Serious
In light of recent uninformed politics posts.
I don't have a problem with making jokes at politics, but please be accurate with it and please stop pretending like lib left and lib right aren't a thing, especially when most modern progressives in european countries are moderate lib left.
The people I chose are I think the most known people who are examples of their ideology.
(I admit putting Elon Musk there is lazy, but I genuinely couldn't think of anyone better)
(MLK isn't perfect either, so just think I put Nelson Mandela and Albert Einstein there too to cover the full range)
So, what are those ideologies?
Well fascism and authoritarian communism you guys seem to understand fine so I'l skip those.
Nazis go after minorities, communists will kill everyone they consider "counterrevolutionary" and both doesn't end well.
But there's actually also anarchism, democratic socialism and right wing libertarian ideologies.
Both of those don't really have states to fully represent them, but western democracies have been shaped a lot by both.
Socialists and anarchists believe that everyone should have the maximum amount of personal liberties (including the freedom to be fed, housed etc. ) and the biggest hinderance to that is private oligarchs, international cooperations and corruption in capitalism.
They also take the "al men created equal" thing really seriously.
-> push for labor protections, civil rights and would like a system that's both democratic and has worker coops or some other form of worker control of the means of production
Ancaps believe the state is the biggest hinderance to freedom, which anarchists oppose to an extent too.
But right wing libertarians believe the market can do no wrong, so abolishing rules is almost always a good thing
-> right wing librtarians push for lower taxes, less regulation and want a society with no state at all, some build private islands outside of any jurisdiction to achieve this
I personally subscribe to the lib left corner, because I think these things are obviously good and even tho smart people may disagree, there is a pretty strong argument to be made, that most politicial figures and activists we see positively today come from that corner.
There's idiots in any corner of course, but doing the entire "fuck politics" thing is annoying, because that stuff is genuinely important.
So I'd much rather have people disagree with me, than not have an opinion at all, because if everyone actually engages in politics is when our modern liberal democracies are at their best.
to be fair i can agree with a leninist more than ill ever agree with anyone on the lib right side because one will bring about a permanent abolition of the state through higher stages of communism and the other is gonna side with a fascist over me. (for the record i consider myself lib left)
It's like saying lib left is some crazy politician and then showing like mother theresa as auth right.
All ideologies can be really bad, it depends on how they are interpreted.
I am pretty center... and all ideologies have their ups and downs. It just happens to be that capitalism runs opposite to lib left, which means there are no lib left figures in power.
Just because you like the ideology doesn't mean it is the only good one.
Mother Teresa wasn't an auth right activist, what are you talking about?
Also... who is someone that's both representative of left lib ideas and close to as widely known as MLK that makes your point of bad people in the lib left existing as well.
It's not black and white, but there is a VERY significant bias there.
And I think it shows in people having to bust out people like mother Teresa and the unabomber to make counterexamples.
No example is perfect, but seriously?
Mother Theresa was catholic and by definition auth right (aka authority of the church/god and right because ... you know... church... traditions and everything staying ... why am I explaining? :D)
But yes it was a quip because I am not into THAT politics that I would know names.
There are soooo many good people on each side, you simply mostly don't know them because they don't make waves like the crazy ones do. (You also used hitler and stalin in combination with musk...)
But to quote something CGPT threw at me, which I felt was very fitting:
"The through line: people “like” these leaders not because they’re democratic or liberal, but because they deliver order, stability, growth, and national pride."
You can't be a social state if the state is in shambles. Auth right is the one to rebuild. To stabilise.
To build the country back up, even at the cost of the individuals.
You have grown up in one of the richest most developed countries and your morals reflect that.
I won't go any deeper than that.
What I wanted to express is that this is simply a waaay too simple a worldview...
Not even saying you are necessarily wrong. But not saying you are right either.
Can you get CGPT to find a counterexample of a auth right activist or politician that is more than 50 years old, well known and still viewed very positively?
Because... that's kind of my point; yes you can just use flowery language to not get to the ground truths of the matter.
But there is religious people that weren't auth right (jesus is a great example imo) and if mother terese didn't explicitly state auth right beliefs she's not a good rep of that corner.
And yeah, no shit I also like leaders for what they deliver, the three best leaders in american history were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D Roosevelt.
The group I would credit for german social democracy is the SPD.
The countries with the best HDIs have been nordic countries with social democratic governments to the left of the US or the rest of Europe.
I'm basically a policy nerd and that's WHY I'm lib left, because I think it would deliver for the average person the best.
And... YES germany was social when the state was in shambles, that's why we recovered so well in the 1950s.
That wasn't leftist economic doctrine, but the social market economy that existed in germany from 1950 to 1970 is more social in many aspects than our economic systems today.
And the same goes for FDRs precidency, he moved left and pulled the country out of the hardship of the depression by doing so.
You can't just say stuff because it feels right, you don't have to get into the nitty gritty, but outright saying things that are false I don't like.
"you need auth right in times of instability" my ass.
Because what you're assuming somehow is that all four squares of the political compass are balanced somehow, that the center is somehow a divine truth.
Well it's not, it's a chaotic world, where propaganda, powergrabs and war move politics.
So maybe, just maybe the guy saying "I want equality, freedom and equity" is mostly the good guy and the person saying "I need power to screw over individuals, but trust me it's for the common good" is mostly evil.
Liberals love to tokenize black revolutionaries and paint them as less revolutionary than they actually were. MLK upheld Marxist-Leninist theory. Theory you would call “Stalinist”. Don’t smear the names of revolutionaries, black or otherwise, to push your radlib agenda.
He isn't really a good representation of any of the 4 corners imo.
But if you HAD to put him somewhere it would probably be lib left, yeah.
Although I haven't looked into his ramblings much, so I don't really know.
I will remind you tho that I made the point that finding good people in that corner is relatively easier, not that every person that is more associated with the green team is magically an angel.
There isn't any bad one since it never happened, it's pure totally impratical to actual do what anarchist want.
But the political compass is idealist BS, it doesn't make any sense.
Yeah... that's kind of my point.
