Does anyone else find it interesting that Powell campaigned for John McCain in the republican primaries for 2000? What a difference eight years makes, either on the McCain side or the Powell side.

And this is where academics completely tip their hands and reveal their leftist bias.

On the left, we have a system that could function without totalitarianism although it never has, and on the right we have a system that at its end must be totalitarian.

Why would we assume that Marxism could be practiced without the authority of the state? Because Marx said so?

This is just simple accepted thought among political theorists. I never said Marxism works. I just said that for it to be Marxism, it must be collectivization and lack of government. And yes, because Marx said so. He gets that right because he came up with the world view.

My grad school was anything but leftist. Considering I studied Security and Intelligence studies within the perview of an MPIA, we couldn't afford to lean too far left and we couldn't afford to be taught by those who leaned too far left or we wouldn't be able to find jobs.

ETA: Fascism wouldn't be fascism without the totalitarianism. Hence why it has to fulfill both the economic and political criteria in order to be fascism.

Maybe, but it might not make sense to set the spectrum up like that and if you lean right, it probably bothers you more. There are philosophies we could place on the right that would no more require totalitarianism than the definition of Marxism does, and yet, political theorists go with fascism.

How many of your professors will be voting for McCain, do you think?

ETA: go back and look at your definition of fascism in your text box. On the left we have a clearly defined if completely unpracticed ideal and on the right we have fascism. We can't say exactly what it is, but it's the opposite of Marxism and it requires totalitarianism.

Communism also lies on the left, just not as extreme left as Marxism as it requires government.

The left side of the model (in more complete detail) tends to read:

Marxism -> Communism -> Socialism -> Liberalism

I would say a handful, at least. My grad school was a mixed bag because it offered Masters' Degrees in Public and International Affairs (Global Political Economy, Security and Intelligence Studies, and Human Security), Public Affairs, and International Development. Those who were not SIS professors, I don't know.

I do know, however, that several of MY professors voted for Bush both times. As far as McCain goes, with some of the problems plaguing that campaign and with my distance from the school now, not sure.

If Marxism is the extreme left (the accepted view, purveyed by Marx himself) and fascism is the opposite of Marxism, then fascism is in its correct place if it's at the extreme right. I'm not understanding your problem with the model.

My problem is that Fascism isn't the opposite of Marxism in any real sense, nor does it really reflect the extension of many aspects of the right, anymore than the dissolution of the state reflects an extension of the left.

We can set it there because it's convenient to do so, but if you really start thinking about it and you have any sympathy for the right, problems emerge almost immediately.

At this point, we all just accept that spectrum for theoretical purposes and I know it would be the right answer on a college test, but it doesn't hold up when you start thinking about it, particularly if you are thinking about it economically, unless the idea that underpins your thinking is that Marxism would have these good ideal traits: economic equality and complete freedom from other aspects of the state. What would be the opposite bad traits? We'll call that fascism and put it on the other end. The right deserves the opportunity to put forth its own idealized standard to oppose Marxism, rather than being saddled with a system that by its very definition is totalitarian. Libertarianism makes as much sense as an economic opposite of Marxism.

I'm glad you changed the last sentence there. I'm neither left nor right in this argument. Fascism is as much an extension of the right as communism is on the left. However, fascism and Communism are not true opposites, because they share totalitarianism. That is what makes Marxism the opposite to fascism.

I'm sure liberals that are compared with Marxists are just as offended as conservatives are when compared with fascists. At least they should be.

Any extreme is bad if you ask me. I'm left, but I'm much closer to the middle than most people realize, especially with economic issues.

I don't remember what I changed in the last sentence. It wasn't my intention to address you specifically even in the original form.

I don't think being called a Marxist is nearly as inflammatory as being called a fascist for all the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread, but also because of fascism being thought of as racist and totalitarianism and Marxism being an idealized wonderland.

Economic opposites in political systems could share totalitarianism. And if only one side of the political spectrum gets to claim individual rights, why don't we just label the spectrum from Individual Liberty to Totalitarianism.

Here's what it boils down to: do you believe that a system could exist that provided economic prosperity to most members of a society without collectivization? Could this system also be non-totalitarian? Could this system perhaps function without the state?

If so, why is the spectrum Marxism to Fascism rather than Marxism to what for now, I've decided to call Ugaalum94ism.

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.

And my point is that placing totalitarianism on the right is entirely arbitrary, assuming that we have to place it on one side of the spectrum.

It make little sense to have a spectrum that on one side goes from totalitarianism communism to no state/collectivist in one step and on the other must end in totalitarianism.

I agree with you that it's the accepted spectrum, but if you think about it, it's goofy.

It insists on pairing things on the right that don't necessarily belong on the right.

ETA: placing totalitarianism on the right is entirely arbitrary from a economic point of view, but less so if we assume that fascism is an extension of political realism. I'm not sure it is, but at least there's a relationship in growth of power.

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?

I feel kind of silly having had this conversation so long when there are so many other political spectrum charts that contain multiple axes, that solve the problem as far as I'm concerned, as anyone whose taken the facebook libertarian promotional tool of the smallest political quiz can attest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

That was fun too.

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

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?

But the word "fascist" is easier to say, and hear, and catch on, than "totalitarian", which is long and kind of hard to say. And almost imposible to repeat in a crowd. For instance, some one might yell back "yeah, he's a fascist" at a rally, but not too many people I think would yell back "yeah, he's a totalitarian." It would take too long say.

Not saying that you're not correct, you are, but I think the terms "fascist" and "fascism" get thrown around more is that they work better for rhetoric, which is what this is.