sick of right-wingers who don't understand the spectrum

[DuracellBunny97]

I was on yahoo answers recently and I saw a question

"Which is worst; Communism (far left) or Fascism (far right) "

I wanted to respond, but it was a resolved question, so I couldn't, but here's the answer that was accepted

"How did Fascism get stuck into the far right? If you want a fascist, look no farther than Obama nationalizing healthcare, seizing control of GM, Chrysler, AIG, and some 500 banks. Then there is Cap and Trade on the horizon.

Far right would be ANARCHY.

I would say communism is the worse of two evils."

I just found this response mind-boggling, but it seems a rather consistent thought process with many right wingers, they simplify the political spectrum to, left=big gov't, right=little gov't, it's more complex than that, on the most basic level, left=communitarian, more personal freedom, right=individualist, more economic freedom.

I realize fascism isn't a totally far right ideology, as it has some socialistic qualities. Economically, right-wing libertarianism could be considered further to the right, but in the grand scheme of things, fascism is about nationalism, militarism, corpratism, social darwinism, etc., these are far right ideologies, but because Hitler lead the National Socialist Party, right-wingers claim it's to the far left, but if anarchy were the far right, than so is marxist communism, as it aims for a stateless society.


And besides, history has not condemned Hitler for his economics policies, even if he had been a socialist, he is a monster because he caused a genocide. Hitler was a vegeterian, did not smoke, and believed in animal rights, shall we all become chain-smoking, carnivorous, puppy-kickers, just cause Hitler wasn't?

I find many right-wing statements about communism could be made more acurate by simply replacing words like state and authority, with words like people and proleteriat.

e.g. "the core tennet of communism is about STATE ownership of means of production" no, that's state capitalism.

anyways, here is some quotes to show how radically left wing fascism is(sarcasm)

"Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy"
Benito Mussolini

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator"
Benito Mussolini

"Fascism is a religious concept"
Benito Mussolini

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini

"Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail"
Benito Mussolini

"The function of a citizen and a soldier are inseparable"
Benito Mussolini

"The Liberal State is a mask behind which there is no face; it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building"
Benito Mussolini

"The truth is that men are tired of liberty"
Benito Mussolini

"Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless"
Adolf Hitler

"Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice"
Adolf Hitler

"If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution"
Adolf Hitler

"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction"
Adolf Hitler

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think"
Adolf Hitler

"Education is dangerous - every educated person is a future enemy"
Herman Goering

"Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat"
Herman Goering

"Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my Browning"
Herman Goering

"Shoot first and ask questions later, and don't worry, no matter what happens, I will protect you"
Herman Goering

"It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion"
Joseph Goebbels

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play"
Joseph Goebbels

"We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns"
Joseph Goebbels (what is this fascination with butter?)

"We have only one task, to stand firm and carry on the racial struggle without mercy"
Heinrich Himmler

Why, what radical leftists(sarcasm).

So to give this rant some sort of a point, I'll ask your take on the political spectrum. It's not that I think anybody who has a different opinion than me is an idiot, but if you belive it's as simple as left=big, right=litte, then yeah, you're an idiot. Where would anarcho-capitalism be placed anyways, far left or far right?

This thread is not meant to defend fascism in anyway, in case anybody interpreted it like that, I am a marxist/anarchist. So please offer your perspective.

[Impulse97]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test


The spectrum isn't just left, right. That's only it's x-axis(economic). The y-axis is the Social scale with Authoritarian at the top and Libertarian on the bottom.

Therefore, you can have left authoritarian and a left libertarian(in this example I mean communist far left). They will likely agree economically but differ on size of the government and how much of a role it should play in the average citizens life. This also applies to the right. So in theory you can have rightists and leftists who agree strongly on either the Authoritarian or Libertarian scale but differ just as much on the economic scale.

It's more complex than this and there are plenty of gray shades in between. I suggest you take the test. Lots of members here have and you can usually find their score in their sig. Mines there too.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

(Edit: The site also supplies approx. where historical and current political figures would be. It also has charts for a few of the previous elections in the UK and US[for both candidates and parties.])

[DuracellBunny97]

yes, I've seen that spectrum too, I just got stuck on left right in this particular thing

my score was Left/Right -8.25
Libertarian/Authoritarian -7.54

[FreeFocus]

I mean, even a basic understanding of the political spectrum and political ideologies would end such stupidity, but I don't even engage with such idiocy. I just can't do it, and I'm not really interested in doing so.

