By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Alternatives to the Left-Right Paradigm.

sc94597 on 13 February 2015
Soleron said:

I think I'd be slightly outside the triangle to the top-left. Since I believe in some elements of socialism and capitalism but mostly I'm anti-power. Be that individual power, state power, corporate power, judicial power, and so on. Most of the problems in society are caused by abuse of power by special interests of all kinds leading to suboptimal laws and implementation. It's not an issue that can be solved within the current system.

When you say you are "anti-power" you mean you are "anti-power differences" right? That'd mean you believe that private property is wrong in the instances in which it gives people extra power over others, and the state is wrong in instances in which it gives people extra power over others. Let's call one (property) economic power, and the other (state influence) political power. In that case each corner represents a different thing. In the left-most corner you have extreme differences in political power (theoretically), but not economic power. In the right-most vertex you have extreme differences in both economic and political power. In the top vertex you have differences in economic power, but there exists no political power. Now of course this gets confusing because all economic power is converted into political power in the case of "communism" and still exists, and all political power is converted into economic power in the case of "anarcho-capitalism." 

Anyway, basically from all of that, I think you'd fit right in the middle of the line between Anarcho Capitalism and Communism. That would be right where the "D" for Democracies is.



Around the Network
Soleron on 13 February 2015
sc94597 said:
Soleron said:

...

When you say you are "anti-power" you mean you are "anti-power differences" right? That'd mean you believe that private property is wrong in the instances in which it gives people extra power over others, and the state is wrong in instances in which it gives people extra power over others. Let's call one (property) economic power, and the other (state influence) political power. In that case each corner represents a different thing. In the left-most corner you have extreme differences in political power (theoretically), but not economic power. In the right-most vertex you have extreme differences in both economic and political power. In the top vertex you have differences in economic power, but there exists no political power. Now of course this gets confusing because all economic power is converted into political power in the case of "communism" and still exists, and all political power is converted into economic power in the case of "anarcho-capitalism." 

Anyway, basically from all of that, I think you'd fit right in the middle of the line between Anarcho Capitalism and Communism. That would be right where the "D" for Democracies is.

Yeah that's about right. But all the other people in the centre/"mainstream" triangle share an acceptance of the establishment and having to compromise to get things done. I would be unable to compromise on what I believe is right.

Democracy ought to provide the "checks and balances" the textbooks say it does. But the actual result is gridlock like America (no necessary changes can be passed) or bureaucracy like Britain (the changes that are passed don't affect what actually happens on the ground) 

I know what outcomes I want but I don't know which system to support to produce them.



Egann on 13 February 2015

Nice graphic. A bit too complicated for everyday use, but it does show one thing I like: political views follow a circle around the outer edge of the triangle, meaning that if you take any idea too far you can wind up supporting its opposite.

That said, putting Absolutism next to Darwinism is something I disagree with. They're opposites and don't share any ideals. I have no idea how to fix that.



Mr Khan on 13 February 2015
Soleron said:
sc94597 said:

When you say you are "anti-power" you mean you are "anti-power differences" right? That'd mean you believe that private property is wrong in the instances in which it gives people extra power over others, and the state is wrong in instances in which it gives people extra power over others. Let's call one (property) economic power, and the other (state influence) political power. In that case each corner represents a different thing. In the left-most corner you have extreme differences in political power (theoretically), but not economic power. In the right-most vertex you have extreme differences in both economic and political power. In the top vertex you have differences in economic power, but there exists no political power. Now of course this gets confusing because all economic power is converted into political power in the case of "communism" and still exists, and all political power is converted into economic power in the case of "anarcho-capitalism." 

Anyway, basically from all of that, I think you'd fit right in the middle of the line between Anarcho Capitalism and Communism. That would be right where the "D" for Democracies is.

Yeah that's about right. But all the other people in the centre/"mainstream" triangle share an acceptance of the establishment and having to compromise to get things done. I would be unable to compromise on what I believe is right.

Democracy ought to provide the "checks and balances" the textbooks say it does. But the actual result is gridlock like America (no necessary changes can be passed) or bureaucracy like Britain (the changes that are passed don't affect what actually happens on the ground) 

I know what outcomes I want but I don't know which system to support to produce them.

