Discuss.
>>80939636
>fascism
>nazi flag
>from an Italian
>>80939636
For fuck's sake, anarchism isn't inherently left or right wing
It's more like this.
>>80939636
I like the two dimensional model better.
>>80939954
Or at the very least this.
>>80939636
duce would be pissed using that swastika
>>80939636
Triggered af op you got me.
>>80939636
Operation Blackmirror
>>80939152
Test
Test do not respond
>>80940096
What's this even based on? Amount of government control?
>>80940096
Ya except classical liberals are conservatives not the other way around. Ludwig von mises is a classical liberal and he was basically the same as rothbard.
>>80940365
Yes, it says right there on the picture on the left side.
>>80939904
Anarchists are almost always leftists though.
>>80940405
Fuck. Didn't see it. Sorry about that.
>>80939636
you can't just shitpost and say "discuss" like that makes it ok
>>80939904
just fucking read, it's clearly stated: "total freedom"
>>80939954
>social democratism
>democratic socialism
that entire chart is bullshit
>>80940414
Identifying as something =/= you are that
>>80939636
>people still trying desperately to define politics into the left-right dichotomy
Can we just get past this?
>>80939954
this
Left or right has nothing to do with government control. You can have totalitarianism on both extremes. The spectrum has to do with equality. The further left you go the further you aspire for equality (hence communism trying to abolish class) and the further right you go the more you believe equality is inevitable or even preferable.
>>80940616
Social democracy is Bernie. Democratic socialism is basically "The States holds councils on how things are distributed."
>>80939954
There is a lot more wiggle room in the Libertarian and Right wing section, you don't go straight from libertarian to anarchy, and what the fuck is ultra anarchism? Anarchism is binary, it is lack of government entirely. If you mean minarchy, then write minarchy.
>>80940832
Ultra-anarchism is anarcho-primitivism. Both terms are interchangeable.
>>80940814
yeah except bernie specifically used the term democratic socialism repeatedly, not social democracy, and if you equate social democracy to democratic socialism using bernie sanders as an example, that means they're the same thing
>>80940096
>no labeled axis
into the trash it goes
>>80940883
Do you even remotely know what you are talking about? That chart jumps around to such extremes so rapidly, and part of them aren't even real stances. It does not go: 1. I like Freedom 2. No government 3. No government+
>>80940914
Bernie is retarded, though. Think of democratic socialism as having voting machines to decide what is important for the workers to build or whatever. Social democracy is democracy with a focus on the social aspect, like "poor people deserve free school so they can have jerbs!!11".
>>80941015
It is, though.
>>80941023
How? Anarcho-primitivism is a thing. And sure there is a lot of space for more specific terms, it just happens that whoever made it decided to make it the most symmetrical possible.
>>80940708
In a way. This is the reason the Libertarian party is more left than right now, though. You may think of Libertarian in terms of mostly a right wing type of ideology (small government ideology with a focus on being independent), but, since the party got cucked because of the rise of Trump, I'd say Libertarians are more leftist than anything today. The right wingers who were Libertarian are the Alt-Right now.
>>80939636
The left-right scale has its limits but I think you did good.
>>80941121
Then why did you fucking use it?
>>80941173
Because it's better than OP's.
>>80941126
I completely agree. You can't be a no guns Cuck like Gary Johnson and be a true Libertarian.
>>80941173
I got this off /pol/. Are you more satisfied?
>>80941198
Trash is not better than a burning bag of shit when there are as many options as long as your stolen service in the favela holds.
>>80939636
>>80941497
From the top clockwise
>Hitler
>Margaret Thatcher
>Stefan Molyneux
>Ghandi
>Richard Wagner
>Boinie Sandehs
Left and right do not fit comfortably into political spectrum. In its most general, "right" is synonymous with "what the working class wants" and "left" is synonymous with "what the sheltered bourgeois want."
>>80939636
i like this because it makes right wing seem cool
>>80939636
>Do you want more or less government?
Agree OP. It is simple argument made complicated by people with too much time on their hands. Placing Hitler and Stalin at different ends of a political spectrum when they are Russian and German manifestations of the same ideology.
>>80941920
The britbong got it
>>80941656
I thought Sanders was left libertarian or just left centrist?
