Chris,
it is interesting, I just have few doubts.
1- Socialism. Just to say, once again, that what you (in the USA, I guess) mean
for socialism is not what the rest of the world means. Here in Europe a
socialist is, according to what Roger wrote few times ago, an American
"leftist". So I'd drop that term, that leads confusion, and use instead
"communism", as the opposite of capitalism.
2- Anarchy. I have doubts that "any extreme leads to the same place - Anarchy"
(Gary seems to agree). And, even accepting this possibility, probably an
anarchic (or, as Gary suggests, a revolutionary) coming from an extreme
capitalism, and one coming from an extreme leftism, so to say, will never
share the same position, even if they both could fight a democratic government.
Your idea seems to match what here in Italy is known as the theory of the
"opposite extremism". When in the 70's we had a terrible period of political
terrorism, we suffered a concurrent attack to the state from fascist and
communist extremists... but they were not on the same side. They had different
targets, and different methods (and, sometimes, they also were fighting each
other) so it was a mistake to consider them the same
thing. A good step in order to win the battle against them was, in facts, to
avoid considering all those terrorists simply *terrorists*, and actually
fighting two different battles against two different enemies.
Not that I'm an expert of political diagrams... I don't know if you have seen
the diagram Roger suggested few weeks ago
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html While I find the questions incomplete and a
unfair, IMHO that diagram was not so bad. According to your vision, what there's
wrong in it?
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:26 BST