You know why the most violent people are so violent? They do not believe in compromise.

You have to compromise with the political establishment to some degree, or be prepared to destroy it utterly. Now this has been necessary at some points in history, for instance (how could one compromise with the slaveholders, for instance?) But generally the best progress has come by engaging the system and changing it to suit the needs of the day.

Horse trading is how things get done, but the important thing is that they get done. Once they are done, it is easier to go back and rectify the injustices of the past, rather than demanding immediate rectification of present injustice. Take Apartheid South Africa: they moved slowly with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but the Commission only came about after the Apartheid system was torn down in a compromise that protected white property rights while giving nonwhites full enfranchisement. Similarly in post-Pinochet Chile, where it took some time to bring justice to the perpetrators of Operation Condor, but in the short term democracy was restored by giving certain immunities to Pinochet and his cronies; immunities that could later be worn away.

Of course, sometimes the environment does not allow for full justice, and sometimes it allows for no justice, when the system requires destruction, but these cases are isolated.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

badgenome on 13 February 2015
Egann said:

That said, putting Absolutism next to Darwinism is something I disagree with. They're opposites and don't share any ideals. I have no idea how to fix that.

Hmmm... I've always seen them as being about one step removed myself. The emperor ideally should be the strongest and most capable individual, and empires should ideally conquer as much as it reasonably can. Sounds like a totalitarian and collectivist form of Darwinism to me.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 13 February 2015

I'd cut Kings/Tsarism from the equation altogether. That is "traditional" government, which is a different mode of life because it subsists through an appeal to tradition and religion rather than acknowledging a secular source of power.

I'd embrace a variation of the 4-point system: left and right as we know them, but the top is "Elitism" and the bottom is "populism" rather than the political compass' top of authority and bottom of liberty. More important is whether power is concentrated in the many or the few. This is only within the democratic spectrum. Outside of the democratic spectrum, there are 5 routes you can take: the first four are military rule, tyranny, fascism, and communism (as marx-leninism), while the fifth is "guided democracy" which is an exaggeration of any democratic viewpoint to the point where the system is captured by a dominant constituency (essentially, retain the trappings of democracy but make one party untouchable de facto, think current Russia).

Within the democratic field, you have left, right, elite, and populist, and points on each end where we tend to see politicians land: left populism ends up as popular socialism, left elitism is progressive socialism or utopianism, right populism is reactionary, the mass appeals of folks like the Tea Party or the Know Nothings. Right Elitism is old-fashioned "Tory" style, appeals to old money often.

Elitism can take different forms, like statism, mild authoritarianism, or the sort of mercantile-capitalism that the American Whigs and the early Republicans embraced. Populism is just populism at heart, if it's simply focused on transferring power to the masses in a way that is not otherwise focused on making society more traditional or more progressive.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Egann on 13 February 2015
badgenome said:
Egann said:

That said, putting Absolutism next to Darwinism is something I disagree with. They're opposites and don't share any ideals. I have no idea how to fix that.

Hmmm... I've always seen them as being about one step removed myself. The emperor ideally should be the strongest and most capable individual, and empires should ideally conquer as much as it reasonably can. Sounds like a totalitarian and collectivist form of Darwinism to me.

Yeah, but they have opposite mindsets behind them. In Darwinism the idea is that the best outperform the worst, that best and worst can change over time, and that the goal is to become better. In an empire it is assumed we already know who is best and who is worst, and the only goal is for the worst to serve the best.

They tend to arise in similar circumstances, but that's not the same as being related.



badgenome on 13 February 2015
Egann said:

Yeah, but they have opposite mindsets behind them. In Darwinism the idea is that the best outperform the worst, that best and worst can change over time, and that the goal is to become better. In an empire it is assumed we already know who is best and who is worst, and the only goal is for the worst to serve the best.

They tend to arise in similar circumstances, but that's not the same as being related.

