It's not "Communism" its' "Common-ism" on the psych-tests. You'll need more reading on the definitions of these words and their history. You're obviously from the states and that's no slander on you! It seems EVERYONE in your country is trying desperately confuse you on the fundamental nature of MOST words. Speaking purely from a linguistic etymological Nazi perspective. ;) Happy reading. :)
When I think of the left and right of any given ideology or tendency, I usually associate the left with forward-thinking concern for social justice and tolerance of counterculture, and the right with more conservative views about social institutions and a defense of traditional social hierarchies. I find most, but not all, Austrian-type libertarians to be very right-leaning and culturally conservative, while the libertarian left that I identify with tend to have "social emancipation" agendas.
@donteatthefishsticks For example, left totaltarianism has no qualms about using the power of the state to pursue a radical social agenda regarding things like the family and gender norms, while right totalitarianism rigidly enforces traditional values even if both philosophies are radically authoritarian. Of course, the further into pure authoritarianism you get the more overlap there is between right and left.
You misrepresented anarchism. Anarchism, traditionally, has always been a left-leaning political philosophy, but it really can exist on both the right and left. There are social anarchists (left) and market anarchists (right). And 'left' doesn't necessarily mean more government. It represents collectivism on an economic level, and nothing else. The authoritarian and libertarian scale is supposed to represent the amount of government omnipresence in society.
@DesecrateConformity The goal of the video isn't to change or define the spectrum, or even say its wrong. the goal is to do away with the the whole "left/right" paradigm altogether.....or at least define them...
@scalp340 Well, it's not abolishing 'left and right' altogether, it just adds a social dimension (authoritarian/libertarian) to the left and right scale. The left is synonymous with collectivism, and the right advocates capitalism, or in my case, market anarchism, which isn't the same thing as anarcho-capitalism.
True Communism, as described by Marx, is a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Communism would supposedly develop after all economies were socialized and all governments were democratically run by workers. He called it "the withering of the state." I think you mean Stalinism/Maoism, which never really progressed past a pseudo-socialist economic model, established new ruling-classes, and virtually eliminated any semblance of democracy.
Nope, that's a lie. And i don't really know who's the ignorant that told you that. Must be some neo-liberal that just cant stand nazism and fascism being far right.
Left or right are not defined by government control, that's a huge lie.
Left or right usually stands to define the approach of the system, right wing usually are the defenders of the hierarchy and economic imposed, and leftist are usually against hierarchys and want to change it.
@rodasnepervilo Capitalist monarchism is far-right. This form of government was around during WW1 and before. Saudi Arabia still has a government like this. Nationalism itself was originally a left wing movement. National Socialism is not far-right, they are centrist movements. Far-right=monarchist and anti-state socialist.
@clydrobe I agree, the extra axes are unnecessary. but it is also unnecessary to change the historical definition of left and right, as you do. It has always been classlessness vs hierarchy. The whole idea of a spectrum began with this in mind, with those that demand equality on the left, and those that don't on the right. This idea still holds up today, even as new political philosophies emerge. As such, social anarchism will always be left, and the newer market anarchism will always be right.
@clydrobe My point having said all this is: we have a historical paradigm already, but most people are too absent minded to realize this. We don't need to change the definitions of left and right to be tyranny vs anarchism. We don't need to say the paradigm is "a fallacy" as someone else did. We don't need to create extra axes. The left wants equality and different strains of it will use different means...whether they use government means or anarchist means. Same goes for the right.
@Minarchist088 What I meant by that, was using the classic spectrum (the one of the founding fathers) as I referred to, you would see that dominant political parties are all heavily left leaning.
even social anarchists are on the left because it necessitates economic control. it is in a sense, a bipolar political ideology.
the problem with the ideal, is that force and compulsion must be used to maintain economic control, thus undermining social liberty.
@clydrobe Many people believe that for socialism/communism to exist, force and coercion must be used to accomplish it. This is a common misconception. There are tons of examples from history that prove this supposition wrong: Anarchist Catalonia (and hundreds of other anarchist societies during the Spanish Civil War), Free Territory of Ukraine, Paris Commune, Mondragon, and today, libertarian eco-villages and communes in Europe and North America.
@DesecrateConformity what you are referring to are people under temporary, extraordinary war torn circumstances, fueled by the desire to survive. of which, didnt last, despite the recent nestalgia.
As for Mondragon, this is not moderate socialism in practice. this is a group of individuals, collectively working as shareholders in a company for their own self interest in a market. Voluntarily. Otherwise known as a Coop.
what I referred to was a whole society under socialism.
