Traditional left-right way of seeing politics doesn't make any sense to me

[GLF]

I am little confused about the traditional left-right spectrum at work in modern politics. I am particularly confused as to the relationship between social and economic beliefs and why some things are right even when they seem to be left.

For instance, people who support limited government but are very religious and conservative are considered to be on the right. And I would agree with this. But if someone is an ethno-nationalist, even if they are far, far left on just about every other position, they are considered far-right...but only if they are in the developed world. Whereas we can have ethno-nationalism infused with far-left economics in the developing world (which is of interest to myself as a Maoist), and they are considered just fine and dandy leftists.

In my personal opinion, nationalism alone is not enough to make someone far-right. It's enough to make them shitty human beings, or confused leftists in error, but it's not enough to make them right wing - particularly when they seem to be so far to the left on just about everything else.

I don't get it. I thought maybe someone else could explain it to me.

[CatTrap]

This is the standard right-left spectrum via Rationalwiki:

Anarchism----Communism ---- Socialism ----- Social Democracy ----- Liberalism ---- Centrism ----- Neoliberalism ---- Conservatism ----- Reactionism ----- Fascism

To understand how and why left wing is left wing and right-wing is right-wing you have to go back in time during the bourgeois revolutions of France and the United States. Those people who supported capitalism and bourgeois rights and democracy were named 'the left' and those who supported the existing status quo were called 'the right'. People like Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke for example. Edmund Burke was a conservative who supported the status quo of a monarchical system, whereas Paine believed in the more progressive policy of deposing the monarchy of France. In other words, those who are in favor of the status quo were generally 'right' and those who wanted to change it were 'left'. However, this is not the end of the road in political philosophy. Those people like Joseph De Maistre, who was a Papist, who believed that not only should there be a monarchy, but that the Church and the Pope is the sole legal authority on the planet. In other words, a regress towards a pre-Enlightenment and pre-Reformation understanding of the world. These people were further to the right, and were called 'reactionaries'. Eventually, Adolf Hitler, Hirohito etc. created an even more reactionary ideology called fascism based on myths and legends they concocted about a mythical golden age that they could return to if they suppressed and oppressed the rest of the population. That is essentially what right-wing politics is. It's concerned with the status quo, or the status quo ante. Or, in the case of fascism, what is perceived to be the status quo ante but is really just myths about a previous golden age that never existed.

In terms of leftism, as we all know, Utopian Socialism began as a left-wing alternative to liberalism, but eventually became just as reactionary in some sense as the prior status quo antes of society. Marxism challenges and refutes Utopian Socialism, displacing it as the left-wing alternative to Utopian socialism. Anarchism also developed by Proudhon and Bakunin came along for the ride. Eventually, Social Democratic parties based on Marxian ideas crept into the modern politics of the European world. Eventually, these movements had a difficulty. They either had to except Marxism completely and follow the likes of Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, who had adopted Marxist ideas and carried them out to their finality, or they had to accept more moderate means to obtain what they wanted. This is essentially the origin of the modern left wing of the political spectrum. The Social Democrats (e.g., Kautsky and Bernstein) rejected the purist Marxism of those like Lenin and Luxemburg, while those like Lenin went on to form their own socialist and communist parties separate from the Social Democrats who rejected those ideas.

That's the origin of traditional left-wing and right-wing politics. If you're asking about whether nationalism is right or left, I think it's important to note that it originated as a left wing idea, and although currently is classified as right-wing, may be left-wing depending on their goals and objectives. If they are nationalists because they want to protect their own sovereignty, economic rights, social rights, etc. I don't see how this in any way conflicts with left-wing principles. If someone was a nationalist purely because they think their country is ontologically superior in some sense to the rest of the world, I think this idea is certainly reactionary. I would say that it depends on the context.

[GLF]

Actually, the way I understood it, Fascism wasn't created by Hitler. It was created by heretic socialists who felt the power of a social myth and redemptive violence could lead to a revolutionary general strike from which corporatism, or national syndicalism, would lead to national rebirth and a permanent end to class conflict. It's neither right wing nor left wing. It was a bizzare and bloody ideology that doesn't even exist anymore in any real meaningful sense; today's "Fascists" are mostly just white supremacists with centre-right economic views.

