Talk:Political spectrum
Can we communicate here rather than in edit war summaries please? weaseLOId
~ 13:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- While "You're wrong" is an interesting reason for cutting out an edit of mine, I would prefer it if you were to cut the offending section out and move it here so that it can at least be discussed. On second thought, never mind, I'll leave this article to you to do what ever you wish with. Enjoy. Carptrash 13:48, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks. Though if you want, feel free to explain how anarchy and fascism are similar. Either way, IMO it may be better to put in 'social democrats' rather than 'democratic socialists', since commies can also believe in socialism that is democratic. -Judas Reward 13:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Social does not necessarily mean the same a socialist. Lots of countries have political parties called Social Democratics, and they vary enormously. I find democratic socialists to be a fairly self-explanatory terms since it means socialists who are democratic. Yes, some communists are also democratic, but the ones that have formed governments have not been. weaseLOId
~ 13:57, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Social does not necessarily mean the same a socialist. Lots of countries have political parties called Social Democratics, and they vary enormously. I find democratic socialists to be a fairly self-explanatory terms since it means socialists who are democratic. Yes, some communists are also democratic, but the ones that have formed governments have not been. weaseLOId
- Thanks. Though if you want, feel free to explain how anarchy and fascism are similar. Either way, IMO it may be better to put in 'social democrats' rather than 'democratic socialists', since commies can also believe in socialism that is democratic. -Judas Reward 13:51, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Please don't abandon editing this article, Carptrash. Any constructive editing is welcome. I just opened this talk page because obviously there are a few things we are disagreeing about, or misunderstanding each other, so it's better to discuss than to just keep reverting each other's edits. weaseLOId
~ 13:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
For the record, I did not say that Russia was Marxist. What I said was "in communist countries a hardline Marxist would be regarded as right wing whereas a proponent of free market capitalism would be regarded as left wing, the opposite to how these would be seen in a democratic country". Since I was asked how do I know this, I put a citation in & not having any political textbooks to hand I could only find one with a Google search, giving me the example of USSR. It is generally agreed that USSR was Communist. Whether you consider it Marxist, depends on how you are interpreting Marxism, but the Soviet government certainly honoured Marx as a major influence. weaseLOId
~ 13:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for clarifying. However, Russia was only Stalinist. Communism is, by definition, a classless society. If it's not classless, it's not communism. Communism is basically anarchy, what us commies divide on is generally how to get there (libertarian socialists, or anarchists, say that it should be accomplished immediately, others say that socialism is necessary first). However, I'd say that this brings up a major flaw with even our inclusion of a left-right axis. That is, it's impossible to differentiate between an anarchist and a Stalinist, as they're both fairly far left, and neither can be called 'communism' (since communism necessarily includes socialism). So perhaps we should scrap that and explain based on another one of the graphs? -Judas Reward 14:05, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, the left-right spectrum is flawed & outdated, & this is already mentioned in the article. Make it clearer if you like. But we still need to cover it as the words left wing and right wing are still fairly commonly encountered. weaseLOId
~ 14:13, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm gonna remove mention of Stalinism - it's too specific, not really self-explanatory and arguably not accurate here, since the citation is from 1991. weaseLOId
~ 14:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Perhaps replace communist with 'anti-capitalist'? I'm not sure about the rest, though. However, IMO if we're going to give something on how it can change, you could say 'In the USSR in *period*, they made people against capitalism on the right wing' (something like that), which would make it more specific. -Judas Reward 14:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Replaced 'communist' with 'anti-capitalist'. I'm a bit reluctant to make this comment too specific as I don't think this phenomenon is unique to Russia - it's just an example. I'll try to find a similar example from another socialist country, when I have time to research it a bit more. weaseLOId
~ 14:41, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Eh, it's just that it says that a certain type of country will invert the spectrum, as if it's inevitable. -Judas Reward 14:43, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- You make a good point. Changed to "For example, in an authoritarian socialist country such as the USSR, anti-capitalist supporters have sometimes been regarded as right wing and proponents of free market capitalism regarded as left wing, the opposite to how these are seen in a democratic and capitalist country." I hope this is satisfactory. Change it further if you think it needs changing further. :-) weaseLOId