@clydrobe This is true, but they didn't last because they didn't work, they were forcefully taken back over by the USSR and France. And yes, Mondragon technically is socialism. It is vesting the means of production and goods produced in the community as a whole, relatively equally. Though the system as a whole which they exist in is not socialist, they themselves are socialist. And you totally ignore the eco-villages and communes that I mentioned.
@clydrobe Society is voluntary. And it's totally ridiculous to just assume that no one (even if they don't know what it is) wants left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. And no one has to be forced.
"it wont work in society because, those who dont volunteer must be forced."
Nothing in libertarian socialist doctrine says that it must be forced. It's totally based on cooperation and association, and political philosophies belonging to the bottom-left of the political compass
@clydrobe Well, I'm not really a fan of Chomsky. When it comes to politics and economics, Chomsky simply utilizes emotional appeals about the 'horrors' of wage slavery and free markets. And I cannot respect a man that can't make logical arguments for a certain ideology. I often call Chomsky the 'Bill O'Reilly of the left', though, Chomsky is infinitely more intelligent than O'Reilly can and ever will be. But what Chomsky said is that libertarian socialism is a contradiction in the cont
@clydrobe American sense. Libertarian actually in Europe has always been identified with libertarian socialism, and the term was actually coined by a libertarian communist. Your definition of socialism is also slightly skewed. The definition of socialism is: a system of social organization wherein the means of production (and sometimes distribution), are vested in the community or collective as a whole. It doesn't imply the state, though some socialists believe the state is the way to
@clydrobe achieve socialism. They would be wrong. And stateless sociakism isn't 'moderate' socialism. It's worked in many places without the state, namely Anarchist Catalonia and Southern Spain during the Spanish Civil war. There are other examples, too. Just so you know, I am a left-libertarian market anarchist (Mutualist, not anarcho-capitalist). I do believe that stigmergic social anarchism would be a good thing, but that can happen under market anarchist conditions.
@clydrobe have worked on medium-large scales. I can't stand these people that say socialism doesn't work with large populations. It can work with large populations, it just depends how centralized production and governance are.
@clydrobe I'm not sure at what you're trying to get across here, but Mao and Stalin centralized like no other regime ever had before. They probably knew that decentralized, localized conditions were better for socialism, but they didn't embrace it because they wanted centralized state control, and they wanted control vested in them. Marx was flat out wrong when he said that a 'withering away of the state' would happen in socialism. Marx was a centralist. Centralists fail. All economic
@clydrobe systems work better if production and governance (and preferably people) are decentralized or localized. This goes for socialism and capitalism, and the desktop revolution, the internet, mass transportation, and non-labor intensive capita have made decentralization more feasible, and efficient. I agree that central planning fails, but social anarchists don't propose central planning. I suggest you read some of Kevin Carson's work. They are far more insightful that Chomsky's.
@clydrobe Hah, I know. Those Chomsky sheep are so ridiculous. What I'm talking about is economics in theoretical anarchist societies, not power. The democratization of the means of production has worked in many industries (not all) very well. Look at all of the co-ops in Europe and America that are just as productive as hierarchically-controlled companies. Look at Mondragon is Spain. Democratization of entrepreneurship and labor has worked, and does. It just happens to work better
@clydrobe for small businesses, which I advocate for over large, state-backed conglomerates, which right-libertarians tend to be apologists for. I have read Rothbard, and he is amazing. He is central to left-libertarianism and left-wing market anarchism. He criticizes state centrally-planned collectivism, and the centralization of power in a handful of people at the top of corporations and the centralization of power in a few oligarchical meg-corporations. Free markets not of large
@clydrobe scale, but of human scale, work best. Carson and Rothbard both share very similar views, and can be categorized as left-libertarians. The only area where Carson breaks away from Rothbard is absentee land ownership., but they both agree that homesteading should be pursued.
@clydrobe Yea, on the Chomsky thing, there are a vast number of little-known economists, political philosophers, and political economists that are far more insightful that Chomsky in the areas of economics and politics. Chomsky is undoubtedly an intelligent person in the fields of linguistics and computer science, but he simply can't make good arguments for his political positions, though I agree with some of them.
@DesecrateConformity I think that all that we are disagreeing about is the question of what define left and right.
Rothbards point there is that plundering only occurs in the absences of private ownership. the lecture is on youtube under conservation.
The idea of co ops is fine with me. however there is the problem of time preference unless the co owners can fill the shoes of capitalist, entrepreneur and laborer.
1) Anarchism would be considered at the bottom of the first compass, not the right.
