A new view of Socialism, Capitalism etc - forget the old rig

[apathy maybe]

In the old right and left view of politics socialism and communism are placed on the left and fascism and capitalism are placed on the right.
(old view)
<SCo----------------------------------------------------Ca------F>

I was talking to a teacher the other day and he showed me a line that was a (freedom/politcal I don't know what to call it) view rather then the old economic view of things.
Socialism and Fascism on the left (the gov has power ignoring how it got or holds that power) with capitilism on the right and on the far right anachy (no gov)
(new view)
<SF----------------------------------------------------Ca------A>

now my problem is that he was claiming that communism was on the left of this new line, and supports this through saying point to a country today that is closest to the communist ideal and then place them on the line. They are on the left.

But in my view communism is to the right of capitalism and to the left of anachy, but he didn't see that.

ignoring that there is a better scale (shown at http://www.politicalcompass.org, another good representation of 2D is at http://www.ny.lp.org/essays/silberger/reply.htm (you have to scroll down a bit, no pic)) where do you thing communism fits on this line, and what do you think of this line?

(Edited by apathy maybe at 2:28 pm on May 21, 2003)

[redstar2000]

The old "left-right" division comes from the National Assembly of revolutionary France. As seen from the speaker's chair, the most revolutionary bourgeois elements--the Jacobins--were on the extreme left of the chamber while the moderates sat on the center and conservative elements were on the right.

What this division was really based on was verbal committment to equality, which is why we still use it today. Anarchists and Left or Libertarian Communists are the most extreme egalitarians; on the far right are fascists and Nazis, the most extreme anti-egalitarians.

It has proven to be a useful "shorthand" version of political analysis for two centuries and is not, I think, likely to be abandoned any time soon.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:01 am on May 21, 2003)

[apathy maybe]

What this division was really based on was verbal committment to equality
this is a really good summary of that scale however, the scale ignores committment to freedoms, such as freedom of speach which one can not say is represented at the far right of the scale any more then at the far left (at least not all of the far left or right). Even levals of freedom of religion are not represented, nor are ethical values. So unless we get a much more complicated scale (maybe 3D) we need a number of scales to represent these other values.

but apart from that redstar2000 do you think that communism is on the right or the left of the 'new' scale?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from apathy maybe on 9:04 am on May 21, 2003

What this division was really based on was verbal committment to equality
this is a really good summary of that scale however, the scale ignores committment to freedoms, such as freedom of speach which one can not say is represented at the far right of the scale any more then at the far left (at least not all of the far left or right). Even levals of freedom of religion are not represented, nor are ethical values. So unless we get a much more complicated scale (maybe 3D) we need a number of scales to represent these other values.

but apart from that redstar2000 do you think that communism is on the right or the left of the 'new' scale?

There have been countless scales put foward as 'alternatives' to the old 'left-right' scale. However, the simple fact is that this is a SIMPLE scale, and you're trying to propose a more 'COMPLICATED' one, like so many people beforehand.

If you REALLY want to measure someone's politics on a scale or graph, you would have to have something like a BILLION axes.

And remember, the meaning of 'freedom' can have many meanings. Fascism means freedom in the eyes of some.

Quite frankly, I would have to say that measuring someone's politics is a complete waste of time. It brings us no benefit.

If someone is unsure of their politics, then they should study the different political views, instead of having themselves measured.

[sc4r]

Actually I think you need only three to express the true basic positions. Individual people will have views on isolated issues which dont conform to their main ideological position of course (because people are inconsistant and analysis is not perfect).

The three positions are :

Equality of opportunity for individuals based on performance (Socialism).

Equality of opportunity for individuals based on ownership (Capitalism).

Arbitrary distinctions about who counts as a full individual (Fascism).

seen this way Nazi germany can be seen as a capitalist Fascism, The USSR can be seen as a socialist Fascism, The USA can be seen as a moderate capitalist Fascism.

Genuine arguments then revolve around which you prefer and how to actually deliver the objective (Democracy for example is a means to an end , not really an end in itself).

There will of course be non genuine arguments which revolve around the fact that people will try to claim that the system they benefit from is other than it is (Republican USA for example will claim that by the above categorisation is is both Socialist and Capitalist and not at all Fascist - although self evidently they wont actually use the word socialist).




