The Political Spectrum Easily Explained – Basic Forms of Government




Political Spectrum Explained This clip explains the political spectrum. From 100% rule of a Fascist dictatorship to 0% like that of Anarchy and that which is in between. Anarchy, Oligarchy,…

source

Your reaction?
Angry Angry
0
Angry
Cute Cute
0
Cute
Fail Fail
0
Fail
Geeky Geeky
0
Geeky
Lol Lol
0
Lol
Love Love
0
Love
OMG OMG
0
OMG
Win Win
0
Win
WTF WTF
0
WTF

The Political Spectrum Easily Explained – Basic Forms of Government

Comments 48

  1. What a total crock of shit.
    Left/Right equates to collectivism or individualism. (Socialism/capitalism)
    However, there is ANOTHER scale which runs Up/Down that determines government autonomy, with anarchism (no government) at the bottom and totalitarianism at the top (complete government/fascism)

    Why is it so many Americans are totally fucking clueless about political ideology?

  2. The problem is of course trying to put every political system onto one spectrum. The gradation of power is one, social views another, and so forth. But the way I tend myself to categorize them myself is as follows…

    *The pre-liberal reign of a sovereign will that the people are expected to serve.

    *The classical liberal promotion of individual autonomy under the protection of the law.

    *The post-liberal rule of a general will that the people are expected to contribute to.

  3. No! While I do like much of what is said here – this clip is furthering the disinformation that Anarchy is a Far Right ideology. Anarchy is the ABSENCE of an agreed to system of government – it is not itself a system of government. It's a condition that arises when NO GOVERNMENT is agreed upon. Therefore it does not belong "on the spectrum" it is a condition outside of the political spectrum. The problem with putting it on the far right is that it makes the far right guilty by association – the further "right" we go, the closer we are to "chaos". That's wrong. If a true Libertarian society collapsed and anarchy arose it would be no different than if a Monarchy fell and anarchy rose from that scenario. If it MUST be on the political spectrum – put it on both sides.

  4. The problem I see here is the video doesn't differentiate on the intent, economic, social, military, diplomatic, or informative aspects of politics.
    The rule of law is not a single point or area on the one-dimensional model.
    Laws may be created by the many (democracy), the few (oligarchy), the one (monarchy & dictatorship), or the none (anarchy). Who laws apply to may differ as well.
    A multidimensional model is required for categorizing political systems.  Common two dimensional models have axes for economic freedom and social freedom. A government may have strict controls on the economy, but little control over the social.

  5. I'm sorry, but this video is completely misleading. Left-right does not measure government control. Right-wing supports tradition, hierarchy, the status quo, and control. Left-wing supports egalitarianism, liberty, challenging hierarchy and disturbing the status quo. Fascists are as far-right as you can get, because they are about extreme hierarchy and inequality to the point where entire groups of people are subhuman. Anarchists are far-left because they want to eliminate all unjustified hierarchy.

  6. Fascism is mostly left wing. The left focuses on the good of the group/state/nation/etc. while the right focuses on the good of the individual. Fascism is a very authoritarian form of government that focuses on creating national unity. It is also ruled by a strong leader, like a dictator. You know who also has dictators? Communists, who are also far left. People commenting saying this video is ignorant are obviously brainwashed liberals who think anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi

  7. Collectivism will always result in more government control. Total government control is the far left, as the video explains.

    Individualism is what USA was founded on; the rights of the individual regardless what the collectivists think or want.

  8. The horizontal line is right and left but you also have a vertical line which is libertarian and authoritarian. So you can have right and left authoritarian exactly how you can have conservative liberal or social liberal. All the axes can split to form individualism or communitarianism both on economic or social/cultural principles.

  9. This explanation draws heavily on Montesquieu's but especially Rousseau's political philosophy. Pretty much all forms of government establish a few leaders over a vast majority of private citizens. The difference between an oligarchy and a republic is that in an oligarchy the momentary whim of the ruling clique is law, but in a republic the leaders are subject to a higher law consented to by the whole people.

  10. The Nazis did not create anarchy in order to take power. In Germany, from 1918-1923, Communists created all out war in the streets with some engagements lasting several days, and artillery being fired at the anarchists by the military in order to finally suppress the Communist violence. The Nazis took power the legal way– through democratic election. Yes, that's right. Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor by the German people. Now, he did have some freak occurrences happen over the next few months in Germany after becoming Chancellor that he took advantage of to consolidate his power as dictator, but he & all other Nazis were elected to seats in Parliament and Chancellor originally. The terror came afterwards, not prior to taking power.

  11. I stopped as soon as he said monarchy is on the left. Absolutely no knowledge of political history. He just goes under the assumption that right wing=less government, which history says otherwise.

  12. Size of government is a poor indicator of how much freedom people have. A government only needs military and police to oppress. In Europe where there are massive welfare state governments, people live freely compared to the small free market middle east governments that oppress their people.

  13. Its hilarious how he just skips over Anarchy saying "oh its just human nature anarchy is not possible" without providing any explanation whatsoever to his assertions. 

  14. I've come to the conclusion that this is one of the worst political videos ever made. It's caused enormous confusion, especially about the American form of government. A Republic is a form of Democracy – that's it's key feature. Also, the limitations on government power imposed by the US Constitution are not part of the basic package. Starting a battle in people's minds between Republic and Democracy is seriously evil. We need more democracy (a multi-party system) but whenever that's mentioned, there are ignorant people who say "NO, THIS IS A REPUBLIC". So, then I tell them not to vote and they don't get it.

  15. This video is blatantly incorrect. The left/right scale has to due with hierarchy, not size of government. And all Anarchy is is decentralized Direct Democracy. It is completely sustainable. Fidel Castro/Lenin weren't Anarchists, they were Communists. Two very different theories about how to bring about Communism/Statelessness. Anarchism has succeeded and Communism hasn't. BTW you forgot to say how republics always turn into corporatist oligarchies.

