Polititical compass : anaval@lemm.ee

Polititical compass (lemm.ee)

submitted 2 years ago by Val@lemm.ee [M] to c/anaval@lemm.ee

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hares another thought I had.

We all know the political compass. The simple way to map all of politics in just two axis on a 2d plain. Reducing the fascinating complexity of society to just four sectors. With such unhelpful labels as "left" and "right". Here's my version. The "left-right" axis is replaced with class authority and "lib-auth" with state authority. Now If any lib-rights want to argue with me about the label I'm happy to do so.

The other thing I want to note is that, in my opinion, the lib-right and auth-left sectors are impossible. They represent ideas that do not match reality. because authority creates authority. By mapping class and state authority separately you can see that if you somehow manage to eliminate one but champion the other, the remaining will just form the other. Either by state bureaucrats becoming the privileged class, or the companies creating private militias and becoming states in all but name. That is what the black arrows represent: the tendency to move to a stable balance between the two authorities.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Auth-left is impossible? What is North Korea?

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Same as any single-party state. Absolute state-power giving all power to the party turning the party into the ruling class.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

So you don’t count ideology at all, only structural outcomes?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 11 points 2 years ago

I describe what I see. Ideology is backed by action. Actions committed in the name of an ideology is that ideology. You can say you're classless as much as you want but you won't be classless unless you act like it. And the state-apparatus creates a class of its own. This is all very classic anarchist theory.

Aren't the outcomes what's important? The reds will keep telling you that they can make statelessness using the state but I don't believe it possible. They can spout as much ideology as they want but that won't change the outcome.

parent

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I don't quite get what class authority is

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

A social class is a group of people with similar roles in society. In high class authority society one class has authority over another, whether it be the capitalist class or the political ruling class.

In this graph it's mainly just the capitalists as the political ruling class is represented by state authority.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

What would a combination of both look like?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think america might answer that question very soon. I remember reading somewhere that the WW2 Germany also had a lot of cooperation between the state and the private sector, but I don't remember where and am not in the mood to look it up.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago

Oh damn, that might be closer than I realized

parent

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

"They represent ideas that do not match reality" Unfortunately, that is not how democracy works. Idiots get to vote too, and so this does matter.

See the abortion debate for example. There's people at either side of the debate who think the other is just factually wrong. Not going into your opinion, this is just an example as to why you can't just throw people's opinion out in a democratic society. No matter how much you personally disagree

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

idiots get to vote too, and so this does matter.

Yeah it does. That's why I'm bringing it up. To show that there exist these ideas in politics that just seem wrong. I'm attempting to educate.

Also that's not just how democracy works it's how society works. We each bring our ideas to the table and (the sensible ones) learn from each other so we can build a better world together. They have their ideas, i present mine.

I'm not throwing their opinion out. I'm adding mine. I do not think that my opinion is more valid (or invalid) than anyone else's.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Then why limit the chart to what you believe is factual?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

What exactly do you mean by this? How am I limiting the chart? And at what point did I state facts?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

the lib-right and auth-left sectors are impossible. They represent ideas that do not match reality

Am I misunderstanding?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

That's an opinion. Not a fact. you can tell because right before you start the quote I said "in my opinion".

Also I'm not limiting the chart. The sectors are shown. I do accept that these ideas exist. I just don't agree with them and wanted to discuss them. That's why I included them in the image.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

What is this "auth-left" then? And no, you stated "they represent ideas that do not match reality", after your opinion. That's just straight up denying other viewpoints

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

It's my opinion that these viewpoints aren't applicable in reality. That's still not a fact. I might have put it a bit more dramatically but In the end it's still just my opinion. I state it in the hopes that someone will come along and say "no. they are applicable and here's why". That does not sound like denying to me.

Also even if I am denying the viewpoints I have no problem with that. They are archic viewpoints. They have very little consequence and are, in my opinion, outdated and primitive. We can do better.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago

Then maybe state those viewpoints? No one can come point them out if you don't state them

parent

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Recently had a similar epiphany. That despite being led to belive that communism and fascism are totally different, they strangely stink very similarly. It's authoritarian oppression, but with a different theme. The differences are marginal in any big picture scope, like how you'd treat such an entity (ignoring any previous or other relations).

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Val@lemm.ee [S] 3 points 2 years ago

It's a different lie. Fascists lie by claiming that their people are tho one true people who deserve everything. Communists lie by telling that they'll reach a better world. But the structure of society is the same. Do as I say or die.

parent