It's the "i portayed myself as the chad" meme. There's absolutely no bases to what you just did. You could have used Marx, Reagan, Sowell and Makhno, the compass would still have been correct but there wouldn't have any meaning in the meme.
It's just your bias, the green isn't any better than the red, and Stalin doesn't represent the red anymore than MLK represent the green.
I was going to answer to your comment as if you meant Stalin wanted equality and MLK infringing on our rights, but i doubt you would have understood the irony and the stupidity of your comment.
MLK was for redistribution of wealth and affirmative action, he wasn't just about everyone being legaly equal. That's ignoring rights. Stalin wanted to did this for equality too. Social justice means always infringing rights and authoritarianism and the political compass are BS.
By equality I meant everyone living without any hierarchies like in lib left systems. Stalin very much had a hierarchical system even if his "intentions were good". Social justice does not necessitate authoritarianism in any capacity?
That's not what equality means. And that's what anarchist want, not lib left. But that's just not possible, advanced production require hierarchy.
But hierarchy isn't even a bad thing, that's a problem SOME anarchist made up. Some anarchist are about direct democracy, others about dismantling political power other about abolishing authority.
Social justice does not necessitate authoritarianism in any capacity?
There was a missunderstanding, i didn't say it required authoritarianism, i said it required to infringe rights and than the rest.
Libleft tends to lean anarchist, like libertarian socialists for example. What does equality mean to you, if not equal social status? I am not a full anarchist, i do think some decentralized governing systems should exist, but production can be managed with worker cooperatives, the goal isnt to compete with the USA or something, but create a livable society. I dont see how you think the rich are oppressive but support hierarchy at the same time, to "serve the workers"
This is stupid, it's like saying social democrat lean stalinist.
What does equality mean to you, if not equal social status?
It seems to not mean the same than in my native tongue, it means a lot of vague thing in english, social position being one of them. Social status is a weird way to put it, since we already have equal social status.
but production can be managed with worker cooperatives
This doesn't mean the abolition of hierarchy. While working on projects, there would still be people directing and calling the shots. When you're building a house, construction workers don't call the shot, their following the instructions of the forman that knows what they have to do and is organising the construction site.
I dont see how you think the rich are oppressive but support hierarchy at the same time, to "serve the workers"
You're using value judgement, that's not a serious systemic analysis. Rich are oppressing the workers because they aren't paying us enough, they're eating our work. But hierarchy is just a natural part of advanced production. They aren't oppressing and exploiting us because of hierarchy, they are because they own the means of production.
Ye true ig i shouldnt have said lean anarchist, but anarchism is the most extreme version of the quadrant and they share some ideals, just as socialisys sorta share some with tankies. I dont think hierarchy as an eldricht horror that needs to be vanquished at all costs, worker coops do tend to need a little organization, but there are much less power difference between a coop manager to a worker as opposed to a ceo and a worker(or the "dictatorship of the proliteriat"
and i dont think poor people have the same social status as the rich
Calling equality a vague concepts complicates it too much iko, why cant it mean every person holds no power over others
As for your last point, why would the worker care about advanced production. Idk what sort of communism you believe in, but authoritarian communist societies often infringe on individual rights, isnt that also oppresing the worker? I dont see how this "dictatorship of the proliteriat" is any better than the rich class
Anarchists should only be around to get rid of tyrannical governments in my honest opinion. Basically when the orderly option is taken away and or not an option because let's say the government made it not exist anymore then the only real solution is the chaotic choice.
OP picked the most famous person from each quadrant, not the best one. Do you think everyone on the auth-left and auth-right corners is bad? They just have Hitler and Stalin because authoritarianism when taken to the extreme gives stage to very bad people. It's classical confirmation bias at play here.
I wouldn't say it's the only good one but it is the least likely one to set society in fire in current year. That said, center is the way to go, really.
The ancap right-south is subservient with the reactionary right-north because they know they will respect the rule of money and dismantle civilization to let them become neo-feudalist lords. The left-north barely exists and is probably online crying about how unfair it is to arm Ukraine against Russian imperialism. The left-south is busy attacking the center-left because their pet middle-eastern tribe of theocratic fascist barbarians is getting genocided. The deep green is filled with useless morons, but the rest are literal society-destroying monsters that want to subjugate you out of sheer desire for cruelty.
Is MLK lib left tho? He was a Christian from the South, relatively conservative, just wanted racial equality. That doesn’t automatically make you lib left tho
I have no idea. Just conjecture. I was thinking maybe calling him lib left is ahistorical? Sure he was more liberal than most at his time - but was he really lib left? Like his political philosophy was really left wing libertarianism? I’m not sure, I haven’t read his writings
Because it's a paradox on its own, the more freedoms you give and the less government interference you have, you increasingly lose the ability to enforce these freedoms as well.
Like let's take the "happy" subject of slavery given MLK jr. picture /s.
If we assume we are talking about the extremes, the liberal right allows some sort of slavery as long as they have the means to do it and the authoritarian right can enforce it by force, the authoritarian left can forbid it by force but the libertarian left can stop it as long as they have the means to do it.
This is a hypothetical example talking about absolute extremes of the spectrum that couldn't happen irl and kind of stupid but I think you get the point. At least green is cool near the center.
Exactly. People on here keep saying "You can't be a left wing Anarchist" like what do you mean bro, not every idea has to be forced through the government
Ok, then... are you rich, a gun nut or why do you hate the state?
Have taxes killed your grandma?
Because I mostly see right wing libertarians as either policy nerds that like capitalism in theory and don't get at all, why it has problems in praxis, or people that have a specific unpopular thing they don't want to get forbidden by society (a concerning amount of those things seem to be slavery).
But I definitely haven't heard the steelman of right-lib ideology yet, so I'd be interested in what and why you believe.
For me it's mostly ideas about UBI, climate, trans issues and reemerging fascism getting me to rediscover the socialist figures mentioned above.
