Talk:OGF:Politics and Economics primer

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Very good article, Sarepava! Sure, it will help me about writing policital articles about my countries -- BMSOUZA (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2016 (CET)

Nice article. One little correction - the majority of real-world national legislatures (nearly 60%) are unicameral, not bicameral (see --Pawl (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2016 (CET)


Shouldn't this article be OGF:Politics and Economics primer instead of OGF Politics and Economics primer? Sorry but my OCD requires me to point this out. --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2017 (CEST)

Recent edit

Since when is neoliberalism a.k.a. libertarianism a.k.a. capitalism with little to no regulations far-right? We need to keep in mind that there is no truly objective way to measure what is extreme and what is not, but I think grouping them with what you called "extreme nationalism with possible racism" is going a little bit overboard --Trabantemnaksiezyc (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2019 (CET)

The problem is that nationalism and racism don't belong to left-right axis of political spectrum and can be connected with both sides. For example nazism, fascism and stalinism (Stalin's policies against ethnic minorities in USRR were based on nationalism), Rouge Khmers were more on the left than on the right of political spectrum. Connection between racism and far-right is mostly false correlation between the facts that US Republicans were pro-slavery and right wing. In fact even in present times there are many de facto left-wing parties in terms of economy who are anti-immigrant are called by the opposition far-right, i. e. Five Star Movement, National Front, Law and Justice or Alternative for Germany although nationalist and right-wing parties exist (Northern League, Fidesz and everything where Janusz Korwin-Mikke is active). Mainstream media try of course ensure us that everything nationalist is right-wing but this is just a primitive manipulation which is projected to convince the people that left-wing=good, right-wing=bad. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 00:04, 6 March 2019 (CET)
I think these conspiracy theories do not belong here. We should simply refer to the wikipedia pages instead of having our own definitions. That is not only redundant but also very dangerous to the atmosphere of the discussions here if left unmoderated. Our admins have better things to do than playing referee in political non-mapping-related discussions. --Toadwart (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2019 (CET)
But I said, at least about the past issues and nationalism, exactly what Wikipedia says. The current ones are interpretation based on typical postulates by right-wing and left-wing parts of political scene but I can agree it depends on personal view. However it's normal that media in democratic countries have own political view and support the political option they like. There are no conspiracy theories here. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 08:01, 6 March 2019 (CET)
@Rustem Pasha: I'm not sure those are such good examples. AfD is definitely far-right, and by National Front, assuming you mean the British one, that applies too. Five Star, meanwhile, is a bit of a mixed bag: I believe the leaders of the party have called themselves 'big tent' and 'above left and right'.
And yes, I have something of an agreement with the whole 'horseshoe effect': the far-left and far-right have many policies closer to each other than anything else. I believe firmly in moderate politics.
@Trabantemnaksiezyc: Neoliberalism =/= libertarianism, and they can fit into some certain places. Neoliberalism is usually centre-right in a global view, from how I see it, but many proponents of the view will also argue that it is 'above' traditional politics. Libertarianism is a view on the freedoms of the individual. You can have left-wing libertarianism, green libertarianism, the views of the Libertarian Party in the USA (more like centre-right than anything else), and the far-right Ron Paul-types.
This is why I prefer the Political Compass view to anything which just tries to define one axis. Some versions are even 3D with 'Nationalist <-> Globalist' as another axis. But you cannot reduce politics to just left and right, as I see it. FictiveJ (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2019 (CET)
I acknowledge that media in democratic countries can't be completely unbiased. Especially those relying on viewing figures have to math their bias with their audience or their advertising partner or even their patrons. Nevertheless, the diversity of media in democratic countries prevents a concerted "Mainstream media try [...]" and "[...] primitive manipulation [...]". Instead that is what you find in media from undemocratic countries. --Toadwart (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2019 (CET)
In ideal world I would fully agree. But we live in the world where money is concentrated in hands of small group of people and unfortunately this group is rather (neo)liberal. Effect of that is the media they own (much more than half of the whole market) present their view. And who has more media on his side usually wins the election. That's why right-wing politicians often search alternative channels of communication (YouTube, Twitter etc.) to find more support from the public. And this is rather the difference between democratic and undemocratic countries. In undemocratic countries they wouldn't be allowed to do that. --Rüstem Paşa Discussion 12:58, 6 March 2019 (CET)
Firstly I think that you are conflsting different terms. Neoliberalism is right-wing, but not far-right. "Libertarianism" has varying definitions - in Europe it started as a socialist movement that opposed totalitarian ideas, while in USA it refers to a right-wing ideology with typically conservative social policies, but more liberal economic policies.
As it was said above, politics has more than one axis. Left-/right-wing can refer to social policies but also to economic policies. Historically, they were the same (people who advocated for economic freedom also advocated for nationalism, etc.) but in the modern world they do not always coincide. Maybe we should write that in the article. --tule00 15:12, 6 March 2019 (CET)