Right-wingers who talk about big government are just talking out of their ass. Is imperialism not big government? Is bailing out corporations not big government? What about banning abortions and gay marriage, is that not big government? Taxing me to fund American, Israeli, and Turkish crimes against other nations, is that not big government? When they argue that progressive taxes, universal health care, etc, is big government, it isn't based on logic; it's based on rhetoric used to mask their material interests. I'm not interested in playing games with these tools, tbh. I used to debate them all the time online but I rarely post anywhere else (talking about politics) than here now. And in real life, forget about it. I might punch them in the mouth. Ugh.

And yeah, as Impulse noted, to have a complete political grid, it needs to have an x and y axis, for social and economic policy.

[GPDP]

I used to be obsessed with trying to make sense of the spectrum of politics, until one day, not too long ago, it hit me: there is really no universal spectrum, and if there is a spectrum, it's within ideologies, not between them.

To talk of fascism as the "far-right" and communism as the "far-left" is almost meaningless, because it begs the question: far-right and far-left in comparison to what? Under what context do such labels even make sense? And then I realized when such labels are applied, it's almost always in comparison to mainstream liberal ideology.

That's when the classification of political ideologies really began to make sense for me. For all the mudslinging that goes on between so-called "conservatives" and "liberals," they are actually ALL liberal ideologues. Conservatives just happen to be right-wing liberals, and "liberals" happen to be on the left-wing end of liberalism. Yet under the common conception of the political spectrum of ideologies, socialism/communism is merely more to the left, which would make us... far-left liberals. And liberals we are not, because we fundamentally reject many of the tenets of liberalism, such as respect for private property, a representative/republican form of government, free market economics, etc. And just like liberalism, there is a spectrum of of sorts within socialism, with the likes of anarchists and left-communists on the left, and MLs and such on the right.

Same thing with fascism. It's not just far to the right of mainstream liberalism; it's an ideology of its own, separate from the liberal spectrum as well as ours, as it too has many fundamental breaks with liberalism and socialism, such as its emphasis on the nation above all else, even private property.

Upon realizing all of this, it became clear to me how limited tests like the Political Compass above are. The results they give only make sense within the context of liberal ideology as a whole. That is why most socialists, from anarchists to Leninists, usually attain extremely similar scores despite the ideological gulf that exists within socialism, and why some of the more radical liberals also score near us despite not being socialists.

Because of this, despite the idiocy displayed in that Yahoo! Answers post, it actually sort of makes sense that bigger government intrusion in the (liberal) economy would correspond as a left-wing position within liberalism, with less intrusion being associated with right-liberalism. Though do keep in mind much of the talk of "big government," as FreeFocus just said, is nothing more than rhetoric and propaganda designed to serve a specific agenda, usually that of ending regulations or social welfare, while leaving other "big government" aspects such as the armed forces and bailouts for corporations intact.

[Red Commissar]

The problem with this begins in trying to see political matters in simple dimensions, and categorizing them on very broad beliefs or concepts alone.Websites like Political Compass fall into this as well, and while they add another dimension, it still isn't sufficient imo to explain it. You have to see ideologies in their own respect and not try to place them on a spectrum with others.

One problem is to move beyond seeing politics in purely left or right terms. The second giving certain political positions a paramount importance in identifying where a political view falls- say over matters like taxation, welfare, or "government".

But the pressing matter is that many don't have any knowledge of politics. They fall into pitfalls and often idiotic conceptions of "small or big government", "Free Market", or "Welfare" in trying to identify positions.

So you get some of your figures on the right trying to pass off the problems of Nazi's and fascists on to the left, because they can't embody the things the "right" stand for- namely their conception of capitalism (or as they prefer to refer to it as, "free market" or enterprise...) and "democracy". It doesn't matter how much you argue with those, it's a VERY solidified concept in their mind. To them, since Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy wasn't the champion of a Free Market like the United States was, it had to fall into a different conception, being socialism.

Basically, it's the trap of the "Anything but the Conservative ideology is socialism"- and it's not just a problem socialists have to deal with but often your progressive liberals who get wrapped up as being "socialists" and "Nazi's".

As for "Anarcho"-Capitalism, it's a load of crap. It's not anarchism despite the attempts of their supporters to show other wise. Real anarchism is rooted in the socialist experience; "anarcho"-capitalism was coughed up by some who took examples from earlier anarchists (Tucker), emphasized that "liberty" was most tied to capitalism (your theoretical figures coming from the Austrian school and elsewhere), and it developed from there.