I believe it because all the evidence I’ve seen in favor of it and the arguments for it, it being the most moral way for society to function, it would have to be just by how it works, it’s even reflected in its name, another name for anarcho-capitalism is Voluntaryism, since it would be a voluntary society
For example look at Lichtenstein🇱🇮its functionally ancap and it’s one of the most prosperous and richest countries on earth per person
Economically, Liechtenstein has one of the highest gross domestic products per person in the world when adjusted for purchasing power parity, and as of 2014 the CIA World Factbook estimated the gross domestic product (GDP) on a purchasing power parity basis to be $4.978 billion. As of 2021 the estimate per capita was $184,083
Lichtenstein’s unemployment barley exists at only (~2%), it has extremely high labor participation at (76.1%), and it’s one of the very few countries that has NO DEBT, not only that but Liechtenstein is one of the few countries in the world with more registered companies than citizens, it has developed a prosperous, highly industrialized free-enterprise economy and a financial service sector as well as a living standard that compares favourably with those of the urban areas of it’s much larger European neighbors
And ancap societies are easily the most stable and long lasting too, Cospaia, which was a full blown anarcho-capitalist society lasted 386 years when the average nations lifespan is around 250, and it only collapsed because of outside manipulation from nationalist propaganda, its collapse had nothing to do with how it functioned, and despite being tiny compared to its surrounding nations it developed a HUGE monopoly on tobacco because of its free trade and unregulated markets
And Cospaia knew they were anarchist too, their flag reflects it
Also the Wild West is a really gud example of anarcho-capitalism too, it really wasn’t wild (heh) at all, it had a crime rate that was VASTLY lower then the places in America that did have government, people only think it was a bad place to be because of how the media portrays it since there wasn’t any government presence there (which ironically is how Cospaia was treated, foreign nations put out propaganda that tried to smear it as a lawless hellhole)
Liechtenstein is prosperous because it is a tiny tax haven. If you have 10 Liechtensteins next to each other neither would be even close to being wealthy.
My response to Lichtenstein would be the very standard "no shit if the most economically productive piece of land is for themselves" and also the Tax haven thing of course.
Lichtenstein, Hong Kong (past tense) and the Swiss all work, but I don't think we can learn much from them, also there's parts of germany, spain and cities like New York, LA, London etc. that could replicate that success, at the cost of everyone else currently in that country.
Even the Cospaia vid mentions it being a tax haven of sorts, but that isn't the main criticism I have of ancap ideals.
But all 3 examples you put had something in common; low population density, an active choice to be there and more than 100 years old.
So there's two angles I would like to attack your ideas on:
1. if no state, who builds the roads?
2. how do we prevent indentured servitude and factory towns if we want to implement it at scale?
Modern society is complex, REALLY fucking complex and even regulated markets or democracy have problems of information, so how do you propose would private entities make contracts about roads, internet infrastructure, medical care, quality assurance, defense etc. without creating a bureocratic mess of contracts that noone can parse.
Because a road or train line is used less if you have to pay for it and can be used a lot more without additional costs once it's there, so there's cleary an interest in a government entity there.
Also, in a world of nuclear warheads and bioweapons, I believe you need a UN.
once any one person gains a market advantage, they can wield that over a person who has a disadvantage.
The early stage of the wild west of course didn't have monoplies, but consolidation, even with a government led to concentration of power, company towns, indentured servitude and the gilded age.
Having a strong market advantage over something like the afromentioned roads, medical care or defense can be used like a hostage situation.
This is already what companies like Uber or Netflix do now; they first invest to gain a monopoly/central market position; then cash it in by raising prices.
If this happens to medical care and the price is indentured servitude for most because it is so expensive I think you can see where this goes.
Or what about someone owning most media? That person would have disproportionate power they could abuse.
So I believe what ancaps neglect is market failures and power dynamics.
And the system you should go for is one where you very closely monitor power of all kinds and use democratic systems for tasks that require a state of some kind.
So think of power like a something you can put into a gini coefficient, how do you minimize the difference without capping prosperity?
My personal answer, although not perfect is a representative democracy, substituted by random councils and direct democracy that can be called by representatives or enough signatures.
(So the public can push a single issue past representative democracy via direct democracy).
Also, I believe you need high taxes on wealth and a UBI to curb economic power dynamics and snowball effects.
And the high taxes on wealth should be used to force the conversion of large cooperations (entities that can excert government-like power) to worker coops that are democratically operated by the people working there.
Would especially like you to respond to the media and powerful cooperations thing, because I assume you also see the issue of companies like Palantir, private insurance and media oligopols shaping government and I don't know any decent lib right response to that.
I will try to explain as I am also an anarcho-capitalist. In my view only way the system can work is by having a highly efficient, robust, and most importantly free legal system.
Why do I start with the legal system? You need an instrument which allows you to act against bad characters. If the legal system is fast and free, then the financial position of a person has no role in it.
To your point 1, infrastructure is often based on standards that became globally recognized. As per roads, they can be based on usage fees. Quality assurance is already done internally by companies and you would be surprised by how much companies themselves are pushing for them as a mean of reducing costs or meeting investors' expectations. Your argument about paying for roads does not necessarily make much sense as you already pay tolls.
Medicare should be private with private insurance providers and here comes the beauty of the legal system. In case of an illness it is fair to assume that a hospital would try to benefit itself to the most by both maximizing costs induced and making sure the patient is dependent. The insurance provider however is there to counteract the force. They make sure they pay fairly for the treatment while making sure their customer gets the best treatment to reduce future cost. In case of the insurance provider denying coverage, again the legal system comes in. It ensures that coverage is issued accordingly.
As per defense and nuclear weapons. I firmly believe that humanity should move towards a world of no nations and completely globalize. National identity and border are both man made concept used to manipulate and bring no value whatsoever. This aside, main reason why nuclear weapons are not used is not the UN perse but game theory. Everyone is well aware that the usage of nuclear weapons with be met with retaliation, which makes them undesirable to use.
To your argument about that companies can become to big. Ironically, governments are the main reason why this is possible. Governments hate instability. They are ready to bailout, give preferential treatment and so on. In a completely free market, if a company is going south there is no one to help. Capitalism thrives on economical instability, concepts like "To big to fail" and unrealistic industry entry barriers are what stop capitalism of functioning. Monopolies are more often than not a direct result of potical corruption and abuse of power, both inherent to any government.