2) You are the one of misguided people that believe that because Nazi's used the term 'National Socialism' you assume they're socialist. Wrong. They're Fascist.
3) In the 1980s with Thatcher we had a small government for controlling economics. However, we had an increased Police force and other public control methods. This shows that a right wing government can be large.
@MrMrbobblehead They can claim specific types of anarchy. The type of anarchy Joseph Dejacque believed in is undoubtedly left-wing (it is stateless and classless). The type of anarchy Murray Rothbard believed in is undoubtedly right-wing (it is stateless, yet hierarchical).
"I don't think right wing or left wing can claim anarchy cause both believe in a ruling class". This is just wrong...as I've said, left-anarchism believes in classlessness.
you are soooo ful of shit, libertarian means socialist anarchist in the rest of the world, see noam chomsky on it . anarchist means no rulers, has nothing to do with chaos. WTF do you know about communism, doubt you ever read DAS KAPITAL , or the communist manifesto. socialism means worker ownership over the means of production, fascism is when corporations become the government, SOUND FAMILIAR? Left and right pertains to CLASS rich v. poor.
@winchesteranacom Show me a socialist country where workers owned anything. You are naive. The point here is that Left= Gov control, and Right is little control. Obviously US is not on Right, but you silly sheep are labeled Kool-Aid drinkers for a reason-- you erroneously think that Government Control will benefit poor people.
@trisoma1 The left does not equal government control, and right does not equal little control…that would be inconsistent with history. Take what has been consistent throughout the years: left desiring equality and classlessness, right accepting hierarchy and class. Monarchy, aristocracy, fascism, conservativism, libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism…all right, because they all accept rank and hierarchy. The left is suppose to be the opposite of that…doesn’t usually end up that way.
That is because there is anarcho-communism and Stalinism/Maoism/etc. Likewise Fascism would occupy the conservative part of the x-axis, but also the authoritarian part of the y-axis. This is because fascism is inherently conservative in its social views, and deeply authoritarian. Libertarianism belongs on the conservative axis, leaning towards anarchy, because it is deeply against government, and its social philosophy is very conservative (centuries removed from modern-day).
The axes are wrongly labeled, despite that ideology can be divided quite effectively on four quadrants. You see, anarchism isn't a conservative philosophy, or the antithesis of the left. It is the opposite of authoritarian. Likewise, communism (at least, as commonly understood thanks to Stalin) isn't the far-left.
If you had your x-axis as liberal/conservative and y-axis as authoritarian/anarchy then communism would be both on the x-axis but occupying different and opposite y-axis points.
The morals, society and class system of the far Right is totally different from the far Left's. Therfore you are incorrect when you say they are the same. The far Right and far Left are nothing like each other! History proves this with WW2, when Fascism was fighting both Communism and Socialism because of there extremely opposite ideas and views. Just because at one point Communism is involved with state control, it does not mean that it should automatically be brandished like the far Right.
The right is usually associated with a right wing society i.e. conservatives. And to the far right, Nazis.
Anarchy is neither far right or far left it has its own, a somewhat maximized libertarian is an anarchist.
Its also worth noting that the aim of Communism is to eventually a achieve a classless society with absolutely no government control, I emphasize that this is the goal, and many communists have different ideas of how to achieve that goal.
Anarchism is Left Wing. This is INDISPUTABLE. Communism was considered far left because its ultimate implementation is anarchist, even in Marxist theory. One could say the USSR, as it became less revolutionary, became somewhat right-wing. That makes more sense than saying typical authoritarian monarchies and military dictatorships are left-wing. Remember, the French Revolution is the original reference point!
Libertarianism is not right-wing because you want to be called right-wing!!!
X axis: how social libertarian you are (Far left social Liberal, Far right social conservative)
Y axis: How authoritarian or Libertarian you are IE how much the government should be involved in your PERSONAL life (Up more Authoritarian, Down more Libertarian)
Bush: Center Middle of the Blue box
Stalin: middle Red box just below the top
Hitler: Upper Blue/Red box(depending on what quiz you take) VERY close to the Y Axis bar
the left and right are really defined by private property. the libertarian left is for public ownership and a little to no state control and the authortarian left is for public ownership and a little to complete state control. the libertarian right is for private ownership and a little to no state control and the authortarian right is for private ownership and a little to complete state control.
I don't get it.... what's the difference between authoritarianism/Full gov. and Fascism or communism? They are all full government control, and what's the difference between extreme libertarianism and anarchy? I think a one dimensional spectrum from one to the other is fine, but if you want two dimensions, they have to measure something different.
