically connected with anarchism, libertarian socialism and the left, but also Radicals consider it one of their ideological pillars. These pillars are "liberalismo" (=liberalism), "liberismo" (=liberism, economic libertarianism) and "libertarismo" (=?). The first two are connected respectively with the organization of the state (political system, electoral system, judiciary, individual rights...) and the economy. The third is intended to descibe socially liberal (and anti-clerical) tendencies about moral and social issues. Our discussion is eminently about the meanings of terms in different contexts. Anyway I know something about US politics and If I were an American, I will call Radicals as simply libertarians, in all spheres of government. I think that it will be correct to translate "libertarismo" in social liberalism, underlinig that Radicals are socially liberal only about moral and social issues. --Checco 14:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to emphasize that the Italian Liberal Reformers are certainly more similar to the US libertarian party, than the Italian Radicals. C mon 14:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say that in Italy "libertarismo" is a synonim of "anti-proibizionismo" (=anti-prohibition?), which means support for the legalization of abortion, stem-cell research, drug use, alcohol sale and use, pronstitution, gay rights and so on. In order to reach these goals, Radicals (and "libertari" in general) promote civil disobedience and other forms of nonviolent resistance, among them hunger strike in the form of Satyagraha. About Liberal Reformers it is to say that they are a split of Italian Radicals, a split happened not for ideological disagreements but almost only for tactical reasons (what coalition to join). Both parties are part of the Transnational Radical Party and some Liberal Reformers are still members of Italian Radicals. --Checco 14:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liberismo vs American libertarianism

[edit]

Hi Checco, I don't quite follow your most recent edit summary. Are you saying that liberismo has connotations other than economic? I had thought of it as meaning just "free market", and that it did not comport, for example, the elimination of laws against victimless crime. --Trovatore 04:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Italian Radicals are wholly libertarians, even if the recent alliance with the left-wing softened their stances. It is true that "liberism" has a mostly economic connotation, but it doesn't mean only support for the free-market. Anyway, even if I prefer the current version, I won't find problematic if you change that paragraph. After all it is the only part of the article which was not written by me! --Checco 05:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the liberism article and especially on the sentence saying "liberism overlaps with other concepts such as free trade, neoliberalism, libertarianism and the French notion of laissez-faire"? --Checco 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest I have never heard the word used in American political discourse. Not sure about elsewhere in the English-speaking world, but I doubt it's much used. Is there really a separate concept under the name liberism that deserves an article, as opposed to maybe a mention of the word and of Sartori at some article like classical liberalism? --Trovatore 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know. As you I never heard of liberism before today. --Checco 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Italian Radicals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian Radicals. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Italian Radicals. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism

[edit]

