NationStates Jolt Archive

THe purpose of this publication is to dispell the myth that "The left are damn dirty Democrat hyppy commies", or that "The RIght are fundemental Nazi Republican greedy bastards". However, the right and left are not defined by these things.

Infact, the right is not necessarily conservative, and the left is not necessarily liberal. If you think so, you don't even know a damn thing about the political spectrum. This is just crap propaganda fed to you by [insert political party here]. Also, the Republican Party is not conservative, and the Democrat party is not liberal. Once again, if you think so, you don't even have a basic understanding of politics. But that will be addressed in "Conservatism and Liberalism: FOR MORON!".

So, what does it mean to be politically left? Does it mean you want sweeping change, abortion clinics around the country, allowing gay men to come along and marry your son and/or you without your consent, and hand over our country to Stalinist Russia? No, no it doesn't.

So, what does it mean to be politically right? Does it mean you want to change nothing, have a gustapo invade your personal privacy, sending the gays to consentration camp where they can work "like the animals that they are", or hand over our nation to Nazi Germany? No, no it doesn't.

What is the political spectrum, you ask? I shall show you with a diagram:

<----Left--------Center--------Right---->


Left-You believe that the problem can be fixed by strengthening the system(Government), that the government can fix the problems.
Basically, the problem can be fixed through the government.

Right-You believe that the problem is the system(Government), and that lessening the power of the government will fix the problems.
Basically, the problem is the government.

Center-You believe that some problems can be fixed by the system, but some problems will occur because of the system.
Basically, that the government can fix some problems, but cannot fix all problems.

Very simplistic, yes. But it will hopefully get the point across.

So is "...for morons", "The complete idiot's guide to..." & "...for the stupid" I'm begining to think they don't make books for smart people anymore.

Sooooooooooo... modern liberals AND conservatives would be "Left" and libertarians and classic liberals would be "Right", by your chart.

<--- liberals --- conservatives --- moderates --- classic liberals --- libertarians --->

Sooooooooooo... modern liberals AND conservatives would be "Left" and libertarians and classic liberals would be "Right", by your chart.

<--- liberals --- conservatives --- moderates --- classic liberals --- libertarians --->

More or less. About the only group which could be placed with anything that I would truly agree with are classic liberals and libertarians being on the right. As for liberalism and conservatives, I have a whole other spectrum for them. I wouldn't necessarily put a conservative on the right, nor a liberal on the left purely because they are conservative or liberal. Both liberals and conservatives can vary greatly on the spectrum. It depends greatly on the ideals of the party as a whole(Also, the Democratic and Republican party are not defined as being liberal or conservative, but more on that later), and even moreso on the actions of the party.

Generally speaking, however, Dems and Reps would be more or less on the left side than the right.

Nonsense.

More or less. About the only group which could be placed with anything that I would truly agree with are classic liberals and libertarians being on the right. As for liberalism and conservatives, I have a whole other spectrum for them. I wouldn't necessarily put a conservative on the right, nor a liberal on the left purely because they are conservative or liberal. Both liberals and conservatives can vary greatly on the spectrum. It depends greatly on the ideals of the party as a whole(Also, the Democratic and Republican party are not defined as being liberal or conservative, but more on that later), and even moreso on the actions of the party.

Generally speaking, however, Dems and Reps would be more or less on the left side than the right.
I was actually waiting for a standard partisan answer, but you understood the point I was making. You get bonus points.

*adds one more name to my respect list* :)

Nonsense.

Absolutely BRILLIANT! I have never seen such a great argument before.

Care to explain your stance, or are you just going to type a one-liner?

I was actually waiting for a standard partisan answer, but you understood the point I was making. You get bonus points.

*adds one more name to my respect list* :)

Sa-weet. When making this thread, I tried to be as non-partisan as possible. I try very hard to understand other people's point of view, whether or not I agree with them(I do fail sometimes, I admit).

Sa-weet. When making this thread, I tried to be as non-partisan as possible. I try very hard to understand other people's point of view, whether or not I agree with them(I do fail sometimes, I admit).
Same here, even though I sometimes come across as a partisan hack. :p

Up until recently, I was a hardcore Republican, until the Neocons took over. Now, I'm more of what would be called a Classic Liberal -- not quite as anarchic as libertarians.

http://rubycabernet.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/zoidy03-2.gif
tagged, whynot?

I think you should have pointed out that this definition is for the American political system only.

