Left v Right Graphic

[The Idler]

Left v Right graphic from Information is Beautiful (http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/leftvright_world.html)

[Invincible Summer]

...

.....

Why Dems vs GOP? Sigh. Also, the whole "Interfere with" on the "Left" side vs. the "Don't interfere with" on the "Right" makes it seem like it's biased.

This graphic sort of makes me sad that people have to demarcate exactly what values the "left" and "right" have, not to mention what kind of families and jobs are "left" and "right." Ridiculous.

[Kassad]

Democrats are left-wing? This is news to me.

[Q]

It is a nice depiction of American politics, but not the world.

[GPDP]

Ugh. Typical mainstream conceptions of the political spectrum piss me off. They are so narrow it's ridiculous.

There is far more to the left and right than whether or not the guvment interferes in shit.

[pastradamus]

It is a nice depiction of American politics, but not the world.

Still interesting though.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Yes it's interesting but it is a very narrow depiction of left and right, assuming left = liberals and right = conservatives.

[cb9's_unity]

Your classic mix of over-simplification and misunderstanding.

At least it looks nice.

[Stand Your Ground]

Still interesting though.
Indeed. Well organized in my opinion.

[CELMX]

Thanks for this graphic, darrelljon, even though it's kinda narrow on politics (um...mainly US politics) but it helped me out a lot! My friend, who is (or should i say was) not interested in politics at all. I showed her this pic, since i thought it had nice pictures and small words so she can easily understand. And, boom, she just got a lot more interested in this shit, because she could finally understand it (well, very basically and narrowly get a grasp of american politics at least)

btw...the graphic compares communism (well, commies and democrats) to doves. Are we really that peaceful? I mean, I think most of us believe only a violent revolution would work. Could someone please explain?

[ckaihatsu]

Ugh -- typical bourgeois establishment propaganda here.... The *giveaway* is that it almost exclusively addresses *cultural* factors, and then in an artifically, superficially stereotyping and branding kind of way.... It uses abstract, vague, value-y terms instead of *material* ones -- but I guess that's because Democrats and Republicans alike are in *very* similar positions of wealth ownership, both having far more of a *personal* stake in a share of the means of mass production. For workers who own nothing and have nothing to sell but their own labor all of this branding shit is bullshit.

Being stereotyping political branding bullshit, it barely addresses the *material political interests* of left and right private property ownership positions, like new money versus old money, or equity capital versus rentier capital. Note that there's no mention of *labor* and capital *at all* -- one has to correctly jump through all the hoops of schooling and then pay tuition for a college education before being allowed exposure to *that*...!

The political branding giveaway is right here with the bullshit schism of: "don't / tax and spend" and "don't / interfere with" -- I don't think I need to explain *this* one....

Here's *my own* political spectrum that's decidedly more materialist and accurate, attached below.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals



Chris



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[MarxSchmarx]

Why all this scorn? The sorry fact of the matter is that many otherwise decent leftists in america join the Democratic party. Some do so for pragmatic reasons, many do so because they are ignorant, and a handful are probably deeply misguided (e.g., DSA). But we have to understand that in vast swaths of America, the democrats are the "only game in town", and seem leftist compared to the troglodytes and fascists in the GOP.

I despise the democratic party as much as the next person, but I do think that there are many leftists in the democratic party that won't take much persuading to join our movement instead, but just haven't had that exposure yet.

[ckaihatsu]

Why all this scorn? The sorry fact of the matter [...]


Hmmmmmm, scorn-worthy or sorry fact? Decisions, decisions....

Well, we're not *haters* here, so allow me to assign the scorn *politically* to the Tweedledee-or-Tweedledum *branding* that's going on within the 2-party system -- that would be whatever major political party executives are calling the shots on this stuff, and, of course, all of the major backers of the political establishment.

I suppose many average working-class people just haven't run into a revolutionary leftist alternative yet, like finding this board, but shouldn't more people be doing web searches for 'socialism' right about now?

[Zeus the Moose]

What I think is a bit strange about this graphic is that it generally implies American politics (as many folks here have mentioned already.) However, it spells "labour" the British/Commonwealth way, as opposed to the American "labor." Then again, they could just be Americans who have adopted Commonwealth spellings, as I have, but that doesn't seem likely.


btw...the graphic compares communism (well, commies and democrats) to doves. Are we really that peaceful? I mean, I think most of us believe only a violent revolution would work. Could someone please explain?

I certainly can't speak for everyone here, but I don't see a violent revolution as being necessary for the overthrow of capitalism and transition to socialism. It's within the realm of possibility that, in a revolutionary situation, the capitalist class will see what's arrayed against them, and that peaceful surrender is the best option.

However, historically this has almost never been the case. Again, this isn't because violent revolution is necessary, but because the capitalist class isn't willing to give up its power. To paraphrase James Cannon, the ruling class will have become obsolete, but they'll be the last to know it, or rather, they won't want to admit it to themselves. As a result, they'll use any means they can, including violence, fascism, or whatever, to crush a revolutionary movement and retain their power. Of course, this means that we'll most likely need to use at least some violence in order to put down this "slave-owners' revolt." So, I think it's more correct to say that the revolution will most likely be violent, but due to the actions of the capitalist class, and not the revolutionary socialist movement.

James Cannon brought this point up when he was put on trial under the Smith Act in 1940 (the same act that was used against supposed CPUSA members and supporters a decade later.) The SWP published his testimony as "Socialism on Trial," which you can find here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/index.htm) if you're interested (the relevant part is in Part 1, "capitalists responsible for violence.)

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, we're not *haters* here, so allow me to assign the scorn *politically* to the Tweedledee-or-Tweedledum *branding* that's going on within the 2-party system -- that would be whatever major political party executives are calling the shots on this stuff, and, of course, all of the major backers of the political establishment.



Yes of course. There is a systematic problem at work here, and to the extent that criticisms point that out it's a valid exercise.


I suppose many average working-class people just haven't run into a revolutionary leftist alternative yet, like finding this board, but shouldn't more people be doing web searches for 'socialism' right about now?

I suspect that nominally more are. We also have to be aware of the cold-war past, esp. in the Anglo-saxon countries where socialism was a dirty word. It could very well take an entire generation for that to change.

[Axle]

The graphic is at least interesting.

...Even if it is just the tired old "left"/right game between Democrats and Republicans.

[narcomprom]

looks arbitrary to me. must be rooted in the neofreudisms behind easy rider.