What I am really talking about isn't Fascism. It's this idea that holding a certain position on social issues completely negates every other aspect of one's political worldview, firmly placing them on one end of the spectrum regardless of their economic position.

[(A)]

Your Avatar picture is closer to reality then the traditional left right spectrum. The Y axis is Social and the X axis is Economic.

Y
Fascism
Authoritarianism
Liberalism
Libertarianism
Anarchism

X
Communism>Socialism>Mutualism>Capitalism>Feudalism

• I say feudalism as far right as it fits both Laissez-faire Libertarianism/"An"Cap as well as Authoritarian feudal systems/monarchy.
• Communism cant really be authoritarian by definition but the goal of Communism has lead to Authoritarianism several times. Like Anarcho-capitalism this is a Contradictory ideology.
• Anarchy is the polar opposite of fascism but when combined with capitalism becomes Laissez-faire feudalism. Like Authoritarian Communism this is a contradictory ideology. (the term Laissez-faire was first used before modern capitalism)
• Liberalism can be both capitalist (Our Modern Hegemony) and Socialist (State/republic Socialism) like Leninism.
• Libertarianism can also be Socialist and capitalist. The ideology is about freedom but recognizes the use of minimal government be it counsels or night watchmen states without authority over individuals save for security.
• Anarchism is the extreme end of the Libertarian spectrum where there is no authority, no states and no nationalism. I believe this naturally leads to true Communism but their are many Anarchist Ideologys from left to right
• One of these Ideology's is a contradictory on called National Anarchism. Its followers are Anti-capitalists but also believe in ethnic division.
• Mutualism could be considered the dead center between Capitalism and Socialism. Originally anarchist there is no reason their could not be a Mutualist economy in any form of state.
• Fascism is extreme Social control and authoritarian statism. It can be both socialist (State socialism) or Capitalist (Neo-Facism)

Not everything fits perfectly but with a little wiggling it works.
If I had the graphic ability I would make a chart but every time i try it looks like shit.

[Alet]

If you're asking about whether nationalism is right or left, I think it's important to note that it originated as a left wing idea, and although currently is classified as right-wing, may be left-wing depending on their goals and objectives. If they are nationalists because they want to protect their own sovereignty, economic rights, social rights, etc. I don't see how this in any way conflicts with left-wing principles.

It is in conflict with "left-wing principles" because the protection and strengthening of national sovereignty, economic and social rights is at the expense of transnational standards. Leftist politics can hardly be limited to several particular nations today, both because of a new type of political crises, which cannot be dealt with on the level of nation states (global warming, mass migration, etc.), and because of a degree of economic interrelations that was not as highly developed before so that it could be meaningfully juxtaposed to pre-globalized capitalism. We're living in a qualitatively distinct stage of capitalism, which is the era of globalization and which has finally and once and for all removed the strengthening of "national sovereignty" from Leftist political programs. Whoever is a nationalist or - for all I care - a "patriot" (disgusting) proves to be a reactionary, not only as opposed to Communist internationalism but even by presently common political standards. Hence, being truly a practical Leftist goes hand in hand with one's position regarding the EU - whether one supports the European disintegration or fights for its democratization. It doesn't matter if one personally wants to identify with the reaction or not - the practical implications of political positions don't give a shit about your personal well-being.

Any talk of "left" and "right" outside of how they concretely relate to the particular historical context is useless - just as it is useless to qualify "socialism" in terms of the relationship between the state and the economy or even social standards. Contemporary arguments regarding political spectra is exemplary for postmodern ideology: People pick and choose their political positions, they have arbitrary "opinions" and so on, and - as it turns out - they don't seem to fit into the conventional categories like "left" and "right". That is because the common qualifications for "left" and "right" are ridiculously ahistorical abstractions and worthless "definitions". As Marxists, we know better: Something (especially if this "something" stands for a political position) cannot be qualified by employing eternalized, trans-historical abstractions on it. Rather, it can only really be understood in its practical relation to the specific historical context we are investigating, what it meant for contemporary men and women, and how the practical implications related to or constituted the motion of this specific context. Abstract categories or "definitions" do not meet the necessary standards for a scientific qualification.

