It’s why we can’t just go around believing everybody who claims to be a leftist. We need to evaluate the actual effects of their actions. If they are oppressing the workers as every state does, they are not left wing.
Well, if we’re interested in the ideals of the people, then yes the political compass is a thing that you can use. The problem is that when you drill down into right wing “libertarianism” you find landlords and bosses (EDIT: actually they’re pretty much right there on the surface). They are in fact about the freedom of coporations to own and control human beings. They are pro-slavery and neo-feudalist. That is not actually libertarian, that is pro-slavery. Right-wingers always are. So in practice, it’s just a lie.
Murray Rothbard himself said that “those who call us anarchists are not on sound etymological footing”. That’s a wanker way to say it, said by a wanker, but it’s clear he understood that words mean things.
Sure people misrepresent (by accident or intention) what their actual political beliefs are.
But the single axis (or even two axis) political compass doesn’t really capture the nuance and especially the authoritarian aspect.
I get the feeling that by your measure, nearly everything but collectivist anarchy would be “right wing” by virtue of some axis. At which point I don’t think it’s a useful way to frame things.
I accept that the single axis is insufficient, but I think the compass is worse.
You’re right that I don’t think anything outside of the lib-left corner is actually left wing, if left wing means anything useful.
In fact, part of my point is that the political compass is misleading and rehabilitates certain ideologies in a way that they shouldn’t be. It is hopelessly naive in accepting whatever definition the proponents claim.
I don’t call an caps or right wing libertarians anarchists or libertarians. In the same way, I think tankies aren’t actually left-wing, because left wing results aren’t even in their goals. They expressly want to keep control of the means of production in the hands of a few.
Like if your version of left wing is “claims to be on the left”, then that’s equally useless, because that includes the nazis. It includes nazbols. It includes democrats.
It includes the accelerationist dickbag I spoke to one time who told me that everybody was a fascist if they were even slightly abusive, and all fascists should be punched at all times. Trump, according to this person, wasn’t a fascist, and I should vote for him because it would accelerate the destruction of society. But that person claimed to be a leftist, so I guess they’re in the club?
Like what does left-wing mean in the political compass? Is there a rigorous definition, or is it kind of vibes-based?
My solution to this is to call tankies faux-leftist, and the neo-feudalists I would call faux-libertarian. I think accepting their labels gives their cooption of left-wing language power.
So this sounds more like a semantic/linguistic debate more than a philosophical one. You simply use an uncommon definition of “the left”.
Calling something “the left” only has meaning when people agree on what that means. If you disagree that something is “left” but you are using a different definition of “the left” then we haven’t actually communicated anything.
You say that the political compass rehabilitates certain ideologies, presumably by calling them “left” and therefore “good” or at least assigning them certain attributes that people may want, but I believe the opposite; using the single left/right axis is worse because then you’re either lumping together a whole bunch of ideologies, or everyone is using their own bespoke definition of left/right which makes communication impossible.
The more axis you have, the more descriptive you can be about the relative beliefs of your ideology… But the harder it is to draw.
I don’t know that I disagree with your ideology, but I disagree that left means “things I think are good” and everything else is “right”, which is essentially what you’re doing.
I have explained a more nuanced method of understanding things than the political compass.
By calling these groups “faux-leftist” and “faux libertarian” I am drawing a distinction that the compass doesn’t draw, without losing any of the - extremely limited - resolution that it offers.
But you reduced what I said down to:
left means “things I think are good” and everything else is “right”
That tells me that you’re not really interested in what I’m saying. It’s hard to understand how someone could read what I’ve written and honestly come to that conclusion. I can explain further, but I think I’d need to hear that you were curious to understand my point, otherwise it’s probably going to be a waste of my time.
You haven’t explained anything other than you think people are disingenuous with their real beliefs, which is not useful for talking about what things mean. This seems to be nearly the entirety of your stance.
You ever so briefly touched on how you think authoritarianism is inherently anti-worker with absolutely no nuance whatsoever
You made no coherent argument about why to change the common definition of “left”.
Distinction between theoretical and practical still has value. You can talk about where a political philosophy falls on a compass AND you can talk about how an individual differs from the philosophy they claim to espouse.
I’m not really curious to hear more about your point because you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that your point isnt actually coherent or useful for everyday (or even academic) discourse.
It’s why we can’t just go around believing everybody who claims to be a leftist. We need to evaluate the actual effects of their actions. If they are oppressing the workers as every state does, they are not left wing.
