Saving the World 1 Video at a Time: The Political Spectrum

[Adeikov]

What about the grey boxes on the 45 degree line?

[Aliothemage]

@Adeikov

Those are just points where various ideologies meet, they don't represent any unique world view.

[Aliothemage]

I refer to the USSR as being communist because that is what they called themselves and that is what is commonly understood to be communism today, I even said in the video that you can call it Stalinism instead if you wish. I also put Marxism on the spectrum all on its own and complete separated it from communism/stalinism to recognize that it is a different system. And yes, it is a "simple" model, that was what I was aiming for.

And no, not all anarchists are even somewhat socialist.

[Ichtiostega]

@Aliothemage yes they are. you're probably disagreeing with me on this because you've heard of so called "anarcho"-capitalism. but I simply don't count them as anarchists because anarchism has historically and philosophically always been anticapitalist, as capitalism is inherently oppressive and anarchists are against oppression. no real anarchist regards them as anarchists.

[Aliothemage]

@Ichtiostega

Anarchists agree that the state is harmful/unnecessary. They do not all agree that socialism is a viable or even desirable economic system. Many would say that socialism, even it's most ideal form, is unjust and oppressive because it is inherently collectivist. I'm sorry but you're just being biased. You're personal distaste for the free-market and private property does not prevent other anarchists from supporting it.

[maxime32]

@Ichtiostega

Anarchism may have a more communistic heritage, but I think there are relatively few anarcho-communists today because such an ideology has been shown to be ridiculous. In the 20th century, the State has been an instrument of social progress, which has disproven the idea that State power is automatically linked to corporate power. Inversely, a reduction in State power and rise in internationalism have not correlated to greater freedom and equality.

[TheBlindPowerslave]

@Aliothemage Wrong. USSR never identified themselves as "commnunists" but as socialists, hence the name "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics".

[Ichtiostega]

you focus way too much on government, what about private tyrannies like corporations? secondly, you don't seem to know what the words you're using actually mean; the Soviet Union had nothing to do with Communism.

[Aliothemage]

@Ichtiostega

Who is the corporation tyrannizing? Workers work their out of their own volition, customers buy from it of their own volition. Corporations cannot imprison you, fine you, or kill you for not buying their products,governments can and do.

The USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, Vietnam, ect all tried to reach Communism through state power and ended up in severe dictatorships, this is no coincidence. Voluntary communism is difference, but voluntary communism can and does exist within capitalism

[Ichtiostega]

@Aliothemage well most of the time the worker doesn't have any other choice than to work for a corporation, he may choose which corporation it is but since they're in fact autocratic institutional structure is the same, it doesn't make any difference. this is called wage slavery. with respect to the term "communism", I just think it is not apropriate to call the political system of the soviet union communism, because that is simply not the case.

[Aliothemage]

@Ichtiostega

There are more than just corporations that employ people. People can also write books, sing, play sports, start businesses, invent things, become house wives/husbands, and do many other things. There are also worker owned and operated businesses out there that people can join. Therefore, people are by no means driven to "wage slavery". Businesses are just giving people opportunities to use their capital for mutual benefit, no one is forcing them to work there.

[Ichtiostega]

@Aliothemage it may have been the end goal of their ideology, but it is not fit to describe the political and economic system of the soviet union. another point is the overall simplicity of your model. there are lots of different forms of anarchism and socialism for example, these terms in fact overlap as every anarchist is somewhat of a socialist. this is the problem of using political terms without exact definitions: you create semantical contradictions and misinterpretations.

[trakkaton]

Oh, the guy that made this video claims that the Free Territory of the Ukraine in 1920 never existed. Reality-warping bubble?

[Aliothemage]

@trakkaton

I specifically said "for any meaningful amount of time". Let me guess, the Free Territory of Ukraine probably lasted... Ohh, less than a decade? Maybe not even half that long?

[trakkaton]

@Aliothemage

It *DID* last for a meaningful amount of time. It lasted long enough to show that it was vastly superior to any other system. It lasted long enough to show that it worked. It lasted long enough to show multiple times that it can overcome impossible obstacles. At the same time it was attacked from all other systems because that is what truly free system always are: Against the agenda of the powerful and therefore the prime target. THAT is the reason why it's not here today.

[Aliothemage]

@trakkaton

2 years is not a meaningful amount of time. The worst political systems the world has ever devised lasted longer then that... Even the USSR was able to last for a few decades. That system can't defend itself, and in a world where self defense is necessary, that means it is a failure of a system. Even the Quakers societies can survive while a government protects them. All your example does is make your argument look ludicrous since this is apparently the best case it has...

[Gizziiusa]

cont. Make it more balanced to where the people actually do have more say, more power in the process. When few rule over many, it always evolves to tyranny of some kind. Isnt it about time we end this ? So as many as possible can live and prosper like we are supposed to ?

[Aliothemage]

@Gizziiusa

The problem with giving the "people" more say is that the "people" are just as tyrannical as anyone else. The tyranny of the majority is just as scary to me as any other type of tyranny. The way to maximize liberty is to check the powers that be by opposing them with other powers. Limiting their power in this way is the only way to increase everyone's liberty to the maximum amount possible. I have a few ideas on how that might be better accomplished :D

[Gizziiusa]

How about a third axis ? call it "actual authority". its the authority that actually exists all along and is the wealthy and/or leader types that always have control of the masses. Sure, it contains both the social and economic authority, but thats beside the point. The point is the ones in these position of power never voluntarily relinquish it, and if its overthrown, a new one takes it place. Maybe its time to rework the whole model, and reconfigure the hierarchical system in general. cont.

