an interesting view on the political spectrum

[Black Sheep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04leLtuOcbo&feature=channel_page

comments?

edit:awh,and i think that youtube user is here on RL too.
i want my advertising money

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The problem with all of these views on the political spectrum is the same: an insufficient number of axes. Any decent amount of accuracy would require more than 2 or 3 axes.

[GPDP]

I agree. Even the Political Compass seems fairly shallow to me, now that I am no longer of the mind that Marxists belong on the "authoritarian left" quadrant. And hell, fascists are kind of hard to place, as well, which is a big problem.

I'm gunning for at least 3 axes.

[TheCagedLion]

As this thread inevitably will open up the question of, which axes would you choose, and how would you place them - i'm gonna start out by asking it.

How would your "perfect" political compass look? What would be on the different axis', and how would you divide said axis'?

[apathy maybe]

The problem with all of these views on the political spectrum is the same: an insufficient number of axes. Any decent amount of accuracy would require more than 2 or 3 axes.

This.

I could easily imagine a number of different "scales" that you could rank someone along. Heck, you can even make triangles.



* Community

Individual
* * State

Health care should mainly be provided by/the responsibility of the ...
Education should mainly be provided by/the responsibility of the ...
Dispute resolution should mainly be provided by//the responsibility of the...

For certain types of dispute resolution, it is best for the individuals concerned to deal with it. For bigger things, to the community court, for bigger things still, to the state!

All dispute resolution should be dealt with by the state.

etc.
---

You all know about the "Tragedy of the Commons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)" yes? Well, the solution is either, an "independent" body (the state), privatisation (individual) or a community managed (the community).

-------

As I think I've said before, these things are too simple anyway to decide what a person actually believes in. It's the same as "describe your ideology in ten words or less", it requires too many unspoken assumptions.

[ZeroNowhere]

He got Marxism wrong.
Other than that, yeah, making a good political spectrum with only 2-3 axes is probably impossible. Well, unless you use subjective scales, but many wouldn't agree on them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Actually, I am currently working on a political spectrum model with seven axes, which should hopefully go online in the next couple of months. Four of the axes are "primary" (your position on them always matters), and three are "secondary" (your position only matters if it is sufficiently extreme).

The 4 primary axes are:

SOCIAL JUSTICE SCALE: Equality vs. Private Property
- This axis measures whether you believe the distribution of goods, services and ownership over the means of production should be egalitarian or not. It's a lot like the economic axis of the Political Compass, except that it's strictly about forms of property, NOT the role of the state in the economy. On this axis, Marxists and anarchists are on the same side.

ECONOMIC ORDER SCALE: Collective vs. Individual
- This is where the role of the state comes in. This axis measures whether you think economic decisions should be made by a single centralized collective body, or by separate individuals and groups. It can also be called "Statism vs. decentralization." The political compass lumps together economic order with social justice, so that all egalitarians are statists and all people opposed to state intervention support private property. That is utterly, horribly wrong. The two issues need to be separated. On this axis, Marxists and anarchists are on opposite sides.

POLITICAL POWER SCALE: Democracy vs. Authority
- The most self-explanatory of all the axes. Do you think the people should rule, or do you think some kind of elite should hold political power? On this axis, the anarchists are in the democracy corner, while the Marxists are spread out all over the place (some are strongly in favour of democracy, but the diehard vanguardists are clearly on the side of authority).

PUBLIC MORALITY SCALE: Traditional vs. Tolerant
- This could also be called the cultural scale. It measures progressive social attitudes vs. "tradition" (sexism, homophobia, etc.) Notice that the political compass makes the mistake of lumping together public morality with political power, so that authoritarians are always socially reactionary and democrats are always tolerant of different lifestyles. This is, of course, completely unrealistic - we have plenty of socially progressive authoritarians right here on Revleft, and California just passed a socially reactionary amendment through a democratic referendum. Needless to say, Marxists and anarchists are on the same side on this axis.

The 3 secondary axes are:

Reform vs. Revolution
- Very self-explanatory.

Nationalism vs. Internationalism
- The political compass makes the mistake of assuming that all authoritarians must be nationalists. This is not true; it is necessary to separate nationalism from other axes.

Environmentalism vs. lack thereof
- This issue doesn't really fit into any of the other axes, so it must get a secondary axis all of its own.

