Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Leftist Nationalist, with a terrible habit of being able to see a situation from everyone's point of view, and thus gets very conflicted whenever politics comes up. =/

Luco wrote:Against interfering with how other countries are run, provided they aren't going rogue and massacring their own citizens in the streets or attacking us. (See: Syria)

See also: Afghanistan and Iraq.

Melissia wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:Much better (sorry only found it for german parties) is to consider where you stand between the three poitical ideologies:

There's more than three.

Oh that would be new to whole approach. Which do you think there are beside the three?

Zakiriel wrote:@dark scipio

Am I reading that correctly that the chart shows a Pirate party? If so that is awesomeness!

Indeed there is, sadly they are a bunch of silly people.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:Left and right is a silly method to describe where you stand politically.

For example Nazis are considered right, although they share most of their goals with communists and are a socialist worker party.

On the other hand ,,Liberal" should be the exact opposite of Socialist and the conservatives in the middle. Making Liberal ,,right", libertarians/Anarchists extreme right.


Much better (sorry only found it for german parties) is to consider where you stand between the three poitical ideologies:

The Nazis adopted the term "Socialist" in order to appeal to the out-of-work masses. In reality, although they took elements of their party structure and organisation from the Bolsheviks, they were solidly conservative in their political outlook, and no, they don't share most of their goals with communists.
Communists see no divisions other than the division of class, which they want to do away with and in doing so, create a classless utopia. This is, of course, unworkable.
Nazis see divisions of both race and class, and believe in a warped mixture of eugenics and Nietzchian philosophy, essentially wishing to create a stronger 'breed' of human. In addition, they believe that this race ties in with their nationality, and that somehow this sense of nationality is their strongest form of indentity. Again, their beliefs are unworkable when examined.
Also, how are Liberals the extreme opposite of Communists? They're in the middle of the scale, with hardline Conservatives and extreme Nationalists on the right.

I didnt said communist, I said socialist. And that was their real outlook. They went from free Market to planned economy. They went from reducing Liberties to more duties to the state. They belived in state driven economy and state organisation of the infrastructure. They were against any religious influence on the people. They did enforce families, (conservative too), but only under controll of the state (not conservative). They went for higher taxes,nd state pensions to compensate the differences. They wanted influence over most personal decisions (marriage, children).

I dont say there werent any Conservative ideas in the Nazis. That was the ,,national" part of the ideology, pulling it slightly out of the socialist corner.
But the whole Race think has nothing to do with any political direction, it was just something popuistic at the start (The Jews are guilty!) to outright madness at the end.

Liberals are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Socialist are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Conservatives are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.




[

Dark Scipio wrote:Liberals are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Socialist are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Conservatives are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

That is one of the problems with using political terms on an international forum.

The Liberals and Conservatives labels used in the US don't really match up with your description.

The average person in the US would take your definitions and probably asign these labels instead:

Conservatives are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Liberals are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Libertarians are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

Dark Scipio wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Dark Scipio wrote:Left and right is a silly method to describe where you stand politically.

For example Nazis are considered right, although they share most of their goals with communists and are a socialist worker party.

On the other hand ,,Liberal" should be the exact opposite of Socialist and the conservatives in the middle. Making Liberal ,,right", libertarians/Anarchists extreme right.


Much better (sorry only found it for german parties) is to consider where you stand between the three poitical ideologies:

The Nazis adopted the term "Socialist" in order to appeal to the out-of-work masses. In reality, although they took elements of their party structure and organisation from the Bolsheviks, they were solidly conservative in their political outlook, and no, they don't share most of their goals with communists.
Communists see no divisions other than the division of class, which they want to do away with and in doing so, create a classless utopia. This is, of course, unworkable.
Nazis see divisions of both race and class, and believe in a warped mixture of eugenics and Nietzchian philosophy, essentially wishing to create a stronger 'breed' of human. In addition, they believe that this race ties in with their nationality, and that somehow this sense of nationality is their strongest form of indentity. Again, their beliefs are unworkable when examined.
Also, how are Liberals the extreme opposite of Communists? They're in the middle of the scale, with hardline Conservatives and extreme Nationalists on the right.

I didnt said communist, I said socialist. And that was their real outlook. They went from free Market to planned economy. They went from reducing Liberties to more duties to the state. They belived in state driven economy and state organisation of the infrastructure. They were against any religious influence on the people. They did enforce families, (conservative too), but only under controll of the state (not conservative). They went for higher taxes,nd state pensions to compensate the differences. They wanted influence over most personal decisions (marriage, children).

I dont say there werent any Conservative ideas in the Nazis. That was the ,,national" part of the ideology, pulling it slightly out of the socialist corner.
But the whole Race think has nothing to do with any political direction, it was just something popuistic at the start (The Jews are guilty!) to outright madness at the end.