And brother, ignore Yahoo Answers. Don't do political debate in those places or anywhere that has a "comments" section. It's only good for trolling honestly.

[Rooster]

The terminology left and right in a political context stems from the French Revolution. During the National Assembly supporters of the king sat to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. So I'm not sure the term really should be applied to Communism, Anarchism or even Fascism really. I understand that it's an easy way to classify yourself and things though, but I think it's too simplistic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If communism and fascism are analogous as the right like to claim these days, why was Henry Ford a supporter of the Nazis? Why were many European businessmen supportive of fascism? I'd like to hear a tea-partier answer to that question.

I think this historical lie hasn't reached Europe because it would be hard to explain what with the Communists often leading resistance movements and businessmen supporting the NAZI occupations.

[ZeroNowhere]

"Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my Browning"
Herman GoeringI don't believe he said this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Websites like Political Compass fall into this as well, and while they add another dimension, it still isn't sufficient imo to explain it.

That's the inherent weakness of modelling as a concept. The original political spectrum of the French revolution was a "model" to fit political ideologies in. A good model involves good judgment.

Try cubes instead of grids, then? I see Economic, Social, and Political axes. Individualist-Collectivist, Libertarian-Chauvinist (the latter inclusive of racists and sexists), and Anarchist-Authoritarian would be the respective extremes, and note how Libertarianism and Authoritarianism are not on the same axes.

[DuracellBunny97]

don't your economic and social beliefs comprise your political beliefs?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Politics is a very different beast. Where on the economic or social axes would recallability of all officials fit in?

[DuracellBunny97]

doesn't that fit into the up-down aspect? libertarian and authoritarian

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not being for the recallability of all officials isn't the same thing as being a racist.

[DuracellBunny97]

nobody said anything about racism, but what do you mean by the recallability of all officials

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, I recall my very educated liberal teacher telling us how the left wants greater government and the right wants less government and more freedom. To make the lesson even worse he stated that when you go too far to the left you become a dictator, but that the class shouldn't worry because liberals aren't autocratic only communists. And of course most people have sense enough to not be communists because it goes against human nature.
I'd like to count how many things wrong there are with this lesson, but I'll stop myself.
My innocent question following his comedic monologue: What's an anarchist-communist?

But on the subject of stupid yahoo questions. I found one that asked if communists were feminists, humanists a few other positive things or none of the above. Every single answer was none of the above. Every post made a reference towards Stalin and how he killed 100 trillion people and several paragraphs about dictatorship and how capitalism is the greatest.

[DuracellBunny97]

most people I mention anarcho-communism too in junior high, claimed that that's an oxymoron, and the whole idea of communism is an all powerful oppressive state, basically when I spoke of communism, they told me to move to Cuba, when I spoke of anarchism they told me to move to Somalia, and when I told them I was both, they told me I was an idiot. Ironically enough it was my financial management teacher who had the soviet flag hanging in his classroom, and defended communism when people spoke Ill of it

[FreeEire]

There seems to be a major lack of understanding of both the traditional political spectrum and the Political Compass style graph among conservatives in America.

The best quote was one I saw yesterday in which some Republican was attempting to say that Obama's plan was to bankrupt the USA to force it into Socialism.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I might create a few questions on Yahoo Answers just for lulz...

"To What Extent do Communists Uphold Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao?"

"Aren't Communism, Fascism and Liberalism Basically the Same Thing?"

"Doesn't Capitalism Normally Mean A Freer Market and Therefore A Freer Society?"

"Why Would Anyone Be A Communist/Fascist/Liberal/Anarchist After Seeing What Happened to the USSR?"

Yeah, those sound like pretty decent questions.

[FreeEire]

I might create a few questions on Yahoo Answers just for lulz...

"To What Extent do Communists Uphold Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao?"

"Aren't Communism, Fascism and Liberalism Basically the Same Thing?"

"Doesn't Capitalism Normally Mean A Freer Market and Therefore A Freer Society?"

"Why Would Anyone Be A Communist/Fascist/Liberal/Anarchist After Seeing What Happened to the USSR?"

Yeah, those sound like pretty decent questions.
You actually see quiet a few of those around Yahoo Answers, generally I don't think its an accurate barometer of public consciousness or political opinion, but merely a platform for trolls to hone their skills before moving onto political messageboards.

[Impulse97]

There seems to be a major lack of understanding of both the traditional political spectrum and the Political Compass style graph among conservatives in America.

The best quote was one I saw yesterday in which some Republican was attempting to say that Obama's plan was to bankrupt the USA to force it into Socialism.