I am not convinced about having "libertarianism" as the party's main ideology or, even, one of its ideologies. I have the same doubt on Radical Party, Pannella List, Bonino List, etc. There is currently a reference leading to nothing. I am not going to remove "libertarianism", not at all, I just would like to have a genuine debate on the issue. --Checco (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't know that much about the radicali in detail, but surely at least the Marco Taradash wing would count as "libertarian" in the American sense?
Depending on some of those details I don't know that well, your (Checco's) most recent version might be plausible if a nod to the Taradash tendency were added, but it does have a problem for American readers, as "economic liberalism" in American discourse is sometimes taken to mean a preference for more state intervention in economic matters, rather than less. Sufficiently sophisticated American readers won't make this mistake, but they may not be sure how the word is intended, especially given the "left wing" reference in the second paragraph. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, User:Trovatore! The issue is: what "libertarianism" are we talking about? American "libertarianism" is quite different from Italian libertarismo. The Radicals, meaning the political movement streched from the Radical Party to the current Italian Radicals, have been libertarian in both meanings. In the 1990s they clearly took inspiration from American "libertarianism", especially economic liberalism/libertarianism. However, I am not sure "libertarianism", whose meaning can be quite confusing the European context, can be listed as the party's, as well as the Radical Party's, Pannella List's and Bonino List's, primary ideology. I quite agree with User:Autospark's edit. I am not proposing to remove "libertarianism", but, as User:Autospark, I think that it is safer to list "liberalism" as the party's, as well as the Radical Party's, Pannella List's and Bonino List's, primary ideology. I started this thread because I think we need genuine debate after User:SDC's bold edits here and in the related articles. --Checco (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I sense that the Italian Radicals are not exceptional in the European context. What makes them or made the Radical Party more "libertarian" than the German FDP or the UK Lib Dems? My impression is that the Radical Party was in line with several regular liberal parties in Europe, especially the Dutch Democrats 66 and the French Radicals, and, even more, that the current Italian Radicals are a standard European liberal party. --Checco (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a tricky balancing act here, trying to make the article comprehensible to both Europeans and Americans. The best way for Americans to understand the German Free Dems probably is as "libertarian". The Lib Dems OTOH are an uneasy coalition between the old Liberals and Social Dems. Possibly that is the best way to understand the Radicals as well.
Thanks by the way for removing "liberism"; that just seems to be a calque of liberismo, essentially unused in English discourse. --Trovatore (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think that the ideology that best describes the Italian Radical Party is "liberalism" in the strict sense. Certainly the radicals are liberals, but it is not the ideology that characterizes them better. Most sources describe the Radical Party as broadly "libertarian", and I honestly agree with these sources. You will hardly find sources describing the Italian Radical Party just as "liberal" (perhaps sources describing Pannella as a liberal, like this source: [1]), because it is not limited to that. It would be wrong to place the radicals on the same level as other Italian liberal parties, they are quite different... And after all, the information on wikipedia must be supported by the sources: most sources confirm this ideology as the main one, so I think it is right to keep it on top of the others. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the term liberalism does not always have a univocal meaning, in this case we are also talking about classical liberalism (or liberism). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure that the nuances of "libertarianism" are fully understood here. User:Trovatore rightly pointed out that, following the same reasoning, also the German FDP should be charatcterised as "libertarian", but, in the European context, it is probably a non-starter. For the same reason, I think that "liberalism" is more appropriate as primary ideology of the party, as noted also by User:Autospark. After all, the Italian Radicals are closer to the UK Lib Dems than the German FDP and, similarly to the Lib Dems, the Italian Radicals are a mixture of economic liberals and social liberals, to some extent social democrats (called "liberal socialists" in Italy). I think we should stick to European standards and not be Italo-centric. According to those European standards, the Italian Radicals are a regular liberal party, not a libertarian one. --Checco (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources you have removed are in English language, not italocentric. if you can find a good number of authoritative third-party sources that describe the Radicals as liberal or broadly liberal you can of course include them. What you can't do is remove third-party sources that punctually describe a party with a certain ideology. Comparative analysis can be done by users on the talk pages, but on the pages of parties the comparative analysis must be referred to the sources.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault, I did not see that the sources were moved and not removed, I reverted my last rollback. Anyway, I confirm my statement about the main ideology and the comparative analysis: many sources, including those in English language, affirm that the Italian Radicals are libertarian, it doesn't seem to me misleading for the readers. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the opinion that "Liberalism" should be listed first in the Infobox – it's the broadest ideological term to use, and "Libertarianism" would give a misleading impression to readers in certain regions that the party is primarily based around American-style right-libertarianism. Of course I have no problem with "Libertarianism" being listed in the Infobox (as it was for many years, until relatively recently) and being recognised in the article body with support of suitable quality references.--Autospark (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liberalism can also give the wrong impression, because it might seem that it refers to classical Liberalism (although in reality the Radical Party is liberal in both senses). But the question is: can a party like the Italian radicals be compared to Italia Viva (both referred to primarily as liberals)? I would say no, they are two quite different types of liberalism, since the tendency of the radicals is decidedly libertarian. Usually I would not be passionate about a debate of this type, but since the tendency has emerged to describe a party with only one main ideology, I think it is important to specify in detail which is the most pertinent ideology for each party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that the nuances of "liberalism" and "libertarianism" are not properly considered here. Of course, the two terms have different meanings in America, Europe and Italy. The comparison between IV and the Italian Radicals is quite interesting: actually, it might be IV to be more economically liberal than the Italian Radicals, but neither of the two is libertarian in the American sense; the real difference is that the Radicals are more socially liberal than IV and this has little to do with "libertarianism". This discussion is very interesting and I guess it will continue, but, for sure, the established and current consensus is to have "liberalism" in the first place and "libertarianism" in the second place. --Checco (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is effectively articulated, however it honestly seems to me to be the opposite: IV seems a social liberal party and the Radical party seems a tendentially liberist party. And surely the current most prominent exponent of the party is certainly liberist (and also libertarian in the American nuance): Emma Bonino (see for example this comparison [2]).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this just articulates how much liberalism is a spectrum (or a set of ideologies within an umbrella ideology...), at least as much as conservatism or socialism, etc. I don't disagree with you at all that libertarian/liberist ideas are clearly within RI, and should be mentioned in the article, but not so much as listing it as the primary ideology.--Autospark (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Laissez Faire as ideology