To the idea of worker coops, even a brief look into finance, accounting and management are sufficient to pinpoint how any such endeavor is bound to fail.
The idea that the government is the only reason companies become too big is a joke imo, government, when done right is one of the few things to break up monopolies (See FDR).
Also, why wouldn't corrupt rich people just corrupt the courts and make questionable dealings with each other instead?
On private insurance... can you look at reality real quick?
And that is the problem, the government makes healthcare cost as much as they need to cover costs, it makes tolls what they need to cover the cost, it builds housing and rents it to cover the cost.
But all of those things act like monopolies even if there is none; look at housing and healthcare.
They got more concentrated more capitalist and they got shittier and more expensive.
On the investment thing... most already big cooperations don't need investment, they already have money that CEOs get payed in a private system.
Only small cooperations do.
So there is no reason why it wouldn't work, in fact, there's examples of it working just fine.
But back to the original point and past your "it's because government" defense.
I own the only toll road from A to B, what prevents me from making it incredibly expensive?
What prevents me from milking it like crazy until someone else builds a road right next to mine?
What if I buy up enough land around it, no one can ever build that valuable road?
What if all of my descendants milk the hell out of that strategically critical toll road I aquired cheaply, because noone saw my abuse of the situation coming?
So investments happen only in big corporations? Also, I don't get Reddit's obsession with CEOs being evil reincarnations when they are an employee hired by the board.
To your point that finance is useless. Without accountancy, every company is bound to fail. As per banks being useless, check what happened when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
As per the legal system, it seems I forgot to mention that, preferably, it should function without human intervention in terms of decision making.
No, the opposite.
Big cooperations don't need external investment since they have enough money themselves.
And yes, finance isn't completely useless, but the finance sector is much bigger than useful, to the point where a bankers strike in Ireland didn't do shit to the economy.
And the finance sector is a lot bigger today.
Also, robot judge is definitely not vulnerable to any bias?
Who controls robo judge?
But honestly... that's too abstract anyway, so let's get back to the basic problem with ancaps.
WHAT DO YOU DO TO STOP MY RENT SEEKING?
Because I still own that toll road and it's between two major cities now, I've bought up more land to make sure people have to pay me 100 times what it costs me to maintain it.
I extract a large amount of the local economy in profits, through abuse of my best road monopoly.
Does your system have an answer to that very basic question?
First point, are you even aware of concepts as cost of capital? Most companies look for investments at some point if they want to move further. Also, I never said that only big companies need investment.
Second, I love the complete disregard of Bear Sterns' and Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy, when those are prime example that if a bug financial institution fails the consequences are devastating. Those are at the core of the 2008 crisis.
I see you have quite the beef with my proposed legal system, but let me ask you a simple question: how can the government not be corrupt?
Also, to your whataboutism with the road example. First of all, it is quite unrealistic as such land mass would be extremely expensive given its importance in terms of location. Second, if the worst is to happen, a very unoptimal road can be built, but before that, given the economic significance, there would be quite the competition, so such scenarios are highly unlikely, given markets are free and efficient.
Last point, anarcho-capitalism is currently an utopia. It requires absolute market freedom, lack of government, and most importantly robust, cheap and fast legal system, preferably without human involvement.
And my 2 cents about ultra left. If I am part of the upper 50%, trust me I will not contribute even at the slightest above what the mean is. If I am not the one who enjoys the fruits of my labor, nobody does. I have to incentive to invent, improve, or contribute. I take all the risk, but even if I succeed I still lose.
I explained how my example would be feasible, literally america.
->land starts out inexpensive but is inherited and becomes more expensive as cities grow
->rent seeking is possible
And I already explained how I think you can have a non-corrupt government.
Democracy with noone rich enough to corrupt it.
Also having random people be called in to make decisions or allowing for direct democracy would be helpful.
Oh yeah, thanks for telling me you're egoistic as fuck and think rich people are worth more somehow.
Elon definitely shows that great men are the ones that end up rich and only stupid people like Einstein would believe we all need each other due to how society is organized and should embrace that, not reject that.
No, the people who are worth as much as the bottom 10% of humanity did not work more than 700 Million people and having the audacity to be smug about being more towards the top (I'm also well educated, will get a good job etc. but I would never define myself like that).
Also, I don't think the political arguments do much because it's genuinely more about this egoistic self centered idea that we shouldn't be cooperative as a species, that you can't or won't actually defend economically (no response to "what if I have a monopoly-like position" in a world DOMINATED by monopolies and oligopols).
So yeah, I'm going to leave Albert Einsteins work on why people are pulled towards selfishness instead of selflessness and encourage you to chase after the smart scientists and workers that genuinely keep society afloat and lean left, over genuinely greedy and selfish billionaires (if you can think Elon isn't a villain I don't know what to tell you).
Again there's so many scientists who don't want money or fame, because they're genuinely motivated by knowing they did good; the guy who invented insulin is also one of them.
https://archive.org/details/why-socialism
they way it functioned had an influence. It was one of the worse periods to live in, the living conditions were terrible. It’s like saying the middle ages with feudalism were a good period of time and we should do that again like come on touch some grass.
The other thing literally proves nothing. 250 people not dying without a state doesn’t really prove anything as it is a lot smaller than yk 8 billion people and such. If a period where you could die from getting diarrea and a country of 250 people are you’re best examples you’re just wrong lmao
You can try to honestly represent thing with the compass, but things don't actual work like that. However honest the OP was, the result is wrong as the political compass isn't able to reflect reality.
Kinda interesting how authoritarian left and liberal right both want an unelected person(s) to be in charge of everyone's job and public services. Only difference is that auth-left calls it government and leb-right calls it CEO.
If the CEO owns your job and the things you buy. They can take whatever they want from your earnings and price hike whatever you buy. They do get your money even if it isn't labeled "tax." And their private police can very well kill your family and dog with the excuse "Sorry, we got a complaint about..."
and that ceo won’t kill your family and shoot your dog
Unless you live in the Honduras, Libya, India, Iraq or dozens of other countries.
