Political Spectrum Corrected, remarks or ideas?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

So i've made a new political spectrum. It's corrected so the new names should be more honest.
I've left out wellknow terms like Communism, Socialism, Libertarianism and Liberalism because there is to much discussion between different tendencies.

http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/943103_472204102867822_1728829373_n.jpg

Do you have any remarks about it and some new tendencies (on either side) and where they should be?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think that a two-dimensional map is woefully inadequate, and fails to deal with the inter-relationship between differing ideologies. For example, liberal democracy (including "social democracy"), as a historical form, has always been premised on ruthless (neo-)colonialism, and boot-on-the-neck subjugation of colonized peoples. So, is liberal democracy "progressive"? Sure, if you're an enfranchised citizen, I guess!
Is "neo-liberalism" a distinct "ideology" or a descriptor of a particular historical phase?
Etc.

I'd say trash the whole thing and start from scratch.

[helot]

How is "anarcho-capitalism" progressive? Rothbardians would find nothing wrong with slavery so long as it occured from a contract and you didn't have a literal gun pointed at your head but if due to debt, homelessness etc? it'd be fine and any attempts to break free of your servitude would be met with brutal violence.


Further, considering they apply the absolute domain over private property to an even more extreme than present society (the state does intervene in particular cases) a tenant, for example, could be denied even saying things such as "my landlord is a douche" is their own home! These people aren't progressive in the slightest, they're just irritated that there are more powerful capitalists than themselves.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

How is social-democracy progressive.

[ed miliband]

just do a one-dimenstional one, 'wings of capital' -- 'official communism', etc. on the far-left, fascism on the far-right and everything else (but communism) at some point in between.

[Geiseric]

Stalinism isn't "left", first of all switching Marxist with stalinist would make much more sense. Stalinoids can be leftists, sure it's a possibility, but calling Stalinism "left authoritarian" like the bourgeois would like to do, in order to discredit Marxism, is dishonest. Stalinism murdered or exucuted at least a million full blown communists worldwide.

[TheEmancipator]

Stalinism isn't "left", first of all switching Marxist with stalinist would make much more sense. Stalinoids can be leftists, sure it's a possibility, but calling Stalinism "left authoritarian" like the bourgeois would like to do, in order to discredit Marxism, is dishonest. Stalinism murdered or exucuted at least a million full blown communists worldwide.

True, and if you look at the current "Neo-Stalinists" in Russia and their stance on gay marriage, Russian nationalism, etc... they are as reactionary as the White Russians were. With the possible exception of Ismael, who has a dangerous obsession with Albania and anti-revisionism, I don't think anybody here openly supports "Stalinism" as an ideology but justifies his "Marxist-Leninist" policies. Most grass-roots (i.e actually working class) revolutionaries will almost always subscribe to libertarian socialism because they feel it is what resembles their interests the most. You only have to look at antifa initiative in working class areas as well as a lot of "anarchist" communities to see they laugh at Marxist-Leninism a lot.

I would say that this political spectrum is a pre-revolutionary bourgeois political viewpoint from a very liberal perspective. Come the revolution, I widely expect the political compass to change, with a division between anarchists, centralised democrats and vanguardists. Who knows really, but this political spectrum will not remain. It's also why I reject the tag of "Left" as if I am somehow the oppositionary force to reactionary/capitalist views. I am here because I am a revolutionary. Not because I place myself politically on a compass like some kind of faction against another.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

First of, this is only a first mock-up. Please keep commenting, so we can perfect it.


I think that a two-dimensional map is woefully inadequate, and fails to deal with the inter-relationship between differing ideologies. For example, liberal democracy (including "social democracy"), as a historical form, has always been premised on ruthless (neo-)colonialism, and boot-on-the-neck subjugation of colonized peoples. So, is liberal democracy "progressive"? Sure, if you're an enfranchised citizen, I guess!
Is "neo-liberalism" a distinct "ideology" or a descriptor of a particular historical phase?
Etc.