[edit]

I think it is necessary to add Laissez Faire as it is one of the ideological bases of the party according to its constitution, and it is t wholly represented by neither Liberalism and Libertariansim.

libertarianism, according to the Wikipedia definition: “Advocates for individual autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice”. This is the counterpart to the “Libertari” ideology mention by the “statuto” of the party

Liberalism is based on “ based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law”. This is the counterpart to the “Liberali” ideology mention by the “statuto” of the party

None of the, explicitly mention Laissez-Faire, which represents the “Liberisti” ideology mention by the statuto of the party I’d dare to say, that liberalism is the ideology on which they base their “political” ideals, libertarianism their “civil rights” and Laissez Faire their economic ideas. Siglæ (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed the issue before. First of all, the party's constitution is a primary source, thus is not particularly relevant here (someone could even argue that the party in 2024 is no longer economically liberal as it was at its beginnings). Secondly, the intro already reads "the party describes itself as liberale, liberista [and] libertario, where liberale refers to political liberalism, liberista is an Italian term for economic liberalism, and libertario denotes a form of cultural liberalism concerning moral and social issues". Fix or expand that, if you will. The infobox is a summary of an article's contents. There is no need to add redundant and/or controversial infos to the infobox, when there is an entire article in which all the concepts can be explained at due length. Moreover, there is no need to find a word for liberismo (liberism in English is nothing more than a neologism) as economic liberalism is already included both in liberalism and in libertarianism, especially in the American form. By the way, laissez-faire is not the political ideology associated with liberismo, but something different. It is not a surprise that laissez-faire is not commonly used in infoboxes. Your bold edit was challenged by me and you now need to achieve consensus for it. Indeed, per Wikipedia:Consensus, "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".
Please read the articles on libertarianism fully. Take a look at this, for instance: "In the mid-20th century, American right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States. This libertarianism, a revival of classical liberalism in the United States, occurred due to other American liberals abandoning classical liberalism and embracing progressivism and economic interventionism in the early 20th century after the Great Depression and with the New Deal. Since the 1970s, this classical liberal form of libertarianism has spread beyond the United States, with right-libertarian parties being established in the United Kingdom,[40] Israel, South Africa Argentina, and many other countries". As you can easily understand, "libertarianism" has a comprehensive meaning that, united with "liberalism", suits liberismo. --Checco (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly and agree with the above – laissez-faire is surely the expression in policy/practical terms of an ideology, and not an ideology in itself. An ideology which is this case is liberalism, liberalism in its more classical and libertarian mode.— Autospark (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Italian_Radicals&oldid=1254951138"