Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

My interpretation of the political spectrum

joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:04:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've never been satisfied with the traditional way of simplistically reducing the political spectrum to a simple left vs. right interpretation, but I also think that the majority of the "political compasses" that try to reinterpret it also have several flaws (besides being often inconsistent).

Therefore, I tried to design a chart that could include all the possible ideological variations while realistically portraying the similarities and differences between them.

This was the result: http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, it has three, rather than two axis, and each of them is related to a set of ideas and beliefs:

Liberalism: Isn't related to the common meaning of liberalism in the USA, but rather to it's original/international meaning, that is, related to the ideas of free market and individual liberty

Socialism: related to the ideas of social justice and equality

Conservatism: related to respect to traditions and religious morality

Liberalism, socialism and conservatism aren't ideologies per se, but the elements that define a particular ideology. In essence, your ideology is defined by the way you feel about each of those concepts:

A person that is exclusively Liberal and totally opposed to both Socialism and Conservatism is Libertarian.

Someone exclusively Socialist and totally opposed to Liberalism and Conservatism is an Anarchist.

A person that is totally Conservative and opposes Socialism and Liberalism is either a supporter of Absolute Monarchy or Theocracy (I couldn't find a specific term for this ideology).

Most of the ideologies, however are a mix of two of the three concepts:

A mix of Liberalism and Socialism (in opposition to conservatism), if more inclined to Liberalism is Progressivism/Progressive Liberalism (ex.: the American Democrat Party), and if inclined to socialism, is called Social-Democracy (ex.: the social-democrat parties in Northern Europe).

A mix of Conservatism and Liberalism (opposed to Socialism) may be Liberal Conservatism if inclined to the Liberal side (like the "mainstream" US Republican Party) or Traditionalism if inclined to the Conservative side (ex.: the Tea Party, Vladmir Putin, etc.).

Finally, a mix of Socialism and Conservatism (opposing Liberalism), is Fascism if mostly Conservative (ex. Hitler, Mussolini) and Communism (the Soviet type) if mostly Socialist.

I also made a differentiation between Centrism and Moderate (although this is mostly an arbitrary distinction). A Centrist is a person that have similar views about all the three ideas, while a moderate is one who has an specific opinion about one of them but doesn't have a particular preference between the other two, and this opinion may be either positive (Moderate Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists in relation to the respective concepts) or negative (in this case I considered "moderate leftist" as anti-Conservative, "moderate right" as anti-Socialist and "moderate collectivism" as anti-Liberalism - the terms here are also mostly arbitrary)

So, what's your opinion? Do you think this makes sense? Is it better or worse than the traditional ways of dividing the political spectrum?
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:04:14 AM, joepbr wrote:
I've never been satisfied with the traditional way of simplistically reducing the political spectrum to a simple left vs. right interpretation, but I also think that the majority of the "political compasses" that try to reinterpret it also have several flaws (besides being often inconsistent).

Therefore, I tried to design a chart that could include all the possible ideological variations while realistically portraying the similarities and differences between them.

This was the result: http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, it has three, rather than two axis, and each of them is related to a set of ideas and beliefs:

Liberalism: Isn't related to the common meaning of liberalism in the USA, but rather to it's original/international meaning, that is, related to the ideas of free market and individual liberty

Socialism: related to the ideas of social justice and equality

Conservatism: related to respect to traditions and religious morality

I had various discussions about this topic in the past. I ended up coming to a different conclusion and even held a debate on it (although it was exceptionally one-sided, my opponent did not engage in the resolution):

http://www.debate.org...

My analysis on ideologies led me to conclude that in the US specifically, conservatism and liberalism are one and the same. American traditions are all liberal traditions, think Statue of Liberty and our founding documents...all of them are iconic of liberal ideology.

When conservatives rail against liberalism, they're actually railing against socialism. My conclusion in the debate was that such efforts are largely misplaced and are damaging the GOP, the conservative party in the US, because any party seeking to uphold American traditions will be seeking to uphold a liberal ideology.

Here is an excerpt from the debate quoting Hillary Clinton saying the same:

Hillary Clinton "lamented that the word 'in the last 30, 40 years' has been 'turned up on its head' and 'made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government.'" Hillary has positioned herself as a moderate here, a classical liberal.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:13:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 2:38:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/11/2014 12:04:14 AM, joepbr wrote:
I've never been satisfied with the traditional way of simplistically reducing the political spectrum to a simple left vs. right interpretation, but I also think that the majority of the "political compasses" that try to reinterpret it also have several flaws (besides being often inconsistent).

Therefore, I tried to design a chart that could include all the possible ideological variations while realistically portraying the similarities and differences between them.