Left and Right in Germany, for example, refer to nationalism and/or capitalistic ideas on the right and social issues/ecological issues on the left.

I'm sure this is slightly different for all countries..

Left and Right in Germany, for example, refer to nationalism and/or capitalistic ideas on the right and social issues/ecological issues on the left.
That's not really much different from the American system.

Left-You believe that the problem can be fixed by strengthening the system(Government), that the government can fix the problems.
Basically, the problem can be fixed through the government.

bullshit. how does one explain the anti-statist left then?

Right-You believe that the problem is the system(Government), and that lessening the power of the government will fix the problems.
Basically, the problem is the government.

bullshit. this is such utter bullshit that it really shouldn't require mentioning. but we live in a strange age, full of strange people that get confused easily.

Left-You believe that the problem can be fixed by strengthening the system(Government), that the government can fix the problems.
Basically, the problem can be fixed through the government.

Right-You believe that the problem is the system(Government), and that lessening the power of the government will fix the problems.
Basically, the problem is the government.

Center-You believe that some problems can be fixed by the system, but some problems will occur because of the system.
Basically, that the government can fix some problems, but cannot fix all problems.

Very simplistic, yes. But it will hopefully get the point across.

So are you saying that the extreme left is fascism and the extreme right is anarchy?

Here's my take on it... (as an idiot's guide of course)


Right wing= Somebody who believes in the sanctity of private property or capital. They believe that if someone owns the property/capital they can use it as they see fit (i.e make profit). If people don't own capital it is either due to thier own shortcomings (don't work hard enough, stupid, crap family) and the desire to achieve more capital and compete with others for it is what drives society forward. A Liberal in the classical sense is right wing.

Left wing= Someone who believes that private property/capital leads to an unequal society. They believe capital should be abolished/regulated and wealth distributed more evenly because equality is what drives society forward. Be this through state ownership, collectivism or communism (all very different by the way).

Centre= Accepts any sort of compromise between the two.

Government is simply the battleground for the forces of left and right.

But that doesn't explain all...

Authoritarian= Believes in a strong state/government. They believe that people need to be strictly controlled/policed. These are the people who believe government is the solution to problems.

Libertarian= Believes the government is a tool of oppression. They believe in minimal laws and policing, and that control only hampers people's abilities.

A liberal in the modern American sense is centre-left and leaning towards libertarian.

So for example:
George Bush= Right wing/Authoritarian
Milton Freidman= Right wing/Libertarian
Joseph Stalin= Left Wing/Authoritarian
Noam Chomsky= Left wing/Libertarian


However politics is way more complicated than this and I personally don't believe that these labels do justice to 90% of people's political beliefs. (Milton Freidman excepted because we all know that anarcho-capitalism is an impossible load of sh*t!). Also most politicians tend to say they believe in one set of ideals and practice another so there will always be debate about exactly how to define thier politics.

A Liberal in the classical sense is right wing.

except when they weren't.

<--- liberals --- conservatives --- moderates --- classic liberals --- libertarians --->

Where's socialists then?
;)

My problem is the need for labels in general, we all have different opinions that get thorwn together because we are "Conservative", "Left wing" or "Libertarian". I'll tell you what I am, I'm whats called an Independent thinker with my ownpersonal views and ideas. Where do you put that on your chart?

My problem is the need for labels in general, we all have different opinions that get thorwn together because we are "Conservative", "Left wing" or "Libertarian". I'll tell you what I am, I'm whats called an Independent thinker with my ownpersonal views and ideas. Where do you put that on your chart?

Beside Ralph Nader. :D

Beside Ralph Nader. :D

We are not amused!





Ok 1 point

My problem is the need for labels in general, we all have different opinions that get thorwn together because we are "Conservative", "Left wing" or "Libertarian". I'll tell you what I am, I'm whats called an Independent thinker with my ownpersonal views and ideas. Where do you put that on your chart?

What are your views? Then we can tell you.
Point is, there's gonna be others who think the same as you do. Fact is also that there's a correlation between opinions on certain matters.

I'd say why don't you do a political test? It's fun.
You'll find them through google, I don't have a link right now.

From what i've seen, www.politicalcompass.org gives the best display of political alignments.

What are your views? Then we can tell you.
Point is, there's gonna be others who think the same as you do. Fact is also that there's a correlation between opinions on certain matters.

I'd say why don't you do a political test? It's fun.
You'll find them through google, I don't have a link right now.

