AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Political "scale" is illogical.

17 14342
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

The political scale of left wing vs right wing is illogical in every way. If we put every government type together on the so called scale you wouldn't be able to unless you just play by favorites.

Traditional/French Revolution Scale.
Left: Less Government /// Right: More Government.

"Modern Scale".
Left: Progressive /// Right: Unprogressive.

Exhibit: A
The Modern scale is basically Liberal bias since it's saying Conservatives are just unprogressive, if we put Liberals and Conservatives on the "modern scale" Conservatives and Libels are both on the left next to the middle. On a traditional scale they're still right next to each other. Then we have the issue of the Monarchy, Socialist, Communist, and etc governments.
^
Lets put them on a Traditional Scale first. But first let me remind you all that there are government types then sub-government types ex. Republic then Democratic Republics. I'm just going to do the sub-government types to avoid confusion and list them as they are in theory not practice and of course I will not list all types of sub-governments because there are more theories of government than practice. Also please do not mix up Nobility and Aristocracy.

Traditional Scale
Theocracy<-Absolute Monarchy<-Totalitarian<-Timocracy<-Oligarchy<-Fascism<-Aristocratic Republic(The Roman Republic)<-Socialism<-Constitutional Monarchy(Modern)<-Democratic Republic,<-Liberalism<-Conservatism<-Middle->Democracy->Communism->Anarchy
^
There is a lot to notice in this scale isn't there? Most Government types are on the left; a monarchy isn't so far from a Republic after all; the scale makes no sense; just throwing out some examples of what you might be thinking. Now I move forward. As you can see the government types above can also be political parties and they can also be skewed into different places.

Modern Scale
The Modern Scale isn't even worth doing if you've considered the above. The Modern scale is completely bias, opinionated, or entirely dependent on dozens of things, ex. is it a good Monarch? Is it a corrupt republic? Is it only for their economy? Etc. Which brings me to my next point.

Exhibit: B
You can be economically A and be socially E then when we put them together we just cram it into one wing and it is just completely inaccurate for both scales.

Exhibit: C
Right wing and left wing is also dependent on what country you're in. Europe thinks America is right wing. But wait... We have a new president every 4-8 years. A handful still think America has a smaller percentage of Bleeding Hearts instead of the 50% thing we have going on.

Conclusion: The political scale(s) have been simply skewed and used as propaganda.

Quick FAQ
^
Democracy and Communism on the right?
In Theory they do not require/have governments.
What is Timocracy?
Feudalism or any government type that has an honor system.
What is a Bleeding Heart?
It is the "cliche" Liberal.

  • 17 Replies
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,507 posts
Jester

That's why I use this new political spectrum to demonstrate that fringe groups from "either end" are actually reflecting the same ideologies. Democrats and Republicans are closer to each other than the majority realize.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/wa5187d643.jpg

How close are American Democrats and Republicans? This close:

http://politicalcompass.org/images/us2012.png

TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

I don't believe there should be a scale at all. When you look at the scale you've provided, it's more accurate but it's still leaving out a lot of stuff that have a big sway.

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Shepherd

Like at circle

<< 360°Fasists <180°Conservativs |0°Middle| 180°Liberals> 360°Communists>>

Extremists are one the same placa and Conservativs and Liberals are on opposite sides but they are defined by same thing. They are just like branches of tree wich came from sam spot but ended out on different sides.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

The Modern scale is basically Liberal bias since it's saying Conservatives are just unprogressive, [...]
Well, no, it isn't. You may as well argue that taxonomy is LGBQ(etc.) bias because of the genus name "homo". The very meaning of conservative is "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." (link). Whether or not a "conservative party" chooses to be conservative or progressive is irrelevant.

[...] if we put Liberals and Conservatives on the "modern scale" Conservatives and Libels are both on the left next to the middle.
Well, no, actually. In fact, in terms of "liberal parties" and "conservative parties" the general trend is more the reverse in most nations, although possibly to less extremes in recent years.

There is a lot to notice in this scale isn't there?
I'll say. Most notably that it is completely wrong. Everything from Theocracy to Oligarchy is reversed and on the wrong end of the spectrum, as are Democracy, Communism, and Anarchy. Your Middle is nowhere near the middle, which, on a traditional scale, should be to the right of Constitutional Monarchy and to the left of Aristocratic Republic. Also, "Liberal" and "Conservative" should not be on the scale at all, as these are the Left and Right extremes. I can see why you find it illogical, but that isn't the fault of the political scale itself; just your rendition of it.

Right wing and left wing is also dependent on what country you're in.
This is correct. Whatever government a country has will always be to the right of the middle for that country, with more outdated political systems being further to the right. To the left is anything new to that country, including most of the radical systems.

Europe thinks America is right wing. But wait... We have a new president every 4-8 years.
1 To most of Europe, it is.
2 Having a fixed term of office is not left-wing in any way whatsoever, and hasn't been for the last 50-200 years.

A handful still think America has a smaller percentage of Bleeding Hearts instead of the 50% thing we have going on.
So?

Democracy and Communism on the right?
In Theory they do not require/have governments.
Well, no. They are governments. Anarchy is the only ungoverned political system, and it most certainly is not right-wing.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,825 posts
Jester

A handful still think America has a smaller percentage of Bleeding Hearts instead of the 50% thing we have going on.

The US? Liberal? Which universe are you from?

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Like at circle

<< 360°Fasists <180°Conservativs |0°Middle| 180°Liberals> 360°Communists>>

1 No. It isn't anything like a circle at all. This is a linear relationship between polar opposites, not an arbitrary East-of-here/West-of-there comparison.
2 According to your coordinates, this actually describes two full circles. You have Facism, Communism, and Middle all converging at the same point, while Conservatives and Liberals converge at another.
3 Aside from Facism (which varies with time and location) you've also got the order reversed.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

1. FishPreferred is correct about I "flipped" the traditional scale. I apologize for that.

2.

Your Middle is nowhere near the middle

^
The middle on this scale is 'we kinda have a government'. Since I didn't clarify that you probably thought the something else about it. Now you see, even the traditional scale is dependent on what the person looking at it is thinking which is even more reason to not have a scale at all.

3. We're mixing up the term "progressive" here. I am referring to how Liberals are called progressive and in some nations progressive is liberal which confuses people. It just confused us.

4.

1 No. It isn't anything like a circle at all. This is a linear relationship between polar opposites, not an arbitrary East-of-here/West-of-there comparison.

http://s80.photobucket.com/user/DonaldDouglas/media/Americaneocon/right_wing_vs_left_wing2.gif.html

If we use middle points like in the grid Freakenstien provided and not have two circles then there would be a relationship between them.

5.

The US? Liberal? Which universe are you from?

Honestly I can't tell if that's a joke or not so I guess I'll just answer it. If we look at left and right in U.S politics then it is traditionalism vs modernization in terms of culture. So yes the U.S is very Liberal when it comes to culture. Then again someone can come and debate it's not traditionalism vs modernization because of various of other reasons.

6.

1 To most of Europe, it is.
2 Having a fixed term of office is not left-wing in any way whatsoever, and hasn't been for the last 50-200 years.

What scale are we using?

7.

The very meaning of conservative is...

I find that using Merriam Webster will always give you the most accurate definition of a word. After all it's why all formal spelling bees use Merriam Webster.
"Full Definition of CONSERVATISM
1
capitalized
a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party

2
a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) "

Didn't really want to bring this up but where does Fascism and Communism belong on the political scale in your own opinions? You'll find that no answer has the same reason.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

3. We're mixing up the term "progressive" here. I am referring to how Liberals are called progressive and in some nations progressive is liberal which confuses people. It just confused us.
I don't see any cause for confusion here. "Liberal" has a broad definition, but the part that applies to politics (definitions 5b-5d in my version of Webster's) is directly synonymous with "progressive". They are being called progressive for the same reason they are being called liberal.