I swear to god who may or may not exist that I nearly pissed myself I laughed so hard.

Thank you good sir or madam for making my month.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[PoliticalNightmare]

You actually see quiet a few of those around Yahoo Answers, generally I don't think its an accurate barometer of public consciousness or political opinion, but merely a platform for trolls to hone their skills before moving onto political messageboards.

Lol. Do you think there is an online, professional troll-training academy?

[ckaihatsu]

intro




To talk of fascism as the "far-right" and communism as the "far-left" is almost meaningless, because it begs the question: far-right and far-left in comparison to what? Under what context do such labels even make sense? And then I realized when such labels are applied, it's almost always in comparison to mainstream liberal ideology.


In other words, the ideological *categories* -- not just superficial labels -- identify people's politics in relation to *the state* (nation-state). Mainstream liberal ideology, or neoliberalism, is fully status quo and looks to the (U.S.) nation-state as the world's protagonist, in pretty much the way that it's *been* acting.

Seeing the state as central makes a lot of sense because it's the nation's policies, both foreign and domestic, that determine how all underlying business -- the business of labor exploitation -- is carried out.

Remember the part about how one's objective class interests are determined by one's objective relation to the means of mass production -- ? Industrialization has brought us a leviathan -- if you will -- that is certainly larger than any one of us and it cannot be ignored. Hence politics, in the most encompassing sense of the term.





don't your economic and social beliefs comprise your political beliefs?


Because of the existence of industrial implements and its ownership through joint-stock capital, we have a quasi-collectivism of industry, through aggregations of private property, authorized and overseen by the state.

I fully subscribe to the conventional, orthodox left-right linear political spectrum as the correct, most accurate model for tracking the determinism behind societal activities. Aspects of *scale* ("individualist-collectivist"), of *grouping* ("libertarian-chauvinist"), and of *control* ("anarchist-authoritarian") are *all* subsumed onto the 1-dimensional spectrum and are *secondary* aspects of it.


1-dimensional (linear left-right, relative positions)




[It] actually sort of makes sense that bigger government intrusion in the (liberal) economy would correspond as a left-wing position within liberalism, with less intrusion being associated with right-liberalism.


If one agrees that the nation-state's control over industrial implements is the determining nexus of all other political and economic activity, then it follows that aggregations of private capital holdings are a kind of quasi-collectivism of ownership and control, based on the institution of private property.

Whether that nation should take up a *firmer* grip on the reins or let up to a *looser* grip is the most central, *internal* factor determining the *degree* of collectivism of private property. Leftism in general argues for a *greater* collectivism, as through increasing democracy and participation in determining how mass assets and resources are used, while rightism argues for a *balkanization* of that collectivism, with more-private private holdings, towards more-concentrated *separate* accumulations.





To talk of fascism as the "far-right" and communism as the "far-left" is almost meaningless, because it begs the question: far-right and far-left in comparison to what? Under what context do such labels even make sense? And then I realized when such labels are applied, it's almost always in comparison to mainstream liberal ideology.

That's when the classification of political ideologies really began to make sense for me. For all the mudslinging that goes on between so-called "conservatives" and "liberals," they are actually ALL liberal ideologues. Conservatives just happen to be right-wing liberals, and "liberals" happen to be on the left-wing end of liberalism. Yet under the common conception of the political spectrum of ideologies, socialism/communism is merely more to the left, which would make us... far-left liberals. And liberals we are not, because we fundamentally reject many of the tenets of liberalism, such as respect for private property, a representative/republican form of government, free market economics, etc. And just like liberalism, there is a spectrum of of sorts within socialism, with the likes of anarchists and left-communists on the left, and MLs and such on the right.

Same thing with fascism. It's not just far to the right of mainstream liberalism; it's an ideology of its own, separate from the liberal spectrum as well as ours, as it too has many fundamental breaks with liberalism and socialism, such as its emphasis on the nation above all else, even private property.


I agree with this part since it aligns with this fundamental, linear continuum of more-collectivism-vs.-more-balkanization. Having a solid, valid model becomes very useful very quickly because this relativistic quality of it allows us to make relative comparisons from any given point on the spectrum, yielding all kinds of perspectives.

For example, I've noticed that, relatively, liberals tend to see Stalinism to their immediate left -- and, objectively, it's true -- for a liberal the status quo is basically okay but just needs to be reformed somewhat to allow increased democracy and participation. A step left of that, Stalinism would posit that the nation-state *concept* is sound, but that there needs to be "new management" over it, entirely. For a liberal that's quite a "reform".

