Talk:Political spectrum/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 8 December 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Posterity

For posterity, RA is actually talking about this.

Hmm... let's see. 99.4763% of Earth's population is liberal... 6.41 billion people on earth... Then... that still leaves a shocking 33,574,407 people who agree with him! Yikes! -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:45, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Loss of words

So, despite the collective effort of some to turn this into PoliticalWiki, this is a one-liner. I am really at a loss whether to consider this a sign of hope or of utter desperation.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Still better than the previous article IMHO. Тy^{Bother me} 18:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I should have guessed when I saw the Fun template. So this is another victim of "let's bury display the mummified corpse of RW 2.0 in Fun-space"? --ZooGuard (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Тy^{Bother me} 18:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two years later, and I'm trying to beef up this article. I think it looks better, but I'm going to try to put it in a similar format of the conservative article. Considering RationalWiki's bias, this article has severely disappointed me, which is why I'm now doing this. Don't know how the snark will work, though, because it's often applied in a negative, critical light. I'm not the best at snark, especially on this article. LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Australian "Liberal Party" is considered as Right Wing

In order to make this article more International, and to stop confusing those US-centric, it should be made clear that the Australian "Liberal Party" is recognized now locally as Right Wing and nowhere near "liberal", other than in name - "Neo-Liberal" barely hints at the reality, indeed the actions of the Abbott Govt were often described as close to "Fascist" . .... and indeed, looking at the Horseshoe Theory of Politics, is mirroring the US Republican Party. Recent activities of Tony Abbot, now ex-PM pushed the party even more hard lime right. While the founder of the party Menzies was trying for a party more centre, since Howard took over as PM, he metaphorically said "We're going over here now and since there are more of us than you, we;re taking the name with us" - as a reaction to Pauline Hanson. For anyone more interested than me in running with this idea, you are welcome use this, there is heaps of info out there, JFGI. 60.242.247.177 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Add canada

Just what the title says. After all Canada is a Liberal county once more.

Needs

This article now needs, at the very least, brief overviews of conservatism as known in other countries or regions. human^{be in} 15:15, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

'facts'

Bohdan added a bunch of 'fact' tags with the comment: "some citations are needed for these claims". A quick scan made me think it ought to be easy to do. ANy help would be appreciated, but I'm going to see if I can ref them up - mostly with "explanations", but links to clear Reagan or Bush quotes (or others) would be even better. human^{be in} 13:20, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I love adding fact tags. Resident vandal

If so inclined, may I occasionally feel free to revert them as being of vandalistic rather than improvement oriented? PS, your wandalism has shown much more effort and quality recently, good work. One more hint - mix it in with about a 3:1 ratio of "good edits" and it will get past the radar for longer! human^{be in} 13:26, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

You can revert any of my vandalism if you choose. I spent all night thinking up new ways to vandalize that would astound everyone. The problem is, what you have seen is all I got. I'll try to concentrate more and come up with something better. 3:1 ratio? I hate math! And what is a "good edit"? Is vandalism an edit? Resident vandal 13:29, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

A "good edit" is one that improves an article, from punctuation/spelling, to a citation, or addition of useful facts or jokes. Anything that would not get reverted ;). Then the vandalism is harder to find. human^{be in} 13:51, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

What happened to the references section? Bohdan did something to it that messed it up, then it vanished. --Kels 13:37, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Negative. I added two more reference sections. It was trashbat who messed it up. Resident vandal

That's what I meant by messed up. What do we need three references sections for? --Kels 13:40, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

We need it to fulfill my vandalism quota. Resident vandal

Quality over quantity, dude. --Kels 13:44, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Re: m/M uslim

yeah (grudgingly) H. I hate to give any religion or deity the privilege of CAPS. It's just the way I am. RojerB^-KtF! 13:39, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

No problem, I know where you're coming from. A certain respect is due in some circumstances, however, in order to appear reasonably authoritative. I think. human^{be in} 13:51, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Goldwater vs. Rockefeller

I'd be slightly hesitant to define Goldwater as defining any aspect of conservatism by today's standards. The current group we have today makes me pine for Goldwater and some of his ideals; those neo-cons left Goldwater in the dust. He never had any use for Falwell and them. While I don't agree with him politically on many issues, he had an integrity that is sorely lacking in today's political arena. DickTurpis 19:05, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

So sadly true. What happened to the US conservative political movement is that for electoral gain, they co-opted and sold their solz to the conservative religious movement. Thus, as the framers of the 1st amendment were concerned about, corrupting both. They also (Nixon's southern strategy) retreated from advancing the cause of human rights in the US by "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" condoning racism. It earned them post-civil right era votes & power, but at such a cost to the republic. Eh, I could go on (and on), but I long for the days of watching WFB Jr. debating radical feminists on TV, with both sides acting "sane". And polite. Oh, and please feel free to improve the article! human^{be in} 19:21, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

See also?

