Linear or Circular?

[(*]

Just a little question.

Is it possible to be so far "left" that you become "right" ? and vice versa.

Is it linear ... i.e. you just keep on going further down the left.
or circular i.e. eventually your thoughts lean towards the right

[redstar2000]

I've heard that idea before; it comes from a mis-understanding of why we use the words "left" and "right".

In the French National Assembly of 1790 or so, the most radical delegates sat to the chairman's left; the most conservative to his right, and the moderates in the center of the hall.

That was when people first began to speak of "the left" and "the right"...as a shorthand description for radical and conservative.

So, if the question were properly asked, it would be "Can you be so radical as to become conservative?".

No.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Don't Change Your Name]

I think this is a misunderstanding. Some people believe that the extremes touch.
Here we come to a simple question that gives the example: do you become a capitalist for being too socialist? Do you become a fascist for being so anarchist? I doubt it.

[SonofRage]

There have been cases were someone is dedicated to their ideology but then it disappoints them in some way so they become disillusioned and go to the other extreme. For example, Lyndon LaRouche went from being a Socialist Workers Party guy to becoming this crazy Totalitarian Fascist

[RedAnarchist]

The political spectrum is linear to some, circular to others. I myself find far-right idealogies to be capitalist, anti-civil rights, anti-humand rights and backwards, and i think of myself as quite far-left.
Many people have a circular one, and they may turn into their polar opposite.

[secret buddha]

Sorry REDSTAR, the idea has been misunderstood, it's not being do radical that you change to the other side of the spectrum, it's more that your ideals impress the actions on you that you may see the most extreme actions as a means to achiving the goal. The opposite side may see the same actions resulting in the achievment of their agenda. The political sepctrum is, in fact circular. The ideologies as well as the implimentation of the means can directlyinfluence the final result, be it socialist or facist. ponder this long. It does make sense! ;)

[redstar2000]

...it's more that your ideals impress the actions on you that you may see the most extreme actions as a means to achieving the goal. The opposite side may see the same actions resulting in the achievement of their agenda. The political spectrum is, in fact circular.

I don't think that your conclusion follows logically from your premise...which I suspect is also flawed.

When you speak of an "extreme action", you have to be more precise.

It's not enough to say, for example "Stalin killed many of his political enemies; so did Hitler; therefore they are the same."

They both did indeed do those things, but both the motivations and the outcomes were entirely different.

There was never any real equivalent of Auschwitz in the USSR.

If your contention is along the lines of "what you do now will shape what you create in the future", I have no disagreement with that.

But I don't see how that observation can be used to support the hypothesis of a political spectrum that is "circular". I don't think that view can be historically justified.

It seems, in fact, to be an invention of cold war political "scientists" who were looking for a formula to "justify" capitalist ideological hegemony. By lumping Nazism and Stalinism under the umbrella of "totalitarianism", they could claim that they were "defending freedom" from "extremists" that were fundamentally "identical". A "circular" political spectrum fits into that outlook rather neatly.

But closer examination does not bear it out. The totalitarianisms of the right really do have an entirely different character than the totalitarianisms of the left...as anyone with a real knowledge of both can easily see.

Stalin was not my idea of "a nice guy", but Hitler was infinitely worse.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[secret buddha]

While I see your point, and ponder your argument, I must present the point that Hitler and Stalin both practiced genocide during (and possibly after, in the case of Stalin) world War II. These ruthless leaders had the intention of eliminating what was seen as the enemy, by hitler AND Stalin. The means, therefore the same. The result was for the same purpose as well.

This, however is a tangent from the circular nature of the political "spectrum". Through the Same means (what ever that may be) both leftist and rightist can see a way to achieve an agenda, or at least part of it. RedStar, I wish I could explain it clearer, however this argument is alot like mud. I do respect the opinion that is being presented. After all, isn't that what we're here to do?

You may be right, I may be confused due to my American upbringing. Educate me!Thanks, And lets start to unite the workers, world wide!

[Saint-Just]

The idea that it is circular is that fascism merges with communism. However, I do not think the linear interpretation of the political spectrum is accurate, where do anarchists fit onto it, with communists? and where do fascists fit, they may be as reactionary as conservatives but they have far different economic policies, and where do neo-liberals fit?

I think the political compass gives a clearer idea, and the political compass would suggest that communism shares something with fascism, that is authoritarianism, and anarchy shares something with neo-liberalism. In which case left and right can have similarities, which explains the idea that the political spectrum may be circular.

The original definition of left-right brought about by the French National Assembly is fairly good. Communists on the extreme left want greatest change, whilst fascists want times to return to ones of long ago.

the most radical delegates sat to the chairman's left

Is that really correct? The most reactionary Conservatives can be radical too.

[redstar2000]

Is that really correct? The most reactionary Conservatives can be radical too.

Well, things were simpler in 1790. The people who sat to the chairman's right did all they could to obstruct or at least slow down the changes that people on the "left" wanted to introduce...they did not have any fresh proposals of their own.

The spectrum is "longer" now, and might look something like this (reading from right to left)...

Fascists--Monarchists--Conservatives--Liberals--Social Democrats--Communists--Anarchists.

Fascists and monarchists are "true" reactionaries; conservatives and liberals represent the bourgeois mainstream; social democrats are moderate reformists; communists (in theory) and anarchists are the revolutionaries.

This is a very crude schematic, of course. What you have to do (if you're a Marxist) is analyze the particular alignments in each particular country.

For example, in the U.S., the Republican Party is semi-fascist while the Democratic Party is conservative now...the Greens are the new liberal party in the U.S., while the various "communist" (actually Leninist) parties are mostly social democratic.

You can't just go by the names.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

For example, in the U.S., the Republican Party is semi-fascist while the Democratic Party is conservative now...the Greens are the new liberal party in the U.S., while the various "communist" (actually Leninist) parties are mostly social democratic.

You can't just go by the names.

True, like how the BC Liberal Party is actually extremely conservative with facsiast tendencies.

[(*]

Perhaps people (myself included) take the terms left and right too literal.

[secret buddha]

I think I have taken them too serious and literal as well. I think the idea of a political compass may be more accurate than the circular or linear idea. I definately do think that linear is an impossibility. .... Maybe it's more of an ox-bow...lol. Have to admit, I love the discussion here. I've been looking for this for a long time.