Political Scales (because we're all calling each other leftists)

This whole rightist and leftist thing is quite silly in my opinion. Personally, I don't see how you can call someone a liberal when they support a multitude of government programs or someone a conservative whey they support capitalism (which is actually a very liberal idea) yet support social conservatism.

This is why I choose to see things from this perspective: Anarchy to Totalitarianism scale (or no government to too much government).

Here's the best picture I can find at the moment to give you an idea.

However, I do acknowledge that it's too broad and that there are differences between a revolutionary and a reactionary and their goals (one would reform to a very new society where as one would reform but to a simpler time). So OT what kind of scale would you usually follow or do you agree with this kind of scale.

You have fun with that. People on this site understand the different political wings. No need to throw a monkey wrench into things.

i was expecting kraychik to be the tc

I only see Kraychik calling people leftists for anything and everything. The rest of us have more or less civil discussion.

I'm a social anarchist.

I only see Kraychik calling people leftists for anything and everything. The rest of us have more or less civil discussion.

Serraph105

leftist

bu dum psh

Oh man, I remember my professor in American Government pulling up that exact image and we all had a good laugh.

You have fun with that. People on this site understand the different political wings. No need to throw a monkey wrench into things.

airshocker

Oh man, I remember my professor in American Government pulling up that exact image and we all had a good laugh.

THE_DRUGGIE

Oh I'm guessing the scale is a joke, isn't.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Oh man, I remember my professor in American Government pulling up that exact image and we all had a good laugh.

leviathan91

Oh I'm guessing the scale is a joke, isn't.

Well it's poorly constructed, honestly.

No they don't. They state ignorance.LOXO7

Only if you disagree with them.

Pft, Libarls and Conservatives. Real men bow down to Kings:cool: regardless of political standing.

I'm a social anarchist.

ghoklebutter

Putting Stalinist and Nazis next to each other??? SRY You fail calling Nazi's leftists.

roulettethedog

Well they did call themselves socialists and did adhere to a socialist philosophy...

.

[QUOTE="roulettethedog"]

Putting Stalinist and Nazis next to each other??? SRY You fail calling Nazi's leftists.

leviathan91

Well they did call themselves socialists and did adhere to a socialist philosophy...

.

wis3boi

.

wis3boi

Actually I think this is a pretty accruate image, the extreames are really just other forms of slavery and not all that different from each other. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both very similar despite their different political leanings on the spectrum, they still enforced the same policies in many cases.

Extreamism is bad basically. I think the left vs right thing just divides us as a people, I form my own views and don't try to label myself.

I don't particulary agree with that specific spectrum. How can you establish Bakunin or Proudhon on the authoritarian scale? Not to mention, I would contend, it holds such perverted views on individualism.

The way I see it as:

Left - Socialism (Authoritative, Anarchic, National Bolshevik etc.)

Central left - Syndicalism, Democratic Socialism

Central right - Fascism, National Socialism

Right - Liberalism (Modern, Classical)

Of course there aren't precise barriers, political lines are pretty ambigious.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]No they don't. They state ignorance.airshocker

Only if you disagree with them.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

lordreaven

No, National Socialism is Fascism. The inverse does not hold true.

This spectrum is just laughable, it exemplifies the utter ignorance Americans have of political science. Neoconservatism IS liberalism, not conservatism. National Socialism is more left wing then liberalism.

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

Socijalisticka

No, National Socialism is Fascism. The inverse does not hold true.

This spectrum is just laughable, it exemplifies the utter ignorance Americans have of political science. Neoconservatism IS liberalism, not conservatism. National Socialism is more left wing then liberalism.

It's a little deeper than that, man.

National Socialism is more of a financial facism if you wanted to emphasize how much economic control the state had, and whether it would be authoritarian or totalitarian in nature, or neither but Facism, though displaying the same potential (and most likely very real) application of the aforementioned degrees of control extends beyond overt economic control, deliberately delving into intense social control and, quite frankly, control in every single area of life, thus making it the opposite of anarchism in which private interests display Facist levels of control while the state is nonexistent.

So, if you factor in the varying facets of control, there are key differences you would notice so you wouldn't make the mistake of saying two of the groups mentioned in the continuum were an exact embodiment of another.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="roulettethedog"]

Putting Stalinist and Nazis next to each other??? SRY You fail calling Nazi's leftists.

lordreaven

Well they did call themselves socialists and did adhere to a socialist philosophy...

But they adhered to a socialist philosophy and did implement socialist policies in favor of the German race.

Sorry double post

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Well they did call themselves socialists and did adhere to a socialist philosophy...

leviathan91

But they adhered to a socialist philosophy and did implement socialist policies in favor of the German race.

What's up with all these massively f*cking stupid scales that try and portray the "left" as a bunch of control freaks and the "right" as freedom-loving good guys? Well, I suppose that once you get to the point of historical revisionism then political science can go out the window too. :roll:

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="lordreaven"] North Korea calls itself the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Is it Democratic though? No.lordreaven

But they adhered to a socialist philosophy and did implement socialist policies in favor of the German race.

No... I don't get what you're trying to say. It's a fact that the Nazi party did adhere to a socialist philosophy and did implement socialist institutions and policies in favor of the German people.