This is a really weird list. McDonald's? Why aren't they in Fun anyway? Or gone... AT the very least, it should list Reagan, Goldwater, Rockefeller, Churchill, Thatcher, Cons. Talk Radio... human^{be in} 13:49, 12 September 2007 (MDT)

Color

What do you think is the color that would best describe conservatives? 98.17.14.201

Pink. human 14:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)

A Question

If someone you knew told you he was a Conservative, would you hate him on those grounds? GodBlessAmerica 21:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Nah. I'd begin to hate them if they started spouting racist, ignorant, dominionist rhetoric, and not shutting up about it. --Ζωροάστρης 21:45, 13 November 2007 (EST)

UK Conservatives Liberal?

The fact that the UK Conservative party has many Moslem members is not really relevant to an argument that the party is liberal by U.S. standards. Many immigrants to the U.S. are conservative, and vote Republican, whether they are Vietnamese, Turkish, or Colombian. ^{— Unsigned, by: PoorEd / talk / contribs}

This article gets it wrong (Rockefeller v. Goldwater).

One, I'd be damned if I believe that Rockefeller believed in minimal public intrusion (see Rockefeller drug laws). Furthermore, Goldwater was pro-choice. TheRationalOne 18:01, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

1. Look it up then. 2., Reagan, who was the successful bearer of Goldwater's mantle, was pro-choice too, or apathetic on the issue. However, in order to fold in the socially conservative Christian movement, he became staunchly pro-life - and made GHW Bush swear allegiance to the same credo in order to get the veep candidate nod. human 18:50, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

@human: There isn't (well not at the instant I'm viewing the page), but this will change as soon as the page is reloaded thereby making this edit completely meaningless. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:59, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Rockefeller was more of a social conservative and economic liberal if anything. Given his anti-crime and anti-drug policies. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong on almost everything

This article is as ridiculous and insulting as the article for Atheists on Conservapedia. Seriously, racism, xenophobia, warmongering? Why not just say Conservatives eat babies and poop implements of torture. This looks exactly like an uninformed high school student's paranoid view of conservatism - the version on wikipedia is much better and very well balanced. I suggest either deleting the article for its overwhelming bias or have a conservative write a rebuttal. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.17.131.16 / talk / contribs}

You may have a slight issue with skimming or reading comprehension. What you mention above is from this: "The center of the modern American conservative movement has incestuously been pushed further and further to the "right": with each success, the bar is moved farther to the right; with each failure, it is likewise moved. It now incorporates strong elements of fundamental Christianity[1], xenophobia[2], whatever racism they can get away with[3], warmongering[4], willful ignorance towards science, and a prideful nationalism", which is part of a section describing how the philosophy has been derailed in the US. ħuman 14:37, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree, I'm not really conservative, but this article seems really biased and unbalanced. It reminds me of the stereotyping against liberals that occurs on Conservapedia.

Well i have to agree with the first person.Just read here this human. That is from conservative activist and former speech writer for George W. Bush. Ghy213 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see at least one active conservative is decrying what I quoted above. Hopefully, one day the article will be able to include a description of the conservative movement in the US returning to sanity. ħuman 20:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, I'm not a conservative but this article is ridiculous

Dutch Lib-Dems

The Dutch Lib-Dems are considered to be Conservative by Dutch standards. In fact, Liberal and Conservative are considered synonyms when talking about politics (over here, that is). I, myself, would never vote for a Liberal/Conservative, as they are way too rightist. InaVegt 16:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservatives move left and liberals move left

I don't understand this statement. Both sides move right and left depending on circumstances. For instance in Britain the Conservative party is indeed moving left - but the liberal democrats are moving right. Are you arguing for dialectical materialism here? Totnesmartin 18:41, 8 February 2009 (EST)

What I am saying is that in the 1800's, slavery was a conservative idea. Well, conservatives advocated it, but you get my idea. Now they don't. So they have moved left. The point is that the center moves left, and everybody moves in relation to the center. Well, most people, anyway. --"CUR^talk 18:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)

slavery is only a single issue; conservatives and liberals have moved left and right, and even swapped positions, on a number of issues. sorry to bring up another Brit example but in the 70s the Conservatives were for Britain joining the Common market, and Labour were against. Now it's the other way round. Your side of the pond, the Democrats used to favour segregation, now they oppose it. Positions change all the time. Totnesmartin 18:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

About that: I am not talking about parties. When Democrats favored segregation, they were conservatives. They party position has moved. But what I mean is, over time, liberal policies will become accepted, and liberals will come up with new change ideas. Society will move to be more liberal. --"CUR^talk 18:55, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Yet in terms of things like the distribution of wealth America has been moving inexorably to the right since the election of Reagan--while moving to a somewhat more liberal position on a few identity-based social issues. TheoryOfPractice 18:58, 8 February 2009 (EST)