This was the result: http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, it has three, rather than two axis, and each of them is related to a set of ideas and beliefs:

Liberalism: Isn't related to the common meaning of liberalism in the USA, but rather to it's original/international meaning, that is, related to the ideas of free market and individual liberty

Socialism: related to the ideas of social justice and equality

Conservatism: related to respect to traditions and religious morality

I had various discussions about this topic in the past. I ended up coming to a different conclusion and even held a debate on it (although it was exceptionally one-sided, my opponent did not engage in the resolution):

http://www.debate.org...

My analysis on ideologies led me to conclude that in the US specifically, conservatism and liberalism are one and the same. American traditions are all liberal traditions, think Statue of Liberty and our founding documents...all of them are iconic of liberal ideology.

When conservatives rail against liberalism, they're actually railing against socialism. My conclusion in the debate was that such efforts are largely misplaced and are damaging the GOP, the conservative party in the US, because any party seeking to uphold American traditions will be seeking to uphold a liberal ideology.

Here is an excerpt from the debate quoting Hillary Clinton saying the same:

Hillary Clinton "lamented that the word 'in the last 30, 40 years' has been 'turned up on its head' and 'made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government.'" Hillary has positioned herself as a moderate here, a classical liberal.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

I wouldn't say your conclusions are entirely different from mine. What happens in the USA is that, due to it's history, many liberal values are actually considered to be traditional values of the society, and so there is a sort of confusion between the ideas of Liberalism and Conservatism. This is the reason why "Conservatism" in the USA is so different from Conservatism elsewhere: it has an inherent Liberal tendency that other types of Conservatism lack.

The left-wing in the USA too is much more Liberal leaning than elsewhere - what happens is that in the USA there is a sort of consensus in favor of liberalism, technically almost all political positions in the USA would fall in some shade of yellow in my chart (with the possible exception of the religious fundamentalist and nationalist sections of the Tea Party, which as I said before, are closer to Traditionalism, since they value not entirely Liberal types of tradition). In fact, I believe that even the people who are considered "Centrists" in the USA would most likely be "Moderate Liberals" rather than solid Centrists.

Basically, since there is no significant challenges to the Liberal ideas in the USA, it becomes hard to distinguish them from the Socialist and Conservative ideas, and therefore most people misunderstand the actual meaning of Liberalism, and there is an impression that Socialism and Conservatism are the only forces that move politics.

And you are right that American "Conservatives" are actually opposed to Socialism, if you look in the chart, they are in exact opposite positions. In the same way, the American left opposes the traditional ideas of Conservatism (and not the specific "American Conservative" ideology, which is largely Liberal).
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

No. Marxism is very similar to anarchy, as it entails abolishing the state. Socialism depends upon the state. That is why anarcho-communism is a thing but anarcho-socialism is not.

If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

With socialism? No. They're practically opposites.

As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:28:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

No. Marxism is very similar to anarchy, as it entails abolishing the state. Socialism depends upon the state. That is why anarcho-communism is a thing but anarcho-socialism is not.

Marxism is about installing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to guarantee the abolition of the private property of the means of production (through its seizure by the state), that is what Marx calls Socialism.
You are treating Socialism based on this concept - in which Socialism does depends upon the state - but this is not the only meaning that the term Socialism can have. I defined Socialism here as anything based on the ideas of egalitarianism and redistribution of resources, and Anarchism is derived from those ideas.


If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

With socialism? No. They're practically opposites.

See Above


As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.

Not necessarily. Non-interventionist in economy is definitely a Liberal value, but an interventionist state may be either Socialist or Conservative. The ideas of developmentism, in which the state intervention is thought to be essential to the development of the nation has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of Socialism, it's much more of a Conservative ideal. The political compass put the Vatican in the same side of the board as Lenin and Trotsky, that doesn't make much sense.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 10:28:01 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

No. Marxism is very similar to anarchy, as it entails abolishing the state. Socialism depends upon the state. That is why anarcho-communism is a thing but anarcho-socialism is not.

Marxism is about installing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to guarantee the abolition of the private property of the means of production (through its seizure by the state), that is what Marx calls Socialism.
You are treating Socialism based on this concept - in which Socialism does depends upon the state - but this is not the only meaning that the term Socialism can have. I defined Socialism here as anything based on the ideas of egalitarianism and redistribution of resources, and Anarchism is derived from those ideas.

If you have to redefine an entire political theory to make your system work, your system doesn't work. Marx didn't care for socialism. He was indifferent to it. There was to be NO state in Marx's vision.


If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

With socialism? No. They're practically opposites.