Note that I am far from claiming that we should support the fascistic "I'm neither left nor right"-discourse or even the postmodern response à la "Today, politics is so complex that we need an at least seventeen hundred and fifty-five dimensional spectrum" etc. It definitely is meaningful to differentiate between left and right but it is meaningless to reduce these terms to fucking ridiculously stupid abstractions such as "Left is focus on social and wants new stuff, right is focus on economy and wants traditional stuff". "Left" and "right" are specific practical (i.e. identity does not matter here) relations to specific historical contexts and nothing else! This is why "national sovereignty" has been a left-wing demand in the case of the Irish Question but is today reserved for the right, this is why the Left Hegelians were "preferable" to the Right Hegelians but we nevertheless oppose them when they are juxtaposed to Marxism, and so on. We have synonymical terms for left and right: Progressive and reactionary.

[GLF]

Your Avatar picture is closer to reality then the traditional left right spectrum.

I don't know about that. That site erroneously claims that communism should be the very top left, but in order to be at the top you have to be very authoritarian and socially conservative, which leads me to believe the far bottom left is preferable for us communists. I am more of a social moderate at least by leftist standards, and many of the questions I answered hypothetically, based on how things should be in my ideal communist State (rather than the current State), otherwise I would've been much more anarchist and therefore towards the bottom (I currently support anything that fucks the status-quo and turns society on it's head, but under communism I would not).

Regardless, I don't see how they can claim that communism is top left. Left Nationalism, maybe. But communism (even Maoism or Stalinism)? No way.

[(A)]

Its not accurate (the compass) but the use of the two axis is. Maybe even a third (Z) to mark Progressive vs reactionary as alet pointed out. That would solve the National Anarchist bullshit.

Communism should cover the entirety of the left edge.
Fascism the entirety of the top edge
Feudalism the entirety of the right edge
Anarchy the entirety of the bottom edge.

Not every ideology fits perfectly because not every ideology is logically consistent (Anarcho-capitalism or Facist Communism) but they could exist (Within the mind of the mentally disturbed)
Geez I wish I could make a good looking graphic.

An example would be the lower right corner. Anarco-capitalism... at first that seems like a contradiction; freedom and capitalism? that cant work.
But then by seeing the far right edge as Feudalism it makes sense. Anarcho-Capitalism is Neo-feudalism; I.E. the right to own others being given to everyone who can afford it.
Or on the top left. Communism and Fascism cant mix... well no by definition not really. But you can be a fascist who claims to be Communist (Stalin) with all the things fascism is known for like Nationalism and a cult of personality.

Because the compass is just that; a guide. It is simply a way to codify and organize ideology's in relation to each other based on certain markers.
Nothing more.

[GLF]

But see, I think it's a mistake to automatically brand anything authoritarian w/ cult of personality as categorically fascistic. Fascism was specifically a radical, authoritarian centrist movement which, incidentally, was co-opted by the industrialists and used as an instrument of right-wing suppression and terror. But...from a theoretical perspective at least, it was very different from anything even remotely seen today, anywhere. I've spent quite a bit of time lately studying early Fascist doctrine and it's very bizarre and far-fetched, a perverted form of syndicalism, truth be known. And very reactionary and violent. In practice it took a different form but I think it's a mistake to conflate Fascism with anything seen in the world today. Fascism, at least in the classic, ideological sense, is dead and gone.

Stalin was nowhere close to being fascist. Read what the early Fascists actually believed, the philosophy of Fascism, and you'd doubt anyone could believe such far-fetched and contradictory nonsense, no matter how authoritarian and reactionary they may be.

