[G. Adams]

Shame I couldn't step in earlier, damned college banned me from the net for a fortnight.

The reason it is important for political titles to be clearly defined is that people loosely use them, cause confusion among the general populace and then you end up with bullshit being accepted. Such as the USSR actually being communist just because Lenin said it was.

So, for the record. Radical and Moderate only refer to a person or bodies views on the extent to which society should be changed, NOT the way in which it should be changed.

A radical is not a socialist by definintion, though a socialist can be radical. You could be a radical conservative (not in the US, wouldn't take much change to that type of society) but in Germany or Sweden you certainly could.

Oh, and a libertarian socialist is an anarchist, but an anarchist isn't neccesarily a libertarian socialist. There are left and right wing variants of anarchism.

Apart from the weakness of the definitions used in your chart, and the fact that most of those terms cover many sub theories which would end up in different places on the chart to their root theory, I can't fault it. But this is not new, I've seen highly similar charts all over the net and my textbooks.