My sig shows my results but people assume they know what I'm going to say on this issuse or that issue because of my political test results. When you actually study politics you can't use these generalisations as they are not helpful in defining specific cases.

Scyld']From what i've seen, www.politicalcompass.org gives the best display of political alignments.

Don't take those internet political tests! It's the CIA's way of keeping track of the dissidents. :mp5:

My sig shows my results but people assume they know what I'm going to say on this issuse or that issue because of my political test results. When you actually study politics you can't use these generalisations as they are not helpful in defining specific cases.

By the way, how do I get a signature? And on the left, where I'm supposed to be able to change my profile, an empty page comes up when I click it...

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

Well, I like the other test better.

Here's my take on it... (as an idiot's guide of course)


Right wing= Somebody who believes in the sanctity of private property or capital. They believe that if someone owns the property/capital they can use it as they see fit (i.e make profit). If people don't own capital it is either due to thier own shortcomings (don't work hard enough, stupid, crap family) and the desire to achieve more capital and compete with others for it is what drives society forward. A Liberal in the classical sense is right wing.

Left wing= Someone who believes that private property/capital leads to an unequal society. They believe capital should be abolished/regulated and wealth distributed more evenly because equality is what drives society forward. Be this through state ownership, collectivism or communism (all very different by the way).

Centre= Accepts any sort of compromise between the two.

Government is simply the battleground for the forces of left and right.

But that doesn't explain all...

Authoritarian= Believes in a strong state/government. They believe that people need to be strictly controlled/policed. These are the people who believe government is the solution to problems.

Libertarian= Believes the government is a tool of oppression. They believe in minimal laws and policing, and that control only hampers people's abilities.

A liberal in the modern American sense is centre-left and leaning towards libertarian.

So for example:
George Bush= Right wing/Authoritarian
Milton Freidman= Right wing/Libertarian
Joseph Stalin= Left Wing/Authoritarian
Noam Chomsky= Left wing/Libertarian


However politics is way more complicated than this and I personally don't believe that these labels do justice to 90% of people's political beliefs. (Milton Freidman excepted because we all know that anarcho-capitalism is an impossible load of sh*t!). Also most politicians tend to say they believe in one set of ideals and practice another so there will always be debate about exactly how to define thier politics.

WHat you described is the economic spectrum, not the political spectrum. However, the two do fit nicely together, and can easily be seen as being one-in the same(But one should not be used as a replacement for the other)..

However, it is easily possible for a Leftwing Politics, Right Wing Economic Conservative person to come about, or any combination of a number of things.

Where's socialists then?
;)
In the US, modern liberal and socialists are pretty much the same thing, so, they are interchangeable on my graph.

Where's socialists then?
;)

Well, most socialists want a stronger government, so they'd be on the left(probably further left than Dems/Reps).

However, it is technically possible to have an anarcho-socialist, thus being on the right. Most would fall on teh left, though.

This is a bastardization of the definition of liberal and conservative. The initial chart provided would prove why that's true. Two groups with polar opposite views - modern conservatives and modern liberals - should not be placed on the same side of the spectrum. Otherwise, it functionally means nothing. Not only that, but there's no historical or common use basis for these definitions. To me, they seem kinda pulled-out-of-ass style.

In its most traditional sense, a "liberal" was someone who wanted progressive change from the status quo and a "conservative" was someone who wanted to "conserve" the status quo or return to an earlier period. Analyzed this way, one can trace why the term liberal has meant very different things since its inception. Very few modern American liberals agree 100% with Adam Smith, and very few modern conservatives agree with Klaus von Metternich. But at their times, both were considered "liberal" and "conservative," respectively.

In the US, modern liberal and socialists are pretty much the same thing, so, they are interchangeable on my graph.
That's ignorant.

-snip-
WOW! How amazingly simplified and flawed that is! Do you even realise that politics is more complicated than that?! The left-right idea is basically crap and is an insult to politics.

Political spectrum for morons indeed.

http://politicalcompass.org/

I agree with this more. It's more comprehensive than the usual linear or horseshoe models I've seen.

Me:
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23

In the US, modern liberal and socialists are pretty much the same thing, so, they are interchangeable on my graph.
Hmm?
Have the Democrats been calling out for the abolishment of capitalism through reform or somesuch while I wasn't looking?

You'd be able to get away with calling them social-democrats, but they are certainly not socialist.



As for the original poster:
I would say that using the terms 'left' and 'right' is not the best for your scale, as they have connotations to economics and will confuse people. It would be a bit better to use the terms 'socially libertarian' and 'authoritarian' or something similar.

