[TteFAboB]

Oh, I'm no longer in your ignore list? Very well then, I will provide you with a worthful response. The third-person I took from the football comentators.

Nice link to wikipedia, but if you want to compete, I can do better:

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.
We believe that socialism USA will be built according to the traditions, history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be different from any other socialist society in the world. It will be uniquely American.
What will be the goals of our socialist society?

1. A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
2. An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
3. Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

The advocates and ideologues of capitalism hold that such goals are utopian; that human beings are inherently selfish and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realized under capitalism.
We are confident, however, that such goals can be realized, but only through a socialist society.

http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/13/

As you can see, it is very easy to put nice words on paper that appeal only to the emotional, but fail to gain any attention from the cool reasonable mind, for example:

"The far left has historically opposed the concentration of wealth and power, especially in an institutionalized form, in the hands of those who have traditionally controlled them. As such, the left often works to eliminate high levels of inequality. Outside the United States, which lacked a historical ruling class or nobility, this often included at the most basic level demands for democratisation of the political system and land reform in agricultural areas.

How does the left works to eliminate high levels of inequality by demanding a land reform? Will the land be reformed by convincing people to resign their own lands voluntarily or will they be taken by force? Depending on this choice, this general left-wing idea becomes completely objectionable.

Specifying:

As civil and human rights gained more attention during the twentieth century, the left allied itself with advocates of racial and gender equality, and cultural tolerance(...)

That left-wing-built public school in Berlim for Muslim immigrants not only advocates gender inequality by remembering the students their daddies can beat their wives as much as they want as to say otherwise would be intolerant to their culture, but the segregation of the pupils created racial conflicts with the rest of the population. If the paragraph quoted above means this kind of policy is the general left-wing idea, then it is completely objectionable. Perhaps the Author excluded German and French politicians from his abstraction.

Although specific means of achieving these ends are not agreed upon by different left-wing groups, almost all those on the left agree that some form of government or social intervention in economics is necessary to advance the interests of the poor and middle class, often in the pursuit of Keynesian ideals.

Generic. If the means are not agreed upon, then to some the intervention could mean mass forced abortions. The simplicity of this articles is glaring, apparently Anarchists are excluded from the spectre. Someone should add an apology to the Anarcho group or at least explain why they are not good enough to be considered one of the different left-wing groups, perhaps the idea of abolishing the government and it's capability of social intervention is a reactionary idea, sorry Anarchists, you are almost nobody according to the Author, insignificant, irrelevant, there's some tolerance and respect for you.

Advocacy of government or social intervention in the market puts those on the left at odds with advocates of the free market as well as corporations (who oppose democratic control of the markets but not necessarily all control) if they see their interests threatened.

Back to the real world. How did corporations ended up in there? I suppose the Ford Foundation and George Soros will not appreaciate it. If democratic control of the markets means transferring internal economic policy to the EU, this idea is completely objectionable.

Left-wing positions on social issues, such as opposition to social hierarchy and authority over moral behaviour, strict adherence to tradition, and monoculturalism, may make them allies with right wing advocates of "individual freedom", though their solutions are very different.

I don't see anything to possibly oppose here, such a generic and confusing paragraph it is. It's impossible to specify on this one unless the Author does the favour of also being more specific.

So, there you go, unless you are ignoring the entire European left-wing and all their actions, you won't find anything to take an issue with, since you can't take an issue from nothing.