See Above


As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.

Not necessarily. Non-interventionist in economy is definitely a Liberal value, but an interventionist state may be either Socialist or Conservative. The ideas of developmentism, in which the state intervention is thought to be essential to the development of the nation has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of Socialism, it's much more of a Conservative ideal. The political compass put the Vatican in the same side of the board as Lenin and Trotsky, that doesn't make much sense.

Because the social issues then divide the Vatican from Lenin and Trotsky.
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:37:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 10:32:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:28:01 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

No. Marxism is very similar to anarchy, as it entails abolishing the state. Socialism depends upon the state. That is why anarcho-communism is a thing but anarcho-socialism is not.

Marxism is about installing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to guarantee the abolition of the private property of the means of production (through its seizure by the state), that is what Marx calls Socialism.
You are treating Socialism based on this concept - in which Socialism does depends upon the state - but this is not the only meaning that the term Socialism can have. I defined Socialism here as anything based on the ideas of egalitarianism and redistribution of resources, and Anarchism is derived from those ideas.

If you have to redefine an entire political theory to make your system work, your system doesn't work. Marx didn't care for socialism. He was indifferent to it. There was to be NO state in Marx's vision.

Socialism isn't one single political theory, it includes several different theories that range from Anarchism to Maoism. Saying that Marx din't care about Socialism doesn't make sense, since he is the founder of Scientific Socialism, and is responsible for creating the majority of the concepts used by socialists today, including the ones that aren't strictly Marxists.

You assumes that Socialism requires a state planing, but it does not. Cooperatives are Socialist structures and they don't need a state to function.



If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

With socialism? No. They're practically opposites.

See Above


As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.

Not necessarily. Non-interventionist in economy is definitely a Liberal value, but an interventionist state may be either Socialist or Conservative. The ideas of developmentism, in which the state intervention is thought to be essential to the development of the nation has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of Socialism, it's much more of a Conservative ideal. The political compass put the Vatican in the same side of the board as Lenin and Trotsky, that doesn't make much sense.

Because the social issues then divide the Vatican from Lenin and Trotsky.

They don't. Both the Vatican and Lenin are on the same quadrant of the political compass (authoritarian left), the only difference is that the Vatican appears in a more "moderate" position.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 11:08:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:37:07 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:32:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:28:01 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

No. Marxism is very similar to anarchy, as it entails abolishing the state. Socialism depends upon the state. That is why anarcho-communism is a thing but anarcho-socialism is not.

Marxism is about installing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to guarantee the abolition of the private property of the means of production (through its seizure by the state), that is what Marx calls Socialism.
You are treating Socialism based on this concept - in which Socialism does depends upon the state - but this is not the only meaning that the term Socialism can have. I defined Socialism here as anything based on the ideas of egalitarianism and redistribution of resources, and Anarchism is derived from those ideas.

If you have to redefine an entire political theory to make your system work, your system doesn't work. Marx didn't care for socialism. He was indifferent to it. There was to be NO state in Marx's vision.

Socialism isn't one single political theory, it includes several different theories that range from Anarchism to Maoism. Saying that Marx din't care about Socialism doesn't make sense, since he is the founder of Scientific Socialism, and is responsible for creating the majority of the concepts used by socialists today, including the ones that aren't strictly Marxists.

Saying that Marx was indifferent to socialism is accurate. What Marx wanted was communism. What you're imagining is communism. Communism is not socialism.

You assumes that Socialism requires a state planing, but it does not. Cooperatives are Socialist structures and they don't need a state to function.

The definition of socialism: public ownership of the means of production. All socialist theory derives from this core principle. The surplus is either distributed to society (public-ownership) or employee-models (cooperative ownership). Key industries are nationalised (which, yes, requires a state) and distributed fairly (which again requires a state).

Communism: Workers control means of production. Here, a state is ideally not required.



If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

With socialism? No. They're practically opposites.

See Above


As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.

Not necessarily. Non-interventionist in economy is definitely a Liberal value, but an interventionist state may be either Socialist or Conservative. The ideas of developmentism, in which the state intervention is thought to be essential to the development of the nation has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of Socialism, it's much more of a Conservative ideal. The political compass put the Vatican in the same side of the board as Lenin and Trotsky, that doesn't make much sense.

Because the social issues then divide the Vatican from Lenin and Trotsky.

They don't. Both the Vatican and Lenin are on the same quadrant of the political compass (authoritarian left), the only difference is that the Vatican appears in a more "moderate" position.