~ 14:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yup, I just changed a bit, seeing as, technically, the US isn't a democracy. And I added 'totalitarianism', which is shorter, and basically the same as anti-capitalist authoritarianism. I think we're done now, unless you have any ideas for changing that? Now all that's needed is perhaps to expand the article. -Judas Reward 15:03, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- You make a good point. Changed to "For example, in an authoritarian socialist country such as the USSR, anti-capitalist supporters have sometimes been regarded as right wing and proponents of free market capitalism regarded as left wing, the opposite to how these are seen in a democratic and capitalist country." I hope this is satisfactory. Change it further if you think it needs changing further. :-) weaseLOId
- Eh, it's just that it says that a certain type of country will invert the spectrum, as if it's inevitable. -Judas Reward 14:43, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Replaced 'communist' with 'anti-capitalist'. I'm a bit reluctant to make this comment too specific as I don't think this phenomenon is unique to Russia - it's just an example. I'll try to find a similar example from another socialist country, when I have time to research it a bit more. weaseLOId
- Perhaps replace communist with 'anti-capitalist'? I'm not sure about the rest, though. However, IMO if we're going to give something on how it can change, you could say 'In the USSR in *period*, they made people against capitalism on the right wing' (something like that), which would make it more specific. -Judas Reward 14:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm gonna remove mention of Stalinism - it's too specific, not really self-explanatory and arguably not accurate here, since the citation is from 1991. weaseLOId
- Yes, the left-right spectrum is flawed & outdated, & this is already mentioned in the article. Make it clearer if you like. But we still need to cover it as the words left wing and right wing are still fairly commonly encountered. weaseLOId
Any discussion that includes the words, " which is agreed among most communists," is no place for me. There is precious little that is agreed upon by "most communists" and surely we are not privy to what that might be. If this were a FUN page I'd have a lot to add. Allowing the word libertarian to exist anywhere near anarchy - for it (libertarian) be be anywhere left of center, puts this whole discussion more in a Dungeons and Dragons realm than anywhere else. Carptrash 10:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- 'Libertarian' is the antonym of authoritarian. Just because some right-wingers have decided to hijack it, it doesn't make it inherently capitalist. And yeah, I suppose that the 'most communists' thing was badly written, it should've been 'all communists'. But I cut it out anyways. -Judas Reward 10:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- If you get a piece of silver on every birthday, then I've been observing & chatting politics with, among folks, libertarians from about the time you were being born. I suspect that you are engaging in historical revisionism and simply defining and redefining terms to suit your current needs. An interesting process to observe and one (opinion) easy to make pretty accurate predictions about.
And while we are at it:
- 'totalitarianism', which is shorter, and basically the same as anti-capitalist authoritarianism
is another sentence that defies redemption. What about capitalist authoritarianism? Is it not totalitariamism? JR, get a dictionary. Please? Carptrash 10:47, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
The two leftmost colored words just seem wrong to me... can't they just be "Communism" and "Socialism"? ħuman
18:10, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- No, since far leftists are hardly all communists, they can also be Stalinists or libertarian socialists (anarchists), though all of those are anti-capitalist. And socialists aren't significantly left compared to commies, since they both believe in getting rid of capitalism, though if we're going to define socialists as 'people who only want socialism, but not as a transition to communism', they basically want the same thing as communists, except minus the anarchy in the future bit. The wording can seem clumsy, but that's more of a fault with the left-right spectrum than anything else. On the other hand, I don't see why fascists are any more right-wing than, say, libertarians, but I'm not an expert on that field. -Judas Reward 04:01, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
- Socialism doesn't always mean getting rid of capitalism (although this may have been the original meaning) - often nowadays it just means supporting welfare, unions, level playing field, etc. I agree with Human. The left-right spectrum here is an example only, not intended to cover every possible view, but should definitely contain Communism as the most well-known far left position. I don't really like the term "social democracy" - it's pretty vague. I preferred "democratic socialism" - I know it sounds pretty similar b ut to me it seems more specific - I.E. socialist policies achieved through democracy rather than revolution or coup d'état. weaseLOId
~ 05:01, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Social democracy is the whole welfare stuff. 'Democratic socialism' is too vague, it can mean either attaining socialism through voting (since if it were only through democracy, it would be a fairly idiotic idea. Can you really imagine the US getting rid of the Constitution and electoral college, as well as term limits, etc, any time soon?), which doesn't make it any less far-left than any other form of socialism, or it could refer to socialism based on economic democracy, in which case it would basically be synonymous with 'socialism' and would be an unnecessary term, or it could refer to social democracy, or reformism, which is basically 'liberalism' (center-left, though center-right according to American terminology), except with more government control economically. Social democracy is more specific in terms of definitions. -Judas Reward 04:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