(EC x 3) Left & right are only general phrases we attach to certain views; they're very interpretive & in reality there isn't a straight continuum (see political spectrum). I can see what CUR is saying to the extent that social progress (during recent centuries) tends to be towards more liberty & tolerance, which are arguably values of the left. But conservatives of any age are only conservatives relative to their contemporaries, not judged against the conservatives of past of future ages. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 8 February 2009 (EST)

that's true - today's liberals would have had no chance of getting elected 100 years ago. Totnesmartin 19:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Whoops, I've gone into Monday - goodnight all! Totnesmartin 19:06, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Cut to here to discuss

Tommy added this to the lead:

"Specifically, they tend to regard "holy" texts such as the Bible above intelligence and reasoning and use such texts to justify homophobia and other hateful speech."

Conservatives aren't necessarily religious, at the very least. ħuman 00:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

...look at conservapedia...... Alabama.. The south in general. I realize not ALL conservatives are religious, thats why I italicized tend. Tommy0210 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I know about those things, yes. And many Cs simply aren't religious nutjobs. ħuman 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

European 'Librul' dares to edit article about American Conservatives.

Americans please check these edits. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoconservatism?

Historian invokes Burke again, calls American conservatism on its BS. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this an article about conservatism or an article about how much we hate conservatives?

Blue has just deleted a valuable contribution to this article, marking her revision as 'minor' (presumably in order to draw attention away from the fact that she is effectively engaging in vandalism) without any apparent effort to discuss the worth of the edits in question. So I ask the question, is this an article about conservatism or is this an article that bashes conservatives? As far as I can tell, this website doesn't admit any official position on the left/right axis, yet consistently holds partisan and rather ugly views towards people who regard themselves as right of center. ProudTory (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is stuff like blanking the page and replacing with a Goatse picture (we've had that, actually). Reverting an edit because you don't like it is good old edit warring over content.

"This website" is not a monolith with a top-down enforced policy - it's a wiki populated by a community of people with somewhat diverse views. Said community tends to lean left, because the site was originally created to mock a specific site populated by moronic right-wingers. A lot of the people here are American, and their view of what is "conservative" is colored by the people identifying as "conservatives" in their country.

And if you haven't noticed, a lot of the articles here "bash" their subjects. It's one of the points of the wiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not an encyclopedia. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

PT's issue

I'm not saying what your writing is wrong, but your edits seem to be under the assumption that this is your blog. Despite the left/liberal bias, these articles are supposed to be politically neutral.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

HA! Politically neutral? Are you actually taking the piss? This article is a hatchet job and it delights in how much you guys loathe conservatives. If it was witty, it would be OK, but its simply factually inaccurate. I only have respect for facts and humour. When an article has neither, it is in dire need of reform. ProudTory (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Primrose Day

As it is, will mention it - see [1]. (Keep for the rest of today :) ) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing vs Conservative

"Right-wing" redirects to this page but I don't think that's accurate. In Russia the "conservatives" were the old guard Stalinists of the Communist Party who wanted to overthrow Krushchev for implenting more market friendly policies. Conservatives can also be fairly centrist (such as Eisenhower). Perhaps we should create a seperate page on right-wing politics? I always thought of "right-wing" as being more extreme than a conservative, sort of like how "left-wing" tends to be well to the left of a liberal (in academic circles especially this is how the terminology is used).

What a horrendous website

I figured that 'rational wiki' would be above this simple-minded political favoritism. I wanted to use this page to link to on my site but now that won't be happening.^{— Unsigned, by: a disappointed BoN / talk / contribs}

Well, ok then. Do you have any actual complaints about something?--Miekal 20:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Shit/r/shitstatistssaysays

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/comments/43k8b5/lolbertarians_just_blame_all_their_problems_on/ FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Time for Cleanup?

It seems to me that this page is getting a little long, and might benefit from some reworking. For example, what if we broke out the section on conservatism in different countries into its own page? I think this page should focus on a general overview of conservatism only, but with links to more specific conservative movements or examples (i.e., in different countries, at different points in history, etc.). Jagulard (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I mean, I think the article should be grown from Bronze to Silver to Gold, but not via chopping it out to other articles. I instead we ought to make this article great again! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so how do you propose doing that? Jagulard (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's got major cases of outdatedness. And broadness of brush. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But maybe "broadness of brush" is necessary for such a broad concept? That's why I suggested breaking the page into separate articles: one that covers the general concept, and points to others that discuss specific times and places. Jagulard (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with it being broad? How specific can an umbrella term get? Also, the way to improve it is by adding more sources, more text, polishing up the existing text (cutting/adding/improving)... Relevant images, extensive sources, novel coverage... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If I were conservative, I'd say we don't need more novel coverage, we need more navel coverage. But I am not, so I won't another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it being broad- the problem as I see it is that it does not remain broad, but rather moves from broad to American conservatism and back to broad again, e.g. "supply side economics," "conservative psychology," and "prominent conservatives." Ironically, tucked into the midst of those examples is a section that reminds us the term is hard to define- something that stylistically, the article itself tends to ignore. They are all good points, but they simply don't hang together coherently. To me, the solution would at the very least be to create a new page specifically about American conservatism. Jagulard (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It almost as if the article had been written over several years by very different people who did not know one another and probably did not even share a mother tongue. where else have I seen that? Honestly, though, the article needs a lot of work. And maybe splitting of "American Conservatism" might make sense. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm for that. Some stuff from here can be cut n pasted to start with from here and revised over there. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 03:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's have a roll call. All in favor, say Aye. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Aye; even if it means putting my money where my mouth is, as it were. Jagulard (talk)