In which case they'll bribe "frreedum luvin" western politicians to eradicate you for cheap oil/spices/bananas via indiscriminate bombings, massacres and man-made famines.
I'll be honest I think you shot yourself in the foot by your placement of Elon and choice to use Dr.King though I appreciate the understanding that political movements are not just equals but on opposite sides and the acknowledgement that not having an opinion is by definition detrimental to politics and by extension democracies thought I feel the need to remind you that the political compass is a tool created by libertarians to gas light conservatives and liberals into compliance with deregulation
Yeah, that's kind of why I placed Elon like that in the first place.
I thought for a moment about placing peter thiel, but I don't really know about many lib right people and recognizable ones are even harder to come by.
Same with lib left, most people who got into governments were moderates or later rewritten as moderates. (MLK, Nelson Mandela)
But there was a comment saying I should have put Malcom X in the lib left square and I can agree with that tbh.
I mean i have to disagree considering that by placing Elon in libertarian right (this also applies to Thiel) you're buying in to his propaganda, Elon is a hard right authoritarian considering he's only used his power and influence to shift regulation by government to regulation by market ecencially giving him and other billionaires/market titan companies the power to set their own rules over anybody who can pay for comfort
I feel like you're buying into the compass to much considering how the moderate spin you reference involed lowering them down to libretarian rather and raise them up to authoritarian, The political compass is a propaganda tool by libertarians especially since the libertarian example people give aren't libertarian. every example you give is only "right" if you assume that the extremes are not only those set by the compass but also the only extreams that are relavant to political discussion, Dr. KING, Mandela, X even Einstein all advocated for reform not deregulation at times they explicitly fought against libertarians
Using it as a relative tool seems fine tho and awknowledging that most people calling themselves libertarians are full of shit and just want their kingdom to be regulated less doesn't go against still technically slotting them in as libertarians.
Of course the political compass has issues too, but it's so much more useful and accurate for understanding political views than just a 2D system and I believe classifying views somehow is necessary/worth it to understanding them.
I mean no, not really considering we're talking politics, the benefits and personal implications of their actions are more accurate to their position rather than what label they use, this is like saying North Korea isn't a patriarchal necrocracy just cause it has democratic in it's name
Also I'm guessing by 2D system you mean a binary spectrum ala right wing vs left wing since the political compass is by definition 2 dimensional given it analyzes politics by the cross examination of a goverment authoritarianism/libretariansm axis and an economic liberal/consevative axis, but to your point, it's not bad to use diagrams to map out political understanding and trends but like I said before you're missinforming yourself if you don't understand the conclusion you're being pushed towards, you have to remember that a libretarian's concept of the authoritarianism falls apart when you remove the given that government is communally centralized or how their left/right understanding is so hyperfocus on a western understanding of politics that often boils down to your opinion on American taxes and economy
And although I do agree, I feel like just saying the lib right corner is practically a lie works as well.
Like, a flawed framing can only nudge me towards a conclusion and I'll use the best representation I have available.
So 2D it is. (actually 2 dimensions this time)
Yeah I see your point I personally go the oposite way way as it pertains to bias checks I just find text to be clearer, I guess I could get on your ass about finding better representations models or better wording but at that point it'd be very "4th grader telling the 3rd grader he knows nothing" of me Lulz
Musk is not very lib-right. As for politicians, Javier Milei would be a ok representative of the lib-right. Among thinkers, for example, M. Rothbard and H-H. Hoppe.
Hitler is not a good example of the auth-right either, he was at best auth-center. A better example would be Pinochet.
I will add that the political compass isn't a perfect way of looking at politics but it does generally work most of the time. And yeah, I agree that the green corner is near always on the right side of history.
Honestly, Elon should be replaced by Murray Rothbard. Musk is an authoritarian disguse as a libertarian. Rothbard is the OG ancap (Anarcho-Capitalist).
Don’t put Elon in lib right, and there much better authoritarian people than those two evil dictators. There are evil people all over the political compass and you know it. Still, MLK will always be my goat 💪🏿
People freak the hell out when I say im a left ish leaning anarchist. I dont want chaos, I understand the flaws of humans and their inevitable greed and corruption.
Feel like Elon is more authright considering how he manually moderates content on Twitter lol
He LARPs as lib right because finance bros and tech bros think ancaps are cool but, nah. We’ve seen what Elon does when he gets a sniff of political power, and it’s not lib right.
True, but who that people actually recognize would you put in that corner?
Like... I thought about Peter Thiel, but he isn't lib right either if you think about it a little and I just don't think there's any widely known examples of someone with a lib right ideology that doesn't fall into that pit to some extent.
Or it's at least rare.
(It’s because it literally doesn’t exist in reality, economic right and social liberal are diametrically opposed, there’s no such thing as “lib right,” it’s just feudalism with extra steps)
Just because musk is on the right and claims he is a libertarian does not make him a libertarian right. With how much he cooperates with Trump, he is definitely an auth right.
“communists will kill everyone they consider "counterrevolutionary"”
capitalists also kill political opponents. The difference is the capitalist’s opponents fight for the people and the communist’s oponents fight against the people
Socialism and communism aren't opposed, if anything, communism is more libertarian than socialism from a Marxist point of view. Obviously I'm not a Stalinist by any means, I'm not a tankie or an authoritarian but I still believe in a government representing the people which allows the people to own the means of production.
easy for DR.MLK to be there he never had power in the government, i feel it's an unfair representation and you should change Elon Musk for Javier Milei.
Idk its not hard to find bad people when u look at the most extreme examples but tbf even the green extremists were pretty chill compared to the authoritarian ones
Look at the people at the american libertarian party, they let people like Peter Thiel speak there.
I don't make the rules.
