Introducing the Political Spectrum

[Edge]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Comrade,)

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)

You may also recall that the capitalization emphasized the States and not the united portion of the text. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

This is something that has always bothered me, the arguement that, "This is how the Founding Fathers ORIGINALLY planned it."

Almost wishey-washey.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I'm sorry, your point is lost on me. Are you bothered because:

a. you dislike that the original intent was a republic of states?
b. you dislike that the repubic has degenerated into a federation?
c. you dislike the fact that there was original intent at all?
d. you disagree that the original intent of the author's should have any impact at all?

[james?]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
And I still stand that a Moderate is not a political philosophy; it is the lack of a political philosophy. Just like Radicalism isn't a political philosophy, it just defines the existence of a fairly extreme political philosophy. Radical Socialism, for instance, is more "out there" than, say, Democratic Socialism. Babies may be moderates, but that's 'cause they don't know anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Like political nouns and adjectives.

[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.

[Kyran]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
1) I already said that the 'Radical' title in the Berkeley sense is a title given them by outsiders, and that they themselves have a plethora of different and competing (yet fairly extreme) political philosophies. Thus, you're lumping a bunch of scattershot doctrines with a word that doesn't accurately define them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I already said what I mean by the term Radical. It's your opinion that the word doesn't accurately define them. Course, if you knew a better word, you would just say it wouldn't you?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
2) I'm not attempting to replace "radical" with "democratic," I just suggested something for a third axis, so as to differentiate Kyran's spectrum from the ones already out in a way other than his bias.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I don't need a third axis to "differentiate" my chart. It works perfectly, and nobody has even attempted to put it in action. Science does not validate new Physics by comparing inventions to old laws/rules while avoiding experimentation. We can do this right here in this thread. Why add a 3rd axis if you don't believe in the first 2? Can anyone name a political issue that is not a Personal or Economic freedom problem?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Kyran, you can't really use "Moderate" because, as the lack of a political designation, you can't really pin down a definition of the people's views on the issues pertinent to your scale.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I can't? Moderates are neutral to political issues. Neutrality is having no opinion. Should we exclude people purely because they have no opinion on certain issues? I don't believe so. Tell me why I should exclude moderates. I never said it was a philosophy, so you're arguing with your own imagination.

People do not typically say "Oh wait, I need a philosophy before I can choose what I think about this issue." Let's abstain from boxing people into man-made philosophies when the real interest is in the issues behind them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edge, thanks for the thumbs up. It's perfectly alright to notice each bracket has it's variations. Not everyone in them is going to share beliefs 100%. Some beliefs are exclusive to one bracket, while others are shared between entire rows or columns.

People do not seem to understand how to even use the former chart's mechanism. If you read ontheissues.org, the issue of Gun Ownership is excluded because "it doesn't fit the system." Liberals "should" be pro-gun rights, and many aren't. Owning property is economic freedom. Gold ownership was illegal at one point too; the product in question does not matter...it can be guns, gold, pot, nuclear weapons, etc.

Also, let us not forget that people can have conflicting beliefs. Conservatives serve as the perfect example: supporting the right of the individual to own a business, and their right to use force to stop people from destroying or damaging themselves. This manifests in prohibition.

[castille]

I tend to vary between the perspectives.

One day I'm an ultra-nationalist, the other I'm a libertarian, and when I'm horny I'm a socialist.

[Comrade]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)


I'm sorry, your point is lost on me. Are you bothered because:

a. you dislike that the original intent was a republic of states?
b. you dislike that the repubic has degenerated into a federation?
c. you dislike the fact that there was original intent at all?
d. you disagree that the original intent of the author's should have any impact at all?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Not a single answer choice I liked, though D sounds close.
We don't live in the 1700s. The ideas of liberty etc. remain, but the methods should be free to change with the times, because popular beliefs DO change over long periods of time.

It is just the arguement itself to resist change, "Because this isn't the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it," that really rubs me the wrong way.

[SVMc]

This is breif because unless someone else on this thread knows a fair bit about this area of politics it's probably going to be a new concept for a lot of people. I think the reasons why the basic forms of government don't fit well into the chart have been summarized.

The key ideas that are missing from the chart (or political positions) are post-positivist, structuralist, deconstructionist and post-modern. Note: These are political schools, I am not using these terms in the philosophical or anthropological sense.

The chart seems to be very Western centric, with largely American definitions of terms. I would also argue that it is positivist in the sense that it employs an empirical foundation of evidence and is in itself an exercise in empiricism. Further more it is foundationalist in so far as it relies upon a grounding in positive theory and objective choice rationalization.

Before I really get into this how many people here are familiar with various schools of post modern thought? I am very familiar with these issues but realize they are largely still academic. The post-modern schools came after the Frankfurt school, they are anti-foundationalist more so than the constructavists. Some major authros include Foucault, Der Derian, Shannon Bell, David Mutimer, to some degree David Campbell.... I'd have to go look up some more.

[AnonT]

SVMc: His chart does seem more like an attempt to classify Western schools of thought, but a similar one could be made including other schools of thought. It might even add an option for a third axis.

[SVMc]

I think some views could be measured in chart form, however I'm very skeptical of being able to pin anti-foundationalist schools in a chart form because it is the exact type of empiricism that they ... resist (not a good word need another). I mean we might be able to add them as a catergory of positivist and post-positivist which is what many people do for definitional ease but it then provides a limited scope of positivism and such a wide scope for post-positivism that the definitional range becomes unmanageable.

[AnonT]

Okay, well, admittedly I haven't studied much out of those schools of thought. Do you mind giving a brief explanation of some of the terms, or summaries of the different schools' beliefs?

[Kyran]

SVMc, interesting proposition. If you would be so kind as to bring us up to par on your terminology I'm sure we can figure out what matches up with what.

[Comrade]

So many things that end in -ist and -ism.