Another quick example: Revolutionaries will tend to see *chaos*, and even fascism, in rightward directions since that side of the spectrum relative to their position only invites greater control by the zombie-like bourgeois state and headstrong, fractious private holdings.





don't your economic and social beliefs comprise your political beliefs?


Yes.

And, to sum up, this 1-dimensional linear relative-ness of aggregation (more-collectivism-vs.-more-balkanization) allows for a simplicity that can, if preferred, be "extruded" up into a secondary dimension of *scale*, specifically regarding the nation-state. Given its quasi-conscious control over the implements of mass industry will it become ambitious and seek expansion, or will it turn inward and look to strengthen itself within its borders? In a left direction expansion would have to be done by the workers themselves, which, on an international scale, would be Marxism. Rightward, though, the nation-state would leave such expansion to its capitalists, and this then becomes imperialism.

(See illustrations below, attached.)





2-dimensional




http://www.politicalcompass.org/test


The spectrum isn't just left, right. That's only it's x-axis(economic). The y-axis is the Social scale with Authoritarian at the top and Libertarian on the bottom.

Therefore, you can have left authoritarian and a left libertarian(in this example I mean communist far left). They will likely agree economically but differ on size of the government and how much of a role it should play in the average citizens life. This also applies to the right. So in theory you can have rightists and leftists who agree strongly on either the Authoritarian or Libertarian scale but differ just as much on the economic scale.





3-dimensional




Politics is a very different beast. Where on the economic or social axes would recallability of all officials fit in?





That's the inherent weakness of modelling as a concept. The original political spectrum of the French revolution was a "model" to fit political ideologies in. A good model involves good judgment.

Try cubes instead of grids, then? I see Economic, Social, and Political axes. Individualist-Collectivist, Libertarian-Chauvinist (the latter inclusive of racists and sexists), and Anarchist-Authoritarian would be the respective extremes, and note how Libertarianism and Authoritarianism are not on the same axes.





separate ideologies as separate entities







You have to see ideologies in their own respect and not try to place them on a spectrum with others.

The problem with this begins in trying to see political matters in simple dimensions, and categorizing them on very broad beliefs or concepts alone.Websites like Political Compass fall into this as well, and while they add another dimension, it still isn't sufficient imo to explain it. You have to see ideologies in their own respect and not try to place them on a spectrum with others.

One problem is to move beyond seeing politics in purely left or right terms. The second giving certain political positions a paramount importance in identifying where a political view falls- say over matters like taxation, welfare, or "government".





I used to be obsessed with trying to make sense of the spectrum of politics, until one day, not too long ago, it hit me: there is really no universal spectrum, and if there is a spectrum, it's within ideologies, not between them.


Leftism -- Want, Get

http://postimage.org/image/pgx9pah0/


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://postimage.org/image/35tmoycro/

[PoliticalNightmare]

...

Where do the Libertarian Right who are far-right and believe in free market capitalism but not "God belief" or "Belief in ethnic superiority" fit on your graphs? Lol. Also, howcome Stalinists/Maoists, Jacobinists are classed as decentralised alongside the anarchists but Trotskyists and Marxists are centralised revolutionaries?

Or have I misunderstood your graphs? In which case, I apologise. I do find the graphs you post very interesting, though, might I say.

p.s. I don't *get* the want-get graph.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

I have a hard time believing that economic inequality increased under fascism... especially when compared to more libertarian systems.

[ckaihatsu]

p.s. I don't *get* the want-get graph.


Certainly. I appreciate the comments, btw....

On the 'Leftism -- Want, Get' illustration, the overall idea is that since political positions are relative, a position that is further left will tend to require more "input" -- of effort, thought, willingness, principle, organization, seriousness, commitment -- hence the higher "elevation" of that position.

With such input comes the will to "creative control", so to speak -- leftism, not being extant, depends on having a precise vision (whether valid or not) and the political organization with which to advance and possibly realize such a vision. That's why I put the 'strategies' anvil visual metaphor as a heavy weight over on the *left* side of the (political) platform. (Note that it's difficult to arrive at general agreement on a unifying strategy on a specific point of position -- similar to moving a heavy weight into place, like an anvil.)

And, given that the relative-right is closer to the status quo, or current state of affairs, there is far less material effort required on their part to hold up a platform of some sort. Whenever the relative-left attempts to hold up a platform in common with the relative-right (a schematic), it's *inevitable* that the relative-right will not be willing to put up the same kind of support for a leftist position as the leftist position will.

