Colin Powell Endorses Obama on 'Meet the Press'

[agzg]

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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?

[UGAalum94]

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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 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:

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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:

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?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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.

[Munchkin03]

This conversation is still going on? Really?

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

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This conversation is still going on? Really?

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

Naw, I think it's moved into just enjoying talking about it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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.

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?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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?

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).