Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam (Post 1733564)

Here is the point that I've been trying to make this ENTIRE thread. What makes Marxism opposite to Fascism, particularly, is that they are opposites in BOTH criteria, rather than sharing one and being opposites in the other.

A conservative may think that liberals make Marxism a wonderland. Some do. Most liberals would rather not be compared with Marxists, who, to laypersons reads Communists.

The spectrum is what it is. If you want to change that, write a book and get it taught in millions of IR classes. It's not Individual Liberty to Totalitarianism because Communism employs totalitarianism yet is still on the left. Again, what makes Marxism opposite to fascism is that Marxism is lack of government PLUS collectivization and fascism is heavy government (opposite) PLUS corporation (opposite). The spectrum boils down more to economics plus worldview than it does political basis for a state.

Both systems are flawed and are hard to maintain - Marxism on the point that absence of government is bound to create issues in terms of those seeking to rule, and fascism on the point that eventually those under totalitarian rule will revolt.

I think that recent international history has proven that once a state goes too right or left of center it has a hard time maintaining its stability.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1733568)

EATA: I've got to ask: "The spectrum boils down more to economics plus worldview than it does political basis for a state." What do you consider political basis for a state if not economics plus worldview? Or are you excluding a state's position on individual rights from its worldview?

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam (Post 1733622)

I think where I was going there was that it seems that on the linear spectrum that individual rights weigh less than economics. Well, it doesn't seem that way, it does take more into account economic worldview than it does individual rights. Although, I would make the argument that the closer you get to center, the more individual rights plays a part because in a Marxist worldview there are no individuals, just a collective class.

The linear model doesn't really cover all the bases though. It's just the more accepted of all of them and worked best for me in this argument, where my point was that Obama is a liberal therefore would be better cast as a Marxist than a fascist.

I like this model though, although it excludes Marxism as Marxism can't be achieved unless all states decide to do away with government:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...l-spectrum.png

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1733520)

Why Marxist rather than Communist?



In most instances when people use fascism, I think that they neglect the word totalitarian when it would work so nicely.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1733681)

I like it better too because it addresses the problem I had with the placement of totalitarianism. ETA: although the more I look at it, there are annoying labels as well. Can you guess what they are? Particularly if you look at politics in the US? Why would we even need to give two labels to the vertical axis? Why aren't simply libertarian and authoritative accurate?

I wonder why we even mention the one axis spectrum anymore. Is it the difference placing whole states rather than individual inclinations?

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1733821)

This conversation is still going on? Really?

It seems like a case of "having to have the last word"-itis around here...

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam (Post 1733818)

Are you talking about Christian Democracy, for one, and its proximity towards an Authoritarian regime?

The linear model is the #1 most popular model because it's pretty black and white (until you get into the meat of the argument, which we did here), so its the one most likely to be seen in undergrad level IR classes. I studied a couple of the other models in grad school but for whatever reason it all comes back to the linear model.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1733984)

Nope, I was just (not so seriously) complaining that conservative got stuck onto authoritarian, again, sigh.

Sure, I think a deference to authority is generally a more conservative trait, but if the authority you value is one that honors civil liberties, maybe like the Bill of Rights, well, it all just gets kind of muddled.

If we've got left and right labeled progressive and conservative, why not use entirely different terms for the other axis?

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam (Post 1733987)

I do think there's a difference between the type of conservative you're talking about and the type they are.

After all, the US is a liberal democracy. So even conservatives that agree with a liberal democracy would fall toward the progressive side of the spectrum here.

I think why they're both labeled the same is to show governments that are progressive in some rights and "conservative" in others, or conservative on all counts (fascism), or progressive on all counts (anarchism).

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam (Post 1734000)

I think it's intentional, though. This model is specifically talking about Europe, I believe, but they leave things slightly ambiguous because what's what in the UK may not be what's what in France (ok, not may not, but IS NOT).

In IA they tend to leave things open without using precise language because things differ from country to country, or region to region. They try to use it as a catch all.

Bugs the hell outta me, too.