Liberals are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Socialist are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Conservatives are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

I was arguing that they didn't share most of their goals with the Communist ideology, which you actually did say, and as I understood it state control was a feature of both extreme right and left wing ideology.
I might be wrong on this, but the difference comes down to the presence or prevalence of worker's unions, which the Nazis were very much against. Also, race generally does have a political context, so we can't really ignore it when discussing the political alignment of the Nazi party.
I am kinda interested in your definitions of what constitutes Right and Left. I'm guessing the definitions for those are different in each country, judging by where you place Conservatives in regard to Liberals, which would be reversed in the UK. That's kind of interesting.

d-usa wrote:Conservatives are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Liberals are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Libertarians are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

You got "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" mixed up.

I don't think I've ever heard a Libertarian argue that there should be a strong state.

US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Conservatives are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Liberals are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Libertarians are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

You got "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" mixed up.

I don't think I've ever heard a Libertarian argue that there should be a strong state.

US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

From a European standpoint, US politics look more like middle of the road v. Right.
It depends on what you class as Left.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:...Liberals are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Libertarians are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

...US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

Looks like you both managed to get things wrong.

George Spiggott wrote:

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:...Liberals are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Libertarians are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

...US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

Looks like you both managed to get things wrong.

Libertarians are actually closer to what you would consider "Liberals" throughout the rest of the world. Our "Liberals" are more properly "Progressives" or "Contemporary social democrats".

Conservatives bear a lot of the blame for that mix-up, unfortunately.

biccat wrote:Libertarians are actually closer to what you would consider "Liberals" throughout the rest of the world. Our "Liberals" are more properly "Progressives" or "Contemporary social democrats".

Conservatives bear a lot of the blame for that mix-up, unfortunately.

That's not what I'm disputing. I would not consider libertarians close to what is considered Liberals in Europe as they tend to be New (or Social) Liberals rather than Neo (and Classical) Liberals.

Dark Scipio wrote:Oh that would be new to whole approach. Which do you think there are beside the three?

It's not new.


A simple 2-dimensional graphic. One could come up with a 3-dimensional graphic in the same way if one came up with another two units to measure the Z axis on), too.

In this case, it is:
Authoritarian (restriction of social rights) versus Libertarian (granting of social rights, the extreme of which is anarchy)
... and...
Left (government controlled economy) versus right (market controlled economy).

Here for example was that site's rankings of the candidates for election in the US in 2008:



Mind you, I believe the site's administrators have fallen in to the "I hate the US therefor the US is extremist right wing authoritarian" trend in recent years, as shown by their 2012 presidential elections graph (I think there's a bigger difference between the candidates themselves, nevermind the candidates and the incumbent, than they are willing to say-- but then again, even their 2008 one was suspect in terms of this), but the graph itself is useful. They have a real love of Ron Paul too.

biccat wrote:

d-usa wrote:Conservatives are far right: They want to enforce freedom by reducing the state as much as possible.
Liberals are far left: They want to enforce equality by enlarging the state as much as possible.
Libertarians are middle: They want to enforce security by having a strong state, that keep personal decisions and economy alone.

You got "Libertarians" and "Conservatives" mixed up.

I don't think I've ever heard a Libertarian argue that there should be a strong state.

US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

Blah, yes I did get them mixed up.

Also the idea of libertarians being middle or "centrists" makes me laugh, it's ludicrous.

Zakiriel wrote:@dark scipio

Am I reading that correctly that the chart shows a Pirate party? If so that is awesomeness!

In the UK we have the Monster Raving Loony Party who were lead by Screaming Lord Such until his death. I believe they are now lead by a Yucca plant or a cat.

biccat wrote:
US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

It never ceases to be adorable when educated people pretend the "political spectrum" is important.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
US politics really is left wing vs. middle of the road.

It never ceases to be adorable when educated people pretend the "political spectrum" is important.

I think it may be time for another Political Compass test.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

dogma wrote:It never ceases to be adorable when educated people pretend the "political spectrum" is important.

That's because it is.

Not inherently itself, but as a political signal and rhetorical device.

Although I do find this comment hilariously and entirely at odds with comments you've made up-thread.

Maybe it's just because I'm unschooled in political theory, but wouldn't any given body politic have it's own "politcal center," along with right and left wings?

Meaning, at any given time, no matter a person calls himself, where he falls has less to do with some inherent quality to his ideology and more to do with the weighted spectrum of all ideologies?

That's of course making the useful for groups but useless for individuals oversimplification of political thought to a one or even two axis system.

biccat wrote:
That's because it is.

Not inherently itself, but as a rhetorical device.