[Aliothemage]

@Gizziiusa

Are you talking about non-political leaders? Like business leaders, cultural leaders, ect? If so then that is far beyond the scope of anything I'm interested in. I'm concerned here only with the ability to use violent force, which is the tool of government. There are plenty of other types of "authority", but they are all rather mild when compared to physical violence since no matter how influential an authority is if they can't use force against you you can still refuse to cooperate.

[WEH1123]

What I see on the bottom left is a theocracy like the dark ages with the Catholic Church, Islamic Saudi Arabia or Buddhist Tibet. It is when the church and state become one. In most theocracies there were also a lot of free market, yet not much on what you can buy as there were social restriction like drug or sex workers. Of course Communist China is like a theocracy of atheism "Religion is Poison" Mao Zedong.

Some ideas of Marxism "upper left" is being attempted again buy Technocracy.

[Aliothemage]

@WEH1123

The Bottom left is anarchy... the absence of coercive authority. Theocracy, even if it doesn't regulate economic matters is obviously regulating social matters as you yourself point out. That would mean that theocracy would fit over towards the bottom right some where. That is why it is fairly easy for theocratic states like Iran to look similar to nationalist or fascist ones. You're right about China being like a theocracy in that way though.

[WEH1123]

@Aliothemage my bad I got the sides mix up, he he. I meant the lower right side. Have you seen the Technocracy ideas it seems like a neo Marxism. Except it is not the people like Marxism it is engineers, Doctors and Scientists. Yet some Sci-Fi warn us about this as being something to the upper right. What is your thought on that idea?

[Aliothemage]

That would depend on what type of "technocrats" we were dealing with. Technocrats are people who believe they should direct a nation since they are experts in a subject. If you are only dealing with technocrats who are experts in economic matters then the system would be around the bottom right with China, but if there were social technocrats (say, psychologists/philosophers creating moralistic laws for example) then the system would move upward on the chart.

[xAfterDawnx]

Your need to make your "Modern Political Ideology Map" chart symmetric has stirred up some mistakes. A fascist economy is not even close to being as controlled as a communist economy. A communist economy would be seen as far, far left, and a fascist economy is seen as right wing and otherwise described as corporatist. The need for both "corporatism" and "fascism" is essentially ineffective as they are synonymous.

[dave19941000]

Libiralism and Socialism are most likly going to be the longest lasting political systems.

[PavedStones]

Also, the chart totally leaves off the reactionary ideologies, such as traditional conservativism, and advocacy of theocracy, feudalism, absolute monarchy, etc.

[PavedStones]

Last, what you call anarchy is actually either anarcho-capitalism or anomie. Classical anarchism is different and advocates a very organized society, it is actually close to communism.

[PavedStones]

Btw, communism is not such a crazy or unrealistic idea, I'm not certain how well it can work either but communism is certainly worth giving it some serious consideration. People ridicule and dismiss communism as utopian and fantasist because they just don't know at all what a communist society's supposed to be like, due to decades of Cold War disinformation about communism, form both the USSR and the USA.

[PavedStones]

5. the chart doesn't specify at all what kind of government the different ideologies advocate. This is problematic when saying that communism wants total "govt authority" over the economy- communists actually think the state shouldn't exist at alll, and that *the people* should run the economy through a radically participatory system of popular assemblies, workers' councils, etc.

[PavedStones]

4. the idea of "economic freedom" reveals pro-free market assumptions- communists will say that a system where most people are made to spend their entire work time mechanically obeying orders from their bosses and managers is not about "economic freedom", while communism, by giving workers control over their own work and productions would be much "freer" economically than capitalism.

[PavedStones]

As for China, it is a very bizarre country, but I believe it should fall under the category of some kind of fascism: it is a nationalistic, militaristic dictatorship with strong totalitarian traits, and its economy is kind of corporative- industrial policy is largely set by government departments in collaboration with private conglomerates, but it's still pretty market oriented at the same time, it's much, much less corporative than fascist Italy.

[PavedStones]

; and some feudal societies had systems that can be described as corporativism.

Third, socialism is a broad word and can refer to anything from communism to W. Europe-style managed capitalism. It is difficult to make a blanket statement about what socialism is because socialism has many different currents, revolving around some idea of economic democracy. Also, social democrats and democratic socialists do care a lot about civil liberties.

[PavedStones]

- communism was the goal it claimed it was trying to achieve. Vocabulary gets very confusing on this topic and it's hard to give a name to the system the USSR actually had, let's call it Stalinism.

Second, corporativism isn't an ideology, this name refers to various economic systems that have been advocated by various ideologies including, most notably fascism but also by certain conservatives, social democrats, and theocrats;

[PavedStones]

This is not bad... but not totally adequate... this is obviously from a libertarian point of view...

First there are some vocabulary problems: Marxism is not a system, it is an ideology, which advocates a system: communism (a stateless, classless society where capital goods are the property of the public and handled by a system of popular committees and workers' councils), the USSR and other "Communist states" didn't actually have communism, and actually it didn't claim to, -

[conspirator272727]

Wow this is very accurate. I'm working on a very similar, yet more elaborate project using four dimensions by splitting economic and social issues into charts of there own. It's interesting, but also a headache. I'm very libertarian as well.

[money3140]

Incredibly thought out, has to be one of the best explanations of the political spectrum.

[Aliothemage]

Well thank you! Most of the credit goes to the Nolan chart, I just put a bit of my own spin on it.

[HalfLife172]

agreed

[amanda2324]

Very well explained! Very clear descriptions, and intriguing remarks.

I didn't know that capitalism meant that... now I do. lol Thanks for that clarification as well!

[Aliothemage]

Well thank you, lol.

I'm glad at least 1 person enjoyed it.