Talk:Political spectrum

Communism on the political spectrum.
Why is communism on the authoritarian side? Communism is more of a democratic ideology. Fascism is more authoritarian, communism is essentially the opposite of fascism. I'm assuming communism is put there by the common misunderstanding that Stalinism is communism, which it is not. SiloueOfUlrin (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does the article say that? TFD (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On the first diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.200.227 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

name a communist country that is not totalitarian. both fascists and communists are totalitarian atheist socialists consumed with the collective. people claim they are political opposites because they are such violent sibling rivals. there are only slight differences between them and neither entertains pluralism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B049:6C0A:4D7D:1858:677B:A0B2 (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities and Rojava. There's two for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.200.227 (talk • contribs)
 * They're libertarian-communist societies. As you can see, "libertarian" is what makes them less authoritarian. The general public still sees communism as the one like in the USSR, which is authoritarian. --DefendingFree (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Why use the spectrum for every countries politics?
As you know the political compass is used for every countries politics but most of it doesn't make sense at all take for example Australia and their politics.There are 3 political parties the Labor party,Liberal party and the nationals party and there's one problem no one uses the political compass in Australia only the people outside of Australia.Now most people outside of Australia don't actually know what Australia's politics actually is so they watch most media of Australia but never knew they watched propaganda from some media source.If you are from England and see Labor and Liberal party you'll think "hmmm if there's a another labour party but in Australia then that means the Labor party is socialist" but that's not the case.You see the labor party is very different from the Labour party that's because the Labor party is not related with the Labour party and it does not believe in a socialist ideology.The saying "if labor and Labour party have similar names then don't vote for socialism" was propaganda made by the liberals and nationals to sway the voters into there side and it's like saying that Fascism was a nationalist ideology when in fact it was a syndicalist ideology that forms with actualism like a fascio (or at least in benito's mind of thinking).By the way if you keep using the political compass for everything then stop using it for sometime and get evidence of something that's not related to the political compass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sþooþy-Skeletal69 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the talk page is to suggest changes rather than to discuss the topic. If you want to change the article, you would need sources that make your observation.
 * I don't think incidentally that your analysis is accurate. Compare the constitutions of the Australian Labor and British Labour parties: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party..." (Section 4), "The [British] Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." (Clause IV) The two parties have more in common with each other, especially historically, than they do with the British Conservatives and Australian Liberals. They have also belonged to the same international organizations. I imagine your real concern is that you don't think the ALP should be called socialist because it doesn't fit your definition. Incidentally, the term labor was used to identify the parties with workers, especially in unions, rather than socialism.
 * TFD (talk) 14:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

NationStates Model


I believe that the three-dimensional model from the game NationStates is more understandable and detailed than the current three-dimensional model. Please state your opinions on whether the model should be implemented on this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.200.227 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You would need to show that it has entered the literature on political science, which seems unlikely since it was developed for a game. TFD (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I very much doubt that academics would embrace it, if only because of the breezy nature of the descriptions: "Father Knows Best State", "Psychotic Dictatorship", "Civil Rights Lovefest", "New York Times Democracy" and so on. Entertaining, and therefore appropriate for game usage, but hardly rigorous or authoritative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Should this 2004 chart be updated ?
Hi,

The "Inglehart" part of the "Other double-axis models" part contains a chart with data from 2004.

A new one from 2022 is available here: Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world

Should we update it ?

Thanks Corentin208263 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Ik this is on the wrong page but the improvements go for thousands of them
This is coming from a kid who wants to be a politician one day. There is something which would require LOTS of people due to the sheer scale of how widespread this issue is, but a fix is badly needed and I cannot do it by myself since it would require the changing of Wikipedia's standards for a Political Position. Wikipedia currently uses a simple left-right divide under the "Political Position" For a Party or Faction, but this causes a lot of problems and we need a more detailed section for the political position. I am going to write this on other talk pages just so more people can see it. Anyone wanna help? Petjayso (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The correct page to discuss this is Village pump. TFD (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)