The result is that the relative-right will "let their side down" to some commitment of lesser effort and/or lesser (social / political) meaning. This results in the strategy-in-common being compromised and actually *sliding* downwards, rightwards, with the possibility of being co-opted or abandoned altogether by the relative-right position.

I'll invite you to consider the 'Leftism -- Want, Get' schematic in combination with an objective delineation of meanings, according to social-oriented effort, represented as a hierarchy of increments reaching upward. It's attached, below.





Where do the Libertarian Right who are far-right and believe in free market capitalism but not "God belief" or "Belief in ethnic superiority" fit on your graphs?


I would generally term them to be in the category of 'adventurists'. (Like "mom-and-pop", or small-scale, imperialism, so to speak.)





Lol. Also, howcome Stalinists/Maoists, Jacobinists are classed as decentralised alongside the anarchists but Trotskyists and Marxists are centralised revolutionaries?


Stalinism / Maoism is limited to the nation-state, and so are decentralized in relation to the world as a whole -- similar for Jacobinism, and for locality-minded, albeit internationalist, anarchists.





Or have I misunderstood your graphs? In which case, I apologise. I do find the graphs you post very interesting, though, might I say.


Thank you.


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

[ckaihatsu]

I have a hard time believing that economic inequality increased under fascism... especially when compared to more libertarian systems.


My schematic doesn't speak to any historical examples directly -- it's a schematic, or framework. Any specifics are up to the interpretation of specifics by the "user".

[Impulse97]

While the Polititcal Compass metahed isn't the best, I think it's a good starting point for those who want to find a label for themselves perhaps, so that they can find those that think like they do and organize a movement etc etc.

If you find, develop etc. a better method or do away with it altogether that's fine by me. For my purposes I think I'll stick to the PC method for now.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Savage]

(It seems this discussion is over and has gone somewhat of topic but anyway) Fascism doesn't have a distinctive economic policy, regulated capitalism served them well because it maintained the class relations desired by social Darwinism whilst ensuring that the economic interests of the capitalists were in harmony with the interests of the nation. Nazi Germany basically followed a Keynesian capitalist model, so in that sense it could be seen as no more right wing than any other capitalist state of the time (although the slave labor should be taken into account). Obviously modern, neo-liberal capitalism is further right economically than Keynesianism, so modern (Libertarian) right wingers usually try to dump fascism further towards the left, even though a modern fascist state would most likely conform to market deregulation. Of course social policy should be taken into account, in this area fascism is the far right by any standard.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ TheCultofAbeLincoln said it best when he said that fascism is in fact the politics of the Hard Center. He was referring to its position on the Political Compass and even on my suggested Political Cube.

[ckaihatsu]

Thought I'd re-post the following quoted description / explanation of the 'Left Centrifugalism' dynamic to these two currently active threads....


sick of right-wingers who don't understand the spectrum

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sick-right-wingers-t147564/index.html


Definitions of leftism, liberalism, conservatism, and rightism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/definitions-leftism-liberalism-t147104/index.html





[T]he idea is to show that the nation-state exerts a centripetal-like force on society due to its middleman role between labor and capital. Likewise, the working class and ownership class each tend to consolidate to their peripheries -- like centrifugal force -- due to their counterposed, irreconcilable material interests over the societal surplus.


It would look best as an animation -- the general idea is that the left-to-right spectrum of inverted 'ideology' points is a single fast-spinning element on top of a wooden platform from the 'Interpersonal Meanings' schematic. As social meaning increases there's more at stake and so more resources are invested by the state to *destabilize* the politics of the day by making the element spin faster and faster -- this circular velocity primarily affects the general "mainstream" center.

With faster spin comes more disorientation around the center, and the relatively stable center shrinks, losing its "eye of the storm" safety with a diminished "sweet spot". Centripetal forces increase, pulling the general mainstream towards the center nation-state, while centrifugal forces increase as well, throwing either side of the political spectrum's "outer regions" out and away from involvement near the "mainstream".

But as social meaning increases upwards, the heightened elevation, along with the instability from the spinning, combine *against* the spinning inertia to *slow* it down, towards relative stability at higher levels of social meaning, tending towards a standstill. This increased stability cuts against the intrinsic interest of the nation-state for *instability* since the general disorientation throughout the political spectrum lessens as the spinning slows down. At the upper reaches of social meaning the destabilization threatens to *cease altogether*, yielding a relaxing of the separation caused by the counteracting centrifugal and centripetal forces. In such a situation the nation-state becomes *exposed* and the disparate, counterposed class forces at either end of the spectrum would easily swamp the center to meet in open conflict.