[(A)]

What you believe does not necessarily dictate what you are. It is what you do. Trump for instance says bad thing... but Clinton actually does them.
Fascism is the hard ideology to pin down because it is so messed up. Many people have different understandings of it but several things remain similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

I am not saying anything with a COP (lol) is fascist.. but there are many markers of fascism; most of them being authoritarian in nature. Hence why is it at the top edge of my chart.
If you added a (z) axis I am sure it would be far into reactionary as well as authoritarian.

[GLF]

Fair enough point.

Good analogy about Trump and Clinton. A bit off topic, but I find Clinton as an individual to be far more dangerous than Trump because I believe she is more capable than that buffoon. However, the spirit and movement behind Trump is far more dangerous than anything Clinton represents. Part of me is worried that if Trump loses, which he almost surely will, it will actually cause more issues with right-wing belligerents and civil disobedience. But if he wins, maybe he would fuck things up so bad that Americans would be completely disillusioned with anything remotely right-wing when all is said and done. I'm honestly torn on which one is worse in the grand scheme of things. In any case, I've never voted and certainly won't in this election.

Wow, I sure went off topic. Forgive that. But I guess this thread has run it's course anyway unless anyone else has anything they want to add. Thank you to everyone who answered, you guys are a lot smarter than I, and as always, I find the insight here very helpful.

[(A)]

Some would say I am a conspiracy theorist but I honestly think Trump was asked to run by Clinton. Everything points to it from Trump saying hundreds of times he would not run. His donations to the Clinton foundation. The two family's long time friendship. Clinton's Loss in 2008 to Obama (Something a racist like her would abhor), her proven rigging of the democratic National Convention that took years of planning. Trumps actions post-bernie where he all of a sudden became pro-russian and badmouthed a soldier and now is canceling events across the country. It would be no great leap for Clinton to have asked trump to run as a far right nut job who would send even republicans to the Dems come election time and then throw the fight.

If trump wins its going to cause unrest
If Clinton wins its going to cause unrest

Best thing you can do is arm yourself and start organizing.

[ckaihatsu]

While the 2-axis chart is certainly *popular* in usage, it's actually *redundant* in formulation -- there's no real need for the second, vertical, freedom-to-authority axis because such a range of societal qualities are *superfluous* in regards to the left-to-right expanse itself.

We can simply step-through the various forms of socio-political economy, beginning with (centrist) nationalism, to see what constitutes each type of social organization, so as to 'test' against the completeness of a 1-axis left-right political spectrum.


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Nationalism, by definition, requires a relative consistency of political policy and practice -- it's hierarchical in structure and so has top-down accountability measures in place, or 'authority'.

Leftwards from there would be civil-society-type reformist measures, or 'populism', that would inherently increase the pool of formal political participation and empirical determination, but without addressing the fundamental class divide or 'hands-off' market-based economics. This liberalism / populism would, too, be essentially nationalist and thus hierarchical and authoritarian, according to class interests.

Further left would be workers organizations, particularly unions and possible grassroots rank-and-file organizing -- at the extent of *trade-union* consciousness (economistic-minded struggles for circumscribed workplace gains) such a position would still implicitly recognize the authority of the state, to back-up the gains won in militant-oriented struggles. Again the authority would ultimately be that of the bourgeois state.

The further extent of militant-worker *political* consciousness would bring about an orientation of *class* struggle, for widespread, explicit *working class* gains at the expense of employers and bosses. This kind of bid for strong international solidarity would not be 'authority-free', because it would effectively be a 'dual power' situation alongside the existing state authority of the bourgeoisie.

And, finally (on the left-wing side), a full-blown revolution that overthrows the ruling class would *definitely* be 'authoritarian' in that it would *displace* the socially recognized legitimacy / authority of private-property-based claims to power and control of society's productive implements.

Going from the center, rightward, we'd have to see if imperialism, religious fundamentalism, and fascism all were somehow 'authority-free', or if they did indeed use authority in their holds on society and social production -- which indeed they do.

To tie up loose ends, Stalinism / state capitalism is certainly national in composition, so the typical hierarchical authority of nation-states would hold here, with that.