  16. I was taught that it was "more like a circle" where if you get too close to the right, you are close to something like fascism and too far to the left you are something like communism. As an adult I figured out that we should be as close to anarchy as possible as we were founded.

  17. A few mistakes, 1) Government does not possess the sole monopoly on law. It likes to achieve this monopoly as a means of controlling the masses, but it is not where law originates from. True law, as expressed in the Bill of Rights is called Common Law and it is derived from nature.

    2) Arguing that one has to give up freedom to have freedom is double speak at it's finest. For a government to exist a person needs to give up part of their freedom, this is the trade off. We give up some freedom in Anarchy to exist with common law, but the freedom given up in Anarchy is different that what is given up to the state. In Anarchy you agree to not infringe upon each other, to respect property rights, and to uphold all agreements, in short you are giving up some freedom, but this sacrifice allows us to function as a society. With a State you give up self determination and the right to rule yourself.

    The state is a beacon of false power, it take a monopoly on law and always seeks a monopoly on force. This power attracts the corrupt and they expand the state and it isn't hard to convince people to give u a tiny bit here and a tiny bit there for perceived but illusionary benefits.

    3) Anarchy is not a reaction to the state. If you look at how civilizations form this is painfully obvious.

  18. this just confused the hell outta me. does the political spectrum not refer to the placing of political ideologies held by political organisations rather than type of  government system?Is it not possible for example, to have Democratic socialists?is the traditional definition not more suitable as an explanation of idiologies than this? this makes very little sense.anyone care to explain.

  19. As people evolve and become more advanced we should be able to get rid of government although right now we seem to be devolving back into collectivism and leftism.  Fiat currencies like the dollar fuel government and it's cronies by inflation and shift wealth away from the people that actually work.  A real shame.

  20. Interesting video. But I think lines can be more blurred. The US is seen as a republic and not a democracy in this video, There are free elections so it is a democracy.
    But there are also laws to protect people against the will of the majority.

    So the right description would be that of a democratic republic of a republican democracy. Which is what all western nations are. They have free elections, but there are also laws that protect minorities against the will of the majority.

    I do beleive that nationalsocialism is mostly leftist, after all its a national form of socialism it is anti-capitalist and supports a very large government with a lot of welfare. Socialism can be devided into national socialism and international socialism (which includes communism).

    But where would religious conservatism fit in? People who want a theocracy based on the bible. This is seen as right wing. It is totalitatian on personal freedoms but does support a free market economy.

    I beleive that the spectrum is not 1 dimentional. Things that are right wing are capitalism, conservatism, conservative liberalism, libertarism.
    Right wing liberals and conservatives often agree on economy but disagree highly on ethics and religion.

    On the left you have the workers parties (socialdemocrats and on the far left socialist and communists) but also ecologism. The workers parties put the people first, wanting affordable things for people with low income. The ecologists want to make certain things such as cars, electricity etc. more expensive making it unaffordable to the people with a low income.
    On the left there are also social liberals which combine social issues of social democracy with freedoms of liberals.

    There are also political parties who are right wing on some issues but left wing on other issues.

  21. The power of government is inversely proportional to individual liberty. All governments go bad. All governments tend towards a ruling class. The depiction in the video is accurate but reality shows that governments continuously grow at the expense of individual liberty. 

  22. The right's fundamental ideological root is the belief in inequality, while the left believes in equality. Hence, the far left believe in total equality i.e communism and the far right believe in innate inequality i.e Nazism and Jews.

  23. This is completely inaccurate. Actual communism LITERALLY means a classless, moneyless, STATELESS, society where there is no rulers. It's a type of anarchism. That's why so many anarchists identify as communists. Marxists take it a step further saying a temporary government should exist to spread revolution. But not dictatorially. Marxist-LENINISTS are the Commies you see in China and saw in the USSR. So your left/right spectrum is wrong.

  24. The first issue with this video is the spectrum. its better to list government systems according to a graph where the far left represents totalitarianism and the far right anarchy. On top you'd list capitalism and on the bottom, communism.Each side has its weaknesses, including a "Republic". Aside from social issues, the formation of unions and the rise of monopolies are self-evident economic issues from a capitalist structure. In addition, people like Montesquieu argue for a democratic republic

  25. Freedom was only available to white men. Natives were slaughtered and blacks were enslaved, making the constitution one of most pathetic and self contradictory documents in the history of writing. Also, a democracy would have the rule of law, the kind of democracy you used in the video was one of majority rule and mentioned nothing about minority rights. conveniently. The founding fathers rejected democracy in order to suppress the masses.

  26. Actually the traditional system came about during the French Revolution where the monarchists sat on the far-right & the sans-culottes & other radicals & republicans sat on the far-left. You ARE attempting to demonize one side & confuse the audience by following the model described in the video (where monachism is on the far-left). Even worse, you attempt to point to government schools as the reason not everyone follows your ideology that twists the political spectrum to your tastes.

  27. The sheer stupidity of that comment will never cease to amaze me.

    Read Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin or any other social anarchist. Your ignorance on the subject of anarchism is hilarious.

  28. No, he's right.

    The concept of Totalitarianism was something conceptualised in the 20th century, and was done to malign both the far right (Fascism and Nazism) in the same breath as the far left (Communism).

    Also to say that Communism favours complete state control is another creation of the 20th century. Communism pushes STATELESSNESS and classlessness. Socialism is a transition to that (in classical Marxism) where class and the state still exist, but the state is in control of the workers.

Leave a Reply to Simon Says Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

log in

Become a part of our community!

reset password

Back to
log in