Talk:Political spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Communism on the political spectrum.[edit]

Why is communism on the authoritarian side? Communism is more of a democratic ideology. Fascism is more authoritarian, communism is essentially the opposite of fascism. I'm assuming communism is put there by the common misunderstanding that Stalinism is communism, which it is not. SiloueOfUlrin (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Where does the article say that? TFD (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
On the first diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

name a communist country that is not totalitarian. both fascists and communists are totalitarian atheist socialists consumed with the collective. people claim they are political opposites because they are such violent sibling rivals. there are only slight differences between them and neither entertains pluralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B049:6C0A:4D7D:1858:677B:A0B2 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities and Rojava. There's two for you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

urban vs. rural US - statement still true?[edit]

This sentence is in the article: "The urban vs. rural axis was equally prominent in the United States' political past, but its importance is debatable at present."

I checked back and saw it was present at least in 2012, not sure how early it was added.

Do we think this lien is still justified? Without doing any real research, it seems to me there is a pretty big split, at least since 2015/2016?

-KaJunl (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fascism and Historical origin section[edit]

The historical origin section, which lays out the common use of left and right, conflicts with the other sections, and placing fascism on the right of the spectrum in the lead is going to receive a lot of controversy. In the historical origin section, the right was the establishment and traditional source of authority, with merchant class to left of it, then communists, etc to left of that. The section explains as merchant class replaced aristocracy, merchant class became the established source of order. Certainly fascists would be seated very close to communists in this format, as they were extreme departures from anything the rule of law was based on historically and traditionally, both there and almost anywhere else. Both fascism and communism are authoritarian and totalitarian, neither entertaining pluralism or any ideas that challenge the collective, including religion. Although Hitler almost completely extricated Christianity from a deeply Catholic country in less than a decade (banning all denominations, replacing them with reich church which was another party propaganda ministy, removing crosses from schools, etc) and only thing preventing him from completing the job was losing WWII, some still argue he was Christian (did not believe or practice his entire life and was avowed occultist surrounded by atheists, parents never practiced or believed). Fascism and communism are totalitarian regimes, controlling the totality of each person, mind and body, consumed with the collective. One could argue fascism generally features a charismatic central figure, and party control of the corporate in fascism differs slightly from direct party control of the means and fascism often has overtones of race tied to national identity, but these distinctions are historically fluid between communist and fascist regimes (china for example). There is very little actually separating communism from fascism in theory or practice. The main motivation for placing them on opposite sides of the spectrum is because they have been historically violent sibling rivals fighting over the ashes of civil society. If you follow the linear thought in the Historial origin section, the most common use of left and right in the world, fascism and communism are both by definition in the same direction and extreme left in any country without roots in totalitarianism, like the United States. If a country is currently communist or fascist, the status quo could theoretically be considered centrist. A Maoist in china could be considered reactionary or hard right, but certainly not according to the historical origin in France or in the United States. There is no real world distinction between fascism and communism that would place them on opposite sides of the political spectrum by any definition as those distinctions are all very minor and fluid in practice, and in the United States or Britain or most places fascism and communism are both extreme left, completely divorced from anything these societies are founded upon and requiring a radical departure from all traditions, values, and founding principles in the same direction to achieve either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B049:6C0A:4D7D:1858:677B:A0B2 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are required to follow sources, not what contributors conclude, per no original research. A number of your premises incidentally are incorrect. The crucifix decrees for example took place mostly in Protestant areas and were aimed at Catholics. There is no evidence that the Nazi leadership approved of these decrees and in fact intervened to stop them. In any case, secularization was a key aspect of conservative ideology in Germany beginning with the Kulturkampf in the 1870s. TFD (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Why use the spectrum for every countries politics?[edit]

As you know the political compass is used for every countries politics but most of it doesn't make sense at all take for example Australia and their politics.There are 3 political parties the Labor party,Liberal party and the nationals party and there's one problem no one uses the political compass in Australia only the people outside of Australia.Now most people outside of Australia don't actually know what Australia's politics actually is so they watch most media of Australia but never knew they watched propaganda from some media source.If you are from England and see Labor and Liberal party you'll think "hmmm if there's a another labour party but in Australia then that means the Labor party is socialist" but that's not the case.You see the labor party is very different from the Labour party that's because the Labor party is not related with the Labour party and it does not believe in a socialist ideology.The saying "if labor and Labour party have similar names then don't vote for socialism" was propaganda made by the liberals and nationals to sway the voters into there side and it's like saying that Fascism was a nationalist ideology when in fact it was a syndicalist ideology that forms with actualism like a fascio (or at least in benito's mind of thinking).By the way if you keep using the political compass for everything then stop using it for sometime and get evidence of something that's not related to the political compass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sþooþy-Skeletal69 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to suggest changes rather than to discuss the topic. If you want to change the article, you would need sources that make your observation.
I don't think incidentally that your analysis is accurate. Compare the constitutions of the Australian Labor and British Labour parties: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party..." (Section 4),[1] "The [British] Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." (Clause IV)[2] The two parties have more in common with each other, especially historically, than they do with the British Conservatives and Australian Liberals. They have also belonged to the same international organizations. I imagine your real concern is that you don't think the ALP should be called socialist because it doesn't fit your definition. Incidentally, the term labor was used to identify the parties with workers, especially in unions, rather than socialism.
TFD (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

NationStates Model[edit]

Three axis model of political ideologies according to the game NationStates

I believe that the three-dimensional model from the game NationStates is more understandable and detailed than the current three-dimensional model. Please state your opinions on whether the model should be implemented on this Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You would need to show that it has entered the literature on political science, which seems unlikely since it was developed for a game. TFD (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I very much doubt that academics would embrace it, if only because of the breezy nature of the descriptions: "Father Knows Best State", "Psychotic Dictatorship", "Civil Rights Lovefest", "New York Times Democracy" and so on. Entertaining, and therefore appropriate for game usage, but hardly rigorous or authoritative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)