@Skyler827 If anything I think you should keep the other chart with authoritarians on top, libertarians on bottom, leftists on the left and so on, with communists in the upper left hand corner, "Facists" in the top right hand corner, classical anarchists opposed to private property in the bottom left, An-caps along the bottom, and religious/particularly gold-buggy/righteous An-caps on the lower right corner.
I would change left and right to collectivism and individualism and up and down to libertarianism and authoritarianism. Anarchism, in the traditional sense, is more of a left-wing (collectivist) ideology. Anarcho-capitalism seems to me more like fascism than actual freedom, as from how I understood it they're basically saying let's have corporations, which we have no say in, rule all our lives.
"[Anarcho-Capitalists] are basically saying let's have corporations, which we have no say in, rule all our lives. "
I have never heard an AnCap say that. Are you sure you are not interpreting them wrong? I have never heard libertarians or AnCaps defend the intitution of corporations in the first place :/
@fruitikay im too lazy to change/annotate it but: 'full gov't should be changed to statim, 'no gov't' should be changed anarchism, and 'fascism' (and its symbol) should be changed to authoritarianism.
@Nekhet The point of the video is there is no "right wing" or "left wing" its all a Paradigm fallacy. though Fascism cannot be near or take the place of Anarchism (on the right). because Fascism is a form of Totalitarian rule, which requires structure and a large government. with Anarchy, there is no rule or structure. So wile fascism may not be on the "left middle" either, its definitely somewhere in the red quadrant.... using either graph
This is good stuff. Two thumbs up!
CorrbriasReloaded 19 hours ago
Should've made it a diamond then silly man.
YCDPKLD 1 week ago
@YCDPKLD The reason why I kept it basic was to show the primitive thinking of how we view politics and the spectrum itself.
scalp340 1 week ago
It's not "Communism" its' "Common-ism" on the psych-tests. You'll need more reading on the definitions of these words and their history. You're obviously from the states and that's no slander on you! It seems EVERYONE in your country is trying desperately confuse you on the fundamental nature of MOST words. Speaking purely from a linguistic etymological Nazi perspective. ;) Happy reading. :)
PsychoticusRex 4 weeks ago
When I think of the left and right of any given ideology or tendency, I usually associate the left with forward-thinking concern for social justice and tolerance of counterculture, and the right with more conservative views about social institutions and a defense of traditional social hierarchies. I find most, but not all, Austrian-type libertarians to be very right-leaning and culturally conservative, while the libertarian left that I identify with tend to have "social emancipation" agendas.
donteatthefishsticks 1 month ago
@donteatthefishsticks For example, left totaltarianism has no qualms about using the power of the state to pursue a radical social agenda regarding things like the family and gender norms, while right totalitarianism rigidly enforces traditional values even if both philosophies are radically authoritarian. Of course, the further into pure authoritarianism you get the more overlap there is between right and left.
donteatthefishsticks 1 month ago
This video is incorrect in many areas...
DARKDAVELORD 1 month ago
You misrepresented anarchism. Anarchism, traditionally, has always been a left-leaning political philosophy, but it really can exist on both the right and left. There are social anarchists (left) and market anarchists (right). And 'left' doesn't necessarily mean more government. It represents collectivism on an economic level, and nothing else. The authoritarian and libertarian scale is supposed to represent the amount of government omnipresence in society.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago 3
@DesecrateConformity The goal of the video isn't to change or define the spectrum, or even say its wrong. the goal is to do away with the the whole "left/right" paradigm altogether.....or at least define them...
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340 Well, it's not abolishing 'left and right' altogether, it just adds a social dimension (authoritarian/libertarian) to the left and right scale. The left is synonymous with collectivism, and the right advocates capitalism, or in my case, market anarchism, which isn't the same thing as anarcho-capitalism.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
True Communism, as described by Marx, is a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Communism would supposedly develop after all economies were socialized and all governments were democratically run by workers. He called it "the withering of the state." I think you mean Stalinism/Maoism, which never really progressed past a pseudo-socialist economic model, established new ruling-classes, and virtually eliminated any semblance of democracy.
Danarchistic1 1 month ago
Anarchy on right? Pure bullshit.
Opposition is actually Comunism Vs Neo-Liberalism from left to right.
Anarchy is a form of Libertarianism, and usually, anarchy is and always was associated to the far left.