Your scale is vaguely like a description of the vertical axis of a Nolan chart, which is my preferred form of political description, and the one used on the Political Compass website. But yours is different, and I tend to prefer the more generally used other version over yours.

bullshit. how does one explain the anti-statist left then?


There is more than one spectrum. What I used was an extremely basic Political spectrum. You can interchange two spectrums, as they are used for two very different things.

Take for example the Conservative-Liberal spectrum.

Quick example:

<Extremists(Black Panthers)----Liberal----Moderate----Conservative----Reactionaries(KKK)>

Extremists want change, and they want it now and they want it their way. They are willing to use force to get it, if necessary. They tend to work outside of the system, and are usually right-orientated on the political spectrum.

Liberal want progressive change, but do so in a formal and peaceful manner. Generally speaking, they use the system to bring about change, and tend to be left orientated on the political spectrum, but can be on the right. They tend to use civil disobedience when the system does not work for them, but they do not tend to use force.

Moderates see the need both for change and the need to remain teh same. Generally speaking, they are usually close to the center of the Political spectrum, but it is not necessary to be a Moderate in the Political spectrum to be a moderate in the Con-Lib spectrum.

Conservatives want either slow change, or no change at all, possibly even reverting back to old times. They use the system to ensure that things do not change to quickly, if at all, but tend to understand that times do change, and adaption is needed, just not in the ways that the Liberals tend to use in such large manners. They tend to be left orientated on the Political spectrum, but also can be on the right.

Reactionaries are the polar opposite of the Extremists. They will do everything possible to avoid change, and if the system does not want to work for them, they work outside of the system. They will use force to get what they want, regardless of what the system says about.

As for the original poster:
I would say that using the terms 'left' and 'right' is not the best for your scale, as they have connotations to economics and will confuse people. It would be a bit better to use the terms 'socially libertarian' and 'authoritarian' or something similar.

Your scale is vaguely like a description of the vertical axis of a Nolan chart, which is my preferred form of political description, and the one used on the Political Compass website. But yours is different, and I tend to prefer the more generally used other version over yours.

Basically I made this to dispell the myth that Democrats are leftwing and Republicans are rightwing, or that Liberals are left and Conservative are right, and other such nonsense. My model was an extremely basic model, I know, but I didn't just pull it out of my ass. It would have been better, probably, to use "authoritarian" or "socially libertarian", but the effect would be the same.

Oh, and the Political Compass is better than my model for more detail, largely because it uses two spectrums to find your alignment. The point I was trying to make was the sweeping generalizations of most people are, quite frankly, wrong. That was pretty much the main point of my post.

WOW! How amazingly simplified and flawed that is! Do you even realise that politics is more complicated than that?! The left-right idea is basically crap and is an insult to politics.

Political spectrum for morons indeed.

Missed the point. I know this is a very simple model, and doesn't do justice to politics. I was using this model as the basic backbone of the politics, which it quite frankly is. I wasn't saying that this is what politics is, just that all politics fall somewhere on this line. I made it simple because I wanted to portray it simply.

And again: I made this to dispell the Myth that Liberals are Left and Conservative are Right, Dems are leftwing and Republicans are rightwing, and other nonsense of the sort.

I was using this model as the basic backbone of the politics, which it quite frankly is.
No, it's not. And don't make some snide remark - read my earlier post.

I made this to dispell the Myth that Liberals are Left and Conservative are Right, Dems are leftwing and Republicans are rightwing, and other nonsense of the sort.
It's not a myth. Democrats to left of the center, and the Republicans to the right. Especially when you say that the Political Compass is a better model than yours - notice who's placed where on their spectrums. If that's not enough, look at the NS Political Compass. The posters who self-identify as Democrats, sure enough, are in the bottom left quadrant. The posters who self-identify as Republicans are in the top-right.

Additionally, look at the way the terms have evolved. The Democratic Party platform (if not every individual politician) fits the original definition of liberal in its broadest sens, and Republicans conservative.

No, it's not. And don't make some snide remark - read my earlier post.


Either you work in or outside of the system. I know this is a rather oversimplification, but it wasn't made to be a huge-complicated mess, or for people to define what they are. Liberalism and Conservatism is a completely different issue than the one I addressed, as well. Just because they are different in views does not mean that they are not similar in approach.