I'd say trash the whole thing and start from scratch.

So you'd like a three dimensional one? What would you think would serve great as a z-axis?

I think Neo-liberalism is a tendency. Liberals (especially the classic liberals) hate it when the are called neo-liberals or when they are held responsible for the world as it is. Classical Liberals call themselfs Libertarians now (at least that's what they say).
But i'll take a critique, if you can provide me with an alternative.


How is "anarcho-capitalism" progressive? Rothbardians would find nothing wrong with slavery so long as it occured from a contract and you didn't have a literal gun pointed at your head but if due to debt, homelessness etc? it'd be fine and any attempts to break free of your servitude would be met with brutal violence.


Further, considering they apply the absolute domain over private property to an even more extreme than present society (the state does intervene in particular cases) a tenant, for example, could be denied even saying things such as "my landlord is a douche" is their own home! These people aren't progressive in the slightest, they're just irritated that there are more powerful capitalists than themselves.

Anarcho-Capitalism is progressive as in no government. Because they are still heavily capitalist, they are sticking to the right-border.
So where would you place them? And what would be in the top-right corner?


How is social-democracy progressive.

What do would you say they were?


Stalinism isn't "left", first of all switching Marxist with stalinist would make much more sense. Stalinoids can be leftists, sure it's a possibility, but calling Stalinism "left authoritarian" like the bourgeois would like to do, in order to discredit Marxism, is dishonest. Stalinism murdered or exucuted at least a million full blown communists worldwide.

Then where would you place Stalinism? And what should be in the bottom-left-corner, according to you?


True, and if you look at the current "Neo-Stalinists" in Russia and their stance on gay marriage, Russian nationalism, etc... they are as reactionary as the White Russians were. With the possible exception of Ismael, who has a dangerous obsession with Albania and anti-revisionism, I don't think anybody here openly supports "Stalinism" as an ideology but justifies his "Marxist-Leninist" policies. Most grass-roots (i.e actually working class) revolutionaries will almost always subscribe to libertarian socialism because they feel it is what resembles their interests the most. You only have to look at antifa initiative in working class areas as well as a lot of "anarchist" communities to see they laugh at Marxist-Leninism a lot.

I would say that this political spectrum is a pre-revolutionary bourgeois political viewpoint from a very liberal perspective. Come the revolution, I widely expect the political compass to change, with a division between anarchists, centralised democrats and vanguardists. Who knows really, but this political spectrum will not remain. It's also why I reject the tag of "Left" as if I am somehow the oppositionary force to reactionary/capitalist views. I am here because I am a revolutionary. Not because I place myself politically on a compass like some kind of faction against another.

So, let me get this straight: your idea for a z-axis would be a nationalism/something-else?
That way you could provide better placement for both Stalinism and Fascism. As far as Marxist-leninists go: i think they are by far not as authoritarian as Stalinists. Wher would we leave them?
Would vanguardists not be taken as authoritarian you think?


So taking all your comments in account, options for the axis seem to be:
-Left/right
-Capitalist/Communist
-Revolutionairy/conservative
-Nationalist/non-nationalist (maybe Globalist?)
-Social-libertarian/social-authoritarian

Am i forgetting any? Any more options?
Keep 'em coming!

[Skyhilist]

This is really just a rehash of what's already been done at politicalcompass. All you changed from their chart is you replaced "libertarian" with "progressive" and made it at the top instead of the bottom. At least you made an attempt though, so that's worth something

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

True, and if you look at the current "Neo-Stalinists" in Russia and their stance on gay marriage, Russian nationalism, etc... they are as reactionary as the White Russians were.

What "neo-Stalinists"? The KPRF? They have bugger all to do with anti-revisionism, and even the Brezhnevites want nothing to do with that outfit. They would qualify as fascist if they actually managed to attract anyone into their "movement". The Maoists? As the Russian Maoist Party puts it, "[w]e are quite disrespectful to ‘Halting the Dying Out of the Nation’, ‘the Integrity of RuSSia’, ‘Spirituality’ and ‘Order’ and other fascist lies".