Let the record state that Laurogeita voted aye. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

In discussing American conservstivism, snd the Repuhlicsn party, I suggest the article attempts to assume a framework of how conservatives view themselves. This is a matter of priotitization.

1. National security, defense, foreign policy. The GOP was founded on two principles: one, the dignity of the individual, and two, to preserve the Union. The attitude of most conservative Republicans today, as it always has been, if the GOP isn't looking out for these two causes, the Democrats sure as fuck can't be trusted to do it. Time was, there was a big debate between isolationism and internationalism. The internationalists won out, but the isolationists now are making a comeback. The dignity of the individual relates to two important issues today, taxation (which indirectly affects employment prospects) and abortion.
2. Economic issues, budget, taxes, business & regulation. A healthy economy is the only way to meet America's defense needs, and just as Democrats feel Reoublicans don't care about poor people, Republicans feel Democrats don't care about providing for the common defense with a healthy economy.
3. Social issues. Cosmetic and window dressing. However, nothing should undercut conservatives belief in the dignity of the individual. Here, government dependency undermines rugged individualism.

Articles that place the primary interest on domestic and social issues, and downplay, or show scant understanding of the Republican party's role in defense and security matters, and the level of taxation so that business interests are prepared to assist in a national security emergency, obviously are written by people with little understanding of the dynamics within the GOP and conservstive movement. Hey, we all know the Democrats care for poor people more and the Republicans are the party of the rich. All that can be hammered home when you list Social policy is #3 on the list of priotities of party insiders and donors. Maybe the single issue pro-lifers or anti-gay backers will get do offended once their eyes are open, they'll go home. Anyway, there's plenty of room to expand this broad outline that would make an article look more informed and believable rather than just leftist talking points as to why the GOP and conservstives are so evil.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 23:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you make some fine points, and certainly they should b included in the description of conservative attitudes. However, if I were to tackle the issue, I think approaching it from a historical perspective would make more sense. After all, many of the items you list have not always been major concerns of American conservatives, nor have they ever been exclusive to American conservatives. Rather, I think it needs to be stressed that the point of view described above belongs to one very particular flavor of contemporary conservatism, and should not be mistaken for the whole. Jagulard (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Both American parties are where they are today as the result of a process of evolution and growth, and not as junior high school teschers like to say, "the GOP used to be liberal and the Dems were conservative, then they switched". Both parties and ideologies have followed a path of evolution which has left them, on the whole, not that far off from where they began. nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a NYT OpEd from today that says something quite different than what I just posted, yet there's much there I agree with. I think the timing is right for an overhaul.nobs^{Gary Johnson for Rehab!} 07:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Communicate

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)

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)

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.Дгсђıτέςτ^{stand up and shout} 04:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

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)

Individualism?

The axes on the Nolan Chart are labeled "Economic Freedom" and "Personal Freedom." There exist "horizontal" collectivists who support much personal freedom. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:23, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

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)

Necropost, but: yep. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Where does RationalWiki stands on the political spectrum ? Diacelium (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Conservative fascism. Oolon Colluphid (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the previous commenter, RW is center to center-left, with a few users deeper toward either side. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious through its examples and loaded words (e.g., explaining "why" conservatism is "bad", with this opinion being a foregone conclusion) that its visitors are hard-left. ^{— Unsigned, by: 47.25.224.120 / talk}

Merged

Why were the articles on individual political affiliations merged? I can understand maybe liberal (but even then the article can go into specific about the confusion of that label throughout the world) but we can also talk about the bad things about centrism. And conservatism can probably get its own page as a consistently bad ideology. I don't know, I think it's better if they're separate articles, not lumped together like this. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Dunno about the "big update" by the BoN

this update. It's a lot of words, but it doesn't feel like it adds any particularly meaningful context. Maybe I'm not paying attention to the right parts, but I don't feel like a reader is gonna learn more from the new version than the old. Anyone like/dislike it? BoN, what was your motivation for making it? No real need to revert either, but I guess I don't get it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)