>>80942378
He wants to enforce social equality to an extent which would put him more in the Left Authoritarian area.
>>80939636
>>80941134
You've got your left and right completely around the wrong way.
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.
Basically:
>RIGHT = Authoritarian
>LEFT = Libertarian
Conservative/progressive as terms were applied to changing the political system. Conservatives wanted to preserve the status quo - they were sympathetic to a King which is inherently Authoritarian, and the progressives wanted change - in this case to a more libertarian/democratic society.
Socialism is an economic system, not a political one, but it requires Authoritarianism to work.
So this raises the issue of Economic spectrum vs. the Political Spectrum.
>TL;DR trying to label things along one spectrum/axis is retarded.
>>80939954
you got it all wrong.
>This
>>80941015
>Political Spectrum = X
>% of Force Advocated = Y
I guess you don't use many graphs in Germany. If you had some actual visuals of what was happening to your country it probably wouldn't be so fucked.
>>80942982
So if I understand you correctly in reality we only have right-wing parties today no matter what they call themselves? And the left is more right-wing (more control aka. nanny state) than the so called right-wing parties?
>>80939636
That political spectrum is for retards.
Communists are fighting for a Stateless society, same as anarchists. That makes them far right on your retarded spectrum.
>>80943093
kek
>>80942982
That's the way it was born but you know... 300 years have passed now, things have slightly changed their meaning and words found another use.
>>80943279
More accurately they're fighting for an Authoritarian to give them a stateless society because he totally would for some reason.
>>80943279
Hm?
Communists are fighting for totalitarianism. Its what they support above all.
They do believe that in the distant future, their all powerful government will relinquish control and the state will wither away.
>>80943279
Classical Marxism fights for a stateless society but communism almost always devolves into Totalitarianism
>>80943466
>More accurately they're fighting for an Authoritarian to give them a stateless society
Which demonstrates the retardation of the simplified Libertarian/Authoritarian political spectrum.
To understand the position of the Communists would require a new axis, to account for teleological differences (the "end justifies the means"), but, that still places Communists on the right wing of the retarded political spectrum.
>>80939636
Communism and National Socialism are diametrically opposed on the issue of the Nation state where as libertarians have more in common with Communist no-borders ideology albeit from a fiscally conservative position.
So these facts render this spectrum useless to demonstrate this, you can't just simplify political ideology to how 'tyranical' or 'liberal' it is. Left and Right is a flawed model anyway but it does describe more than just the extent of totalitarianism.
Everybody stop and check these trips please. Just this one time, I wanna have my moment.
>>80943888
Checked
>>80943093
xD
whom did thiS!
>>80943627
>Communists are fighting for totalitarianism. Its what they support above all.
No.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a step on the road to Communism.
The aim of Communists is a Stateless society.
Marxism 101.
>>80943888
Your moment sucks.
>>80943699
Just like free market capitalism always devolves into Corporatist authoritarianism.
Most anarchists are communists, also, communism advocates no state, it's just everyone is really fucking terrible at it except the anarchists, who get killed by the marxists.
>>80943699
To add, once the dictatorship of the Proletariat is established like in any dictatorship power is delegated to the group who established it in this case the vanguard party. Why would the leaders of the vanguard party abolish the state, abolishing the state abolishes their newly found power. Using the excuse of protection of the Dictatorship of the proletariat, the vanguard party begins throwing around accusations against Anarchists, Liberals, Conservatives, Monarchists, dissedent communist etc. claiming that they are "counter revotlitionaries" they will then use the newly established secret police to assassinate them, exile them or use them for forced labour. Without any opposition and any new opposition being swiftly eliminated, the state then transitions into totalitarianism.
>>80939636
>>80944007
Corporatism is not bad, your definition of corporatism may be different then mine but in theory corporatism is a good thing.
>>80943994
>>80943988
>>80943903
Check them again for kek.
>>80944245
This is entirely accurate and indisputable.
>>80943888
Ok. This shows that I need to start having a list of faggots.
#1) OP
#2) fD6tVr3K
#3) Milo Kikepolis
>>80943917
You didn't contradict me at all.
>They do believe that in the distant future, their all powerful government will relinquish control and the state will wither away.
