[EastCoastAmerican]

After some thought, I came to realize that the "Left-Right" Spectrum in US and European politics is not an accurate indicator for many ideologies.

In the US, fascism is considered a far-right ideology, and Libertarianism is regarded as Right-Wing. Both ideologies are polar opposites; fascism is collectivist and exalts the State, while Libertarianism champions individual liberties and is distrustful of an expansive State.

In Europe, anarchists and communists alike have been affiliated with the left despite vast differences. Would anarchists support giving the power of economic planning to a centralized government?

Differing use of terminology also plays a factor: in the Doctrine of Fascism, the right is associated with collectivism, the left with individualism. In the US, the left is commonly associated with collectivism, the right with individualism (at least in economic terms).

I think the "Left-Right" Spectrum's failure is inconsistency in definitions. I have heard of alternatives such as the Nolan chart, which separates ideologies into economic and social views. Should a new spectrum be adopted to reflect greater complexity?

What do you folks think?

[Cartertonian]

I think we talk about this endlessly on PoFo.

Whilst it remains imperfect - and to American for many of us - most people tend to use the Political Compass as a marginally improved indicator of political alignment.

In my case, I'm squarely on the left economically, but I'm also pretty socially liberal.

[nucklepunche]

The left-right spectrum originated in the French Legislative Assembly in the 17-1800s. Those who supported maintaining the monarchy and feudalism sat on the right, those that opposed it sat on the left whether they were advocates of laissez-faire or advocates of socialism. The right simply referred to those who wanted to keep the status quo, the left to those who want to change it. Since capitalism is seen as being the status quo in America, it is associated with the right. There was a time when agrarian semi-feudal societies were most common and capitalism was a radical idea so capitalism was seen as leftist. Overall though, I think the entire concept of the political spectrum is dumb. I am a distributist, by some interpretations this is an extremely right-wing ideology, by some it is on the extreme left, so where do I fit? I don't think I do since most spectrums measure left-right on a socialist-capitalist axis with the modern mixed economy in the middle, but distributism is a totally separate third way.

[Jordan9]

I wouldn't say it is accurate, but nor am I comfortable designating it as useless. I think things like Left-Right spectra or the Political Compass are decent starting points for dialogue. But if it is the be-all and end-all of the discussion, then, well, you're doin' it wrong.

There are more important things, real issues, that go beyond who is under what label. As someone who has canvassed for a left-wing political party, I find a lot of people from myriad backgrounds supporting leftist thought, but then once you mention that, they back away and say, "Well, I don't support socialism!" Sometimes these sort of designations can be obstacles to dialogue and change, and that we have to be careful of.

[grassroots1]

These discussions are so confused because these words have so many different definitions in different areas. I've actually become more sympathetic to the political compass that places statism on one end and anarchy on the other, but then of course there are all sorts of qualifications: for whom does the state function, who does it represent, who does it claim to represent, how is it structured, etc. Given that, I think it just makes sense to take each individual case, each state, each person's opinion, as a unique representation of that person's experiences, social background, way of thinking, etc. Labeling and categorization only serve to divide us, especially when we start arguing against what we imagine a specific label to be. That leads to what prevents many people from grasping the truth: strict adherence to a label or an ideology, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.