Fascism is actually a far-right conservative system and
rodasnepervilo 1 month ago
@rodasnepervilo
Pay attention:
Far left = 100% government control
Far right = ZERO government control
mattchappelart1 1 month ago
@mattchappelart1
Nope, that's a lie. And i don't really know who's the ignorant that told you that. Must be some neo-liberal that just cant stand nazism and fascism being far right.
Left or right are not defined by government control, that's a huge lie.
Left or right usually stands to define the approach of the system, right wing usually are the defenders of the hierarchy and economic imposed, and leftist are usually against hierarchys and want to change it.
rodasnepervilo 1 month ago
@rodasnepervilo Capitalist monarchism is far-right. This form of government was around during WW1 and before. Saudi Arabia still has a government like this. Nationalism itself was originally a left wing movement. National Socialism is not far-right, they are centrist movements. Far-right=monarchist and anti-state socialist.
SAEuropeanPatriot 9 hours ago
I didn't understand at all your point about not being able to go higher and an invisible ceiling?
MaxGravitas 1 month ago
I like this spectrum.
sheepOG 2 months ago
@sheepOG thanks! I tried to design a more 2d explainable spectrum, without out using the left/right paradigm.
scalp340 1 month ago
the flaw in this spectrum is that the axes are:
Vertical - economic freedom
Horizontal - social freedom
this spectrum is meant to confuse.
the spectrum based on freedom as a whole is linear, with tyranny on the far left and anarchy on the far right.
clydrobe 2 months ago
@clydrobe I agree, the extra axes are unnecessary. but it is also unnecessary to change the historical definition of left and right, as you do. It has always been classlessness vs hierarchy. The whole idea of a spectrum began with this in mind, with those that demand equality on the left, and those that don't on the right. This idea still holds up today, even as new political philosophies emerge. As such, social anarchism will always be left, and the newer market anarchism will always be right.
Minarchist088 2 months ago
@clydrobe My point having said all this is: we have a historical paradigm already, but most people are too absent minded to realize this. We don't need to change the definitions of left and right to be tyranny vs anarchism. We don't need to say the paradigm is "a fallacy" as someone else did. We don't need to create extra axes. The left wants equality and different strains of it will use different means...whether they use government means or anarchist means. Same goes for the right.
Minarchist088 2 months ago
@Minarchist088 What I meant by that, was using the classic spectrum (the one of the founding fathers) as I referred to, you would see that dominant political parties are all heavily left leaning.
even social anarchists are on the left because it necessitates economic control. it is in a sense, a bipolar political ideology.
the problem with the ideal, is that force and compulsion must be used to maintain economic control, thus undermining social liberty.
this is the paradox of mild socialism.
clydrobe 2 months ago
@clydrobe Many people believe that for socialism/communism to exist, force and coercion must be used to accomplish it. This is a common misconception. There are tons of examples from history that prove this supposition wrong: Anarchist Catalonia (and hundreds of other anarchist societies during the Spanish Civil War), Free Territory of Ukraine, Paris Commune, Mondragon, and today, libertarian eco-villages and communes in Europe and North America.
DesecrateConformity 2 months ago
@DesecrateConformity what you are referring to are people under temporary, extraordinary war torn circumstances, fueled by the desire to survive. of which, didnt last, despite the recent nestalgia.
As for Mondragon, this is not moderate socialism in practice. this is a group of individuals, collectively working as shareholders in a company for their own self interest in a market. Voluntarily. Otherwise known as a Coop.
what I referred to was a whole society under socialism.
clydrobe 2 months ago
@clydrobe This is true, but they didn't last because they didn't work, they were forcefully taken back over by the USSR and France. And yes, Mondragon technically is socialism. It is vesting the means of production and goods produced in the community as a whole, relatively equally. Though the system as a whole which they exist in is not socialist, they themselves are socialist. And you totally ignore the eco-villages and communes that I mentioned.
DesecrateConformity 2 months ago
@DesecrateConformity what Im saying is;
socialism only works on a voluntary basis. it wont work in society because, those who dont volunteer must be forced.
this is where the problems lie.
marx would have realized this if he had only read the peer reviews on Reccardo's work, where he got all of his economic value.
clydrobe 2 months ago
@clydrobe Society is voluntary. And it's totally ridiculous to just assume that no one (even if they don't know what it is) wants left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism. And no one has to be forced.
"it wont work in society because, those who dont volunteer must be forced."
Nothing in libertarian socialist doctrine says that it must be forced. It's totally based on cooperation and association, and political philosophies belonging to the bottom-left of the political compass
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity I see that youre a fan of Chomsky.
the only thing that he said correctly about libertarian socialism was, that it is a contradiction in terms.
