Most people would argue that the political spectrum is a nice, neat, linear thing.
Like a slide rule. Starting on the Far Left is communism and Fabian socialism. The basic premise of Fabianism is easy: give
all of your rights to the government, and the State will take care of you. No
more worrying about a home, a job, food, or thinking for yourself. Everything
is taken care of, and everyone is safe and happy. Communism works well in theory. Everyone has an equal share of everything, so things like poverty, homelessness, and
hunger are a thing of the past. But, the division (and protection) of goods must
be regulated to ensure equal shares for each citizen. So, the shared power of
the people is given over to the government. In both cases, everyone is taken
care of, and are safe and happy. Until someone gets an idea. It isn't the place of the people to think. That's the governments
is the next step right, a system in which some freedom is enjoyed. The people
are taken care of, the government provides for their basic needs, from shelter to medicine and education, and those who are
unable to provide for themselves are looked after. There is more freedom in this
system; citizens can choose the way that they want to provide for themselves. But,
most of the burden of the distribution of goods and services are taken care of by the State.
in the middle of the spectrum fall Democracy and Anarchy. A democracy puts all
the power in the hands of the citizens. No decisions are made, except by popular
vote. Every citizen has an equal voice in how things are run. This works only in small populations, since trying to get 270 million people to stop arguing long enough
to vote on whether or not to make traffic lights blue would be next to impossible. However,
power is shared equally by all people, and government exists only to implement their will.
Anarchy is similar, except that there is no governing body. (This is true
of communism in its purest form. What is labeled "communism" now is closer to
the basis of the United States government, is modeled on the idea that there should be tiers of power. At the top, holding the majority of the power, is the individual.
Each person is free to choose his or her path in life, and has a voice in the way that things are run. One step down are the local governments. Each community elects
a governing body to oversee local affairs, such as infrastructure and laws that keep the community running smoothly, as it
suits that areas unique character and population. The next step down is the state
government, which oversees the things that affect all of the communities within their borders.
If a state law contradicts a local law, the local law is upheld in that community.
The only exception is that the states Constitution is the basis for the rights of the citizens of that state. The last, and least powerful, of the tiers is the central, Federal, government. At the national level, the federal government is in place to oversee those things
that affect the nation as a whole: interstate commerce and transportation, the
minting of common currency, international trade and diplomacy, and a common military.
It is in place to ensure that the basic rights and freedoms of the citizens are upheld, and to deal with foreign governments.
Nazism are similar to Fabianism and Communism. The exception is that instead
of taking care of all of the citizens, only those who are of the governments race or nationality are allowed to live.
Huh. All of a sudden, the spectrum idea doesnt quite seem right. When the only thing that really separates the Far Left and the Far Right is method, not ideology, it seems
more like a wheel, with Communism and Fascism sharing the fuzzy border of Nazism/ Fabianism.
Socialism and Federalism are photo-negatives of each other, with Anarchy/ Democracy as a wedge down the middle.
In the real-world
models, most governments are blends of these systems. It doesnt matter what kind
of ruling body is in place, whether its a monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, or some form of representational system. In the US, we have moved away from the ideal Federalism (starting with the Civil War when Lincoln stripped
states of their right of secession), snowballing into the new American Socialist Imperialism that were seeing today. The Civil War wasn't about slavery. That
was the excuse that Lincoln used to show that the Federal government was above the Constitution. He put into place amendments that marginalized the Bill of Rights, and made it easier for the Federal government
to impose their will on the people. That's not enough anymore. They're trying to show that the US is above world law, and outside of the ideal that each nation is sovereign. The Gulf War wasnt about the invasion of Kuwait.
(If it was such a noble cause, we would have invaded over the genocide of the Kurdish people.) It was about protecting US oil interests. The wars in the
Middle East are about securing an American foothold in that area, since we dont have one yet.