I mean, yes, the anti-revisionists have awful politics sometimes, but this incessant hue and cry about how evil Stalinists are just makes them look good in comparison. They should be criticised for their actual line, not because you've seen one Nazbollock with a poster of Stalin and decided that this represents the anti-revisionist position.

In any case, the problem with political spectra, charts, cubes, 7-cubes, and so on, is that terms like "authoritarianism" or "progressive" mean different things to different political tendencies. The fascist and the Bordigist, for example, both reject bourgeois democracy, but only an idiot could suggest that they are antidemocratic in the same way. Likewise with authoritarianism and Leninism; certainly, we Leninists are authoritarian to the extent that the revolution is authoritarian, but anyone who thinks that this is the same sort of authoritarianism as the fascist law and order fetish hasn't been paying attention to the last century or so of political struggle. And no matter how much they try, ancaps will never be libertarian in the same way as anarchists.

[Bronco]

Replace 'progressive' with 'libertarian' and that's just the political compass really

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I'm now working on a completely different kind of spectrum. Not 3D, but i think, maybe even better. :thumbup1:

[BIXX]

I think a web would be cool. Like it would start with connections to all tendencies (from fascism to anarchists) and you could select each one and discover the average stance held by that group on this or that issue, and as you answered questions it'd limit the connections down until it only had one connection, between yourself and the tendency that you most likely follow. It could also give you a "top ten" or "top five" list to figure out what you have most in common with, and a "bottom ten/five" to see what you have least in common with.

Anyone have any programming knowledge?

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Anyone have any programming knowledge?

Tadaa! :D

Web-style sounds great too. I'm currently working on something else too, so i'll see where that goes, maybe a web is even better.

[TheEmancipator]

What "neo-Stalinists"? The KPRF? They have bugger all to do with anti-revisionism, and even the Brezhnevites want nothing to do with that outfit. They would qualify as fascist if they actually managed to attract anyone into their "movement". The Maoists? As the Russian Maoist Party puts it, "[w]e are quite disrespectful to ‘Halting the Dying Out of the Nation’, ‘the Integrity of RuSSia’, ‘Spirituality’ and ‘Order’ and other fascist lies".

Which is why I said it would be a mistake to place them fully on the authoritarian left. Calm down.


I mean, yes, the anti-revisionists have awful politics sometimes, but this incessant hue and cry about how evil Stalinists are just makes them look good in comparison. They should be criticised for their actual line, not because you've seen one Nazbollock with a poster of Stalin and decided that this represents the anti-revisionist position.


I'm sorry, but people who venerate Stalin like some kind of demi-god are not to be taken seriously. There are plenty of anti-revisionistss who are serious enough. They are almost never Stalinists. They complain about post Stalin USSR but don't go saying that Stalin is some kind of flawless God. They suscribe to the Marxist-Leninist tendency, knowing that it wasn't always fully implemented by Stalin.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Aye, something three dimensional (with an axis suggesting their immediate practice and theoretical "goal"), and with lines rather than points that move between practices and goals, as well as supplementary lines indicating the interrelationship between ideologies (like, if we can't trace lines from Stalinism to anarchism, as ugly as that sounds, something is missing).

[Comrade #138672]

Tadaa! :D

Web-style sounds great too. I'm currently working on something else too, so i'll see where that goes, maybe a web is even better.I can help too. We could think of something together.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I just heard it ain't gonna happen real soon: i need to do a website for my mother-in-law's new company. They'd like to have it up and running by monday :blink::blink::blink:

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Still working on it whenever i can. Website is not due for two weeks, so i'll be fine.

I was thinking about which terms to use for a new spectrum. How do we describe certain ideologies?

I came up with some keywords:

-Market Oriented
-Statist
-Traditional
-Revolutionairy
-Reactionairy
-ecological
-hierarchic
-non-hierarchic (?)
-Corporatist (?)
-consumerist (?)
-etno-centric
-social/communal (which one is better?)
-nationalist

The ones with questionmarks behind them are a bit doubtful to me, though they seem legit.
Please let me know if you think some should go and why and if you know more.