Libertarianism - individual freedom, economic and social. Property rights
Socialism - means of production in the control of the state.
with moderate socialism you'll find it necessary to compel the unwilling
total socialism only gives you a greater number of the unwilling.
clydrobe 1 month ago
@clydrobe Well, I'm not really a fan of Chomsky. When it comes to politics and economics, Chomsky simply utilizes emotional appeals about the 'horrors' of wage slavery and free markets. And I cannot respect a man that can't make logical arguments for a certain ideology. I often call Chomsky the 'Bill O'Reilly of the left', though, Chomsky is infinitely more intelligent than O'Reilly can and ever will be. But what Chomsky said is that libertarian socialism is a contradiction in the cont
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe American sense. Libertarian actually in Europe has always been identified with libertarian socialism, and the term was actually coined by a libertarian communist. Your definition of socialism is also slightly skewed. The definition of socialism is: a system of social organization wherein the means of production (and sometimes distribution), are vested in the community or collective as a whole. It doesn't imply the state, though some socialists believe the state is the way to
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe achieve socialism. They would be wrong. And stateless sociakism isn't 'moderate' socialism. It's worked in many places without the state, namely Anarchist Catalonia and Southern Spain during the Spanish Civil war. There are other examples, too. Just so you know, I am a left-libertarian market anarchist (Mutualist, not anarcho-capitalist). I do believe that stigmergic social anarchism would be a good thing, but that can happen under market anarchist conditions.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe have worked on medium-large scales. I can't stand these people that say socialism doesn't work with large populations. It can work with large populations, it just depends how centralized production and governance are.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity then it is unfortunate that Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin didn't have the power to centralize more than they had done?
No,
It doesn't work because central planners have no means to allocate land, labour and capital effectively.
clydrobe 1 month ago
@clydrobe I'm not sure at what you're trying to get across here, but Mao and Stalin centralized like no other regime ever had before. They probably knew that decentralized, localized conditions were better for socialism, but they didn't embrace it because they wanted centralized state control, and they wanted control vested in them. Marx was flat out wrong when he said that a 'withering away of the state' would happen in socialism. Marx was a centralist. Centralists fail. All economic
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe systems work better if production and governance (and preferably people) are decentralized or localized. This goes for socialism and capitalism, and the desktop revolution, the internet, mass transportation, and non-labor intensive capita have made decentralization more feasible, and efficient. I agree that central planning fails, but social anarchists don't propose central planning. I suggest you read some of Kevin Carson's work. They are far more insightful that Chomsky's.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity Glad to hear you break the -dont criticize Chomsky online- taboo.
what you are describing, sounds alot like a republic.
I think we agree more than you might think. however, the economic implications are what I have a hard time with.
The idea that, democratisation of the means of production (if thats what your implying) will work, I think is simply false.
I will look into that author, but I recommend you to read Murray Rothbard.
clydrobe 1 month ago
@clydrobe Hah, I know. Those Chomsky sheep are so ridiculous. What I'm talking about is economics in theoretical anarchist societies, not power. The democratization of the means of production has worked in many industries (not all) very well. Look at all of the co-ops in Europe and America that are just as productive as hierarchically-controlled companies. Look at Mondragon is Spain. Democratization of entrepreneurship and labor has worked, and does. It just happens to work better
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe for small businesses, which I advocate for over large, state-backed conglomerates, which right-libertarians tend to be apologists for. I have read Rothbard, and he is amazing. He is central to left-libertarianism and left-wing market anarchism. He criticizes state centrally-planned collectivism, and the centralization of power in a handful of people at the top of corporations and the centralization of power in a few oligarchical meg-corporations. Free markets not of large
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe scale, but of human scale, work best. Carson and Rothbard both share very similar views, and can be categorized as left-libertarians. The only area where Carson breaks away from Rothbard is absentee land ownership., but they both agree that homesteading should be pursued.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@clydrobe Yea, on the Chomsky thing, there are a vast number of little-known economists, political philosophers, and political economists that are far more insightful that Chomsky in the areas of economics and politics. Chomsky is undoubtedly an intelligent person in the fields of linguistics and computer science, but he simply can't make good arguments for his political positions, though I agree with some of them.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity I think that all that we are disagreeing about is the question of what define left and right.
Rothbards point there is that plundering only occurs in the absences of private ownership. the lecture is on youtube under conservation.