>>80943699
>Classical Marxism fights for a stateless society but communism almost always devolves into Totalitarianism
they dont.
i mean they say they do, but they dont.
their #1 goal is equality, a classless society.
and their method of obtaining it is force, authority, government.
if there ever is a classless stateless society then it's plain and simple anarcho-indiviualism, cause there is nothing stopping anyone from non-confirming.
>>80944383
According to the chart the means by which Communists hope to achieve their goals is far left but their final goal itself is far right. As retarded as that sounds, they believe If they give one man all the power he will create a stateless society.
>>80943784
Not at all. Communists want an all powerful totalitarian government which will make things better.
Evangelical Christians likewise believe that eventually Jesus will come to Earth and the old laws of man won't apply either.
Communists always believe the "stateless" part will come true in the magical, distant future.
>>80939636
...
Liberalism is a right of center politic. You aren't American and you still use their retarded and broken "definitions" of basic politics. You should be ashamed.
>>80944203
The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is plural. It does not mean investing powers in a "dictator", singlular.
When the USSR first emerged it was a Union of "Soviets", or workers councils, it was not a centralized State. Centralization was prompted by war, not by internal machinations.
A region the size of Europe remained free of dictatorship, or Capitalist exploitation, until it was attacked by the White and Red armies.
Dictatorship is not inevitable.
>>80939636
>Fascism is left wing
Conservative intellectuals
>>80944380
Well, you better check again.
>>80944333
>>80944383
Communists do not "support totalitarianism above all". Quite the opposite.
You're mistaking Bolshevism with Communism.
>>80944592
Shut the fuck up, Bolshevik.
> hurr durr communism is not communism because I say so
>>80944546
>I am only pretending to not know who Strasser is and why Rohm founded the Nazi party!
>>80944636
Rohm didn't found the nazi party.
>>80944483
>hey believe If they give one man all the power
Er... wat?
Marx never said anything about creating a "dictator". The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is plural. Workers councils are to organize production and distribution. Not a dictator.
>>80944007
wrong.
States using the vestiges of capitalism/FREE market devolve into mercantilism.
where there is no state there is no legitmate force, and therefor no authority.
>>80941244
>You can't be a no guns Cuck like Gary Johnson and be a true Libertarian.
In all fairness I'm pretty sure Gary Johnson is an actual retarded person.
>>80944632
>Shut the fuck up, Bolshevik.
heh
>>80939954
This is pointless.
Thinking that complex political ideologies can be accurately represented by a two-dimensional spreadsheet is fucking retarded.
>>80944672
>founding member of the Nazi party
Drexler founded the German Worker's party.
>/pol/
>has no clue about politics
Fucking Joke
Needs a lateral axis: Love - Hate
Love+Anarchy being the definition of Utopia
Hate+Tyranny being the other place
>>80944483
>According to the chart the means by which Communists hope to achieve their goals is far left but their final goal itself is far right.
Their final goal takes place in the magical future. Its not relevant.
>>80944632
I think it's fair to let the communists define communism. Unless deciding what the people you disagree with believe for them is completely fair in which case I can't be wrong when I say naziism is a cult of the black penis.
>>80944683
That's the way it was planned but it always delvolves into a dictator - Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Pol Pot, Allende, Mugabe, etc. The main idea being authoritarianism will lead to a Classless society though.
>>80943888
>>80944333
>>80944558
WEEW
>§1: this list is exclusively dedicated to fD6Vr3K, as no bigger faggot exists.
> §1.1: if it becomes apparent that an equally big of a faggot as fD6Vr3K exists, that person will take the second place.
>§2: The list of unimaginable faggots is as follows:
> #1: fD6Vr3K
>>80944518
Communism when established will always be threatened by anti-communists, and civil war will ensue.
Communism forgets about one thing the fact that most people are greedy, they will strive for what benefits them individually.
>>80944891
>not relevant
Yes it is relevant.
The ideological aims of Communism is a Stateless society, this is the basis of their entire ideology.
The fact their teleological approach means they will utilize authoritarian tools to achieves their aims doesn't deminish their aims. They are utilitarians, after all.
>>80944922
>That's the way it was planned but it always delvolves into a dictator
No.