[ckaihatsu]

Aye, something three dimensional (with an axis suggesting their immediate practice and theoretical "goal"), and with lines rather than points that move between practices and goals, as well as supplementary lines indicating the interrelationship between ideologies (like, if we can't trace lines from Stalinism to anarchism, as ugly as that sounds, something is missing).


I've done a few diagrams that all interleave -- using 3-D space in a consistent semantic way. The vertical axis represents micro-to-macro, or historical materialist magnitude (scale). The z-axis represents the flow of time, from the past (behind you), to the planned-for future (in front of you). Left and right represent the political spectrum, of course.

I can never understand why the qualities of 'progressive' and 'authoritarian' need a separate realm, or axis -- I'd think that this is redundant to the full meaning and implications of the left-right axis itself.

Perhaps the *intent*, though, is to refer to various *scales* of political operation, with the folksy view that small-scale is somehow inherently more 'progressive' while large-scale is inherently more 'authoritarian'.

I'll start with just one here, for the sake of defining the semantic 3-D space....


universal context

http://s6.postimage.org/fn8hqaxrh/120407_universal_context_aoi_RENDER_sc_01_png_xc.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/fn8hqaxrh/)

[Rafiq]

As if "authoritarian" and "progressive" are polar opposites, of what axis do these to supposed diametrically opposed features reside on, tell me, I am ever so curious.

[MarxArchist]

I'm, what I like to call, a Marxian Anarchist.

[Paul Pott]

This chart is basically the same as the libertarian chart.

Ideologies can be described and contrasted, but they can't be placed on any sort of objective chart in relation to one another.

This kind of chart is one of the most common, and its main flaw is its liberal nature - a scheme of "ideologies of liberty" vs "ideologies of authoritarianism" is exactly how liberals divide the political cosmos. There's a reason they see the world this way.

Perhaps it's still meaningful to speak of a "left" and a "right" for purposes of defining who can be worked with and who is unmistakably the enemy, or for labeling an ideology that is part of the historical working class movement, but "left" and "right" don't objectively describe much beyond saying a revolutionary movement is "left" and a reactionary movement is "right".

The essence of an ideology changes with the historical era and with the class using it. It's not truly possible to be a classical liberal in the 21st century, even if someone holds all of the positions classical liberals did. The historical era* that men like Locke or Jefferson wrote in is long gone. Today, whenever an attempt is made to revive their positions in whole or in part (as in the libertarian movement), the end result is always either conservative or antisocial in nature. This is because the function of liberalism in the 18th and 19th century was to guarantee the individual rights of man against the old aristocracy and absolutism. Its ideal was the republican society. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it still serves the same class, but its function is different. It seeks to affirm the position of capital against the organized working class and any other threat to the ruling class at the expense of society. Now the ideal of mainstream liberalism is antisocial and it strives for the end of ideology and politics outside of the formal institutions of bourgeois democracy and an increasingly narrow civil society. This is why most current liberal analysis revolves around the idea of a "middle class" society under capitalism. The American founding fathers and modern neoliberals are both liberals, but can any political chart account for all of their differences?

Ideologies also change with the class using them. Anarcho-capitalists have done little more than divorce anarchism from syndicalism and marry it to Randian or libertarian ideology. Leftist anarchists might argue that they aren't anarchists, but it's hard to deny that they oppose the state.

The reason the political spectrum is divided into liberal and authoritarian camps is because when communism first appeared on the scene, Liberalism responded ideologically the way it knew how - it treated it the same way as it did the old aristocratic conservatism, as an authoritarianism hostile to the individual. It threw fascism in there as well.

*when the bourgeoisie was the rising, revolutionary class.

