Circular Thinking - Graphic Analogs of the Political Spectrum - An Ideology Refresher

When navigating through any purportedly representative graphic analogs in an attempt to clarify the political and ideological spectrum, many of us have an old atlas that looks something like this...


Below is the prevailing representation of indoctrinated state sympathizers.



Below is my preferred representation which identifies the true proximity of the supposed 'wings' of American bi-partisan politics.

Thinking Outside the Circle. Political spectra are often designed to make a “center” appear reasonable.

A circle is sometimes a useful image, but not in the way it’s often used to depict the political spectrum. Here is an example I found on the Internet of what I’m referring to.

You’ve got the Left and the Right at opposite sides of the circle such that, as you move to down and to the left from the Right and down and to the right from the Left—that is, away from their propensities—you end up at a kind of equilibrium point between the two. But moving up and to the left from the Right or up and to the right from the Left, you not only wind up farther from the reasonable “center” but at—gasp—unstable anarchy!

I learned this metaphor in high school. The lesson as I recall was something like “all extremes will eventually meet,” so the reasonable place to be is at the moderate “center.” The metaphor’s continued use reflects a continuing muddle in political discourse, especially in the mainstream media.

The method that all brands of collectivism (the doctrine that an individual’s ends are always subservient to those of the group) uses is political power (the use or threat of violent physical aggression and intimidation) to achieve whatever announced end collectivists are aiming at. For fascism the announced end may be national hegemony; for socialism it may be a more equal distribution of wealth. I say “announced end” because collectivism in practice usually turns out quite different from collectivism in theory. In any case, collectivism relies on the unrestrained use of political power to achieve its objectives.

The political power spectrum resolves the paradox that libertarians and progressives can unite to fight for civil liberties. To the extent that they share a suspicion of State authority, libertarians and progressives can make common cause against the NSA. Similarly, conservatives who oppose high taxes are the allies of libertarians. But when conservatives demand to make it illegal to smoke marijuana or when progressives want to make it illegal to smoke cigarettes—both of which extend political power and shrink individual autonomy—they part company with libertarians.

From the libertarian perspective, of course, opposing State intervention into our private affairs, economic rights, or civil liberties is just being consistent. Those who continue to think in circles will remain confused.

Why do people keep making the mistake of putting fascism on the right side of the political debate when it belongs on the left just before communism?

reply to post by Carreau


Maybe this chart is more accurate ....

If this picture was placed on a 3 dimensional globe,

the Left and Right would actually be holding hands on the 'unseen' darkside ?

Hmmm.

reply to post by xuenchen


I know it belongs on the left as does the OP his second graph (the straight line) shows it on the left. I was asking an open question as to why so many people make that mistake and label fascism as a "right" political ideology.

Carreau
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I know it belongs on the left as does the OP his second graph (the straight line) shows it on the left. I was asking an open question as to why so many people make that mistake and label fascism as a "right" political ideology.

Because imo,

That 'illusion' is a tactic used by the Left.

Many Left Wing talking points include blaming their strongest agendas on fabrications.

xuenchen

Carreau
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I know it belongs on the left as does the OP his second graph (the straight line) shows it on the left. I was asking an open question as to why so many people make that mistake and label fascism as a "right" political ideology.

Because imo,

That 'illusion' is a tactic used by the Left.

Many Left Wing talking points include blaming their strongest agendas on fabrications.

I think that is both of our opinions too, I rearranged the post a little to make that clearer.

It is the second image that is my preferred representation. The first one is what we all learned in public school with anarchy erroneously placed smack dab between the two most totalitarian ideologies

This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

reply to post by greencmp


I see the edit

Yes, now it *IS* accurate for sure.

I was just having a little fun with the way some people might choose to be brainwashed interpret.

Notice also that on a 'globe' the first picture would have anarchy and center remain at polar opposites !

Very good thread btw...

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.

Then you agree with "Left = Right" on the darkside of the globe of political idealism.

Anything that creates instability is Marxist ?

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

As a progressive socialist, you do sound like you are joined to the left side of the second image with an arc welder.

There are a lot of self-declared socialists that might not be so comfortable with that assessment. It is my contention that, in fact, there are some collectivists who may very well fall outside of the statist camp. I think they are misguided but, they are not completely lost. They have correctly identified the cause but, incorrectly diagnosed the solution.

xuenchen

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.

Then you agree with "Left = Right" on the darkside of the globe of political idealism.

Anything that creates instability is Marxist ?

I believe that a planned society is a doomed society. Society gives birth to government out of apparent necessity and regularly revises its attempts. I find it hilarious when statists suggest that government sponsors or otherwise facilitates society.

xuenchen

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.

Then you agree with "Left = Right" on the darkside of the globe of political idealism.

Anything that creates instability is Marxist ?

Say what?

You mean to say alcohol is marxist?

Or wealth/income disparity/inequality is marxist?

Or Fractional Reserve Banking is marxist?

No, I don't agree that Left = Right, either in the light of day or dark of night.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

greencmp

xuenchen

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.

Then you agree with "Left = Right" on the darkside of the globe of political idealism.

Anything that creates instability is Marxist ?

I believe that a planned society is a doomed society. Society gives birth to government out of apparent necessity and regularly revises its attempts. I find it hilarious when statists suggest that government sponsors or otherwise facilitates society.