(Edited by sc4r at 12:33 pm on May 21, 2003)

[Pete]

I don't like that new view. My PoliSci teacher loves it for some reason, allows them to criticize communism more I guess. Here is my proposal:


Evil Liberals



Evil Centrists

Nice Commies Evil Facists

[Felicia]

Yes, I agree with that perfectly Pete! :biggrin:

[sc4r]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 7:53 pm on May 21, 2003
I don't like that new view. My PoliSci teacher loves it for some reason, allows them to criticize communism more I guess. Here is my proposal:


hehehehe .....Applause and agreement

[Hate Is Art]

My History Teacher has a circle so it would be
_________________
l l
Communism Fascism
l l
Socialism Capitilism

So the higher up you get the more closely linked they are. So Communism is like Fascism etc..

The guy is a dick

[Felicia]

Quote: from Digital Nirvana on 9:02 pm on May 21, 2003
My History Teacher has a circle so it would be
_________________
l l
Communism Fascism
l l
Socialism Capitilism

So the higher up you get the more closely linked they are. So Communism is like Fascism etc..

The guy is a dick






my global history teach had moreorless the same theory...... that the spectrum is more shaped like a horse shoe than a straight line...... therefore putting communism next to fascism.

[Pete]

The circle is useless. The right wingers like that one here, I personally am fine with the left - right system, and if you are a liberal you are not on it... ;)

[sc4r]

Quote: from Digital Nirvana on 9:02 pm on May 21, 2003
My History Teacher has a circle so it would be
_________________
l l
Communism Fascism
l l
Socialism Capitilism

So the higher up you get the more closely linked they are. So Communism is like Fascism etc..

The guy is a dick


This guy is a history teacher and does not realise that irrespective of whether his schematic fairly weights the different facets of these things he has by any reckoning got either Commumism/Socialism or Fascism/Capitalism arse about face ?.

What country do you live in ?

A circle is a really bad representation anyway. It is glib and probably sounds 'clever' and maybe 'creative' but it is flat dumb because there is absolutely no way you can make 'NO private ownership of property' and 'ONLY private ownership of property' meet (which rules out communism and capitalism linking) or 'NO State' and 'An all important state' meet (which rules out Communism and Fascism linking).

(Edited by sc4r at 10:47 pm on May 21, 2003)

[redstar2000]

A/M, I intended to answer your question, but one of your links would not work for me at all and the other delivered what appeared to be a scheme whereby minimal government was in the "center" and fascists and communists were on the extreme right and left respectively, being "tyrannies".

I don't find this particular abstraction to be useful.

:cool:

[Conghaileach]

Here you go:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Conghaileach]

This test has been carried out on the board for a while now. There used to be a sticky in Chit Chat (I think) where people posted their results.

I did it for the first time in ages today, and got:
Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.85

It's my best yet. :)

[synthesis]

I think, if you really want to classify a person, you should really just stick with the name of an ideology. Scales, charts, diagrams, and other such means are, almost without exception, contrived, arbitrary, and generally useless.

Now, if you want to classify an ideology, there's really no excuse for not knowing their positions on the issues. I'd rather know that Republicans oppose Third World democracy, abortion rights, and gun control than that they place (9.83 , 1.21) on some diagram invented by some nobody halfway across the world.

Just my opinion.

[Felicia]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 6:02 pm on May 21, 2003
The circle is useless. The right wingers like that one here, I personally am fine with the left - right system, and if you are a liberal you are not on it... ;)

haha, the world of ideology according to Pete....

Nice __cranky-ass___non-existent____Evil bastards____fucking fascists that
commies socialists evil bastards w/ stick up need to be
asses skewered!!


okok, some of that's mine too :biggrin:

[Conghaileach]

I have no idea what 'skewered' means, but as long as it's painful I'm happy with it.

[Felicia]

Quote: from CiaranB on 3:57 pm on May 22, 2003
I have no idea what 'skewered' means, but as long as it's painful I'm happy with it.
jab a big stick through them.... Vlad style ;)

*poke poke*

hee hehehehe :cheesy:

(Edited by felicia at 7:34 pm on May 22, 2003)

[apathy maybe]

The problem with just having names is that the cappies call what was in the USSR and North Korea etc communist when in fact they are nothing like it. If we all aggreed on names that would be good.
Otherwise we need to have a scale that is complex enough so that cappies and fascists can not say that the Stalin style Socilism is right next to 'real' communism and that 'real' communism is right next to fascism.