The idea of co ops is fine with me. however there is the problem of time preference unless the co owners can fill the shoes of capitalist, entrepreneur and laborer.
clydrobe 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity and I would never support any sort of intervention in the market place.
noone in the austrian libertarian school of thought would.
anyway, this is a shitty forum to have such a long conversation.
is there somewhere else we could continue this?
clydrobe 1 month ago
Points of interest with this video -
1) Anarchism would be considered at the bottom of the first compass, not the right.
2) You are the one of misguided people that believe that because Nazi's used the term 'National Socialism' you assume they're socialist. Wrong. They're Fascist.
3) In the 1980s with Thatcher we had a small government for controlling economics. However, we had an increased Police force and other public control methods. This shows that a right wing government can be large.
BrynSmith94 2 months ago
i dont think right wing or left wing can claim anarchy cuz both sides believe in a ruling class be it corperate or goverment
MrMrbobblehead 2 months ago
@MrMrbobblehead They can claim specific types of anarchy. The type of anarchy Joseph Dejacque believed in is undoubtedly left-wing (it is stateless and classless). The type of anarchy Murray Rothbard believed in is undoubtedly right-wing (it is stateless, yet hierarchical).
"I don't think right wing or left wing can claim anarchy cause both believe in a ruling class". This is just wrong...as I've said, left-anarchism believes in classlessness.
Minarchist088 2 months ago
saying conservitism takes on anarchy is like saying conservetive democrat i agree with ron paul anarchy is liberal form of a libertarian
MrMrbobblehead 2 months ago
ya it goes republic conservetive oligarchy imperialism on the right democratic socialist anarchy communism on the left
MrMrbobblehead 2 months ago
i was told imperialism was the far right extreme? and communism was the far left extreme
MrMrbobblehead 2 months ago
you are soooo ful of shit, libertarian means socialist anarchist in the rest of the world, see noam chomsky on it . anarchist means no rulers, has nothing to do with chaos. WTF do you know about communism, doubt you ever read DAS KAPITAL , or the communist manifesto. socialism means worker ownership over the means of production, fascism is when corporations become the government, SOUND FAMILIAR? Left and right pertains to CLASS rich v. poor.
winchesteranacom 3 months ago
@winchesteranacom So what if libertarianism means social anarchist to the rest of the world? It’s just a word, get over it.
Minarchist088 3 months ago
@Minarchist088 Government and taxes are only words.
trisoma1 3 months ago
@trisoma1 Do those words mean different things around the world?
Minarchist088 3 months ago
@winchesteranacom Show me a socialist country where workers owned anything. You are naive. The point here is that Left= Gov control, and Right is little control. Obviously US is not on Right, but you silly sheep are labeled Kool-Aid drinkers for a reason-- you erroneously think that Government Control will benefit poor people.
trisoma1 3 months ago
@trisoma1 The left does not equal government control, and right does not equal little control…that would be inconsistent with history. Take what has been consistent throughout the years: left desiring equality and classlessness, right accepting hierarchy and class. Monarchy, aristocracy, fascism, conservativism, libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism…all right, because they all accept rank and hierarchy. The left is suppose to be the opposite of that…doesn’t usually end up that way.
Minarchist088 3 months ago
That is because there is anarcho-communism and Stalinism/Maoism/etc. Likewise Fascism would occupy the conservative part of the x-axis, but also the authoritarian part of the y-axis. This is because fascism is inherently conservative in its social views, and deeply authoritarian. Libertarianism belongs on the conservative axis, leaning towards anarchy, because it is deeply against government, and its social philosophy is very conservative (centuries removed from modern-day).
kDest 3 months ago
The axes are wrongly labeled, despite that ideology can be divided quite effectively on four quadrants. You see, anarchism isn't a conservative philosophy, or the antithesis of the left. It is the opposite of authoritarian. Likewise, communism (at least, as commonly understood thanks to Stalin) isn't the far-left.
If you had your x-axis as liberal/conservative and y-axis as authoritarian/anarchy then communism would be both on the x-axis but occupying different and opposite y-axis points.
kDest 3 months ago
The morals, society and class system of the far Right is totally different from the far Left's. Therfore you are incorrect when you say they are the same. The far Right and far Left are nothing like each other! History proves this with WW2, when Fascism was fighting both Communism and Socialism because of there extremely opposite ideas and views. Just because at one point Communism is involved with state control, it does not mean that it should automatically be brandished like the far Right.
ComradeZX 4 months ago
The right is usually associated with a right wing society i.e. conservatives. And to the far right, Nazis.
Anarchy is neither far right or far left it has its own, a somewhat maximized libertarian is an anarchist.