As for your diagram (shown below), Freakenstein's image is a way of representing the linear scale in terms of extremism vs. moderation. The image you linked appears to be a piece of conservative propaganda loosely based on it. Notice that the lunatic fringe is open ended, whereas the other image has it capped with theocracy. Freakenstein's image has clearly delineated left and right hemispheres, whereas yours has liberal groups on both sides, as though to imply that all aspects of liberalism are of the same insidious caste as fascism and theocracy.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/right_wing_vs_left_wing2.gif

I find that using Merriam Webster will always give you the most accurate definition of a word. After all it's why all formal spelling bees use Merriam Webster.
Both clearly demonstrate that conservativism is unprogressive by necessity.

Didn't really want to bring this up but where does Fascism and Communism belong on the political scale in your own opinions? You'll find that no answer has the same reason.
It is not a matter of opinion. Communism is an impossible idealism. It's always extreme left because it will never be realized. Fascism can be anywhere from far right to mid left, depending upon whether the nation in question has had a fascist or similar government.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,259 posts
Regent

The US? Liberal? Which universe are you from?

I thought the US is actually quite liberal... not socially though, mostly economically.
TheAngelOfWar
offline
TheAngelOfWar
206 posts
Nomad

I want to get this out the way first. I'm not Conservative or Liberal. I'm going to have agree with George Washington and pick none.

I don't see any cause for confusion here. "Liberal" has a broad definition, but the part that applies to politics (definitions 5b-5d in my version of Webster's) is directly synonymous with &quotrogressive". They are being called progressive for the same reason they are being called liberal.
As for your diagram (shown below), Freakenstein's image is a way of representing the linear scale in terms of extremism vs. moderation. The image you linked appears to be a piece of conservative propaganda loosely based on it. Notice that the lunatic fringe is open ended, whereas the other image has it capped with theocracy. Freakenstein's image has clearly delineated left and right hemispheres, whereas yours has liberal groups on both sides, as though to imply that all aspects of liberalism are of the same insidious caste as fascism and theocracy.

Honestly I didn't even look at the where things were on it I just thought it was a good example since it was straight forward. As for being able to define Liberal at a broad spectrum it is because there have been so many Liberal parties current, dismissed and revived, which makes it confusing. Same things with conservatism.

I thought the US is actually quite liberal... not socially though, mostly economically.

Compare the U.S culture with Asian ones (all Asian ones including West). You'll find that the U.S is extremely Liberal since Asians tend to do the reverse of the West ex. when magic went down in Europe it went up in Asia which is why a lot of Asian shows have a magic in them. Ever been to Thailand? That'll really make you think twice on if magic is real or not.

It is not a matter of opinion. Communism is an impossible idealism. It's always extreme left because it will never be realized. Fascism can be anywhere from far right to mid left, depending upon whether the nation in question has had a fascist or similar government.

^
In theory communism is right wing for less government because they aren't suppose to have one rather it should be all for one and one for all (which clearly never works the way it's suppose to).
In theory fascism is left wing because of more government. In fact fascism before WW2, fascism was seen as extremely progressive.

Both clearly demonstrate that conservativism is unprogressive by necessity.

Look at modern China and Japan. Both have clearly different government types yet they are both highly conservative doing their best to preserve tradition while constantly making progress in realm of technology. Tradition does not imply lack of progress by any means. Unless we're using progressive as a political party.

Conclusion stands.
To many factors for a left to right wing scale or any scale.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

As for being able to define Liberal at a broad spectrum it is because there have been so many Liberal parties current, dismissed and revived, which makes it confusing. Same things with conservatism.
Actually, that has nothing to do with it. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" have no intrinsic connection to any political party. A party will call itself "liberal" or "conservative" to emphasize that their aim is progress-oriented or tradition-oriented, but those are just titles. Neither party has to be any more conservative or liberal than the opposition.

In theory communism is right wing for less government because they aren't suppose to have one rather it should be all for one and one for all (which clearly never works the way it's suppose to).
In theory fascism is left wing because of more government. In fact fascism before WW2, fascism was seen as extremely progressive.
1 Only "anarcho-communism" is like that. Everything from council communism to Stalinism has a government of some form.
2 Fascism was progressive in that it represented a radical departure from the social and economic systems of the time, but it's foundation in the politics of Imperial Rome makes it more of a retro style government.
3 More government ≠ Left-wing.

