Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,495
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 411:
Line 411: − + Line 443:
Line 443: + + + + + + + + Line 449:
Line 457: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Political Spectrum (view source)
Revision as of 07:31, February 10, 2019
, 07:31, February 10, 2019→Recent edits
:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).
:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).
:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a [[Nigger|n****]], because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"
:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"
:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.
:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.
::::Have you gotten around to actually READING something on the subject? William Shirer would be a good place to start.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Have you gotten around to actually READING something on the subject? William Shirer would be a good place to start.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::PF, here's a good link [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948. I suspect we're gonna use a lot of this material on Conservapedia. Excerpted,
"Left and Right, indeed, have become the characteristic political terms of our time. Without specific color or content, they define the polar ends of the political spectrum - a spectrum in which the word Center, fashionable a generation or two ago, is harder and harder to find. Yet the terms themselves have bred a new confusion. '''They were adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century''', when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. '''But the twentieth century''', here as elsewhere, '''introduced new ambiguities'''.
"The Fascists, for example, were not conservative in any very meaningful sense. They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries. Yet their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, '''after boggling and uncertainty, ''they were assigned'' positions on the far Right'''.
:Note the keyword Schlesinger uses, '''''assigned''''', the same word I used in my defintion, '''''a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold.''''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95904&oldid=95895] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
== Page title ==
== Page title ==
I see no reason for the move to "theory". A theory is an explanation. The present article provides no explanation, and hardly even any examples. So I moved it back. Maybe unprotecting it will help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I see no reason for the move to "theory". A theory is an explanation. The present article provides no explanation, and hardly even any examples. So I moved it back. Maybe unprotecting it will help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is, in absense of the disclaimer "theory", we are embracing a doctrine here, which is impossible to articulate. As a theory, the student is free to accept or reject the underlying premises of the theory without swallowing what really is an unstated or ever-changing doctine.
:The problem is, in absense of the disclaimer "theory", we are embracing a doctrine here, which is impossible to articulate. As a theory, the student is free to accept or reject the underlying premises of the theory without swallowing what really is an unstated or ever-changing doctrine. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::My point, and possibly Schlesinger's as well, is that the terms are not well-defined. I agree that the "model" is inarticulate. Reminds me of the climate models used to justify [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. You can't test a model which is not based on a theory, so there's no way to [[falsify]] it, and it is therefore [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It is a useful comparative device ''after the models have been developed''; it is not a point of origin for building a doctine. In otherwords, it is useful to say British Tories & American Republicans share these things (fill in the blank) in common, therefore comparatively they may be called "right". To say the ''point of origin'' of "Leftist" means "challenging the traditional order", therefore al-Qeade and gay rights movement are leftist. This is patently absurd. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
You completely lost me, there, Rob. What model is there other than "right preserves" & "left seeks change"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:There's no evidence for "left seeks change" to begin with. You yourself asked who is "who is right-wing in Russia today, free-market Thatcherites or unreformed Stalinists". Both are seeking change now after 70 years of stagnated Leftism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
== Structure ==
What is the point of having two sections, "Origins", and "History"; seems redundant, unless we plan to document each twist and turn in the road where a redfinition took place. " Criticisms of a one-dimensional view " is flawed and meaningless, cause nobody agrees on anything else to begin with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way. Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
**That's the hard part; I thought calling it a theory gave us the opportunity to speak in vaguaries and generalities, but we haven't got a concensus on that. So that means we gotta present detailed facts and keep misinformation out.
**Repeatedly, how the problem works is this: a student becomes indoctrinated into the vague concept of "Leftism"; then whatever hackneyed idea can dressed up as "leftist" becomes kosher, and whatever needs to be demonized is simply called right-wing reactionary, and no real analysis of substance or content takes place. That why I say it should not be used as a "point of origin", but rather has only value comparatively, i.e. after detailed analysis of substance and content is completed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
==typo==
"Islam of Czarist Russia" (end of first paragraph under "definitions")should obviously be an "or" not "of", fix at your leisure... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
==Bakunin critiques Marx==
Here's an interesting critique of [[Karl Marx]] by [[Mikhail Bakunin]] written in 1873.
*Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin On Anarchy'', (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.
:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a lower level of culture, will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached nationalistically, the Slavs will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie."
This quote from Bakunin is not only prophetic about what [[National Socialism]], (i.e. Nazism), (a) is, but what National Socialism (b) did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
==Political ideas==
We are wasting a lot of time trying to pin down a rainbow. Give it up, gents!
Better to describe the views of various thinkers or parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Labeling it a theory is the easiest route; elsewise we need good, solid, factual cites for any claim or generalization. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== Asked a question ==
I was wondering if anyone was interested in making a Conservapedian political spectrum quiz. There are many quizzes like this online, but not all of them are trustworthy or accurate. If we made one, it could accurately guage our location on the political spectrum with a wide range of political issues and answers that range beyond two polarized answers. Also possibly "Libertarian" and "More Government" as areas on the spectrum to go with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Does anyone feel as though [http://www.isidewith.com/ iSideWith.com] already does a good enough job with this? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:42, 20 January 2017 (EDT)
==Recent edits==
Marxist bull. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 01:44, 10 February 2019 (EST)
Still no good. This "the parties switched" theory won't wash here. GOP stands for today what it always stood for - human dignity, defense of the Union, and rights of the individual. Democrats today stand for what they always stood for, immorality, enslavement and corruption. Don't waste your time, it'll only be reverted unless you can engage in an intelligent, rational, constructive and meaningful level. Stop inserting Marxist talking points. 02:31, 10 February 2019 (EST)