Lenin and Trotsky's philosophy demands they be on the left side of social issues (though in practice they weren't). The Vatican's demands it be on the right. So....
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 7:16:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 11:08:08 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:37:07 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:32:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:28:01 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:52:54 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
It's true that American left-right spectrums are vast oversimplifications of the actual political philosophies. Using socialism, however, was a poor choice, as socialism is an actual philosophy and one that it a far cry from anarchy at that. A 4 quadrant graph works better, where social and economic liberties are divided into liberal or authoritarian forms of thought. Something a bit like this:

http://www.jeffcomedy.com...

I think that when you say Socialism is "an actual philosophy a far cry from anarchy" you are actually talking about Marxism. While Marxism and Socialism are closely related, they are not synonyms. Socialist ideas existed before Marx (especially the so called Utopian Socialism), and Anarchism also has Socialism as a background ideal despite rejecting most of Marxism. Socialism itself is relatively undefined if considered an specific ideology, there is just too many different things being called "Socialism" and they are often conflicting, this is why I didn't consider it as an ideology, but just as a set of beliefs related to egalitarianism that are present in some ideologies, which in turn may be described as Socialist leaning ideologies.

No. Marxism is very similar to anarchy, as it entails abolishing the state. Socialism depends upon the state. That is why anarcho-communism is a thing but anarcho-socialism is not.

Marxism is about installing a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to guarantee the abolition of the private property of the means of production (through its seizure by the state), that is what Marx calls Socialism.
You are treating Socialism based on this concept - in which Socialism does depends upon the state - but this is not the only meaning that the term Socialism can have. I defined Socialism here as anything based on the ideas of egalitarianism and redistribution of resources, and Anarchism is derived from those ideas.

If you have to redefine an entire political theory to make your system work, your system doesn't work. Marx didn't care for socialism. He was indifferent to it. There was to be NO state in Marx's vision.

Socialism isn't one single political theory, it includes several different theories that range from Anarchism to Maoism. Saying that Marx din't care about Socialism doesn't make sense, since he is the founder of Scientific Socialism, and is responsible for creating the majority of the concepts used by socialists today, including the ones that aren't strictly Marxists.

Saying that Marx was indifferent to socialism is accurate. What Marx wanted was communism. What you're imagining is communism. Communism is not socialism.

You assumes that Socialism requires a state planing, but it does not. Cooperatives are Socialist structures and they don't need a state to function.

The definition of socialism: public ownership of the means of production. All socialist theory derives from this core principle. The surplus is either distributed to society (public-ownership) or employee-models (cooperative ownership). Key industries are nationalised (which, yes, requires a state) and distributed fairly (which again requires a state).

Communism: Workers control means of production. Here, a state is ideally not required.

That definition of Socialism was created by Marx (especially the part that involves the state). Before him people already talked about Socialism, although without a clear and universally acceptable definition (the so called Utopian Socialists). Marxism is all about using a Socialist structure (with a strong involvement of the state) to achieve a Communist society (in which the state wouldn't be required anymore).




If I made a poor choice here it was probably calling every ideology that is "extremely Socialist and opposed to both Liberalism and Conservatism" Anarchism. It's possible that people who identifies with an ideology other than Anarchism may share this characteristic, but when I made this chat I thought that Anarchism was the ideology that was most compatible with it.

With socialism? No. They're practically opposites.

See Above


As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.

Not necessarily. Non-interventionist in economy is definitely a Liberal value, but an interventionist state may be either Socialist or Conservative. The ideas of developmentism, in which the state intervention is thought to be essential to the development of the nation has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of Socialism, it's much more of a Conservative ideal. The political compass put the Vatican in the same side of the board as Lenin and Trotsky, that doesn't make much sense.

Because the social issues then divide the Vatican from Lenin and Trotsky.

They don't. Both the Vatican and Lenin are on the same quadrant of the political compass (authoritarian left), the only difference is that the Vatican appears in a more "moderate" position.

Lenin and Trotsky's philosophy demands they be on the left side of social issues (though in practice they weren't). The Vatican's demands it be on the right. So....

That depends on what specific "social issue" you are talking about and what exactly does "being on the left side" of each means. This is the main flaw of the political compass. My model doesn't take specific issues in consideration, just positions: if a position (independently of the issue it addresses) promotes equality and/or redistribution it adds to the Socialist side, if it defends individual and/or economic liberties it adds to the Liberal side, and if it upholds traditions, hierarchies and authority it adds to the Conservative side.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:40:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 7:16:19 AM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/12/2014 11:08:08 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:37:07 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:32:31 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:28:01 PM, joepbr wrote:
At 12/11/2014 10:00:46 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 12/11/2014 9:45:28 PM, joepbr wrote:


As for the 4 quadrant political compass, my intention with this chart is exactly challenge that interpretation of the political spectrum, and I still believe that mine is better. Why should economy, itself an element of society, be given an specific axis in the political compass and everything else in society be reduced to a "Social" axis?