I wouldn't call those opposites. They're variations on the idea that the best should and will rise to the top. The truly opposite mindset is found on the left side of the triangle, where inequality is treated as a cause of grave concern rather than being accepted as natural and unavoidable.

Since it's practically a given that an emperor will be contantly challenged, frequently in the form of civil war, the idea is that the emperor won't simply be assumed to be the best: he either will be, or he won't be emperor for long. Whereas Darwinism also comes with its fair share of assumptions about who is the best and worst, as evidenced by its preoccupation with eugenics. The chief difference between the two is that Darwinism is more individualistic.



WolfpackN64 on 14 February 2015
sc94597 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
sc94597 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
sc94597 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
I consider myself a contemporary marxist, my views have already transcended the triangle ^^

Marx's views fit fine on this triangle. They're mostly in the red area. The communist manifesto outlines his and Engels views well enough. They believed that a totalitarian state by the proleriat was necessary to remove hierarchies and then that state would wither away out of not being a necessity (as social culture would change.) 

That's my point, I adhere to a more modern interpretation of Marx theories, excluding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 'utopia' afterwards.

Then why call yourself a Marxist? You're just a social democrat/democratic socialist  then. That would be somewhere around where the Greens are. Marx did two things really. He analyzed how the world was and then made predictions about how the world might and should change. You can agree with his assessment of the world while still disagreeing about how it might/should change(which you seem to do.)

Because the Social Democrats and the Greens are still way to soft on the left side for what I would describe myself as. No serious contemporary Marxist talks about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' anymore, but that doesn't make us Social Dems

Then you're a little bit more left than the greens/social democrats on the triangle. I mean, what ideas do you have that aren't ecompassed by the spectrum? Also almost all of marx's theory of socialism relies on a dictatorial state to transition from capitalism to communism. I don't see how one can call themselves a marxist without believing this.  

That's not at all true, The dictatorship of the proletariat was a theaory of Marx, most of his theories of political and economical nature have nothing to do with it. The dictatorship of the proleatriat didn't plan out, but that doesn't mean we throw out the the child with the bathwater.



sc94597 on 17 February 2015
WolfpackN64 said:
sc94597 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
sc94597 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
sc94597 said:
WolfpackN64 said:
I consider myself a contemporary marxist, my views have already transcended the triangle ^^

Marx's views fit fine on this triangle. They're mostly in the red area. The communist manifesto outlines his and Engels views well enough. They believed that a totalitarian state by the proleriat was necessary to remove hierarchies and then that state would wither away out of not being a necessity (as social culture would change.) 

That's my point, I adhere to a more modern interpretation of Marx theories, excluding the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 'utopia' afterwards.

Then why call yourself a Marxist? You're just a social democrat/democratic socialist  then. That would be somewhere around where the Greens are. Marx did two things really. He analyzed how the world was and then made predictions about how the world might and should change. You can agree with his assessment of the world while still disagreeing about how it might/should change(which you seem to do.)

Because the Social Democrats and the Greens are still way to soft on the left side for what I would describe myself as. No serious contemporary Marxist talks about the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' anymore, but that doesn't make us Social Dems

Then you're a little bit more left than the greens/social democrats on the triangle. I mean, what ideas do you have that aren't ecompassed by the spectrum? Also almost all of marx's theory of socialism relies on a dictatorial state to transition from capitalism to communism. I don't see how one can call themselves a marxist without believing this.  

That's not at all true, The dictatorship of the proletariat was a theaory of Marx, most of his theories of political and economical nature have nothing to do with it. The dictatorship of the proleatriat didn't plan out, but that doesn't mean we throw out the the child with the bathwater.

The communist manifesto implies otherwise.. Almost everything Marx explained should be done to move on the path towards communism required an authoritarian state to mandate. Here is an interesting article by a marxist on it. 

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/marxs_vision.php

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. Exclusive monopoly

6. Centralization of communication and transportation. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state. 

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country

10.  State education

 I bolded the ones we have in our current governments. The italicized are seen as authoritarian in our current societies. Everything else Marx talked about, such as LTV and explotation theory existed before Marx and Engels (see: Proudhon and other socialists/mutualists.)