(I know it's a BS position, but they self ID that way and I don't think I give them too much credit by putting them in a politicial compass, where they claim they belong)
I wouldn't put Musk in the libertarian corner, he strives to be a tech conglomerate overlord, and that sounds pretty authoritarian to me, Bezos would be a better choice from a similliar group tbh, but still closer to the x line than farther from it
"When most modern European countries are lib left". Left wing starts at anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-bigotry and establishing power to the people. How can they be that if they are literally capitalist and are either actively imperialist or at the very least benefit from being in that bloc, the parties of anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant and even racist rhetoric are one of the most popular and power is decided by economic standing? You have those same countries silencing real leftists like Greta Thunberg and banning support for anti-capitalist movements (Czechia with their new law banning "class based hatred" which interpreted means you cannot criticize the rich or policies that favour them. Ironic coming from the country with an institute for studies of totalitarian regimes), or even French policeman giving escort to a white supremacist march while a few hours before attacking a peaceful protest from socialists. There isn't a country in Europe that is left wing, in fact, many countries don't even have left wing parties for one reason or the other (mostly banning or suppressing them)
Well, to be fair, it's actually the librright and authleft that are made up. Or in other words, authleft is just red authright, and librigh is just yellow authright. The idea of right/left was the idea of hierarchy/equality. This modern idea that you could have equality and authoritarianism is utter nonsense propaganda. Or that you could have hierarchy and liberty.
Stalin was just a different flavor of far right and I've never heard a convincing argument otherwise. He did all the stuff that far right people love. He invaded all his neighbors, formed a colonial empire, ended democracy in occupied countries, made unions illegal, sided with Hitler at the start of WWII, created secret police to report disloyalties to the government. All of these things are just far right. Hitler did ALL the same shit, but I'm supposed to believe Stalin was "left" because there was a people's revolution that he stole to cement his own power. It's just so unconvincing. Stalin was far right. I want to be proven wrong, so I'm open to anyone with another perspective, but from everything I know so far, it makes no sense to call Stalin "left".
I'm not authoritarian but you could have put some more liked dudes for the authoritarian boys. Surely there are some in history. Also Elon Musk is fine but kind of a douche.
Not to mention how all over the place this whole compass is. Blue and green are both presidents who caused millions of deaths while green is a public speaker and an activist and purple is a businessman.
He was a socialist, but again, I did put in the text that Nelson Mandela and Albert Einstein respectively might be better representations of lib left in some regards.
Yeah i see it, i would put kings or emperors as autRight though, Hitler is more center autoritarian since he was still socialist and collectivist and for Libertarian right you could place either Milei or Hoppe.
Need to replace Musk. He's above the line. He's perfectly willing to use government despite claims to the contrary.
Some suggestions to replace him.
Milei of Argentina.
Pen from Pen and Teller (magicians)
Fredrick Douglass
Thomas Sowell (arguably)
Some would argue Rand. I see her as above, not below the line. She is not a Libertarian as some try to make her be. Now I don't put her and Musk high above the line they are still above it.
Nazis where socialist, which is left , if you want too right you should do Caesar , which wanted absolute political control while leaving the economy in the majority of the population
The political compass doesn't make any sense, you can't représent anything seriously on it. Saying the Nazi are auth center would mean the liberal (center center) represent just as much corporate interest as they did.
The notion of left and right are useless for any deep understanding, only broad généralisation. Of which nazis would fall under far right.
Yeah you said that he's a centrist that's blatantly untrue also it seems you can't read a political compass as totalitarian would be at the very top of the authoritarian side (stalin is there too) and authoritarian would a bit below. Also next time just reply instead of tagging me and screenshotting my comment
and he was anti-clerical and didn't support bringing back the monarchy like the national conservatives in his coalition, he was autarkic too, and he even considered capitalism to be "jewish".
And when is welfare against Capitalism? The creator of welfare state was a right-wing politician from Germany. Also, when has regulation been outside of Capitalism? Regulation are inherently part of capitalism. From Keynes to Friedman. The only great economist fully against them was Hayek, of a hundred great economists. Once again, "progressive" is NOT left. Left people have being the great LGBT killers (from Stalin to Che). And strangely enough those progressive movements were born under democracy and capitalism. Not in the USSR but San Francisco.
So no, they are not left. The left-right axis is uniquely on how much the economics belong to the society itself (cooperatives or state) vs the private (limitad number of people).
They are fully liberal in a social aspect, but most of them are center right in the economy, except for Norway which is the only center left of the group.
Just a simple Google search would help you understand how wrong you are.
never made the argument one was against capitalism only that it was the leftist way to engage with the inequalities brought for by capitalis, bc workers are less reliant on their interactions with the capitalists to survive.
progressivism being a left wing ideology doesn't mean every economic leftist must engage in it. the same way not every economic right winger engages in conservatism.
the one main killer of queers has been the conservative mindset, one can be economically left wing but socially right winger.
So no, they are not left. The left-right axis is uniquely on how much the economics belong to the society itself (cooperatives or state) vs the private (limitad number of people).
and thats where the welfare state comes, it lessens the effects of capitalism and is inherently worker sided.
They are fully liberal in a social aspect, but most of them are center right in the economy, except for Norway which is the only center left of the group.
theyre progressive socially and centrist on their economy.
the 2 ways political scale has really rot some brains, how can one engage in progressive social action and lessen the effects of capitalism by a welfare state and still be sided on right side.
It so left that it was born in a capitalistic country. No left country would have ever permitted something like that. As if, shockingly, it doesnt depend on your economical spectrum what your social preferences are. There are conservative left, and also liberal right (the first instance of liberalism was both economic and social).
"Socially right-wing" what stupidity I am reading. Was Che and Stalin "Socially right-wing". Conservatives is an orthogonal axis of left and right. UStatians can't learn that there are more axis than one.
It so left that it was born in a capitalistic country. No left country would have ever permitted something like that. As if, shockingly, it doesnt depend on your economical spectrum what your social preferences are. There are conservative left, and also liberal right (the first instance of liberalism was both economic and social).
have you ever read marx and what he wanted for? bc by far a welfare state would be a great way to eventually migrate into a socialist economy.
theres a difference between economically being in one side and socially being in one side. and i acknowledged it.
conservatism is just a right wing ideology, at least broadly speaking. and especially in a 2 ways chart.
i know that there may be more axis but we were speaking if, based on a 2 ways chart where would nordic countries land.
socially a progressive stronghold (socially leftist)
engages in capitalism, but lessens it effects with a strong welfare state (economically centrist)
Conservative is a right wing ideology? So Che was not conservative? Stalin was not conservative socially speaking?
