Difference between revisions of "Political ideologies"

Latest revision as of 10:55, 24 September 2009

Political Ideology Portal

Overview

This page is intended as a catalog or index of existing political ideologies.

Usage

Political ideology currently redirects here; it should eventually be a separate page discussing the concept rather than different examples.

Related Pages

Belief in a particular moral system is usually the basis for (or a strong component of) an individual's agreement with a particular political ideology.
The habit of assuming that all political ideologies can be simply evaluated as falling somewhere along a one-dimensional "left-right" axis is generally misleading and historically arbitrary. Other political ideological axes have been proposed, generally using two or more dimensions, and it seems likely that at least four dimensions will be necessary in order to avoid significant ideological conflation.

List

Notes

maybe these should go under ideologies or worldviews

mysticism: intuition important, observation unimportant
nihilism could be defined as a very low value assigned to human understanding (further implying that neither intuition nor reason has much value either)
postmodernism
romanticism

Links

Reference

Wikipedia (Ideologies of parties): a list of political ideologies, broken down by main ideological emphasis

News

Note: things are showing up in this list which shouldn't be there. I have to check the code and figure out what's going on. --Woozle 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Category:Concepts]]{{seedling}}
+{{portal/politics/ideology}}
 ==Overview==
-Political ideologies are commonly described as falling somewhere in a "left-right" spectrum, but this habit is generally misleading and appears to arise largely from a more or less arbitrary historical circumstance (a short-lived seating custom in the French National Assembly in the 18th century<sup>[http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm]</sup>). Other systems have been proposed, generally using two or more dimensions, and it seems likely that at least four dimensions will be necessary in order to avoid significant ideological [[conflation]].
+[[category:catalogs]]This page is intended as a catalog or index of existing [[political ideology|political ideologies]].
-==Political Spectra==
+===Usage===
-* [[Wikipedia:Nolan chart|Nolan chart]]: [personal freedom] x [economic freedom]
+* [[Political ideology]] currently redirects here; it should eventually be a separate page discussing the concept rather than different examples.
-* [[Wikipedia:Pournelle chart|Pournelle chart]]: [belief in reason] x [belief in a State]
+==Related Pages==
-* Jamais Cascio's "Future Matrix":
+* Belief in a particular [[moral system]] is usually the basis for (or a strong component of) an individual's agreement with a particular [[political ideologies|political ideology]].
-** [http://www.openthefuture.com/2006/05/whats_your_future.html version 1]: [optimism/pessimism] x [realism/idealism]
+* The habit of assuming that all [[political ideologies]] can be simply evaluated as falling somewhere along a one-dimensional [[left-right axis|"left-right" axis]] is generally misleading and historically arbitrary. Other [[political ideological axes]] have been proposed, generally using two or more dimensions, and it seems likely that at least four dimensions will be necessary in order to avoid significant [[ideological]] [[conflation]].
-** [http://www.openthefuture.com/2006/05/future_matrix_updated.html version 2]: [optimism/pessimism] x [pragmatism/idealism]
-===Related===
-* [http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html An Informal Opinion Poll Regarding Certain "Fundamental Questions" of Politics, Ideology and Human Destiny]: certain of the questions in this poll suggest what may be fundamental dichotomies (or axes) in a multidimensional ideology-space
-==References==
+==List==
-# [http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm The Pournelle Political Axes] (1986)
+* [[collectivism]]
-==Discussion==
+* [[conservatism]]
-* 2006-05-31 [http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/05/decrypting-my-own-central-theme.html Decrypting My Own Central Theme...]: goes into some of the pitfalls of "political axis"-making, most notably:
+** [[US conservatism]]
-*# A spectrum should not be pejorative.
+* [[fascism]]
-*# Axes should not be (or seem) designed to coax people into choosing a predetermined quadrant (or area).
+* [[liberalism]]
-*# It’s best when the two or three “axis traits” don’t have ''anything'' in common (i.e. avoid axes which seem different but share related concepts or are correlated in some way)
+** [[US liberalism]]
-*# The axes should pragmatically separate groups that clearly do not like each other and have different goals (i.e. avoid ideological [[conflation]])
+* [[libertarianism]]
+* [[republicanism]]
+===Notes===
+''maybe these should go under [[ideologies]] or [[worldviews]]''
+* [[mysticism]]: intuition important, observation unimportant
+* [[nihilism]] could be defined as a very low value assigned to '''human understanding''' (further implying that neither intuition nor reason has much value either)
+* [[postmodernism]]
+* [[romanticism]]
-==Brainstorming==
+==Links==
-===Main Dimensions===
+===Reference===
-[[Category:Brainstorming]]What other dimensions might be significant in measuring political ideology?
+* {{wikipedia|Ideologies of parties}} (Ideologies of parties): a list of political ideologies, broken down by main ideological emphasis
-* importance of <u>studying doctrine</u> ("doctrinality" or "doctrinaire") vs. <u>observation and analysis</u> ([[wikipedia:Rationalism|Rationalism]]) (Pournelle box only charts reason vs. irrationality - is "belief in an incorruptible doctrine" a form of irrationality? If so, is it the ''only'' form?)
+===News===
-* preference for <u>superior-inferior (usually hierarchical)</u> power relationships, as opposed to <u>peer-peer</u> (when applied to governance, this translates to <u>authoritarianism</u> ([[Wikipedia:Authoritarianism|Authoritarianism]]) versus <u>rule of the people</u>)