And any *post*-capitalist social order would undoubtedly have to have a consistent, across-the-board social policy on common civil matters like transportation, education, access to resources, etc., otherwise it couldn't call itself 'global' in application (to initially displace the rule of capital). While *this* kind of social order would be fully participatory over all matters, including material productivity, and thus 'bottom-up', its *application* would have to be consistent everywhere, and could thus be seen as a kind of mass-consensual 'self-authority'. In practice I think the everyday social norms of agreed-upon *guidelines* would suffice without requiring any kind of a fixed state apparatus -- like the communism-type components I have in the model I developed a few years ago:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg


Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property


Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits

consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily


Determination of material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources may be created and sourced from projects and production runs

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination


Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]


Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process


Propagation

communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may create templates of political priority lists for the sake of convenience, modifiable at any time until the date of activation -- regular, repeating orders can be submitted into an automated workflow for no interruption of service or orders

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

[(A)]

Your chart is wrong. And also lose the weird angles and shadows. You are trying to present information and its getting lost in all the cool graphics.

SOME democratic socialists are reformists but others are revolutionary such as Rosa Luxemburg.
What is Stalin doing under decentralized?

Also your chart shows that Liberals can be Socialists and revolutionary.

A three axis chart would be better as it can show reactionary and progressive principles as well as Economic and Social leanings.

I am not saying that material production and society are two distinct things; but ideology's are not all logical so trying to use a logical chart to show them would therefor be inaccurate.

[ckaihatsu]

Your chart is wrong.

This is flippantly dismissive -- I'll take the rest of your post to be an elaboration of this coarse dismissiveness....

And also lose the weird angles and shadows. You are trying to present information and its getting lost in all the cool graphics.

On a sidenote, I did that one when my skills were quite lacking, compared to now -- besides the stark (distracting) lighting, as you're noting, the whole thing is kinda fuzzy / blurry, which isn't good either.

I have other projects on my plate, though, so redos of existing diagrams isn't high-priority for me.

SOME democratic socialists are reformists but others are revolutionary such as Rosa Luxemburg.

It's a valid point, but only if one views national-liberation as being 'revolutionary'. I tend to think of it as being left-nationalist (a neighboring position on the layout), at best, since it's usually *not* working-class-oriented as a whole.

What is Stalin doing under decentralized?

Socialism-in-one-country ('Stalinism') isn't *globally* centralized, so it's *decentralized* in the context of the whole world -- such state-capitalist entities would have to have international relations among themselves, so not-centralized.

Also your chart shows that Liberals can be Socialists and revolutionary.

Yes, but very few -- they'd be the exception to the rule, if they focused on labor matters above all else (class vs. single-issue politics).

A three axis chart would be better as it can show reactionary and progressive principles as well as Economic and Social leanings.

I just happen to think that more axes are redundant since the result would be awkward, unrealistic nooks-and-crannies in a 2- or 3-axis representational space. (For 3 you'd have the logical instance of 'economically-collectivized socially-individualist historically-reactionary', which is just too contrived a combination to be a realistic possibility.)

I did a political spectrum with 2 axes myself, but the vertical axis corresponds to *scale*, which I think is far better:


Political Spectrum, Simplified

---

I am not saying that material production and society are two distinct things; but ideology's are not all logical so trying to use a logical chart to show them would therefor be inaccurate.

Well I have no problem with treating the 'economic' / material, and the 'socio-political' as distinct realms with some overlap -- we'd have to ask how much does the superstructure determine the base, and how much does the base determine the superstructure. It's a 'complex', dialectical dynamic, meaning that it would probably be difficult to model including actual historical factors, but the two would not be mutually separate and *uncorrelated*, either.

[(A)]

Your two axis chart is lacking in many ways in comparison to the political compass. Their is no room for non-Marxist or Libertarian socialism.
Your prejudice is showing lol.

The political compass; with a few additions accounts for almost every ideology and it all fits cleanly. I mean their are a few outliers like National Anarchism which is Anti-state, Anti-Capitalist but still somehow racist. Basically the third axis would mark insanity.