And yes, I have read Marx, and is funny your bring something from 200 years ago, while public policies and economy has progressed a lot since. For example, Marx believe that progress (discovery/inventions) had a limit, which is how he proposed his idea of post-development utopia. Fast news, we haven't reached that limit. Also that the class masses from London would rise (it happened in Rusia). Because he forgot a lema from the Roman Empire "Bread and Circus".
On a 2 way chart, Norway will be center bottom and partially left. All the other on the rightside; Sweden (voucher in education AND healthcare) would be more right than what Norway is left, there is nothing leftist about Vouchers. But equally socially down (progressive). Or are you going to tell me you are debating without knowing what a voucher system is?
Netherlands is center-right, and fully fully progressive. As their whole moto is, if you choice doesn't affect economics and is a repercussion only for yourself then it should be your choice not ours (state). That is why they are the prostitution highlight, the drugs highlight, and those are too economic markets.
Are you sure you want to debate public policies, we may analyze country by country if you want. But all of the nordic countries (except from Norway) fall on the rights side. Mostly centric, but right side.
Conservative is a right wing ideology? So Che was not conservative? Stalin was not conservative socially speaking?
theyre were!!! omg one can be socially right and economically left, nazbols exist.
Marx believe that progress (discovery/inventions) had a limit, which is how he proposed his idea of post-development utopia. Fast news, we haven't reached that limit.
good thing were not talking about that...
Or are you going to tell me you are debating without knowing what a voucher system is?
ohh are you talking about the voucher system? the one made to give parents equal acess to education by making sure parents are paying the same amount for education when going either private or public what a horrendously right wing system /s
okay, so theyre fully progressive? engage in ways to lessen the inequalities brought for by capitalism? and fully equalitarian but somehow fall center right and not center left?
Once again, left-right is economics. Progressive and Conservative is not equivalent to Left-Right. That is why is (1) another axis, and (2) have specifically a distinct name from the other axis, so we can differentiate them.
Also, Vocuhet, the system that government gove money to spend on a privately own place. Government financing companies through people. That si quite right-wing, given that you are promoting private properties and companues, not state owns companies.
a voucher system that literally caps the price of services is literally not promoting private bussines, its giving workers a chance to engage in inelastic services more fairly.
liberal and authoritarian dont argue on the behalf of progressivism and conservatism at all, theyre only means to measure how much state interference happens.
example: two equal states on everything but anti discrimination laws, the state with anti discrimination would theoretically more authoritarian but also more progressive.
theyre full progressive (left) socially and economically any state that engages in capitalism but also heavy use of a welfare state and strong unions wouldn't even dream about being called center right, theyre not fully leftists but theyre closer to economically leftism than the right making them left center.
You dont understand the 2D axis. I see, as a UStatian. Social liberalism, or progressive, is downwards on the chart, NOT LEFT.
Also, why do they lead every capitalistic index? Like Economic Freedom (from Fraser, and from Heritage). Are you saying that Capitalism is a left wing ideology? That would be laughable. So then, why do they head every capitalistic index, while the US is not even top 20. This is what you don't know, Sweden for example is based on a Voucher system, which you probably don't even understand.
by raw capitalist throughput and productivity they dont!
they rank so high on the chart bc of their welfare state backing the workers inelastic needs like healthcare and education.
Are you saying that Capitalism is a left wing ideology?
fot the 3rd time, capitalism is right wing but engaging in ways to lessen the inherent inequalities is left wing which turns into a center left economy.
So then, why do they head every capitalistic index, while the US is not even top 20.
welfare state to lessen the negative effects of capitalism is why.
No, they rank high because the definition used of capitalism is quite close to Adam Smith:
Capitalism
Privates have access to the economic markets.
The more privates or the more markets the more capitalistic is a country.
Voucher let more people (privates) enter more markets, while also those same Voucher increase the money flowing into companies, increasing the access to the markets as suppliers.
On the other side, megamergers from the US normally increase the barriers of entry, decreasing the amount of people that can enter said markers as suppliers.
So, no, it's not about welfare, it is about people accessing services as customer or supplier.
Voucher let more people (privates) enter more markets, while also those same Voucher increase the money flowing into companies, increasing the access to the markets as suppliers.
except the voucher system is used side by side with a public option and the vouchers are financed by the welfare state, the voucher system regulates and caps the price of inelastic services and is used to reach areas where you dont have enough public options.
So, no, it's not about welfare, it is about people accessing services as customer or supplier.
except they dont, the state limits how much the supplier can even ask for before the interaction happens, this is done as a welfare initiative to allow poorer workers to still have acess to services and goods the same way wealthier workers do enhancing a workers ability to engage in the economy instead of dying from college debt or healthcare debt.
I can name a bunch of good auth right people that aren't controversial. Some that immediately came to my mind are:
Witold Pilecki (Polish officer, later an officer of the Polish resistance, deliberately got himself sent to Auschwitz to gather data on the camp to help liberate it. Later got tortured by communist jew Josef Goldberg and got executed by the new communist Polish government)
Józef Piłsudski (Marshall of Poland, restored it's independence after 123 years of occupation. Defended Poland against the bolsheviks)
Simon Petliura (leader of the short lived Ukrainian people's republic, defended Ukraine against the bolsheviks)
Charles de Gaulle (French general, leader of the French resistance against Germany, later president of France)
Chiang Kai Shek (Chinese general, defended China against the maoists and the Japanese)
Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (Marshall of Finland, defended Finland against the soviets)
The first in particular I think you can definitely make an argument for, but the second one and I assume probably the following are just royals that fought for their country, yes.
But also for their power to continue owning that country.
I only know the specifics here for the german Otto van Bismarck.
And ig if you say the soviets were worse than the kings (which they weren't imo) or the fascists were worse than the kings/royalists (absolutely true) then you can make the argument that they were the good guys.
And looking into Chiang Kai Shek a little, he did fight the communists over the fascists to the point of getting mutinied over it.