I believe quite the opposite.

I believe planning, systematisation, standardisation, simplification and centralisation are essential.

It is how you and I are able to communicate over the internet right now.

It is how a part manufactured in Europe will fit correctly with a part manufactured in the US.

It is how man got into space and went to the moon.

It is how functioning cities and nations and national industries and economies are best designed, built and kept running and maintained.

I also believe in economy of scale and the inherent value in reducing unneeded and wasteful/useless diversity and fragmentation where it is unnecessary and redundant.

For instance in the number of brands and models of products and their constituent parts.

I would much rather have designs, ideas and prototypes compete and not the finished products themselves.

And then only put into production the one design. The winning one. Or a combination of the features and attributes found best among all of the competing designs.

That way you have just one production line and the best features of all the reviewed designs.

At most have a single model for each price point.

This is actually where industry is currently heading by more or less its own volition, believe it or not.

By need and the compelling power of market forces, no less.

You have mergers and acquisitions which reduce diversity by reducing the number of brands and model ranges on the market and thus reducing redundancy/needless diversity.

You have car manufacturing concerns like GM reusing the same parts and platforms over and over, for many apparently or superficially different, badge engineered models.

In the future the PSA Peugeot Citroen and Opel of Europe will merge. Mercedes/Daimler and Reno/Samsung may merge as well.

You have talk of a modularised mobile phones with a common mainboard shared and deployed to by all manufacturers.

The problem with socialism is that it was tried to far ahead of its time.

It was too revolutionary.

It's like your parents make you behave and do things a certain way and you rebel and fight tooth and nail against it with your teenage angst.

Only to find out, years later, why they were making you behave a particular way or do something in a particular fashion and how right they were.

You, over there across the pond, are the angsty teenagers.

You will see, you will learn that that and why a particular way is better.

But you will never understand or accept until you learn the hard way: by trying everything else first.


You will naturally rebel against the truth you have not arrived at yourself, by trial and error.

For instance repealing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution (Cue Shock and Horror!).


Planning (if you want to be successful and efficient in reaching your goals, that is) goes on in every facet and at every scale in society.

Why this right wing persistent assumption that large scale planning is counterproductive, that the bigger the project or application being developed/built, the more efficient it is to just wing it?

You plan your shopping, your vacations, your home improvements, your expenditures etc.

Why should things be any different at a local, state or federal government scale?

Why shouldn't there be coherence, consensus and conformity in what the objectives and the strategies employed to attain them are at a national scale?

It is, after all, how corporations are run?

Will you stop objecting when / if the one world government is actually a one world corporation?

Why do you detract about government the very same thing which you would applaud or, at the very least, be silent about regarding a corporations?

greencmp

xuenchen

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.

Then you agree with "Left = Right" on the darkside of the globe of political idealism.

Anything that creates instability is Marxist ?

I believe that a planned society is a doomed society. Society gives birth to government out of apparent necessity and regularly revises its attempts. I find it hilarious when statists suggest that government sponsors or otherwise facilitates society.

Yep.

We are in agreement.

Pejeu

xuenchen

Pejeu
This thread seems to me a laudable but hardly useful or valid exercise in mental gymnastics.

Yes, I am far left by any measure.

And proud.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Ah yes.

Then you agree with "Left = Right" on the darkside of the globe of political idealism.

Anything that creates instability is Marxist ?

Say what?

You mean to say alcohol is marxist?

Or wealth/income disparity/inequality is marxist?

Or Fractional Reserve Banking is marxist?

No, I don't agree that Left = Right, either in the light of day or dark of night.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

I'm certain much of that *does* make sense to you.

In fact your response was 100% predictable.

The 'Left' *always* makes every attempt to maintain the illusions.

reply to post by xuenchen


What illusions?

You strike me as rather paranoid with regard to the left.

But I know this is a trait common to most right wing Americans.

Pejeu
reply to post by xuenchen

 

What illusions?

You strike me as rather paranoid with regard to the left.

But I know this is a trait common to most right wing Americans.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Who says I'm "Right Wing" ?

Conclusions arrived at by assumptive deductions is dangerous - it often leads to false delusions.
[ but then again, that's part of the agenda -- isn't it ]

I give you an "A" for effort just the same.

Standard tactics for 'exposure control' always include denial and anger.
[ it's a masterpiece ]

xuenchen

Pejeu
reply to post by xuenchen

 

What illusions?

You strike me as rather paranoid with regard to the left.

But I know this is a trait common to most right wing Americans.

edit on 2013/9/29 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

Who says I'm "Right Wing" ?

Conclusions arrived at by assumptive deductions is dangerous - it often leads to false delusions.
[ but then again, that's part of the agenda -- isn't it ]

I give you an "A" for effort just the same.

Standard tactics for 'exposure control' always include denial and anger.
[ it's a masterpiece ]

I say. That's my assessment of you. I believe it is an accurate assessment and no amount of denial on your part will convince me otherwise.

Are there true delusions as opposed to false ones?

What agenda?

I like debating (far) right wingers, such as I consider you to be. I deem myself a far left winger.

What denial and anger?

Mine or yours?

I think you're really giving me more credit than I'm due.


What do you mean by 'exposure control'?

Look here's another one that just did it on ATS

This is far closer to Fascism than any of the Leftist -isms being bandied about these days.

Thread