Wikipedia 10K Redux by Reagle from Starling archive. Bugs abound!!!
A political spectrum is a classification scheme that is used to compare different political philosophies based on where they lie on the spectrum. A spectrum is defined by its axis (or axes, as some spectrums have more than one). Usually there is one issue that is deemed essential, and which is thought to subsume all others; placement on the spectrum is determined by one's position on that issue. Because there are many possible political spectrums, one should not talk about _the_ political spectrum as if there were only one. At the very least, one should first establish context by defining the axis upon which different positions will be measured. Unfortunately, this is seldom done. In a modern Islamic country, the political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government. Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other. In modern WesterN countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of ConservatisM ("the right") versus SocialisM ("the left", called liberalism in the UnitedStates). There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis. Some people view it as a measure of social equality, some as a measure of the government's role in the economy, some as a measure of religion's place in society, some as a measure of the different weight put on fair outcomes versus fair processes. This right-left spectrum is so common that many people have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. Such an alternative, and an example of a two-axes spectrum, has been popularized by the [http://www.self-gov.org/ Advocates for Self-Government]. One axis measures your views on "personal self-government", which pertains to the government's role in the home, church, and between consenting adults in private, while the other axis measures "economic self-government", which pertains to the government's role in economic activities. With two axes, there are four different extremes: Libertarian, which favors personal freedom and economic freedom; Left Liberal, which favors personal freedom but opposes economic freedom; Right Conservative, which favors economic freedom but opposes personal freedom; and Authoritarian, which opposes both personal freedom and economic freedom. There is, of course, plenty of room in the center for people who hold moderate views along either axis. Another alternative currently popular among certain environmentalists uses a single axis to measure the good of the earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth. On this axis, many mainstream politicians normally considered left-wing (such as BillClinton) are considered no different from those normally considered right-wing, because of their allegedly pro-business policies. In 1998, political author VirginiaPostrel, in her book TheFutureAndItsEnemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures ones view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control. ---- Tim, this makes a good attempt to be fair but it overlooks a couple key points. There are a variety of political spectra, but most people have a clear concept of the one to which "left" and "right" refer. In fact, if you look at the one presented by the advocates for self-government, you will notice that the horizontal axis is the same left-right spectrum everyone else uses. So while people may debate over the precise definition of that axis, its existence is not nearly so controversial. The other thing is that the particular diagram to which you refer is fairly non-discriminatory. Inasmuchas it can't distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism - one of which has policies much like capitalism, one of which has policies much like socialism - and again between fascism and marxism. In short, they have identified different ideologies by pinching the diagram off into a diamond, which is probably more for the purposes of popularizing libertarianism (something the site obviously tries to do) then accuracy. -- JoshuaGrosse ---- Joshua - The two axes are 'personal self-government' and 'economic self-government'. Which is the horizontal axis? ''Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)'' **** But personal self-government is equally horizontal on the chart. The axes lie parallel like two AA batteries in a walkman: The positive next to the others negative. The diagram can be represented like this: ++ +- -+ -- **** Also - I do not agree that there is similarity between socialism and anarchism. As I would define them, socialism attempts to maintain social order with political institutions, and without cultural or economic institutions. Anarchism seeks to maintain social order with economic and cultural institutions, and without political institutions. As they are conventionally understood, socialism means more government, anarchism no government. So even if you don't like my definition, common usage place these two at opposite extremes. ''Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians). It's in this sense that I was using the term. Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond. A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.'' ''Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (''fear'' the future and wish to control it). And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse''