Sean Andrews writes: >> Here I'd say libertarians or anarchists cut between these two--and can >> tend to be leaning more in one or another direction because there >> would be a third index around the use of state power to achieve >> whatever ideological goal--though, of course, even the most stalwart >> Libertarians must either stop the clock of history (or, as I >> mentioned, presume some natural law) in order to make this a coherent >> argument. I think this is getting us back to Jim's earlier diagram >> which I wish you'd revisit since I can't quite fathom your insistence >> that there must be only two sides of a single index in order to >> categorize every possible political ideology.
Let me be clear. There are many ways to analyze political ideologies. Jim's three dimensional grid is very nice and useful, and we can play a parlor game of who belongs where. But the issue for me was this notion of a "Right" and "Left," and the opposite of Right is Left, etc. And the fact of the matter is that if you think of the political spectrum as a single axis, you get all kinds of weird arguments, like communism on one side of the spectrum and fascism on the other end, even though fascism's founder Mussolini, and its intellectual heavyweight, Heidegger, were fascists not because they were defenders of king, church and landed aristocracy (one logical extreme opposite of communism), or that they were defenders of capitalism/individualism/liberalism (another logical extreme opposite of communism), but because they were anti-capitalism/anti-individualism/anti-liberalism. This is not to say communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin -- they are not, but they are not extreme opposites for purposes of ideological taxonomy. That is my point, and I will declare victory based upon Jim's advocacy of a three-dimensional chart. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