Look at modern China and Japan. Both have clearly different government types yet they are both highly conservative doing their best to preserve tradition while constantly making progress in realm of technology. Tradition does not imply lack of progress by any means. Unless we're using progressive as a political party.
Technology is not a government enterprise. A government can promote whatever endeavour it wants, but if it's opposed to any kind of reform or new legislation, it's a conservative (and, therefore, unprogressive) government.
Thrillology
offline
Thrillology
78 posts
Shepherd

I've read through what all of you have said. I like some of the content, disagree with others.

As for the original post, it's a good post. Thumbs up to you for this post.
I go by a logical, static, never changing philosophical spectrum. On the left is collectivism (for clarification: also includes uniformity,, ultimately communism on the farthest left end) and on the right is individualism (anarchism on the farthest right end). Philosophy is the foundation of politics. Politics come from philosophy.

Now, another thing: liberalism in the US and in Europe is very different, although we have progressives that model their beliefs after Europe, there's also the other liberals who are centrists or not even right-wing at all. If you were to stick the average American liberal in Europe, they would probably be considered right-wing, which is why that Political Compass has Barack Obama as right-wing (the creator of that website is from Britain, I don't think he understands much about American politics, especially where he's placed Obama on the spectrum). In America, we consider them to be left-wing, and Europe to be far-left.

Now, me personally, I use that philosophical spectrum and I objectively consider all of you collectivists to be left-wing, both social uniformity and economic collectivism. The middle would be the place for those who have an approximate equal amount of individualist and collectivist philosophies & policies.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

I go by a logical, static, never changing philosophical spectrum. On the left is collectivism (for clarification: also includes uniformity,, ultimately communism on the farthest left end) and on the right is individualism (anarchism on the farthest right end).
That's a valid philosophical spectrum, but it has nothing to do with the political scale under discussion here.

Philosophy is the foundation of politics.
No it isn't. Politics are founded upon interdependence and law. The associated branch of philosophy is only a by-product of politics itself.

If you were to stick the average American liberal in Europe, they would probably be considered right-wing, which is why that Political Compass has Barack Obama as right-wing (the creator of that website is from Britain, I don't think he understands much about American politics, especially where he's placed Obama on the spectrum).
This is because, with respect to many European nations, America is right-wing. We'd have far more reason to doubt his understanding if he didn't put Obama there. The fact that you, as an American, think otherwise does not mean that the non-American analysts have no idea what they're talking about.
Thrillology
offline
Thrillology
78 posts
Shepherd

That's a valid philosophical spectrum, but it has nothing to do with the political scale under discussion here.

Philosophy is the foundation of politics (explanation below).

No it isn't. Politics are founded upon interdependence and law. The associated branch of philosophy is only a by-product of politics itself.

Our political beliefs come from philosophies. A basic example would be the philosophy that man is inherently evil, by Calvin Hobbes, and therefore needs a powerful central authority to protect one from oneself, which forms the basis of collectivism.

This is because, with respect to many European nations, America is right-wing. We'd have far more reason to doubt his understanding if he didn't put Obama there. The fact that you, as an American, think otherwise does not mean that the non-American analysts have no idea what they're talking about.

It's not that alone why I think so. After checking out the website over a course of time, I eventually concluded that.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,171 posts
Duke

Philosophy is the foundation of politics (explanation below).
Even if we were to regard that as true for now, it can't change the fact that the spectrum you described has no relation whatsoever to the left/right spectrum that this thread is about.

Our political beliefs come from philosophies. A basic example would be the philosophy that man is inherently evil, by Calvin Hobbes, and therefore needs a powerful central authority to protect one from oneself, which forms the basis of collectivism.
1 Thomas Hobbes. Calvin was somebody else.
2 You're conflating cause and effect. Collectivism predates all known philosophers by several thousand years. It cannot, therefore, have its origins in their philosophies. Hobbes was looking at a system that already worked and speculating about why it worked. He had no hand in making it work.
Showing 1-15 of 17