The state role in the economy is heavily indicative of political thought, as it is with society.

Not necessarily. Non-interventionist in economy is definitely a Liberal value, but an interventionist state may be either Socialist or Conservative. The ideas of developmentism, in which the state intervention is thought to be essential to the development of the nation has nothing to do with the egalitarian nature of Socialism, it's much more of a Conservative ideal. The political compass put the Vatican in the same side of the board as Lenin and Trotsky, that doesn't make much sense.

Because the social issues then divide the Vatican from Lenin and Trotsky.

They don't. Both the Vatican and Lenin are on the same quadrant of the political compass (authoritarian left), the only difference is that the Vatican appears in a more "moderate" position.

Lenin and Trotsky's philosophy demands they be on the left side of social issues (though in practice they weren't). The Vatican's demands it be on the right. So....

That depends on what specific "social issue" you are talking about and what exactly does "being on the left side" of each means. This is the main flaw of the political compass. My model doesn't take specific issues in consideration, just positions: if a position (independently of the issue it addresses) promotes equality and/or redistribution it adds to the Socialist side, if it defends individual and/or economic liberties it adds to the Liberal side, and if it upholds traditions, hierarchies and authority it adds to the Conservative side.

Another issue is that in many, if not most issues, it's almost impossible to separate the economic from the social (after all economy is a part of society anyway). Take the "Obamacare" for example. Is it a social or an economic issue? It certainly has repercussions to both sides, it would actually be a little biased to describe it as either social or economic, since Liberals tend to look at it from the economic side, and Socialists (and Conservatives to a lesser extent) from the social side.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:54:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:04:14 AM, joepbr wrote:
I've never been satisfied with the traditional way of simplistically reducing the political spectrum to a simple left vs. right interpretation, but I also think that the majority of the "political compasses" that try to reinterpret it also have several flaws (besides being often inconsistent).

Therefore, I tried to design a chart that could include all the possible ideological variations while realistically portraying the similarities and differences between them.

This was the result: http://www.debate.org...

As you can see, it has three, rather than two axis, and each of them is related to a set of ideas and beliefs:

Liberalism: Isn't related to the common meaning of liberalism in the USA, but rather to it's original/international meaning, that is, related to the ideas of free market and individual liberty

Socialism: related to the ideas of social justice and equality

Conservatism: related to respect to traditions and religious morality

Liberalism, socialism and conservatism aren't ideologies per se, but the elements that define a particular ideology. In essence, your ideology is defined by the way you feel about each of those concepts:

A person that is exclusively Liberal and totally opposed to both Socialism and Conservatism is Libertarian.

Someone exclusively Socialist and totally opposed to Liberalism and Conservatism is an Anarchist.

A person that is totally Conservative and opposes Socialism and Liberalism is either a supporter of Absolute Monarchy or Theocracy (I couldn't find a specific term for this ideology).

Most of the ideologies, however are a mix of two of the three concepts:

A mix of Liberalism and Socialism (in opposition to conservatism), if more inclined to Liberalism is Progressivism/Progressive Liberalism (ex.: the American Democrat Party), and if inclined to socialism, is called Social-Democracy (ex.: the social-democrat parties in Northern Europe).

A mix of Conservatism and Liberalism (opposed to Socialism) may be Liberal Conservatism if inclined to the Liberal side (like the "mainstream" US Republican Party) or Traditionalism if inclined to the Conservative side (ex.: the Tea Party, Vladmir Putin, etc.).

Finally, a mix of Socialism and Conservatism (opposing Liberalism), is Fascism if mostly Conservative (ex. Hitler, Mussolini) and Communism (the Soviet type) if mostly Socialist.

I also made a differentiation between Centrism and Moderate (although this is mostly an arbitrary distinction). A Centrist is a person that have similar views about all the three ideas, while a moderate is one who has an specific opinion about one of them but doesn't have a particular preference between the other two, and this opinion may be either positive (Moderate Liberals, Conservatives and Socialists in relation to the respective concepts) or negative (in this case I considered "moderate leftist" as anti-Conservative, "moderate right" as anti-Socialist and "moderate collectivism" as anti-Liberalism - the terms here are also mostly arbitrary)

So, what's your opinion? Do you think this makes sense? Is it better or worse than the traditional ways of dividing the political spectrum?

Oh, it's perfectly fine for classification purposes, but you have to realize that liberalism is subversive and can't be officially indoctrinated into actual political designations.