Political Spectrum

[Sosa]

Can any upload an accurate image of a political spectrum?

[Agent Ducky]

Which begs the question, is there a way to accurately portray a political spectrum visually? Is there any one way? Is there any correct way?

[dernier combat]

I don't think it is possible to accurately place political positions on a spectrum. Political/economic positions should be classified on the basis of what class they serve to keep in power/emancipate, and the conditions in which each become perceived as necessary to ensure the interests of that class (i.e. the Haute-Bourgeoisie considers fascism as opposed to social democracy to be more effective and thus necessary to secure their rule in certain conditions. The same applies for e.g. Trotskyism and Maoism, when hypothetically a worker might perceive Maoism to be more effective for the emancipation of the proletariat in a particular scenario when 'New Democracy' is considered to be more effective for said emancipation than what Trotskyism would offer). You can't place such political/economic positions on a spectrum; they aren't quantifiable.

[ckaihatsu]

Which begs the question, is there a way to accurately portray a political spectrum visually? Is there any one way? Is there any correct way?





I don't think it is possible to accurately place political positions on a spectrum. Political/economic positions should be classified on the basis of what class they serve to keep in power/emancipate, and the conditions in which each become perceived as necessary to ensure the interests of that class (i.e. the Haute-Bourgeoisie considers fascism as opposed to social democracy to be more effective and thus necessary to secure their rule in certain conditions. The same applies for e.g. Trotskyism and Maoism, when hypothetically a worker might perceive Maoism to be more effective for the emancipation of the proletariat in a particular scenario when 'New Democracy' is considered to be more effective for said emancipation than what Trotskyism would offer). You can't place such political/economic positions on a spectrum; they aren't quantifiable.


This topic has been a concern of mine since early on, especially since there's always the norm of "left-right" when referring to political positions.

Some say that the sheer relativism of interests at any point on the spectrum would fully collapse any and all attempts to define politics in a definitive left-right way, but there actually *is* an objective grounding to all of it -- one which I've gone on to graphically illustrate, to some degree of accuracy.

I'll preface that Marxist-scientific observation by first noting that a *casual* way of thinking about politics is that, as long as things are at a relatively even keel, with material inputs (income) comfortably sustaining material outputs (spending), then the self-sufficiency this provides for (autarky) means that there really *aren't* any derived matters of management or administration to deal with (politics). This is an idealistic situation, of course, one that can only exist briefly in historical time, if at all. The larger dynamic world is too much in motion for this situation to last, either for individuals or nations -- nonetheless there's a certain appeal to the simplicity of it, a "Goldilocks" optimal economic point at which a modest growth is "just right" to enable a balance between inputs and outputs in an ongoing way.

Anything less, of course, brings about the politics of the downslope, while anything greater entails the politics of expansion.

If -- for the sake of illustration -- the perfectly balanced economic terrain could be sustained indefinitely it would be like the Garden-of-Eden existence of myth, wherein pleasure is limitless and innocent, with no cause for the use of thought to reflect on it all. Reality, of course, brings about both ups and downs, with the "ups" of a societal *surplus* of production being arguably *more* complicated to administrate than "downslope" situations. So all of this is to say that, as long as there is an *aggregate*, societal, reality, one that produces a *surplus*, there will be more material at stake to be conscious of, and to administrate, than any one of us can readily lay claim to as individuals -- hence politics.

In terms of a political spectrum there's one's own *objective* relation to the means of mass (industrial) production -- is one able to derive a fraction, or a part, or the entirety of their income from the economics of large-scale productive activity? Or, is one entirely *outside of* this economic activity in our current civilization, so that they *must* sell their own labor power for a wage in order to secure an income?

It's on this objective basis that we can arrive at the basics of a politics of surplus and its large-scale administration, as by a nation-state's bureaucracy. This objective basis also, obviously, indicates a profound *class* division in society because of this varying difference in relation to society's means of industrial production -- a production that is far greater than the capacity of our combined human *manual labor* output, since industrial production leverages potent, powerful fuels, alongside machine efficiencies, for its productive output.


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

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


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

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


Political Spectrum, Simplified

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

[Sosa]

Someone posted this one (in the attachment) in another thread I frequent and I wanted to post a more accurate one, as this one clearly is very misleading

[ckaihatsu]

Someone posted this one (in the attachment) in another thread I frequent and I wanted to post a more accurate one, as this one clearly is very misleading


Do feel free to do so, and/or to critique mine -- input (from the revolutionary left) is welcome.

In creating the original 'Ideologies & Operations' one I realized that its linear expanse from right to left matches up to material historical development over historical time -- this is the idea of 'progress' in the political spectrum as one moves leftward, since the politics in the rightward directions have *already* been done by history. (I may see about indicating this more clearly in future works.)

The one you posted is the slapdash approach to explaining politics, one that maintains the (capitalist) status quo as "safely" "nestled" in the "middle", with "crazy" stuff on the "extremes". It doesn't bother to propose any rationale or reasoning -- rather it just reinforces the status quo conditioning that people are used to receiving without encouraging any kind of reflection.

[Stand Your Ground]

Someone posted this one (in the attachment) in another thread I frequent and I wanted to post a more accurate one, as this one clearly is very misleading
I fixed it lol.

http://i51.tinypic.com/t5npd1.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

I'll have to admit that it's only due to this recent thread:


3D printers:The begining of communism?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/3d-printers-begining-t150874/index.html


...that I've had to revise my politics to make room for the feasible possibility of a "post-communist anarchism", meaning that a worldwide communist workers' control of the means of mass industrial production could actually now be *superseded*, to arrive at more of an anarchist ideal, due to the development of the technology above.

[NGNM85]

This is the traditional political spectrum;

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/files/2009/10/left-right.png