Likewise, the converse may occur where objective economic crisis (and political crisis) saps the nation-state's ability to keep politics "up-in-the-air" and destabilized -- widespread social meanings would tend *downward* in this case, approaching a *collapse* into 'falsities / bullshit' at the "ground level", putting a total stop to the spinning and disorientation. Again this would yield a climate of political stability that would reveal objective, counterposed class interests, giving them the chance to confront in the center in open conflict.





[T]he use of objective physical forces in the visual metaphor is proper, appropriate, valid, and illustrative.

Consider that during the capitalist expansionist period in the 19th century, and earlier centuries, the boom-bust cycle was entirely regular and predictably cyclical. In the 20th century, during periods of upswings -- as during the war-production '40s -- the nation-state likewise enjoyed a higher-level, less-unstable existence. This sovereign economic health -- as through warfare -- equates to a spinning center that is slower, more stable, and with a larger "sweet spot" of lessened circular motion in the middle.

Appropriately enough this condition also means that there's less *centrifugal* force flinging objective, counterposed *class* interests to either "outer region" -- in periods when the economy is not fluctuating as much the nation-state's "lessened motion" allows forces from both labor and capital to "cross the divide" and confront each other as the nation-state is less able to provide a spinning, destabilizing "centripetal" force.

So, to sum up, the "spinning disc" is illustrative of the extent of nation-state political activity -- assertion of sovereignty -- as during periods of economic fluctuation, either on the way up or on the way down. When the ruling class is too preoccupied with its own well-off being or crisis-ridden state of existence it fails to pay enough attention to and provide adequate "physical" destabilizing "spinning-disc force" to its 'executive committee of the ruling class', the nation-state. This equates to a lessening of official domestic and imperialist / adventurist political repression, allowing revolutionary and fascist forces a newfound political ground on which to clash, as is their wont.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/


Interpersonal Meanings

http://postimage.org/image/1d5a6d1c4/

[heiss93]

Yes I really hate how influential that stupid Nolan Chart has become. Designed by the founder of the libertarian party. The point of which is to show that real liberals are libertarians since they love liberty and real conservatives are libertarian since they love freedom. And everyone else is a totalitarian freedom-hater.

I think a more accurate Left-Right chart, although one that would be a bit hard to map objectively, would be based on the Gini coefficient of world inequality. Basically how unequal are you willing to see the world? I think this works since it combines both a measure of egalitarianism and internationalism.

Thus Fascists and Nazis would be put where they belong on the furthest right, since while they might not be the most pure laissez-faire capitalist domestically they want to enslave the rest of the world for the benefit of a small racial or national minority, and thus support maximum world inequality. Right-Populists such as Pat Buchanan would actually be to the right of libertarians since, while being slightly more domestically egalitarian at least for "real Americans", they support maximizing world inequality through trade wars and a "America First" policy. Then Libertarians who support the leveling influences of globalization as far as national GDP is concerned, but also support the concentration of wealth internationally into a small mostly First World elite. And then come Left-Liberals, Social Democrats, and the rest of the Left judged on an egalitarian internationalist scale.

The thing is that the Gini coefficient is one of the most objective-mathematical measures you can use for political views. But on the other hand it would be hard to onjectively determine what level of world inequality a policy would lead to. Although its not like those on the Right try to hide it, A Fascist or Ayn Randist celebrate inequality. A Reaganite might not say inequality is a good in itself (many do), but would say that its better to be relatively unequal and prosperous than equal and poor. And trickle-down theory essentially says relative inequality creates absolute prosperity. I suppose there are two separate but related measures at work here. The inequality polices would actually cause, and inequality that parties say they WANT to cause. Anyway as you can see I don't have any formal system worked out yet, but I think a Gini Chart would be a huge leap over the Nolan Chart.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Right wingers don't have a clue

[Luís Henrique]

It is not that they don't understand the spectrum, it's that they are redefining it. And doing a good job at that; the number of people who take the Political Compass in serious, even here, is telling.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, I recall my very educated liberal teacher telling us how the left wants greater government and the right wants less government and more freedom. To make the lesson even worse he stated that when you go too far to the left you become a dictator, but that the class shouldn't worry because liberals aren't autocratic only communists. And of course most people have sense enough to not be communists because it goes against human nature.