+''Note: things are showing up in this list which shouldn't be there. I have to check the code and figure out what's going on. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)''
-** perhaps this is a more-or-less logical corollary of "the toxicity of ideas" (see [http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html Brin questionnaire]): '''(a)''' "I think ideas are inherently dangerous or toxic. People are easily deceived. An elite should guide or protect gullible masses toward correct thinking (Memic Frailty)" versus '''(b)''' "I believe children can be raised with a mixture of openness and skepticism to evaluate concepts on their own merits. Citizens can pluck useful bits wherever they may be found, even from bad images or ideologies (Memic Maturity)".
+{{links/news}}
-** also seems related to the idea of the "desirability of some authority with the might to impose its will (perhaps for the �common good�) upon recalcitrant individuals or competing systems", i.e. coercion, versus populism (see [http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/models.php Brin])
-* belief that the human condition <u>can be improved</u> (however slowly) vs. the idea of a <u>golden past</u> to which we can only aspire to one day return (usually by following the rules laid out in some ancient doctrine; this tends to go together with doctrinality)
-** This can also be stated in terms of '''the nature of the propagation of wisdom''' (see [http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html Brin questionnaire]): '''(a)''' "humans knew a natural idyllic condition at some point in the past, from which we fell because of bad, inappropriate or sinful choices, thus reducing our net wisdom. (The Look Back View)" versus '''(b)''' "Wisdom is cumulative and anything resembling a human utopia can only be achieved in the future, through incremental improvements in knowledge or merit. (The Look Forward View)".
-* value of <u>intuition</u> vs. <u>reasoning/analysis</u> in arriving at understanding
-* value of human understanding, regardless of how it is arrived at
-* importance of personal property (left thinks this is a highly suspect idea, perhaps evil; right sees it as innate and irrevocable, one of the fundamental rights of man (see [http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/models.php Brin]))
-* '''nature vs. nurture''': "What explains the observed differences among human beings in ability, temperament and achievement? Is it genes or the environment?" (see [http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/models.php Brin])
-===Related Issues===
-Some issues which seem important but which may already be covered by the above:
-* <u>willingness to reopen discussion of ''existing'' solutions</u> (as opposed to just solving ''new'' problems), in different arenas (e.g. social, as in marriage laws; infrastructure, as in power generation - liberals don't want to reconsider nuclear as an option, for example, but conservatives aren't willing to consider that marriage might be redesigned either) &ndash; ''can this be expressed as a combination of any of the others? It seems a bit overspecific to be a fundamental dimension...''
-* importance of <u>observable facts</u> versus <u>pure reasoning</u> ([[Wikipedia:Continental rationalism|Continental rationalism]])
-* whether or not studies of (a) animal behavior (especially primates, dolphins, and other large-brained animals) and (b) behavior of tribal, non-mainstream cultures can be of benefit to understanding our own behavior. Related questions: Is human nature fixed, immutable? Is our understanding of it changeable, or have we learned pretty much everything we need to know about it?
-* '''governmental style''': "left-handed" (large projects explicitly coordinated and funded, e.g. pyramids, canals, wars, universities) versus "right-handed" (set up the rules and let individuals compete or cooperate out of enlightened self-interest, hopefully to the best benefit of society as a whole) (see [http://www.davidbrin.com/questionnaire.html Brin questionnaire])
-* Is there any use in trying to persuade others of your point of view by using reasoned arguments and factual data, or is it better (perhaps more responsible, if you know your viewpoint is the correct one and those who disagree need to be shown the error of their ways) to use a strategy of demonizing those who defend contrary points of view, overwhelming the discussion with arguments which do not yield easily to rational response and are likely to make your opponent look bad in the short run (where the long run doesn't really count for much, in the political arena)? (One's stance on this issue may be a direct corollary of one's view on '''the toxicity of information'''.)
-===Ideologies===
-Some sample uses of these axes:
-* '''Mysticism''': intuition important, observation unimportant ("Mysticism" can arguably be defined as the idea that intuition is always important and reasoning is always suspect; any better definitions out there?)
-* '''Nihilism''' could be defined as a very low value assigned to '''human understanding''' (further implying that neither intuition nor reason has much value either)
-===Historical Examples===
-* [[wikipedia:Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] (usually called "far left") was against '''personal property''' (see [[wikipedia:Communism|Communism]], where most or all property is held in common), strongly pro-'''coercion''' by the state
-* [[wikipedia:Ferdinand Marcos|Ferdinand Marcos]], the [[wikipedia:Anastasio Somoza|Somozas]] in Nicaragua, and [[wikipedia:Saddam Hussein|Saddam Hussein]] all believed in inherited private wealth (strong '''private property''') and were also strongly '''coercive'''
-* [[wikipedia:Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] was perhaps the most '''coercive''' figure in modern history, but relatively moderate concerning private property