So, taking into account all these axes, we can define Marxism and anarchism as follows:
Marxism = Revolutionary Internationalist Tolerant Collective Egalitarianism
Anarchism = Revolutionary Internationalist Tolerant Democratic Individual Egalitarianism

And while I'm at it:
Fascism = Nationalist Traditional Authoritarian Collective Propertarianism

[couch13]

So, taking into account all these axes, we can define Marxism and anarchism as follows:
Marxism = Revolutionary Internationalist Tolerant Collective Egalitarianism
Anarchism = Revolutionary Internationalist Tolerant Democratic Individual Egalitarianism

And while I'm at it:
Fascism = Nationalist Traditional Authoritarian Collective Propertarianism

Would you define the various (or at least some) sub forms of each ideology on your website?

[GPDP]

That sounds like a good test, but I have one gripe: what about libertarians and ancaps? They claim to be against the state, but at the same time they are against democracy, on the grounds that the state is a minority imposing itself on the majority, and democracy is the majority imposing itself on a minority. Thus, how would they fit under your Democracy - Authority axis? Remember that their ideal system is very hyper-individualistic, and thus all decisions would be made purely on agreements between individuals.

[Cult of Reason]

ECONOMIC ORDER SCALE: Collective vs. Individual
- This is where the role of the state comes in. This axis measures whether you think economic decisions should be made by a single centralized collective body, or by separate individuals and groups. It can also be called "Statism vs. decentralization." The political compass lumps together economic order with social justice, so that all egalitarians are statists and all people opposed to state intervention support private property. That is utterly, horribly wrong. The two issues need to be separated. On this axis, Marxists and anarchists are on opposite sides.I have trouble with this. I and several others I know consider ourselves Anarchists but we support the existance of a single federal collective body of the strong type, i.e. decisions made by the majority of those affected always so, for instance, unilateral secession is not allowed as such a thing affects the entire system and therefore require's everyone's vote. In addition, we support a highly coordinated, collectivised economy. An economy determined by the actions and decisions of atomised individuals and groups would be chaos, not Anarchy.

What this axis seems to be is more of a distinction between collectivists and individualists in general and, since Marxists, as a rule, spend less time talking about how Communism itself would be organised, their views of the final future society can be more individualistic than that of an Anarchist. If I believed that a Vanguardist-type transition period was the only possible way to get Communism/Anarchy, then I would probably count as a Leninist (but I don't, so I don't), but my fundamental views vis-a-vis collectivism vs. individualism would be unaffected. The main difference between Leninists and Anarchists, as far as I see it, is mostly tactical, and, unfortunately, a tactical question is probably too specific for a political spectrum questionaire.

Also, since when was a "single centralised collective body" synonymous with a state. It is conceivable, though not necessary desirable, to have a very centralised, but nonetheless democratic, method of, for lack of a better word, "governance".

[Kukulofori]

IMO it's more of a circle, with the outer layers being more extreme.

12 o'clock would be tyrants and from there it would go (clockwise), nazis, the KKK, theocrats, neocons, Bush Jr, Ron Paul, and ancaps. 6 o'clock would be primmies, anarchists, Fidelistas, Leninists, Stalinists, then back to tyrants. Dead centre would be social democrats.

Or something.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I have trouble with this. I and several others I know consider ourselves Anarchists but we support the existance of a single federal collective body of the strong type, i.e. decisions made by the majority of those affected always so, for instance, unilateral secession is not allowed as such a thing affects the entire system and therefore require's everyone's vote. In addition, we support a highly coordinated, collectivised economy.
In that case I would ask you, how is your federal collective body different from a state, as far as the economy is concerned? Certainly it may be different from a state in other areas, but not in the economy.


An economy determined by the actions and decisions of atomised individuals and groups would be chaos, not Anarchy.
Not true. Many anarchists propose to have worker-owned companies or organizations that can act independently and are not obliged to follow the instructions of any central coordinating body. Such a central body may still exist, but it is my impression that the majority of anarchists would like its decisions to be non-binding.


What this axis seems to be is more of a distinction between collectivists and individualists in general and, since Marxists, as a rule, spend less time talking about how Communism itself would be organised, their views of the final future society can be more individualistic than that of an Anarchist. If I believed that a Vanguardist-type transition period was the only possible way to get Communism/Anarchy, then I would probably count as a Leninist (but I don't, so I don't), but my fundamental views vis-a-vis collectivism vs. individualism would be unaffected. The main difference between Leninists and Anarchists, as far as I see it, is mostly tactical, and, unfortunately, a tactical question is probably too specific for a political spectrum questionaire.
The test also cannot differentiate between transitional goals and ultimate future goals - but then again, no single test could do that. If you really wanted to differentiate between them, you'd need to make up two entirely separate tests: one in which every question begins with "In the immediate future..." and one in which every question begins with "Ultimately, in your ideal society..."