Well, even the educated are not immune from the social prejudices promoted by the ruling class - they just get those myths told to them from several different sources and authors rather than just the Media or Church like the rest of us.:lol:

I went to college in the late 1990s and "libertarian" ideas were becoming more popular among students in the US. This is the first line of my poem about it:lol::

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by capitalism, alienated self-absorbed elitist, dragging themselves through the Palo Alto streets at dawn looking for an unpaid internship, Ambercrombe and Finch wearing squares each individually burning for confirmation of their singular superiority reflected through the glow of an entry level tech-start-up position with stock options and the possibility of an early cash-out and retirement by 40 sat at Starbucks sipping lates in the supernatural glow of their cell-phones contemplating Ayn Rand.

[The Idler]

I'm sick of left-wingers who don't understand the spectrum.
Impulse97 suggests a social axis needs adding (all policies are economic/power related anyway), and that big government can somehow be left-wing.
GDPD takes the relativist "there is no spectrum".
Red Commissar agrees with abandoning the spectrum altogether. This is basically what the far right want to do, because nobody wants to identify as far right.

For me, it can be boiled down to whether you want to distribute power widely (the left) or concentrate power in a minority (the right).
So yes, Stalin would be on the right and libertarians on the right. Basically libertarian is a pretense to distributing power. The real effect of a free economic market is to concentrate power.
On this power basis, the left-right 1-axis political spectrum has served well for the fundamentals of political analysis for centuries.

[ckaihatsu]

For me, it can be boiled down to whether you want to distribute power widely (the left) or concentrate power in a minority (the right).





[A] *balkanization* of political-economic power [...] resembles the disintegration of a piece of fabric on top of a pool of acid (in slow-motion). Where frayed threads still attach piece to piece alliances are formed, as with the Allies vs. Axis, but the momentum of fragmentation continues nonetheless.





So yes, Stalin would be on the right and libertarians on the right.


Stalinism formed out of a historical legacy that began with the most significant and resounding action ever seen in world history -- the (Bolshevik) (October) Russian Revolution of 1917. This means that, as tragic and unwanted as it was, Stalinism nonetheless was / is *not* right-wing, and especially not in the sense that free-market libertarianism is.

Its composition was that of a bureaucratic elite with unified control / administration over the nation's development, though degenerating and growing increasingly corrupt once its historical usefulness was completed -- industrialization -- which it did far better and speedily than Western countries did (as a consequence of benefitting from already existing knowledge and experience), though to a less-successful and less-complete degree as a result of coming to it later in the "game".

[Luís Henrique]

For me, it can be boiled down to whether you want to distribute power widely (the left) or concentrate power in a minority (the right).
So yes, Stalin would be on the right and libertarians on the right. Basically libertarian is a pretense to distributing power. The real effect of a free economic market is to concentrate power.
On this power basis, the left-right 1-axis political spectrum has served well for the fundamentals of political analysis for centuries.

I disagree. The left-right divide is not on the distribution of "power", but on the distribution of wealth.

Right: We are OK with inequality.
Left: We are not OK with inequality.

Center: We are OK with inequality, but we think real life inequality is bigger than it should, we ought to reduce it a little.

Far right ("libertarian" version): we are OK with inequality, and indeed think there is too little of it. Government barriers against increasing inequality should be suppressed.

Far right (traditional version): we are OK with inequality, and indeed think there is too little of it, or that it is inequality of the wrong kind. Government should actively promote the right kind of inequality (because the market creates and strenghts the wrong kind of inequality).

Center-right: we are OK with inequality. There is perhaps too much inequality in the real world, and a few kinds of inequality (racial, sexual, etc.) that are really not OK. This has to be tackled slowly and very carefully, and the market will do most of this anyway.

Center-left: we are not OK with inequality. We should change things to gradually reduce inequality. The market is not, in itself, a cause of inequality.

Far-left: we are not OK with inequality. It is impossible to tackle the issue gradually, as inequality is a structural consequence of capitalism.

More or less like this.

Luís Henrique

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm sick of class content being ignored in favor of political forms.

The bourgeoisie has a right and left wing (and the terms come from the the seating arrangements in parliament during the French Revolution, which established a bourgeois republic). Capital's left wing has no interest in abolishing capital, believe it or not.

What matters are the class forces at play.

[L.A.P.]

left=communitarian, more personal freedom, right=individualist, more economic freedom.


I wouldn't even say that, left-wing politics are more eglitarian while right-wing are more hierarchial. Freedom is pure opinion a lot of times so you can't divide things as freedom vs. non feedom because as far as I'm concerned socialism gives you more economic freedom than capitalism but that would be on the contrayr to popular opinion.