[Fred]

Stalinism isn't "left", first of all switching Marxist with stalinist would make much more sense. Stalinoids can be leftists, sure it's a possibility, but calling Stalinism "left authoritarian" like the bourgeois would like to do, in order to discredit Marxism, is dishonest. Stalinism murdered or exucuted at least a million full blown communists worldwide.

Yes he did. But Stalinist parties are still part of the workers' movement. Marxists defend them against state repression. As a professed Trotskyist, you should know this. The bourgeoisie, by and large, don't care about making fine distinctions about the left. Marxism is "discredited" by the bourgeoisie precisely because it threatens them.

The problem is that this schematic scale is just kind of pointless. An attempt at trying to spatially quantify that which is not suited for it.

[ckaihatsu]

This chart is basically the same as the libertarian chart.




Ideologies can be described and contrasted, but they can't be placed on any sort of objective chart in relation to one another.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://s6.postimage.org/zc8b2rb3h/110211_Ideologies_Operations_Left_Centrifug.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zc8b2rb3h/)





This kind of chart is one of the most common, and its main flaw is its liberal nature - a scheme of "ideologies of liberty" vs "ideologies of authoritarianism" is exactly how liberals divide the political cosmos. There's a reason they see the world this way.


Yup.





Perhaps it's still meaningful to speak of a "left" and a "right" for purposes of defining who can be worked with and who is unmistakably the enemy, or for labeling an ideology that is part of the historical working class movement, but "left" and "right" don't objectively describe much beyond saying a revolutionary movement is "left" and a reactionary movement is "right".


The left-right political spectrum, like any continuum, can be useful for positing a *range*, or *gradient*, of intermediate positions between any two realistic historical-era absolutes, depending on given material conditions -- as you've noted.





The essence of an ideology changes with the historical era and with the class using it. It's not truly possible to be a classical liberal in the 21st century, even if someone holds all of the positions classical liberals did. The historical era* that men like Locke or Jefferson wrote in is long gone. Today, whenever an attempt is made to revive their positions in whole or in part (as in the libertarian movement), the end result is always either conservative or antisocial in nature. This is because the function of liberalism in the 18th and 19th century was to guarantee the individual rights of man against the old aristocracy and absolutism. Its ideal was the republican society. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it still serves the same class, but its function is different. It seeks to affirm the position of capital against the organized working class and any other threat to the ruling class at the expense of society. Now the ideal of mainstream liberalism is antisocial and it strives for the end of ideology and politics outside of the formal institutions of bourgeois democracy and an increasingly narrow civil society. This is why most current liberal analysis revolves around the idea of a "middle class" society under capitalism. The American founding fathers and modern neoliberals are both liberals, but can any political chart account for all of their differences?

Ideologies also change with the class using them. Anarcho-capitalists have done little more than divorce anarchism from syndicalism and marry it to Randian or libertarian ideology. Leftist anarchists might argue that they aren't anarchists, but it's hard to deny that they oppose the state.

The reason the political spectrum is divided into liberal and authoritarian camps is because when communism first appeared on the scene, Liberalism responded ideologically the way it knew how - it treated it the same way as it did the old aristocratic conservatism, as an authoritarianism hostile to the individual. It threw fascism in there as well.

*when the bourgeoisie was the rising, revolutionary class.

[ckaihatsu]

Stalinism isn't "left", first of all switching Marxist with stalinist would make much more sense. Stalinoids can be leftists, sure it's a possibility, but calling Stalinism "left authoritarian" like the bourgeois would like to do, in order to discredit Marxism, is dishonest. Stalinism murdered or exucuted at least a million full blown communists worldwide.





Yes he did. But Stalinist parties are still part of the workers' movement. Marxists defend them against state repression. As a professed Trotskyist, you should know this. The bourgeoisie, by and large, don't care about making fine distinctions about the left. Marxism is "discredited" by the bourgeoisie precisely because it threatens them.

The problem is that this schematic scale is just kind of pointless. An attempt at trying to spatially quantify that which is not suited for it.


Political Spectrum, Simplified

http://s6.postimage.org/c9u5b2ajx/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/)