Also, since when was a "single centralised collective body" synonymous with a state. It is conceivable, though not necessary desirable, to have a very centralised, but nonetheless democratic, method of, for lack of a better word, "governance".
I suppose it depends on your definition of the state, but bear in mind that the economic order axis only deals with the economic aspects of the state. I don't see how a "single centralised collective body" running the economy would be any different in practice from a state running the economy.

[for the record, I am a very strong economic collectivist and I absolutely support such a single centralised collective body]

[GPDP]

IMO it's more of a circle, with the outer layers being more extreme.

Sorry, but that's kind of stupid. You're basically saying that the more left-wing you are past the 6 o'clock point, the closer you are to the right-wing.

This argument that the political spectrum is a circle, wherein the left and right meet at the far ends in tyranny, is one advocated by liberals/social-democrats who want to find some "happy middle" that balances out the left and right into the best possible system. It's completely simplistic and ignores the vast differences between the left and right.

[Cult of Reason]

In that case I would ask you, how is your federal collective body different from a state, as far as the economy is concerned? Certainly it may be different from a state in other areas, but not in the economy.

My understanding is that, to be a state, a single centralised collective body must be controlled by a minority. The federal body I advocate, however, would be made up of all workers in the system, and would be directly democratic, with decisions being made, predominantly, by the workers in a particular section for that section, and more widely for wider questions. It would only decide the HOW of the economy, not the WHAT. The latter would be decided by a mixture of consumer demand (via energy accounting) and a separate, community oriented (while the economic structure is workplace oriented) social structure, which would also be federal and directly democratic, demanding certain public amenities, such as swimming pools, playgrounds, parks etc.. The economic structure would have the sole role of fulfilling such demands, where possible.

This is very different from any state-run economies I know of.


Not true. Many anarchists propose to have worker-owned companies or organizations that can act independently and are not obliged to follow the instructions of any central coordinating body. Such a central body may still exist, but it is my impression that the majority of anarchists would like its decisions to be non-binding.

Yes, many Anarchists propose that (I did not say I was in the majority), but that does not mean it is feasible or efficient.

Non-binding? Then what is the point? If it is non-binding and people do not carry out its recommendations, then it is useless and, assuming the central body is directly democratic (which I think it certainly should be), democracy has been obstructed.


The test also cannot differentiate between transitional goals and ultimate future goals - but then again, no single test could do that. If you really wanted to differentiate between them, you'd need to make up two entirely separate tests: one in which every question begins with "In the immediate future..." and one in which every question begins with "Ultimately, in your ideal society..."

And so, as far as I am concerned, on any test that truly guaged people's opinions on the relevant matters, the average Marxist would probably end up in the same place as the average Anarchist. The goals are the same, though, of course, that is old news.

I do not think that any test on the tactical side can reasonably be done, as that is inifinitely more complex, has more ambiguity and is more prone to fluctuation, while a standard political test, in my experience, is focused on the fundamental values a person holds.


I suppose it depends on your definition of the state, but bear in mind that the economic order axis only deals with the economic aspects of the state. I don't see how a "single centralised collective body" running the economy would be any different in practice from a state running the economy.

[for the record, I am a very strong economic collectivist and I absolutely support such a single centralised collective body]

Well a good start at a definition might be, again: a single centralised collective body where policy is controlled by a minority. Or, perhaps, any ruling body where policy is controlled by a minority.

Regarding your economic collectivism, why not a federal body? That would free up time at the "top", and slowest, part of the "pyramid" for more important and wider decision-making.

[Kukulofori]

Sorry, but that's kind of stupid. You're basically saying that the more left-wing you are past the 6 o'clock point, the closer you are to the right-wing.

This argument that the political spectrum is a circle, wherein the left and right meet at the far ends in tyranny, is one advocated by liberals/social-democrats who want to find some "happy middle" that balances out the left and right into the best possible system. It's completely simplistic and ignores the vast differences between the left and right.

Nope, tyranny is at the top. And I'd say there's a much bigger difference between anarchists and Stalinists than there is between Stalinists and Nazis.

By outer edges, I actually mean the outer edges. You can be a moderate Theocrat just as easily as you can be a moderate Stalinist.

I do see your point about the right/left differences though. Maybe it's more like a cyrillic F?

Yeah, definitely a Cyrillic F. Trying to equate right-wing left-wingers with left-wing right-wingers won't get you much common ground.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nope, tyranny is at the top.
What is "tyranny"? "Tyranny" cannot fully describe any social, political or economic system. Tyranny only means that a single person or small minority has all the power. Ok, but what do they do with that power? Depending on what they DO with it, the various kinds of "tyranny" can be extremely different.