Posted: 8/7/2009 4:14:08 AM EDT
|
I drew this to try and illustrate where we are going.
I based it on the principle found in the book The 5,000 Year Leap, which explains how the left/right political spectrum we are used to is misleading. In the left/right model, you can have tyranny at either end. The author of the book makes the point that a more meaningful model has no government at one end and totalitarian government at the other. Since no government would result in anarchy and chaos, we don't want that extreme. At the other end is an all-powerful government, which of course, negates freedom of the individual. The ideal is to have just enough government for a reasonably stable and orderly society, while maximizing liberty. Generally, fascism is considered to be "right wing" tyranny. However, since it is a form of tyranny, it belongs at the same end of the spectrum as Marxism/socialism/communism. I branched Marxism into socialism and communism, with socialism being the softer of the two, but if allowed to progress would eventually develop into communism. They share the same root and, I believe, would eventually lead to the same destination. What do you guys think? 
|
|
Quoted:
Decent chart. Nazis are left wing. Anything else and you are being a tool for the liberals. Why is it so important for some of you that Nazism be associated with the Conservative movement? Since Nazi is "national socialist", it would be at the tyranny end of the scale. |
|
Quoted:
It goes from left to right. 1.Tyranny 2.Oligarchy 3.Democracy 4.Republic 5.Anarchy You can fit terms like Socialism, Communism, Constitution, ect below those. True. My goal is to try to educate people that the left wing vs right wing debate that is most common doesn't go anywhere. Making people think that their choices are between tyranny on the left or tyranny on the right doesn't provide alternatives to tyranny. |
|
Quoted:
I've always thought of it being in terms of left or right though the extreme left is Oligarchy and the extreme right is Anarchism. I understand what you are saying, but most people view extreme right as fascist. Then again, "fascist" is one of the most used, least understood words flying around today. Inigo Motoya would have something to say to most people who toss that word around. |
|
Since government is on the left side of the dividing line, anarchy would be on the right. We need some government, but just enough. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Decent chart. Nazis are left wing. Anything else and you are being a tool for the liberals. Why is it so important for some of you that Nazism be associated with the Conservative movement? Since Nazi is "national socialist", it would be at the tyranny end of the scale. As it should be. nazis were leftists. Honestly read their political goals and they will look a lot like the dims goals. |
|
Quoted:
Decent chart. Nazis are left wing. Anything else and you are being a tool for the liberals. Why is it so important for some people here that Nazism be associated with the Conservative movement? Left Vs. Right can be skewed, a more accurate projection is the growth of liberty/freedom Vs. Growth of Government. |
|
Quoted:
Glenn explained this a few months ago and it cast a new light on the "left/right" thing for me. Yeah, when I saw him explain that I picked up a copy of The 5,000 Year Leap, where he learned it from. One of my main points was putting fascism on the left end of the scale, where it belongs. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you carry that thing to its natural conclussion, it forms a circle instead of just a line. Care to expound? I'm always interested in what you have to say. Hard to explain. And I am working from instinct, plus a lifelong interest in all different sorts of history. For example, we tend to think of socialists as liberals –– yet Nazis were socialists. We think of Nazis as ultra- right wing intolerant. Yet they were enthusiastic about nature, and were proto- greenies. Plus quite a few of the higher-ups were probably gay. The far-far-"left" and the far-far-"right" always have more in common with one another than they have with any sort of moderate or traditionalist. Anarchists would seem to be simply "small government" types on steroids, but they are always out there indistinguishable from the most totalitarian statist socialists. There really is no simple "left" and "right", and definitely not now. The sooner we let go of calling ourselves on party or another, one end of the spectrum or the other, the sooner we claim our real power. Personally I do not care who sleeps with whom. I do care how much the government takes out of my check. That would make me a "liberal" to some, and a "conservative" to others. People like me are pretty much a New Creature in search of a home. $0.02 cheerfully refundable |
|