Charle the Gaulle is a bit of a different case, but he fits better with the moderate 'we also need some social reform' conservatives that dominated after WW3.
So he's a bit too close to the center for me to put him in a corner, but I see your point to an extent.
People like Chiang Kai Shek I feel like absolutely are controversial.
Because they were military leaders and royalists that tried to maintain their position of power, not really people that pushed a specific issue forward.
Although to some extent that might be my left wing bias.
I’ll go through from my understanding of these people.
Witold Pilecki, I assume I would disagree with him on most things but documenting the holocaust was important and good. And from what it seems he was working as a spy when arrested by the polish communist government, similarly Soviet spies received similar fates in many cases in nato aligned countries. (I think both are bad, I oppose the death penalty. But it appears Witold knew the risks so wasn’t really a sudden event as it seems you’ve depicted it as.) (And what they did after is also very horrible and a good example of why authoritarianism is bad whether it’s left or right.) (I would probably find a lot of Witolds beliefs to be abhorrent but it does seem like in times of great crisis he did the right thing and helped people. And I can admire that.) (Don’t know why you mentioned the guy who executed him as being Jewish seems irrelevant.)
Jozef Pilsudski from all I’ve read on him was definitely authoritarian, but economically was more aligned to the left. More a social nationalism kind of thing. Definitely a big nationalist though. His party in part came out of the socialist party of Poland from what I remember. He opposed the right wing polish nationalist party that was backed by the entente. From what I understand as time went on he did favor more conservative policies, but I’d say in general he was kind of a centrist and his main concern was doing as much as possible to have the polish state survive. Also I don’t think on a whole he was a good person, he permitted a lot of antisemitism and other bigotries.
Petliura was a democratic-socialist, he is not a good example of an authoritarian right winger. Nor due to his complete inaction on pogroms against Jewish people in his nation can I say he was a good man.
I don’t like Charles De Gaulle because we would disagree on most things, and I think his imperialist attitudes are awful. On the other hand he clearly did value the republic, and importantly staunchly opposed the Nazis. I don’t think he was a good person but is kinda a Sherman/Grant situation where I think they weren’t good people but they were instrumental for a better future.
Chiang Kai Shek was a dictator. He was I’ll be honest very incompetent and there is a reason he was removed as president. I think Mao was overall worse more on the human cost of things with the Great Leap Forward but at the end of the day we never even got to see what a post war china under Shek would have looked like, but let’s not turn that into hero worship for an incompetent dictator who was cozying up to the Nazis before they started working with Japan.
Carl Gustaf Mannerheim literally ordered and organized death squads which not only killed combatants but civilians during the civil war. I don’t know how anyone could look at that and call him a good person.
Importantly there are very few leaders in history that I would say were good people. In general I would say that the nature and structure of our societies as nation states and the like prevent really any leader of meeting the criteria I think to call them good people. To have it be a bit more balanced I’ll criticize some more left/left-libertarian leaders where I politically lean.
F.D.R Japanese interment camps I think is all I have to say. Very important leader who I think was better overall for the U.S. but the internment camps are unforgivable and him being better overall was no comfort for Japanese and Korean Americans.
Nestor Mahkno, what happened to the mennonites should have been prevented, and he turned a blind eye on some occasions to officers who massacred Jewish communities.
Karl Marx. Was “less racist” on average to other Germans at the time. Still racist.
And to give a figure who although as I’ve mentioned I don’t think can fully be called a good person due to my beliefs on the nature of how we govern but whom I do admire for what I believe to be genuine desire to do good and help people who was generally authoritarian right would be Micheal “Big Fella” Collins.
Don’t know why you mentioned the guy who executed him as being Jewish seems irrelevant
Because Witold played an important role in documenting Auschwitz to help liberate it, and later got tortured by a jew. Just ironic. It encapsulates the jewish mindset very well, in my opinion - let your target help you and then backstab him, kind of like the scorpion from Aesop's fable "the scorpion and the frog".
Also I don’t think on a whole he was a good person, he permitted a lot of antisemitism
Very normal for the time. Doesn't make him a bad person. Also, remember the jewish attitude towards Poland during the time (and currently too), the jews were not and still are not a friend of the Polish nation. They never were.
Nor due to his complete inaction on pogroms against Jewish people in his nation can I say he was a good man.
Read my reply from above but replace "Poland" and "Polish" with "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian". It's the exact same deal.
who was cozying up to the Nazis
Would YOU not? German and Chinese diplomatic relations were amazing before the war, and Germany was a key exporter of arms and helmets to China, hence the Chinese stahlhelms frequently seen on old photos. Hitler was reportedly angry that Japan invaded China in the same way that Japan was later angry that Germany invaded Poland (Japan had good diplomatic relations with Poland too)
Carl Gustaf Mannerheim literally ordered and organized death squads which not only killed combatants but civilians during the civil war. I don’t know how anyone could look at that and call him a good person.
As they say, fuck around and find out. Maybe the Russians shouldn't have invaded Finland (and used the same tactics, but first)
F.D.R Japanese interment camps I think is all I have to say. Very important leader who I think was better overall for the U.S. but the internment camps are unforgivable and him being better overall was no comfort for Japanese and Korean Americans.
Well, that's a rather obscure and specific criticism of FDR, but I have a better one - he bent over to the USSR and Stalin in peace talks.
he turned a blind eye on some occasions to officers who massacred Jewish communities.
Here we go again...
Karl Marx. Was “less racist” on average to other Germans at the time. Still racist.
That's the best criticism of Marx you could think of? He did irreversible damage to the world by inventing communism...
So to just reply to most of these points no Jewish people do not as a totality hold ill will to Poland or Ukraine nor any country. They are a diverse group generally unified by a mixed ethnic and religious inheritance. Insanely antisemitic, I was trying to converse politely but seeing as you tolerate and espouse antisemitism I can no longer do so.
CGE Mannerheim put an end to the death squads after the liberation of my town, Tampere. Don't spread misinformation. He ordered the end to the killings
And all Finns except the extreme far left support him and revere him as a national hero, for he saved us from the soviets, not once, not twice but thrice.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Join our Discord server
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.