It's not a myth. Democrats to left of the center, and the Republicans to the right. Especially when you say that the Political Compass is a better model than yours - notice who's placed where on their spectrums. If that's not enough, look at the NS Political Compass. The posters who self-identify as Democrats, sure enough, are in the bottom left quadrant. The posters who self-identify as Republicans are in the top-right.

Additionally, look at the way the terms have evolved. The Democratic Party platform (if not every individual politician) fits the original definition of liberal in its broadest sens, and Republicans conservative.

The question is, what spectrum? There are many spectrums, by which spectrum are you judging that Dems are left, or that Reps are right? In the spectrum I used, they are almost identical and to the left, usually. I used the spectrum for how one would bring about what they want.

Either you work in or outside of the system.
Yes, but that doesn't define left-right. That's the death knell for your argument. Marxist revolutionaries work outside the system, but for greater government control. Everyone would agree that Marxists should be placed on the left. And yet, your system doesn't put them there

I know this is a rather oversimplification, but it wasn't made to be a huge-complicated mess, or for people to define what they are. Liberalism and Conservatism is a completely different issue than the one I addressed, as well. Just because they are different in views does not mean that they are not similar in approach.
It's not a separate issue. Left has always been considered liberal, and the right has always been considered conservative. That's what the terms mean. Therefore, if your scale measures liberal/conservative incorrectly, the scale is inaccurate and should be discarded.

This scale of degree of government control shows just that, and has nothing to do with the concept of left/right. It also conflates social and economic positions.

The question is, what spectrum? There are many spectrums, by which spectrum are you judging that Dems are left, or that Reps are right? In the spectrum I used, they are almost identical and to the left, usually. I used the spectrum for how one would bring about what they want.
I explained this earlier, in this post and in the first two. Your spectrum doesn't measure left/right because of what those terms mean. You can say "well, I redefined what left/right means," but you have no historical support, etymological support, or academic support. Basically, it's like me saying that banana means apple and telling everyone that's the new definition of banana.

I think that the measurement of economic freedom/control should easily be divided into at least two dimensions:

The first dimension is the notion of government power over the economy. This would include enforcement of contracts, prevention of fraud, protectionism and tariffs, social security, welfare, anti-trust laws, and labor protections.
Left favors controls <-> right opposes controls
The other measure is the goal of whatever control exists. On one end of this spectrum would be the abolition of property. At the other end would be the absolute protection of property.
Left favors abolition of property <-> right favors protection of property


Communists would have high government-control ratings and tend to the abolition of property.

Corporatists would favor high government-control, but strong protection of property.

Democratic-Socialists would be more moderate on both control and personal property.

American Libertarians tend toward moderate-to-high control(for fraud, contracts), and strong property protection.

Here's sopmething I posted before at: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422009

This is inspired by another post debating whether Hitler is right or left wing. I'm sick of the vagueness and uselessness of these terms. So I have decided to make a list of political terms. These are up for debate as anything in politics is but I will try my hardest to make them as non-partisan, accurate, and balanced as humanly possible.

Rights and Freedoms

There is a difference between rights and freedoms. A freedom is something that someone can choose to do without interference. A right is something that someone believes should be provided to people. Freedoms require little or know laws, while rights have laws that detail who gets what, when, where, and how.

For example: Freedom of health care and right to health care. Freedom of health care means that everybody is free to pursue whatever health care they want and can get. The right to health care means that everybody is provided with health care. Comparing the US and Canada: the US has more freedom of health care but fewer health care rights, while in Canada people have less freedom of health care but have more rights to health care.

Rights and freedoms can be contradictory. The creation of new rights often leads to the destruction of freedoms while the creation of new freedoms often leads to the destruction of rights.

For example: Freedom of speech and the right not to be discriminated against through speech are contradictory. For if we limit the use of derogatory terms to increase people's rights not to be discriminated against, we limit the freedom of speech of people to use derogatory terms , and vice versa.

For example: The right to health care limits economic freedom, while more economic freedom may limit health care rights.

Too often rights and freedoms are confused.

For example: "Right to free speech" and "freedom of speech" sound similar and are often used interchangeably. But this is not correct and leads to inaccuracies in arguments. "Freedom of speech" implies that everybody is free to say what they want without interference. The "right to free speech" implies that someone is granted the ability to say what they want freely(presumably by the government). So the "right to free speech" is just that a right, and is granted by some agency (usually the government) which means that agency can also limit it and take it away. While "freedom of speech" implies that no agency can restrict speech.