I know for a fact that North Korea isn't a democracy despite the name. So where are you trying to get at?

What's up with all these massively f*cking stupid scales that try and portray the "left" as a bunch of control freaks and the "right" as freedom-loving good guys? Well, I suppose that once you get to the point of historical revisionism then political science can go out the window too. :roll:

Barbariser

I think it's just a coincidence with the scale. Besides it has both Democrats and Republicans in the same boat. Also, it's the best scale I could find. The other one I remember had anarchy at the far left and Totalitarianism at the far right. This scale though has libertarians at the far right which doesn't make sense. It's suppose to have Anarchy.

It's a little deeper than that, man.

National Socialism is more of a financial facism if you wanted to emphasize how much economic control the state had, and whether it would be authoritarian or totalitarian in nature, or neither but Facism, though displaying the same potential (and most likely very real) application of the aforementioned degrees of control extends beyond overt economic control, deliberately delving into intense social control and, quite frankly, control in every single area of life, thus making it the opposite of anarchism in which private interests display Facist levels of control while the state is nonexistent.

So, if you factor in the varying facets of control, there are key differences you would notice so you wouldn't make the mistake of saying two of the groups mentioned in the continuum were an exact embodiment of another.

THE_DRUGGIE

I did not dispute the distinction between the two, I said merely that one largely derived from the other. You're speaking of fascism and national socialism right?

[QUOTE="lordreaven"][QUOTE="leviathan91"]

But they adhered to a socialist philosophy and did implement socialist policies in favor of the German race.

leviathan91

No... I don't get what you're trying to say. It's a fact that the Nazi party did adhere to a socialist philosophy and did implement socialist institutions and policies in favor of the German people.

I know for a fact that North Korea isn't a democracy despite the name. So where are you trying to get at?

No, the Nazi party after Hitler took over was a fascist party. Even if they did use a socialist economic system (and do tell exactly what "socialist policies" the Nazi party had after Hitler took over) the Nazis were not defined by their economic policy but by the fact that they were a bunch of racist control freak f*cktards who wanted every bit of non-Nazi influence stamped out of the country. There is no such thing as a sane political scale which attempts to identify leftism with racism, xenophobia and totalitarianism, and there is a reason why political scientists consider the Nazis to be either far right wing or unaligned.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

It's a little deeper than that, man.

National Socialism is more of a financial facism if you wanted to emphasize how much economic control the state had, and whether it would be authoritarian or totalitarian in nature, or neither but Facism, though displaying the same potential (and most likely very real) application of the aforementioned degrees of control extends beyond overt economic control, deliberately delving into intense social control and, quite frankly, control in every single area of life, thus making it the opposite of anarchism in which private interests display Facist levels of control while the state is nonexistent.

So, if you factor in the varying facets of control, there are key differences you would notice so you wouldn't make the mistake of saying two of the groups mentioned in the continuum were an exact embodiment of another.

Socijalisticka

I did not dispute the distinction between the two, I said merely that one largely derived from the other. You're speaking of fascism and national socialism right?

Yuppers.

I think it's better to think of facism being more totalitarian and national socialism being more authoritarian.

I only see Kraychik calling people leftists for anything and everything. The rest of us have more or less civil discussion.

Serraph105

capitalism (which is actually a very liberal idea)

leviathan91

N30F3N1X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Enlighten yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Enlighten yourself.

Socijalisticka

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

You too.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

ShadowMoses900

Actually I think this is a pretty accruate image, the extreames are really just other forms of slavery and not all that different from each other. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were both very similar despite their different political leanings on the spectrum, they still enforced the same policies in many cases.

Extreamism is bad basically. I think the left vs right thing just divides us as a people, I form my own views and don't try to label myself.

In what way does Anarchism = slavery?

.

wis3boi

Saying that anarchism is slavery is like saying that red is blue.

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I'm a social anarchist.

Jebus213

.

wis3boi

That is seriously...one of the worst scales I've ever seen. It looks like someone threw some names into a hat and put them in the order they pulled them out.

I think I can safely say all the charts in this thread are ridiculous.LJS9502_basic

It's so hard to make a consistant one when people jumble up political definitions by mixing in all kinds of current local/domestic political theories and policies specific to one country, historical definitions, and academic theory. They often aren't compatible.

I like the classic socialism-left, liberalism-centre, conservatism-right. Or if you want to get really fancy, keep the left-right scale and turn the spectrum into a triangle for those that can't deal with communism and fascism being on polar opposites of a spectrum when they are in many ways the same.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

lordreaven

youve got it the wrong way round, Nazism is a form of Fascism , and there are differences.

anyways, its difficult to pin down my political affiliation, on some things Im moderate , on some things Im on the right, heck on a few things I might even end up on the left

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

Storm_Marine

That is seriously...one of the worst scales I've ever seen. It looks like someone threw some names into a hat and put them in the order they pulled them out.

Not perfect but probably the most accurate one here?

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

.

_BlueDuck_

That is seriously...one of the worst scales I've ever seen. It looks like someone threw some names into a hat and put them in the order they pulled them out.

Not perfect but probably the most accurate one here?

A rooster could be more accurately described as a eagle than a elephant.