And what is this about Very few Socialists being Liberal. Every time I open my computer All I GET is Liberal tankies and Leninist calling for more government and more Vanguard.
While Leninist's are becoming a rather useless minority they are still their making life hard anyone trying to combat capitalism and not just praise their Pantheon of "Revolutionary's".

Here is a mock up I did
Political Compass.png

This is a compass of Ideology's. Communism cant be Authoritarian yet Authoritarians like to call themselves communists.
Feudalism being far right makes the most sense because what is feudalism except the private ownership of everything and the servitude of the working class.
Again Fascism comes from and retains the use of the term Socialism so sits across the border. It is the north most as is Most Totalitarian.
Anarchism ideologically rests in opposition to fascism yet some nuts believe in Anarcho-Capitalism. When taken to its logical conclusion Anarco-Capitalism
Is Neo-Feudalism. As for Real communism that rests at the bottom left.
No states or class from anarchism, No property from socialism...
Anarchy logically leads to communism as the goal of Equality and freedom would lead one to Communism.
Even an Anarcho-Syndicalist Market or a Mutualist market (Not shown) would lead to a communist gift economy as owning the means becomes impossible the need for money would also become unnecessary as Scarcity is abolished threw cooperative production.

[ckaihatsu]

Your two axis chart is lacking in many ways in comparison to the political compass. Their is no room for non-Marxist or Libertarian socialism.
Your prejudice is showing lol.

I'm not a 'libertarian socialist'. It's not based on prejudice -- I've examined these various political approaches.

The political compass; with a few additions accounts for almost every ideology and it all fits cleanly.

I see it as misleading propaganda for a supposedly 'grassroots-only', localist-constrained political approach.

I mean their are a few outliers like National Anarchism which is Anti-state, Anti-Capitalist but still somehow racist. Basically the third axis would mark insanity.

And what is this about Very few Socialists being Liberal. Every time I open my computer All I GET is Liberal tankies and Leninist calling for more government and more Vanguard.

You're still not understanding that not all governments are the same (consider a *workers* government), nor are all vanguards the same (historical vs. future-looking).

Basically you're just dependent on abstractions and stereotyping, instead of looking at how each workers' vehicle might potentially *function*, constructively.

While Leninist's are becoming a rather useless minority they are still their making life hard anyone trying to combat capitalism

Your political position continues to have shortcomings that you're unable or unwilling to address, such as arbitrage opportunities from commune to commune, even without currency, because of your attachment to the market mechanism.

and not just praise their Pantheon of "Revolutionary's".

Here is a mock up I did

Political Compass.png

This is a compass of Ideology's. Communism cant be Authoritarian yet Authoritarians like to call themselves communists.
Feudalism being far right makes the most sense because what is feudalism except the private ownership of everything and the servitude of the working class.
Again Fascism comes from and retains the use of the term Socialism so sits across the border. It is the north most as is Most Totalitarian.
Anarchism ideologically rests in opposition to fascism yet some nuts believe in Anarcho-Capitalism. When taken to its logical conclusion Anarco-Capitalism
Is Neo-Feudalism. As for Real communism that rests at the bottom left.
No states or class from anarchism, No property from socialism...
Anarchy logically leads to communism as the goal of Equality and freedom would lead one to Communism.

Even an Anarcho-Syndicalist Market or a Mutualist market (Not shown) would lead to a communist gift economy as owning the means becomes impossible the need for money would also become unnecessary as Scarcity is abolished threw cooperative production.

You *assume* that everyone would use your proposed 'market' to build use-values, but you're ignoring that the market mechanism also allows for the building of *exchange-values*, depending on the individual or commune.

Here it is in a 'scenario' format:

[T]he act of 'free exchange' implicitly *commodifies* labor in the process -- 'Commune X' might find that 'Commune B' is willing to provide relatively *more* labor (and/or goods) to 'X' than 'Commune A' is offering.

[W]ould there be communal private property or not -- ? And would there be *individual* private property, or not -- ?