Sometimes the difference between the freedom to do something and the right to do something becomes murky as seen in the example above. This can lead to inaccurate debates.

Freedoms usually end where rights begin and vice versa. A lot of political debate takes place due to people debating where the balance point between rights and freedoms is.

For example: The freedom to swing my fists usually ends where it begins to infringe on someone else' right not to be punched in the face. Total freedom would allow me to swing my fists even if someone else's face was in the way. Total rights would disallow me from swinging my fists to prevent me from accidently hitting someone else's face. Political and moral debate has usually ended in the balance point of rights and freedoms to where I'm allowed to swing my fist unless it connects, or has a high chance of connecting, with someone else's face.

Being anti-freedom or anti-rights is not always bad as everybody agrees that there whould be some limits on freedoms, so as to create more rights, or some limits on rights, so as to create more freedoms.

Political Scales

There are six scales to measure someone's political values: civil freedom, econonic freedom, political freedom civil rights, economic rights, and political rights. Although, this gets murky when considering international relations, so I'm only going to discuss intra-state politics, not inter-state politics.

There is some overlap between the three areas so no guide is defnitive.
There is also overlap between rights and freedoms, especially concerning political rights and freedoms.

Civil freedom- Freedom concerning personal actions and non-political group actions. Examples of civil freedoms can include: the freedom to ingest drugs, the freedom to choose a sexual partner of someone's preference, freedom of mobility, and the freedom to void oneself in public.

Civil rights- Something personal that is believed should be provided to someone. Examples of civil rights can include: the right to health care, the right to drugs, the right to a sexual partner, the right to void oneself to neighbors.

Economic freedom- Freedom concerning money, property, services, and ownership. Examples of economic freedoms can include: freedom to own property, freedom to protect property from others, and freedom to destroy property.

Economic rights- Something concerning money, property, services, and ownership that is believed should be provided to people. Examples of economic rights can include: right to own a car, right to food, and the right to health care (notice that this can be both an economic and a civil right, depending on how it is framed).

Political freedoms- Freedoms concerning political action. Examples of political freedoms can include: freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

Political rights- Political abilities or actions that are provided to people. Examples of political rights include: the right to vote, the right of assembly (notice that depending on how this is framed it can be a right or a freedom), and the right of free speech.

Left-wing- Shouldn't be used as it's a stupid term that means almost nothing. It is usually used to signify someone who believes in high civil rights and freedoms, high economic rights, and low economic freedoms.

Right-wing- Shouldn't be used as it's a stupid term that means almost nothing. Usually used to signify someone who believes in high economic freedoms, moderate civil freedoms, but low economic and civil rights.

General Political Tendencies

Some people due to their personalities, values, goals, and beliefs have some general political tendencies which can be evaluated. As well on every issue there are multiple positions, each of which may fall into one of these general tendencies.

Conservative- A conservative is someone opposed to rapid change. They prefer the status quo or gradual change. Someone can be conservative on one issue but liberal on another.

Liberal- A liberal is someone who believes in change. Someone can be liberal on one issue but conservative on another.

Radical- Someone who wants immediate and drastic change. Often used derogatorily for someone looking forward to an unachievable, utopian dream.

Reactionary- Someone who wants change back to the ways things used to be. Often used derogatorily for someone looking back on a "golden age" that didn't exist or is seen as being better than it actually was.

Centrist- Someone who trys to find a point near the middle of the liberals and conservatives. Against extremes and tries to find a middle ground or happy median. People can be centrist on some issues but not on others.

Authoritarion- The more authoritarian someone is the more they believe that people should be controlled by the laws of the land and the more aspects of people's lives should be controlled by the ruling body. This has little to do with the political structure. There can be authoritarian democracies or non-authoritarion dictatorships.

Centralization- The degree to which a central governing body controls politics. A highly centralized state has one central governing body which controls politics. A high decentralized state has many localized governing bodies with a weak central governing body.

Republicanism- The degree to which a system or ideology believes a citizen should become involved in political affairs. A very republican state has high citizen involvement, a less republican state has low political involvement. Republicanism is also a form of government, so sometimes the two types of republicanism are confused.

Political Ideologies and Systems

These terms are not agreed to by everyone and there is often much debate over what term means what. There is often a dissassociation between theory and practice which furthers confusion. I'm merely providing a basic working definition of these terms. I am not free from bias but will try to be as non-partisan and unbiased as possible. I may come back and change this if someone asks me to and I beleive that it is reasonable, or if I have something else to add or take away. Suggestions are welcome.

