I am having a discussion on another forum about the left right paradigm. One user posted this image of a political axis and I was wondering if any one of you thought it was correct or incorrect?
According to the modern-day definitions of these terms, it’s the most accurate depiction of the spectrum that I’ve ever seen.
What the hell is ultra-capitalism?
Whats ultra-anarchism?
Why is progressivism near the right side? Isnt progressivism basicaly just another term for democrat-leftists? I may be wrong here.
WHy is liberalism in the middle? Is liberalism meaning the old meaning of classical liberalism or today’s meaning of democrat? If its the modern meaning, why is it in the middle? Shouldnt it be on the left?
Whats the difference between statism and all the labels that are NOT-anarchist? If anything, this label should be removed altogether.
Whats the difference between socialism, democratic socialism and social democratism?
In my opinion, too many terms are used that convey too little difference between each other.
I’ve always been confused by Mutualism. All I ever get out of it is “free-market anti-capitalism” and that makes me want to chew the stuffing out of my couch.
The axis make no sense to me whatsoever, the opposite of authoritarianism is activism? The opposite of progressivism is social democratism?
The diamond shaped political axis maps (Nolan Chart) with economic vs social freedom as the left/right axis and libertarian vs authoritarian for the top down make much more sense to me.
The above is much much better.
The first thing that came out of my mouth when I saw the axis was: What the hell is ultra-capitalism. Why is liberalism in the middle.
I thought it was some what correct but some of the terms should be removed completely and some of them are in the wrong place entirely.
I figured everyone here would be familiar with it, but incase some have missed it , here’s a quiz based on the above.
That’s an extremely confusing picture even though it’s on the right track. Part of what I don’t understand is that is that it doesn’t have labeled axes and to my knowledge both ultra-anarchist and ultra capitalist are made up terms.
@SM
Well what makes mutualism even more confusing is that some of them are crazy and some of them aren’t. If you’re looking for the sane mutualists just think of anarcho-capitalists who believe that a free market would revolve more around more egalitarian work structures.
Also, I’ve long liked the idea of a four dimensional political spectrum with libertarianism being “upper wing”. I don’t know where socialist anarchism would go though…
My personal favorite:
Whether or not I believe in egalitarianism revolves around what their definition of “equality” is. If equality simply means that all humans are individuals with individualistic characteristics that can’t be lumped in to some sort of category or statistic, then I agree. It seems like mutualism is considered to somehow be libertarian socialism.
No, here I mean income equality.
Could you explain that more, please?
EDIT
Also, what do you mean by “some mutualists are crazy, and some aren’t?”
In an anarcho-capitalist society it’s possible you could end up with a society of perfectly equal incomes. Mutualists believe this to be the case. In terms of actual policy prescriptions the only real difference is that they have a slightly different definition of land ownership which necessitates that the ones who are actually laboring on the land must be the ones who own the land, land owners who do not use the land don’t have claim to the land, but I’m pretty sure that as such they believe that capitalists do have a claim upon capital since they provide a productive service.
Other than that the only difference is that the entire attitude of mutualism is different. You can be an anarchist because you believe it will equalize income, which is a relatively “leftist” reason, or you could be an anarchist because you believe that it will uphold traditional values and promote self reliance, a “rightist” reason. Mutualists approach anarcho-capitalism from a “leftist” perspective. When I say that some of them are crazy I’m mostly talking about the ones who haven’t updated their views from Proudhon and who usually read a lot of Bakunin, the ones who still uphold the old dogma of usury being immoral and preventable, the LTV holding true, as well as a lot of socialistic beliefs about capitalism itself. These are the ones that believe that communism and small workshops will naturally replace capitalism. Oftentimes they believe in anarchism for extremely awkward reasons.
You bent my mind left, right and center.
Also, could you explain why you have a quote “soft spot in your heart for Peter Kropotkin”
So mutualists are like syndicalists except they apply it to land?
mutualism: land is yours if u work on it
syndicalism: capital is yours when youre working on it?
“You bent my mind left, right and center.”
I tend to have that effect on people.
“Also, could you explain why you have a quote ‘soft spot in your heart for Peter Kropotkin’”
Because I really like a lot of his material. The problem was that his economics were flawed, as was his very conception of capitalism, something which I can scarcely blame him for during his time.
Please tell me what you find objectionable in this quote:
ANARCHISM (from the Gr. ἅυ, and άρχη, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent — for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary — as is seen in organic life at large — harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.
Or in this work (really relevant material starts at 94 if you feel like skimming)
In the end Kropotkin merely has another vision of the anarchist world, one which I can’t object to for the most part, and his passionate belief in personal freedom, spontaneous order, and mutual aid is truly wonderful.
Kelvin,
I believe this to generally be the case with the exception that they tend to oppose land ownership if no productive function is being served. This makes the owner of a business, for instance, a legitimate landowner, while the greedy landowner who doesn’t do jack besides own land is not a legitimate land owner. I know for a fact that it is true with some mutualists, but I’m sure that you’d find some who would advocate basically indistinguishable things from a socialist anarchist. Also your syndicalist definition applies to most forms of anarcho-communism as well.
So you’re into mutual aid, hmm? I downloaded a book about it recently to learn just what it is all about, but I haven’t read it yet.
“So you’re into mutual aid, hmm?”
Yes, I think that it may well play a very big role in a voluntaryist society.
Give me your definition of it.