- I beg to differ, primarily because "Democratic Socialism" is a commonly used phrase used to refer to many European governments. "Social Democracy" is kind of missing the "ism" it needs to fit in that list. And I still think just plain "socialism" works fine. ħuman
14:32, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
- Socialism and communism are the same. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 04:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
- I beg to differ, primarily because "Democratic Socialism" is a commonly used phrase used to refer to many European governments. "Social Democracy" is kind of missing the "ism" it needs to fit in that list. And I still think just plain "socialism" works fine. ħuman
- Social democracy is the whole welfare stuff. 'Democratic socialism' is too vague, it can mean either attaining socialism through voting (since if it were only through democracy, it would be a fairly idiotic idea. Can you really imagine the US getting rid of the Constitution and electoral college, as well as term limits, etc, any time soon?), which doesn't make it any less far-left than any other form of socialism, or it could refer to socialism based on economic democracy, in which case it would basically be synonymous with 'socialism' and would be an unnecessary term, or it could refer to social democracy, or reformism, which is basically 'liberalism' (center-left, though center-right according to American terminology), except with more government control economically. Social democracy is more specific in terms of definitions. -Judas Reward 04:27, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
- Socialism doesn't always mean getting rid of capitalism (although this may have been the original meaning) - often nowadays it just means supporting welfare, unions, level playing field, etc. I agree with Human. The left-right spectrum here is an example only, not intended to cover every possible view, but should definitely contain Communism as the most well-known far left position. I don't really like the term "social democracy" - it's pretty vague. I preferred "democratic socialism" - I know it sounds pretty similar b ut to me it seems more specific - I.E. socialist policies achieved through democracy rather than revolution or coup d'état. weaseLOId
[edit] Leftism & Rightism merged
Leftism & rightism now merged to here. At present I've copied all the text across from both, but, in my opinion, a bit of further work is needed to shorten & modify these sections (leftism especially) into a more consensual view. weaseLOId
~ 05:13, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Nice. I think that works better than what we had. Did their talk page contents get move over here, too? ħuman
17:48, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- No. Do you think they need to? weaseLOId
~ 17:50, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- There's no talk page for Rightism. The Leftism one is pretty long, so rather than move it all across, I'll link to it right here: Talk:Leftism. weaseLOId
~ 17:54, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Cool, that's fine. Maybe we should leave a little permalink to it at the top of this page? And a note at the top of it telling peeps to come here? Probably no big deal... ħuman
17:58, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
- Cool, that's fine. Maybe we should leave a little permalink to it at the top of this page? And a note at the top of it telling peeps to come here? Probably no big deal... ħuman
- There's no talk page for Rightism. The Leftism one is pretty long, so rather than move it all across, I'll link to it right here: Talk:Leftism. weaseLOId
- No. Do you think they need to? weaseLOId
[edit] Individualism?
The axes on the Nolan Chart are labeled "Economic Freedom" and "Personal Freedom." There exist "horizontal" collectivists who support much personal freedom.
ListenerXTalkerX 02:35, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Well, the Nolan Chart is (un)fairly rigged anyway, it's not a very useful tool. I would add (and may have in the article?) that of course there are more than just two axes in the political continuum - in fact, the only time two issues should essentially be the "same" axis is if virtually everyone who feels one way about one of the issues always agrees with their fellow-travellers on the other issue. ħuman
17:33, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Although the World's Smallest Political Quiz based on it obviously is "rigged," the chart itself is not. But you are right about the conflation of issues; one of the largest problems that I have with the Nolan Chart is that near the extremes of the social axis, distinctions on the economic one become nearly meaningless, and vice versa.
ListenerXTalkerX 18:23, 21 March 2009 (EDT)
- Although the World's Smallest Political Quiz based on it obviously is "rigged," the chart itself is not. But you are right about the conflation of issues; one of the largest problems that I have with the Nolan Chart is that near the extremes of the social axis, distinctions on the economic one become nearly meaningless, and vice versa.
[edit] Increasing scientific research attaching this to personality
So there's a lot more research lately attaching "spectrum position" to common personality traits, particularly openness, and propensity for disgust. This article is mostly a summary of the fact that divides exist and how people describe them, but there might be good reason to go into why. Thoughts? Ikanreed (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)