Anarchy- This is a state where there is no government and no central ruling body. There are many versions of anarchy, and sometimes there are decentralised councils or other forms of ruling bodies. But pure anarchy has no governing body at all. It is extremely high in all three types of freedom and rights are non-existant (or almost non-existant, depending on the type of anachy).

Capitalism- This is an economic system where government has little or no control over economic affairs. Pure capitalism allows the free market to do as it may in economic matters. Capitalism has extremely high economic freedoms, and few economic rights. Capitalism does not affect civil or political rights and freedoms, except sometimes it may limit civil rights which also require economic rights (such as the right to health care) and it may increase civil freedoms that have a bearing on economic freedoms (such as freedom to consume drugs and freedom to purchase and sell drugs may go hand in hand).

Communism, Classical/Marxist- An economic system whereby property is owned in common, but not under a central governing body. There are many economic rights but few economic freedoms. Does not affect civil or political rights and freedoms, per se. But many communists of this type believe in a system with high levels of civil and political rights and freedoms.

Communist, Authoritarian/Leninist/Stalinist/Masoist- An economic system whereby property is owned in common and is controlled and distributed by the government. There are (in theory) many economic rights but very few economic freedoms. It does not affect other types of rights and freedoms, per se. But often is accompinied by extremely low levels of civil and political rights.

Confederacy- A type of extremely decentralized federation. The states or provinces within the confederacy are loosely allied for narrow reasons, and the federal governing body's powers are extremely limited. Very high in political freedoms and rights. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms, but due to the weak federal government has a hard time limiting freedoms and a hard time maintaining rights.

Constitutional Monarchy- A monarchy where the monarch's powers are limited by law. Usually has moderately high political rights and freedoms, with no direct effect on civil and economic rights and freedoms.

Democracy- Means rule of the people. This has led to some debate over what "the people" is and who is a person. There are various forms and definitions of democracy. In pure democracy 50%+1 of people can do whatever they want. Usually is high on political rights and political freedoms, but the levels vary depending on the type of democracy. Democracy does not in and of itself affect the other two types of rights and freedoms.

Dictatorship (Despotism)- Where one person wields political control. Usually has extremely low levels of political rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on economic and civil rights and freedoms.

Fascism- This is a political system where the state, and the glorification of the state, is the ultimate goal. One person is in charge and runs the state in an authoritarion manner to (in theory) better the position of the state. In fascism, there are few freedoms of any kind, and there are some rights.

Federalism- A system by which there are two or more levels of government each of which is more or less considered equal to the other. In a centralized federation the federal government has the balance of power. In a decentralized federation, the states/provinces hold the balance of political power. Usually high in political rights and freedoms, with no direct effect on economic and civil rights and freedoms.

Fuedalism- A hierarchical economic system whereby the lowest socio-economic level pays taxes to the level just higher to them, who pays taxes to those just higher than them, and so on until the second highest level pays taxes to the highest socio-economic level. In return each socio-economic level is supposed to protect and support those of lower socio-economic status. A system of no economic and political freedoms and some economic and poltical rights. Has no direct effect on civil and political rights.

Libertarionism (Classical Liberalism)- A system of government in which the government is very small and does not intrude into the lives of citizens. Very high in civil and economic freedoms, with very few civil rights and almost no economic rights. Does not have a direct effect on political rights.

Monarchy- A system of government in which a monarch has absolute political control based on descent (usually patrilineal), justified through a god-given right to rule. Has very few, if any, political rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms.

Nazism (National Socialism)- Nazism is not the same as fascism, although the two are often used interchangeably. Nazism is fascism with a racial component. In fascism the state is the goal in Nazism, the state is a tool to racial goals. Other than this difference, read fascism as it is similar.

Oligarcy- Where a small group of individuals control the political structure. Has few political rights and freedoms, and has no direct effect on civil and economic rights and freedoms.

Representative Democracy- A democracy in which the government is elected by the people and handles the running of the state. High in poltical rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on civil or economic rights and freedoms. Often just called a democracy.

Republicanism (Liberal Democracy)- Similar to representative democracy. A system in which the government is elected by the people and handles the running of the state. Also has laws limiting the power of the majority to violate the freedoms of the minority. Moderately high in political freedoms, very high in political rights. Is often somewhat high in civil freedoms and rights dues to protection of minorities. Often reffered to as simply democracy. Do not confuse with the other defintion of republicanism.

