Wikipedia 10K Redux by Reagle from Starling archive. Bugs abound!!!

<-- Previous | Newer --> | Current: 982269740 cobrand.bomis.com at Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:42:20 +0000.

PoLitics|Talk

''This categorization doesn't make any sense.  Either AnarchoCapitalism and CapitalisM belong together or BolshevisM and TraditionalAnarchism belong apart.  A good sign that something is wrong is that so many traditional things, like RepublicanisM, are left homeless.  Any ideas for fixes?''

'''Here's an idea, which might not be the most useful one.  We could arrange the ideologies alphabetically, under the assumption that attempting to group or relate them on a global page raises more questions than it answers. --JimboWales'''
----
First of all, to spare our nerves, please refrain from exaggeration: yes, the categorization does make some sense, but maybe not perfect sense.  And maybe there are better categorizations.  Can you do better?

The only serious problem that I saw when I put the categorization up is that capitalism is espoused both by libertarian ideologies and by right-wing ideologies; in fact, that's what they have in common.  One might make a supercategory CapitalistIdeologies, but the problem then is that fascism is left out (fascism never was capitalistic by any reasonable definition of capitalism).  I guess the solution is simply to put "capitalism" under both headings (which I will do right now!).

By the way, Jimbo's suggestion is very tempting, except that this is, after all, the only serious problem that I could see with the categorization scheme.  I think it's ''nice'' to put order on the world when possible and when helpful to a degree.

''Actually, Fascism is capitalistic. This is evidenced by the defection of Capitalists to Fascism whenever a socialist revolution threatens. This even happened in the UnitedStates at the time of the NewDeal when a group of prominent capitalists took steps to overthrow President Roosevelt and replace Congress with a Fascist regime. To quote one of the conspirators "I would spend half of my fortune to save the other half."''

In one system there is complete government control of the economy.  In the other, a complete absence of government control in the economy.  So clearly, they must be the same thing.

''Our government interferes with the economy, but it's still capitalist.  The term doesn't refer to an absence of government intervention - that would exclude most of the economies of today and include pastoralism - but rather to the economy being based on private enterprise.  If memory serves, fascisms are in favor of that, they just want to regulate it very closely.''

What is the difference between "the absence of government intervention" and "private enterprise"?  If an enterprise is private, then the government is not intervening in it.  That's what private (as opposed to public) means.

Also, if I wish to talk about a system based on the absence of government intervention, what word should I use?

----
I agree, but there are problems with this categorization.  As far as schemes in terms of spectra go, the problem with this one is it throws the whole economic left in together and splits up the economic right:
             Socialist   Capitalist
          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 High gov |   Left        Right
 Low gov  |   Left      Libertarian

One or the other should be changed.  Either libertarianism should go back in with the economic right, which makes it easy to handle the position of capitalism; or all four corners of the square (~LP diamond) should be separated, i.e. anarchism or stalinism should be removed therefrom.  I'm not sure what the corners get named, though; left and right seem to me to cover sides rather than corners (see elsewhere) and I don't know the name for right-high-government.

This probably seems like I'm being ridiculously difficult to work with, but I really do want wikipedia to be fair.  Awarding special status to groups just because they claim it is silly, and not very objective.

The second problem is that there are a lot of homeless ideologies: Feudalism, Republicanism, Democracy - I know that's listed as a ''concept'' but it's an ideology too.  These things are really difficult to place on the above because they span categories (same as capitalism), and I think that's a sign that simultaneous spectra are not the right way to approach things.  But, of course, I don't have any other ideas yet. :( -- JoshuaGrosse
----
I don't think you are being difficult, JoshuaGrosse.  I think that this is a difficult problem, and that it is worth chewing on it for awhile.

I'm a little unclear on who wrote which, above, although I could figure it out from the 'other revisions'.  But, no time right now.  All I wanted to say is that it strikes me as very odd to list both CapitalisM and LibertarianisM as ideologies.  Someone talked about CapitalisT''s who became FascisT''s in the face of some SocialisT upheaval.  This surely doesn't refer to people who held CapitalisM as an ideology, but rather to people who were owners of capital.  That's not the same thing at all.
----
'''Enough, already!'''  If you people would have been writing ''useful content'' instead of engaging in less-than-helpful political bickering, we'd have, oh, another 200 useful articles by now.  Yes, yes, I know political bashing seems more fun--but is it really?  I submit to you that it is not.  It's like cheap, tawdry sex--kind of fun while you're doing it, but it makes you feel kind of nasty afterwards.  (I wouldn't know about that, though, really.)  I know I've been engaging in this, although not as much as ''some'' of you...I hereby swear it off.  This isn't the place for it!  Go to Usenet, ferchrissakes!  Use your wiki time to do something useful, please!

But how do we solve political disputes?  We make ''decisions.''  If you see a page about which you have some political bone to pick, you must decide, on the spot, whether you can live with it or whether you simply must change it.  If you must change it, then go ahead and change it.  Probably, someone will attempt a compromise solution (such as the one Jimbo proposed).

At any rate, I confidently predict that if we stopped ''talking'' about making changes and started actually making them, this wiki would be...why, even better than it already is!

--LarrySanger