NationStates Jolt Archive

I was bored a few days ago and decided to divide the PC into regions. WHat I have is an ok-version. I would really appreciate comments and suggestions for improvements, especially if you think I am wasting my time and yours. ;) Also, please enjoy the prettyness of the abstract art.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/pc1.png

I was bored a few days ago and decided to divide the PC into regions. WHat I have is an ok-version. I would really appreciate comments and suggestions for improvements, especially if you think I am wasting my time and yours. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/pc.png
Heheheh! fascists are only on the lines then?

populist and fascist are authoritarian left wing, although fascism is slightly more right wing than comunism(they overlap allot). populist is just a very light version of totalitarianism.

I was bored a few days ago and decided to divide the PC into regions. WHat I have is an ok-version. I would really appreciate comments and suggestions for improvements, especially if you think I am wasting my time and yours. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/juvanya/pc.png

What is meant by "republican" and "democrat?" If these refer to the specific American political parties, they both belong in the authoritarian right quadrant ( http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php ). (EDIT: the extreme left is intended to represent communism, which the Democrats most certainly are not. Likewise, the extreme right is intended to represent laissez-faire economics, which the Republicans most certainly are not. In fact, given their love for corporate welfare, it's my opinion that the Republicans should be placed far further to the left than as usually characterized. But, unfortunately, the political compass quiz seems to consider being anti-corporate welfare a left-wing position when it is, in fact, a right-wing position...)

I think letting the Democrat region extend all the way over to the farthest left possible doesn't seem quite accurate, and doing the same with the Republicans might not make sense either. On that note, to me it would appear that both parties are drawn as more extreme than they actually are.
What is the unlabeled white area? It appears that it might be in the area where you meant to stick Fascism?
The labelling of communism as authoritarian and socialism as libetarian doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.
Why is it arranged so that one could fall into the Populist category while still barely outside the Centrist category? The chevron-shaped things for that confuse me.
And why is all authoritarian right-wing-ness labeled as Corporatism? Many of the more authoritarian right-wingers I have met support religious involvement in the state, not corporate involvement.

Pleae elaborate on how libertarians can be considered populist....

Sheesh it is a work in progress. I did make a mistake of confusing Democrat and Liberal, Republican and Conservative. I should have a new update later today.

If you're referring to the US politcal parties, you have the democrats and republicans too far to the left/ right. Both are center-right parties, with the Republicans a bit more authoritarian.

So, who are the lucky inhabitants of that white area?

Well, err...it certainly is colourful.

I still believe US democrats fall on the right side of the economic scale. At least, that's what I've seen from PC's own graphing of US Dem candidates.

Also the very far corners should entail anarchism.

Ok, I updated it a little. and switched it to Liberal and Conservative. I also added Religionist, which are the fundamental nutjobs that include Pat Robertson.

Also, communists can be liberal or conservative (today they're mostly liberal), so I don't think it's fair to only put them in the conservative part.

i still don't think that populist would have anything to do with the liberal or libertarian areas, they would be about where the authoritarian liberal triangle is, while fascism would probably fit in that white area, and the libertarian conservative area needs a name changed as most conservatives are authoritarian.
and where does democratic totalitarianism fall on this? national socialism?(those people would more accuratly fall on the right side of the white block with fascists on the left side of the white block.)

nice idea, but for a start i would argue communists are not necessarily authoritarian in social policy (obviously left/authoritarian in economic policy, yeah)... so maybe you could stripe the 'socialist' region with the darker communist red as well?

Yeah, um, there's no meaningful philosophical difference between socialism and communism. (Socialist states and communist states aren't the issue. We're talking about ideological concepts and their premises.) Both operate under the assumption that economic liberty isn't a right, tampering with the free market is fine, and that redistribution of wealth through involuntary taxes is just grand! Also, there can be no fascist libertarians. They're mutually exclusive concepts.

Yeah, um, there's no meaningful philosophical difference between socialism and communism. (Socialist states and communist states aren't the issue. We're talking about ideological concepts and their premises.) Both operate under the assumption that economic liberty isn't a right, tampering with the free market is fine, and that redistribution of wealth through involuntary taxes is just grand! Also, there can be no fascist libertarians. They're mutually exclusive concepts.
socialism-everyone gets the exact same things, regardless of anything.
communism- what a person gets is based on how much they work.

It's a nice try, however I think it goes something like this.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3792/pc29mb.png

(Syndicalists can be right-wing economically, as not all oppose elimination of the capitalist market...)

Yeah, um, there's no meaningful philosophical difference between socialism and communism. (Socialist states and communist states aren't the issue. We're talking about ideological concepts and their premises.) Both operate under the assumption that economic liberty isn't a right, tampering with the free market is fine, and that redistribution of wealth through involuntary taxes is just grand! Also, there can be no fascist libertarians. They're mutually exclusive concepts.
actually those happen to be tools in achieving very similar aims (so they are similar, granted), but deserve to be seperated if only for socialism being the precursor to communism in marx's historical materialism theory. that plus in communism, as an ideology, there is no state or class.

but obviously you're pusing a anti-commie agenda and this isn't the place to have yet another capitalism-vs-communism debate...

socialism-everyone gets the exact same things, regardless of anything.
communism- what a person gets is based on how much they work.

You didn't read what I said. Both operate under the same premises. I never said they're not different; I said they're not meaningfully different.

actually those happen to be tools in achieving very similar aims (so they are similar, granted), but deserve to be seperated if only for socialism being the precursor to communism in marx's historical materialism theory. that plus in communism, as an ideology, there is no state or class.

but obviously you're pusing a anti-commie agenda and this isn't the place to have yet another capitalism-vs-communism debate...

They're not so much tools as moral, ethical, ideological or philosophical premises about the world. Yes, socialism is a precursor, but socialism can't function without the same basic premises about how the world should work.

Yeah, I'm anti-commie and this is definitely the place to discuss the philosophical distinctions. I'm not trying to rag on commies--well, that's just a bonus--but I do feel that it's ridiculous to put communism on the authoritarian side and socialism on the libertarian side when the two aren't all that different about their assumptions of economic liberty (*edit) and their willingness to intrude on it.

Socialism has never been put into use except in some tribal groups, such as Native Americans in before 1800.

Communism occured in the USSR and China. Possibly other nations, but I don't have sufficient info on other countries.

Populism is like a democratic Socialism. It is a lighter approach and doesn't have collectivization or income equality. And there are no bloody revolutions.