Dictators seize power and use the rhetoric of Marxism to justify their rule. A good example is North Korea. They're not Marxists, nor do they even pretend to be Communists anymore... They never were.
>>80943466
Hilarious.
>>80945017
>Communism forgets about one thing the fact that most people are greedy
Greedy for what?
If you take political spectrums seriously, you might need this one.
This one's my favourite.
>>80945188
They did claim to be Communist though. They announce that they are Communist and their stateless society is never to be heard of once they are in power.
>>80943888
Moment status: had
also blessed
>>80939636
It`s "governmental freedom with examples", not "political spectrum". There is no fucking spectrum in politics. Politic is nothing about colors. This is not your kindergarten, cezarito.
>>80945024
>Yes it is relevant.
It is not. Again, you can 100% safely snip away any element of a belief system that involves "and lo, magic, therefore, utopia" in terms of political classification.
>doesn't deminish their aims.
Of course it does. Their aims are totalitarian in nature, and their only pretense towards anarchy is "in the unimaginably distant nature, the lion will lay down with the lamb and we won't need the state anymore xD."
Its 100% irrelevant. Communists will always ALWAYS be totalitarian statists. You will never, ever see a communist government actually let itself wither away.
>inb4 "tru communism has never been tried"
>>80945342
Did they claim they were building it, or that they've achieved it?
Also when? I remember a video with a korean standing beside the tower of the juche idea calling communism out of date.
>>80945228
Power and influence.
>>80939636
Liberty vs authority isn't a left/right issue, these are independent scales much more like this graph >>80939954
If you look at something like libertarianism it actually has a lot of components of both left and right politics, both the freedom to have liberal ideas such as gay marriage but right wing ideas of free markets and natural hierarchy.
>>80945456
As well as money and other things
>>80944518
Also the Petrograd soviet was embroiled in violence from the start
>>80945451
They claimed to be building it. In theory Communism is supposed to lead to a stateless and classless society but it never turns out that way.
>>80945562
Well building it different. I won't disagree there though, lelnin and friends aren't very good at communism.
Hey guys
Kronstadt!
>>80945676
"is"
>>80945456
Didn't happen in Ukraine. The Communists and Anarchists maintained their independent soviets until they were attacked by the White and Red armies.
>>80939636
Who comes up with these retarded meme pictures?
Where do you get from that left = tyranny and right = liberty? It certainly isn't the original meaning, considering that during the french revolution the leftists were against the monarchy and clergy while the right was for them.
>>80945796
>Who comes up with these retarded meme pictures?
Americans.
>>80945742
That is true but it didn't last that long and the main communist force, the RSFSR (soon to be USSR) survived and although you may disagree WAS communist and was headed by a dictatorial and authoritarian Communist Party.
>>80939636
Left/right and authoritarian/libertarian are different spectrums. Trying to position all political idology along a single line isn't possible,
>>80945428
if we're being honest, true communism has never been tried.
But it never will, either. It will ALWAYS, as will any anarchic society with such a massive list of societal rules as communism has, devolve into dictatorship.
There are just too many things that people would need to simply accept for it to be possible without a government.
>>80943888
You shone brighter than a star anon, I will always remember your special moment
>>80945967
>you may disagree WAS communist and was headed by a dictatorial and authoritarian Communist Party.
They crushed the workers' soviets, they destroyed the dictatorship of the proletariat and placed total control in the hands of a Party cadre led by a dictator. This was no different to the Tsarist regime they'd previously overthrown.
>>80940307
>Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
Katie shilling is supposed to be a subtle process.
>>80939636
Ah yes, the far left leader Adolf Hitler
>>80939636
Fascism advertised itself as neither right nor left. It is literally a third way.
>>80946272
Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat devolved into a dictatorship no better then the previous Tsarist regime, this can also be seen in China and many other communist states.
>>80946272
>>80946444
And they were communist, they started collectivisation, removing the power of the aristocrats and a planned economy
>>80946444
>es, the dictatorship of the proletariat devolved into a dictatorship
No, it didn't "devolve". The Bolsheviks seized power. They physically overthrew the People's assembly: The Duma. It was a power grab.
You're trying to present the overthrow of the peoples soviets as some kind of natural process. It's rather bizarre.