Quoted: I drew this to try and illustrate where we are going. I based it on the principle found in the book The 5,000 Year Leap, which explains how the left/right political spectrum we are used to is misleading. In the left/right model, you can have tyranny at either end. The author of the book makes the point that a more meaningful model has no government at one end and totalitarian government at the other. Since no government would result in anarchy and chaos, we don't want that extreme. At the other end is an all-powerful government, which of course, negates freedom of the individual. The ideal is to have just enough government for a reasonably stable and orderly society, while maximizing liberty. Generally, fascism is considered to be "right wing" tyranny. However, since it is a form of tyranny, it belongs at the same end of the spectrum as Marxism/socialism/communism. I branched Marxism into socialism and communism, with socialism being the softer of the two, but if allowed to progress would eventually develop into communism. They share the same root and, I believe, would eventually lead to the same destination. What do you guys think? http://i687.photobucket.com/albums/vv233/brohawk/political_spectrum.jpg Deck-stacking bullshit... The political spectrum is not supposed to be about 'liberty vs order'... It is not supposed to be a 'Left Bad, Right Good' thing... You can find 'bad' on both extremes.... It's about change vs tradition... The reason that being Conservative is good now... Is that we've changed ENOUGH. In 1776, the conservatives were MONARCHISTS... Being 'Conservative' is not about 'freedom' - it's about Conserving something... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you carry that thing to its natural conclussion, it forms a circle instead of just a line. Care to expound? I'm always interested in what you have to say. Hard to explain. And I am working from instinct, plus a lifelong interest in all different sorts of history. For example, we tend to think of socialists as liberals –– yet Nazis were socialists. We think of Nazis as ultra- right wing intolerant. Yet they were enthusiastic about nature, and were proto- greenies. Plus quite a few of the higher-ups were probably gay. The far-far-"left" and the far-far-"right" always have more in common with one another than they have with any sort of moderate or traditionalist. Anarchists would seem to be simply "small government" types on steroids, but they are always out there indistinguishable from the most totalitarian statist socialists. There really is no simple "left" and "right", and definitely not now. The sooner we let go of calling ourselves on party or another, one end of the spectrum or the other, the sooner we claim our real power. Personally I do not care who sleeps with whom. I do care how much the government takes out of my check. That would make me a "liberal" to some, and a "conservative" to others. People like me are pretty much a New Creature in search of a home. $0.02 cheerfully refundable The red should tell you right there they are leftists. Right wing people are not intolerant. And anarchists are only for anarchy until they get into power. Then they become totalitarians. |
|
Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png biaxial charts work much better. By your chart fascist and conservative liberalism would have to have something in common. What is it? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png biaxial charts work much better. By your chart fascist and conservative liberalism would have to have something in common. What is it? Strong military just for starters. As you progress downwards you have more government control. As you progress upward you have less government control. I think the middle is where you have limited government but start preparing the way for either weakening the government or strengthening it. That's why a lot of bush policies lead the way to obama abuses. You can see the military as an important way to protect yourself, or as an important way to project power. Both strengthen the government and move down. Or you can see the military being used against you and try to curtail its growth and limit it. That's movement up ward. here's an interesting voting chart showing how political ideologies align. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/poli-compare-parties.html Republicans ARE big tent and Democrats are politically unified. Which wins elections... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png biaxial charts work much better. By your chart fascist and conservative liberalism would have to have something in common. What is it? Strong military just for starters. As you progress downwards you have more government control. As you progress upward you have less government control. I think the middle is where you have limited government but start preparing the way for either weakening the government or strengthening it. That's why a lot of bush policies lead the way to obama abuses. You can see the military as an important way to protect yourself, or as an important way to project power. Both strengthen the government and move down. Or you can see the military being used against you and try to curtail its growth and limit it. That's movement up ward. here's an interesting voting chart showing how political ideologies align. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/poli-compare-parties.html Republicans ARE big tent and Democrats are politically unified. Which wins elections... But that also means the opposite of the other side. Communists are militaristic. In fact the only ones that aren't are the top left, but only because there is no .gov. The top right can also have a strong military. The fact is a 2 dimensional square doesn't work either. Actually a 3 dimensional tree would work best. And fascist (nazis) would be on the same branch as commies and other leftists. Conservatives would be on another branch far away. And we are talking ideology, not political party. Republicans are actually just socialist lite with some Conservatives thrown in. I think the D's are just as much a coalition as the R's, but they do know how to team up better. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/36/European-political-spectrum.png/766px-European-political-spectrum.png biaxial charts work much better. By your chart fascist and conservative liberalism would have to have something in common. What is it? Strong military just for starters. As you progress downwards you have more government control. As you progress upward you have less government control. I think the middle is where you have limited government but start preparing the way for either weakening the government or strengthening it. That's why a lot of bush policies lead the way to obama abuses. You can see the military as an important way to protect yourself, or as an important way to project power. Both strengthen the government and move down. Or you can see the military being used against you and try to curtail its growth and limit it. That's movement up ward. here's an interesting voting chart showing how political ideologies align. http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/poli-compare-parties.html Republicans ARE big tent and Democrats are politically unified. Which wins elections... But that also means the opposite of the other side. Communists are militaristic. In fact the only ones that aren't are the top left. The top right can also have a strong military. The fact is a 2 degree square doesn't work either. As I've said before... The ONLY model that DOES work, is the change vs tradition one... The only problem is, it doesn't allow you to 'moralize' the spectrum and uniformly call one side or the other 'ALLWAYS' good or bad... When you try to stack the deck, you get the above results.... |
|
Quoted:
Hard to explain. And I am working from instinct, plus a lifelong interest in all different sorts of history.... [snip] I think I know where you are coming from. When I was pondering the left vs right thing in the usual sense, I realized that a straight line was inadequate to describe it. If you went far left, there was totalitarianism. If you went extreme "right", there it was again. At that time, I realized that if either extreme brings you to the same condition, a circle would be a better picture. However, I've abandoned the traditional left vs right as defined by "socialism" vs "fascism" (which most people erroneously put on the right. The basic linear scale showing the amount of government works well for me at this point. The above bi-directional chart could be a useful tool for defining one's political philosophy, but at this time my main concern is how much liberty do we have. The antithesis of liberty is government power, so a linear format is adequate for comparing the two. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Hard to explain. And I am working from instinct, plus a lifelong interest in all different sorts of history.... [snip] I think I know where you are coming from. When I was pondering the left vs right thing in the usual sense, I realized that a straight line was inadequate to describe it. If you went far left, there was totalitarianism. If you went extreme "right", there it was again. At that time, I realized that if either extreme brings you to the same condition, a circle would be a better picture. However, I've abandoned the traditional left vs right as defined by "socialism" vs "fascism" (which most people erroneously put on the right. The basic linear scale showing the amount of government works well for me at this point. The above bi-directional chart could be a useful tool for defining one's political philosophy, but at this time my main concern is how much liberty do we have. The antithesis of liberty is government power, so a linear format is adequate for comparing the two. Which is where the problem comes in... 'Works for you' <> 'Accurate'... There is a reason we have the terms 'Conservative' and 'Liberal'... Trying to re-define them as measures of 'government power' completely breaks those definitions... For example, if you are living in a totalitarian state, 'Liberal' = change towards more freedom (Eg, in the USSR, Yeltzin would have been a liberal)... If you are living in a free republic, 'Liberal' = change towards less freedom (Say, Pelosi)... |
|
Quoted:
Which is where the problem comes in... 'Works for you' <> 'Accurate'... There is a reason we have the terms 'Conservative' and 'Liberal'... Trying to re-define them as measures of 'government power' completely breaks those definitions... For example, if you are living in a totalitarian state, 'Liberal' = change towards more freedom (Eg, in the USSR, Yeltzin would have been a liberal)... If you are living in a free republic, 'Liberal' = change towards less freedom (Say, Pelosi)... You pompous, condescending, arrogant blowhard. How dare you come into my thread and try to redirect my discussion in a feeble attempt to impress us with your omniscience. What I meant was, some people think their purpose in life is to educate the rest of us ignorant dolts, and the attitude becomes tiresome. Of course "conservative" meant different things in the United Stated vs. the Soviet Union. The key is in what they were trying to conserve. The essence of the experiment in government given to us by the Founders is LIBERTY. That should be our goal, not unflinching party loyalties when both main parties have contributed to the erosion of it. Rhetorical question: How have both parties eroded liberty? I'll help you out here - By increasing government power and control over our lives. I suppose that since I helped you with the answer the question is no longer rhetorical, but I wanted to make sure you arrived in the right place. The terms left and right get thown around so much with so many people applying their own meaning to them. To one person, "right wing" means freedom, while to another it means oppression (whether real or imagined). In the end nobody is closer to an understanding or agreement. Government is the enemy of Liberty. George Washington understood that over two centuries ago. We need just enough, but you might like a little bit more than I would. |