Its also worth noting that the aim of Communism is to eventually a achieve a classless society with absolutely no government control, I emphasize that this is the goal, and many communists have different ideas of how to achieve that goal.
ComradeZX 4 months ago
right social libertarian. He is also a slight non-interventionist and somewhat culturally liberal. scores (from 0 to 10):
Economic issues: +6.45 right
Social issues: +3.83 libertarian
Foreign policy: +3.92 non-interventionist
... See MoreCultural identification: +2.51 liberal
Category: political quizzes..
Thesocraticbreed 5 months ago
Anarchism is Left Wing. This is INDISPUTABLE. Communism was considered far left because its ultimate implementation is anarchist, even in Marxist theory. One could say the USSR, as it became less revolutionary, became somewhat right-wing. That makes more sense than saying typical authoritarian monarchies and military dictatorships are left-wing. Remember, the French Revolution is the original reference point!
Libertarianism is not right-wing because you want to be called right-wing!!!
maxime32 6 months ago
Anarchism is left wing! Anarchy=no rulers and with Capitalism you have bosses etc.
23lFrench 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
X axis: how social libertarian you are (Far left social Liberal, Far right social conservative)
Y axis: How authoritarian or Libertarian you are IE how much the government should be involved in your PERSONAL life (Up more Authoritarian, Down more Libertarian)
Bush: Center Middle of the Blue box
Stalin: middle Red box just below the top
Hitler: Upper Blue/Red box(depending on what quiz you take) VERY close to the Y Axis bar
Gandhi: Center Middle Green Box
Ron Paul: Center middle purple Box.
Jamez773 6 months ago
the left and right are really defined by private property. the libertarian left is for public ownership and a little to no state control and the authortarian left is for public ownership and a little to complete state control. the libertarian right is for private ownership and a little to no state control and the authortarian right is for private ownership and a little to complete state control.
metalgearanarchist 6 months ago
Also, communism is by its very definition a stateless, moneyless, classless society. You know jackshit about politics, sorry.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
Anarchism is socialist dumb ass. This political spectrum sucks donkey balls.
GodOfTheInternets 6 months ago
I don't get it.... what's the difference between authoritarianism/Full gov. and Fascism or communism? They are all full government control, and what's the difference between extreme libertarianism and anarchy? I think a one dimensional spectrum from one to the other is fine, but if you want two dimensions, they have to measure something different.
Skyler827 6 months ago
@Skyler827 If anything I think you should keep the other chart with authoritarians on top, libertarians on bottom, leftists on the left and so on, with communists in the upper left hand corner, "Facists" in the top right hand corner, classical anarchists opposed to private property in the bottom left, An-caps along the bottom, and religious/particularly gold-buggy/righteous An-caps on the lower right corner.
Skyler827 6 months ago
the 2 dimensional political spectrum is suppose to be with economic and social axis ...the vid is bad.
Xenthoid 7 months ago
I would change left and right to collectivism and individualism and up and down to libertarianism and authoritarianism. Anarchism, in the traditional sense, is more of a left-wing (collectivist) ideology. Anarcho-capitalism seems to me more like fascism than actual freedom, as from how I understood it they're basically saying let's have corporations, which we have no say in, rule all our lives.
SomeoneCrazy2 9 months ago
@SomeoneCrazy2
"[Anarcho-Capitalists] are basically saying let's have corporations, which we have no say in, rule all our lives. "
I have never heard an AnCap say that. Are you sure you are not interpreting them wrong? I have never heard libertarians or AnCaps defend the intitution of corporations in the first place :/
But, people are different and their views.
Vitringur 9 months ago
Interesting. I took the test, fairly same results as before.
fruitikay 9 months ago
@fruitikay im too lazy to change/annotate it but: 'full gov't should be changed to statim, 'no gov't' should be changed anarchism, and 'fascism' (and its symbol) should be changed to authoritarianism.
scalp340 9 months ago
Hmm... I´m pretty sure that associate the "right wing" with Facism not Anarchism...
Nekhet 11 months ago
@Nekhet The point of the video is there is no "right wing" or "left wing" its all a Paradigm fallacy. though Fascism cannot be near or take the place of Anarchism (on the right). because Fascism is a form of Totalitarian rule, which requires structure and a large government. with Anarchy, there is no rule or structure. So wile fascism may not be on the "left middle" either, its definitely somewhere in the red quadrant.... using either graph
scalp340 11 months ago
@scalp340 Huh, interesting..
Nekhet 11 months ago
@scalp340 its "supposed to be" eh? its bad? sorry, make sure to 'dislike' the video.
scalp340 7 months ago