Only way in which its useful....but do you really want to admit to that?

biccat wrote:
Although I do find this comment hilariously and entirely at odds with comments you've made up-thread.

I haven't made any comments about political direction in this thread. Well, other than the one I made about you.

Polonius wrote:Maybe it's just because I'm unschooled in political theory, but wouldn't any given body politic have it's own "politcal center," along with right and left wings?

Meaning, at any given time, no matter a person calls himself, where he falls has less to do with some inherent quality to his ideology and more to do with the weighted spectrum of all ideologies?

That's of course making the useful for groups but useless for individuals oversimplification of political thought to a one or even two axis system.

Rhetorically, that's true. But if the pretense is towards classification, directionality doesn't really matter. At least unless you're aiming for "us" versus "other".

There is a role for this, of course, but its still fun to poke at people that use it.

dogma wrote: Rhetorically, that's true. But if the pretense is towards classification, directionality doesn't really matter. At least unless you're aiming for "us" versus "other".

There is a role for this, of course, but its still fun to poke at people that use it.

Hmm, I guess that's true. I guess I've just always immediatly responded to a criticism that I'm "to the left" and I go, "to the left of what?"

I suppose it just always means, "to the left of me, because I'm the center."

Or occasionally, "to the left of me, because I'm center-right."

Polonius wrote:Maybe it's just because I'm unschooled in political theory, but wouldn't any given body politic have it's own "politcal center," along with right and left wings?

Meaning, at any given time, no matter a person calls himself, where he falls has less to do with some inherent quality to his ideology and more to do with the weighted spectrum of all ideologies?

That's of course making the useful for groups but useless for individuals oversimplification of political thought to a one or even two axis system.

Your use of logic and facts have no place here! Get thee behind me Satan!

dogma wrote:Only way in which its useful....but do you really want to admit to that?

And again, you're wrong.

dogma wrote:I haven't made any comments about political direction in this thread. Well, other than the one I made about you.

I got this thread mixed up with the "Oh Ricky" post. Still, you're not above using political direction in a non-rhetorical manner.

Are you incorrect now or were you incorrect then?*

* There's a better way to say this, obviously.

biccat wrote:
And again, you're wrong.

I'm wrong that the only way the spectrum is useful is rhetorical?

biccat wrote:
I got this thread mixed up with the "Oh Ricky" post. Still, you're not above using political direction in a non-rhetorical manner.

I suspect you don't know what rhetoric is.

I mean, I consider the spectrum to be nonsense, but it does still have weight in most circles.

And most of those circles aren't going to consider Santorum not right-wing.

And yes, there is a better way to say what you are attempting to say, and it is: "Dogma made comment X in context Y, and comment Z in context A."

I'm glad your excellent education in law grounded you in formal logic.

dogma wrote:And yes, there is a better way to say what you are attempting to say, and it is: "Dogma made comment X in context Y, and comment Z in context A."

Sorry, I meant a better rhetorical way. It's nice to use when you're deposing or cross-examining someone.

dogma wrote:I'm glad your excellent education in law grounded you in formal logic.

It didn't. Formal logic is a largely useless field for most purposes.

Unless you're talking to philosophers, which is something I try to avoid doing.

I don't know about formal logic as a whole, but at least the area of law I practice in has different rules for different circumstances. So, X can mean A, B, or even C depending on if it's blue, yellow, or red.

biccat wrote:
It didn't. Formal logic is a largely useless field for most purposes.

Unless you're talking to philosophers, which is something I try to avoid doing.

Well, or political analysts.

But it is good to hear that you only care about how you feel. It's good to see a man so in touch with his feminine side.

dogma wrote:Well, or political analysts.

No, I would expect it is even less useful for political analysts than for lawyers.

Presumably you're engaging your inner sophist.

biccat wrote:
No, I would expect it is even less useful for political analysts than for lawyers.

Then you know nothing of the discipline.

biccat wrote:
Presumably you're engaging your inner sophist.

Sweet irony, sweet sweet irony.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
No, I would expect it is even less useful for political analysts than for lawyers.

Then you know nothing of the discipline.

biccat wrote:
Presumably you're engaging your inner sophist.

Sweet irony, sweet sweet irony.

I hope Biccat ain't married or in a relationship, cause he's making sweet sweet love to sweet lady irony.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
No, I would expect it is even less useful for political analysts than for lawyers.

Then you know nothing of the discipline.

Well, given that you've been so loquacious on the subject, clearly I know when I'm beaten.

Oh wait, no.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:Presumably you're engaging your inner sophist.

Sweet irony, sweet sweet irony.

Is this an allusion to Alanis Morissette type irony? Because otherwise you apparently don't know what you're talking about.

Hint: rain on your wedding day is not ironic.