So would those from 'Commune B' be able to visit 'Commune A' and take some of the communal property ('commons') from there, or not -- ? If not, then Commune A would have to have some kind of communal *security personnel* to make sure this didn't happen. And if inter-communal sharing *would* be possible then why even bother with a multi-communal ('patchwork') layout to *begin with* -- ? (Why not just *generalize* all production, maybe up to a *global* scale, so that the whole *world* is one big commune -- ?)

[wehbolno]

Good grief, what a fetish of categorization. Didn't you guys read what Alet said?

Any talk of "left" and "right" outside of how they concretely relate to the particular historical context is useless - just as it is useless to qualify "socialism" in terms of the relationship between the state and the economy or even social standards. Contemporary arguments regarding political spectra is exemplary for postmodern ideology: People pick and choose their political positions, they have arbitrary "opinions" and so on, and - as it turns out - they don't seem to fit into the conventional categories like "left" and "right". That is because the common qualifications for "left" and "right" are ridiculously ahistorical abstractions and worthless "definitions". As Marxists, we know better: Something (especially if this "something" stands for a political position) cannot be qualified by employing eternalized, trans-historical abstractions on it. Rather, it can only really be understood in its practical relation to the specific historical context we are investigating, what it meant for contemporary men and women, and how the practical implications related to or constituted the motion of this specific context. Abstract categories or "definitions" do not meet the necessary standards for a scientific qualification.

Note that I am far from claiming that we should support the fascistic "I'm neither left nor right"-discourse or even the postmodern response à la "Today, politics is so complex that we need an at least seventeen hundred and fifty-five dimensional spectrum" etc. It definitely is meaningful to differentiate between left and right but it is meaningless to reduce these terms to fucking ridiculously stupid abstractions such as "Left is focus on social and wants new stuff, right is focus on economy and wants traditional stuff". "Left" and "right" are specific practical (i.e. identity does not matter here) relations to specific historical contexts and nothing else! This is why "national sovereignty" has been a left-wing demand in the case of the Irish Question but is today reserved for the right, this is why the Left Hegelians were "preferable" to the Right Hegelians but we nevertheless oppose them when they are juxtaposed to Marxism, and so on. We have synonymical terms for left and right: Progressive and reactionary.

[ckaihatsu]

Good grief, what a fetish of categorization. Didn't you guys read what Alet said?

It's *not* a fetish, because the left-right spectrum can be plopped down into any historical context and it will make sense, in relative terms.

We have synonymical terms for left and right: Progressive and reactionary.

I would suggest the following abstraction of a 'situation in time' as being universally valid and ready to enable politicization (left-right) of any given situation and/or confluence of various social / historical factors:


universal context

[(A)]

See what I mean about you graphics? How am I supposed to read what is on the other side? Is it moveable?

I know you are not a Libertarian but your chart is incomplete regardless of your ideology's as it does not have room for many many ideology's.

If you where a Libertarian you would know that ALL government is the same because they are all involuntary.
Government is Governance over the land and the people who need the land to survive.
A government cant be voluntary because then it would not be the government. It would be a bunch of neckbeards sitting around yelling that people should so as they are told while everyone else is actually working and getting shit done.

Government is Liberal and Capitalist. Private ownership of the means of production. Borders, Laws, Prisons, Forced Labor.
Socialists who call for government are Liberals. State Ownership of the means of production. Borders, Laws, Prisons, Forced Labor...

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Location C and Democracy, you guys should address Alet's points which I think were spot on. Left and Right are abstractions which may be useful, but like all abstractions people have a habit of conferring on them a universal historical essence which simply does not exist. Trying to make them into a discrete "spectrum" leads to all these absurd arguments, like for instance that Hitler wasn't on the far right because he supported state intervention in the economy. This is a product of a particular divide in Anglophone (and mainly American) liberal politics between a social liberal branch and a pro-business lassiez-faire branch of the ruling order. Reducing it to something like "state intervention" makes Mike Huckabee a moderate, since he believes that the state should meddle in the lives of the LGBT community and he supports social security, and it makes Bakunin and Kropotkin far-rightists.