>>80943093
Why is mr krabs wearing a gimp suit?
Is there a 3D graph of political ideologies
Political spectrum should be made of three parts:
Economy:
Unrestricted free market - state controlled economy and everything that's in between
State:
Authoritarian - Anarchism and everything that's in between.
Social and moral values (sex, traditions, family, religion etc.)
Unrestricted - Traditionalism/conservatism
Of course some of these things clash a bit like Anarchism and say traditional values.
But I think it is better way to describe views than current black&white way that right wing consist of biblehumpers, those supporting free market and want freedom, (even though extreme righty-wing means authoritarianism.) and everyone in left if LGBTWTFBBQ people supporting, welfare leech hippies.
I see zero reasons why leftist person could not be christian which in todays world is claimed being conservative or libertarian who supports free market side of the ideology but wants gays and trannies gone even though freedom and "its none of your business unless it harms you"
Just because it has been that way does not mean it cant be any other way.
/my2€cents
>>80944338
>>80944245
here's your (You) kill yourselves now
>>80946752
Indeed.
OP's political spectrum is for fucking retards.
>>80939954
>activism
>>80946605
Bolsheviks seize power, establish the All-Russian congress of soviets, the initially democratic nature is subverted and turned into a full on dictatorship by 1922, essentially devolving but it may not even have been democratic in the first place, whatever democratic face it had soon disappeared.
>Mfw people think Anarchy is a political state
>Mfw people don't realize that anarchy is in reality what happens between the transition between one political state and another
There can never be such a thing as an anarchist society, because pretty soon some guy will have a bigger gun, and that "anarchist" society will become a dictatorship. Later that dictatorship will become a monarchy, which will be torn down by democracy, which will be subverted by Tyranny, which will dissolve into temporary anarchy before the cycle starts over.
>>80941656
forgot I posted in thread kek
but yeah, in order to create the best possible situation on earth, one must encompass every trait
from being able to sacrifice 6 gorrillion people, to giving everyone (((free shit and equal rights))) and everywhere in between
being politically static on multiple situations is just as cancerous as beng politically correct
>>80946106
Communism has been tried but the preparations for a classless and stateless society have never been tried. The means of production were seized but noone really tried after that because they loved the power.
>>80946381
OP's pic is heavily flawed but Nazism was started as a very far left ideology.
>>80939636
You seem to have misplaced "liberal" and "mob rule" (many mobsters are into actual slavery)
>>80946892
>democratic...
The Soviets sent delegates to the Duma, they were not representatives.
>essentially devolving
It was the seizure of power.
>>80947368
They were representatives of the Soviets. They shared power with Mensheviks and Left SRs before forcing them into combining into the Communist party
>>80939954
Anarcho-communist here, ask me anything!
>>80946805
What? Anarchism isn't big government?
>>80948019
How bummed are you about pat the bunny being a bitch class traitor?
>>80948019
How are you different from a regular Communist or a regular Anarchist?
>>80948396
Well really "anarcho-communism" is kind of redundant as it's basically what communism is in the original sense of the word. It's essentially on the complete opposite scale of the modern sense of communsim in regards to big government; it really approaches anarchy in many ways. Really, it's not so much a feasible concept of governing as it is just an idea of an anarchic society wherein people freely support each other and their own social groups and things are typically run democratically at every level.
In a way it's kind of a return to a hunter-gatherer type society except with all of the obvious modern connotations it brings. It takes away the idea of government and instead instills small communities that all support each other and work with one another, and who would never enroach upon any one's personal freedom.
Of course, there's a lot of obvious problems with it, but in an optimal, high-tech future I could see it working extremely well if society was ever willing to change on such a scale.
>>80948663
To be honest I think a good majority of the world would just take advantage of each other in even more cruel ways than we have now if such a society existed. Atleast we have laws against taking advantage of each other too much.
>>80948837
Well it's not like it would be lawless; there would ostensibly be militias and the like and you would be able to freely arm yourself. Communities would still have rules and such, and people would obviously retaliate.
Also, in this hypothetical high-tech future, most people typically wouldn't want or need to commit crime in the first place and things would kind of run on their own if that makes sense. Again it's less meant to be a legitimate method of governing but moreso just a concept of a society (that I personally would find optimal).