Socialist- Sometimes used interchangeably with communism, but is usually viewed as less extreme than communism. An economic system where goods and services are redistributed (to various degrees) to provide more economic equality. Usually is high in economic rights, and low in economic freedoms.

Theocracy- Where government and laws are based upon a religious scripture. Usually has very low civil rights and freedoms. Has no direct effect on political or economic rights and freedoms.

Tyranny- A system where one person or group has political control and weilds it solely according to their own desires. Usually completely lacking in freedoms of any kind. May have some rights, but usually not to many.

There's my guide. May it be of use to those who read it. I have tried to be as unbiased, accurate, and non-partisan as possible. If you have any questions, comments, criticisms, or hate mail, post it in the thread. If I have time I will make any corrections or additions that I deem proper based on what is posted.

THe purpose of this publication is to dispell the myth that "The left are damn dirty Democrat hyppy commies", or that "The RIght are fundemental Nazi Republican greedy bastards". However, the right and left are not defined by these things.

Infact, the right is not necessarily conservative, and the left is not necessarily liberal. If you think so, you don't even know a damn thing about the political spectrum. This is just crap propaganda fed to you by [insert political party here]. Also, the Republican Party is not conservative, and the Democrat party is not liberal. Once again, if you think so, you don't even have a basic understanding of politics. But that will be addressed in "Conservatism and Liberalism: FOR MORON!".

So, what does it mean to be politically left? Does it mean you want sweeping change, abortion clinics around the country, allowing gay men to come along and marry your son and/or you without your consent, and hand over our country to Stalinist Russia? No, no it doesn't.

So, what does it mean to be politically right? Does it mean you want to change nothing, have a gustapo invade your personal privacy, sending the gays to consentration camp where they can work "like the animals that they are", or hand over our nation to Nazi Germany? No, no it doesn't.

What is the political spectrum, you ask? I shall show you with a diagram:

<----Left--------Center--------Right---->


Left-You believe that the problem can be fixed by strengthening the system(Government), that the government can fix the problems.
Basically, the problem can be fixed through the government.

Right-You believe that the problem is the system(Government), and that lessening the power of the government will fix the problems.
Basically, the problem is the government.

Center-You believe that some problems can be fixed by the system, but some problems will occur because of the system.
Basically, that the government can fix some problems, but cannot fix all problems.

Very simplistic, yes. But it will hopefully get the point across.

To quote the national fascist party, "don't go left or right, go forward!"

THe purpose of this publication is to dispell the myth that "The left are damn dirty Democrat hyppy commies", or that "The RIght are fundemental Nazi Republican greedy bastards". However, the right and left are not defined by these things.

Infact, the right is not necessarily conservative, and the left is not necessarily liberal. If you think so, you don't even know a damn thing about the political spectrum. This is just crap propaganda fed to you by [insert political party here]. Also, the Republican Party is not conservative, and the Democrat party is not liberal. Once again, if you think so, you don't even have a basic understanding of politics. But that will be addressed in "Conservatism and Liberalism: FOR MORON!".

So, what does it mean to be politically left? Does it mean you want sweeping change, abortion clinics around the country, allowing gay men to come along and marry your son and/or you without your consent, and hand over our country to Stalinist Russia? No, no it doesn't.

So, what does it mean to be politically right? Does it mean you want to change nothing, have a gustapo invade your personal privacy, sending the gays to consentration camp where they can work "like the animals that they are", or hand over our nation to Nazi Germany? No, no it doesn't.

What is the political spectrum, you ask? I shall show you with a diagram:

<----Left--------Center--------Right---->


Left-You believe that the problem can be fixed by strengthening the system(Government), that the government can fix the problems.
Basically, the problem can be fixed through the government.

Right-You believe that the problem is the system(Government), and that lessening the power of the government will fix the problems.
Basically, the problem is the government.

Center-You believe that some problems can be fixed by the system, but some problems will occur because of the system.
Basically, that the government can fix some problems, but cannot fix all problems.

Very simplistic, yes. But it will hopefully get the point across.


Lies, all lies!!! Your really the editor of the Christian Science Moniter!

]
Two groups with polar opposite views - modern conservatives and modern liberals - should not be placed on the same side of the spectrum.

Their views are not polar opposites. The media just plays it all up as if they are. They actually agree on a lot more than they realise, and in truth most of the political arguing that is done in western nations is between different types of liberal capitalists.

So are you saying that the extreme left is fascism and the extreme right is anarchy?
That sounds right to me.