Labels never more useful than just as a shortcut to understanding someone’s whole nuanced belief…
Yeah, but that’s what I’m doing. I am evaluating the beliefs of authoritarians of all kinds and concluding that they are right wing.
I’m not throwing out the labels, I’m saying this left-right-auth-lib pair of dichotomies is not useful.
They were saying that there are more axes than left/right, and that the left/right axis is typically not one of authoritarianism.
See: libertarians and anarchocapitalists are absolutely right wing but are radically anti-authoritarian.
Well, if we’re interested in the ideals of the people, then yes the political compass is a thing that you can use. The problem is that when you drill down into right wing “libertarianism” you find landlords and bosses (EDIT: actually they’re pretty much right there on the surface). They are in fact about the freedom of coporations to own and control human beings. They are pro-slavery and neo-feudalist. That is not actually libertarian, that is pro-slavery. Right-wingers always are. So in practice, it’s just a lie.
Murray Rothbard himself said that “those who call us anarchists are not on sound etymological footing”. That’s a wanker way to say it, said by a wanker, but it’s clear he understood that words mean things.
That still doesn’t matter.
Sure people misrepresent (by accident or intention) what their actual political beliefs are.
But the single axis (or even two axis) political compass doesn’t really capture the nuance and especially the authoritarian aspect.
I get the feeling that by your measure, nearly everything but collectivist anarchy would be “right wing” by virtue of some axis. At which point I don’t think it’s a useful way to frame things.
I accept that the single axis is insufficient, but I think the compass is worse.
You’re right that I don’t think anything outside of the lib-left corner is actually left wing, if left wing means anything useful.
In fact, part of my point is that the political compass is misleading and rehabilitates certain ideologies in a way that they shouldn’t be. It is hopelessly naive in accepting whatever definition the proponents claim.
I don’t call an caps or right wing libertarians anarchists or libertarians. In the same way, I think tankies aren’t actually left-wing, because left wing results aren’t even in their goals. They expressly want to keep control of the means of production in the hands of a few.
Like if your version of left wing is “claims to be on the left”, then that’s equally useless, because that includes the nazis. It includes nazbols. It includes democrats.
It includes the accelerationist dickbag I spoke to one time who told me that everybody was a fascist if they were even slightly abusive, and all fascists should be punched at all times. Trump, according to this person, wasn’t a fascist, and I should vote for him because it would accelerate the destruction of society. But that person claimed to be a leftist, so I guess they’re in the club?
Like what does left-wing mean in the political compass? Is there a rigorous definition, or is it kind of vibes-based?
My solution to this is to call tankies faux-leftist, and the neo-feudalists I would call faux-libertarian. I think accepting their labels gives their cooption of left-wing language power.
So this sounds more like a semantic/linguistic debate more than a philosophical one. You simply use an uncommon definition of “the left”.
Calling something “the left” only has meaning when people agree on what that means. If you disagree that something is “left” but you are using a different definition of “the left” then we haven’t actually communicated anything.
You say that the political compass rehabilitates certain ideologies, presumably by calling them “left” and therefore “good” or at least assigning them certain attributes that people may want, but I believe the opposite; using the single left/right axis is worse because then you’re either lumping together a whole bunch of ideologies, or everyone is using their own bespoke definition of left/right which makes communication impossible.
The more axis you have, the more descriptive you can be about the relative beliefs of your ideology… But the harder it is to draw.
I don’t know that I disagree with your ideology, but I disagree that left means “things I think are good” and everything else is “right”, which is essentially what you’re doing.
I have explained a more nuanced method of understanding things than the political compass.
By calling these groups “faux-leftist” and “faux libertarian” I am drawing a distinction that the compass doesn’t draw, without losing any of the - extremely limited - resolution that it offers.
But you reduced what I said down to:
That tells me that you’re not really interested in what I’m saying. It’s hard to understand how someone could read what I’ve written and honestly come to that conclusion. I can explain further, but I think I’d need to hear that you were curious to understand my point, otherwise it’s probably going to be a waste of my time.
You haven’t explained anything other than you think people are disingenuous with their real beliefs, which is not useful for talking about what things mean. This seems to be nearly the entirety of your stance.
You ever so briefly touched on how you think authoritarianism is inherently anti-worker with absolutely no nuance whatsoever
You made no coherent argument about why to change the common definition of “left”.
Distinction between theoretical and practical still has value. You can talk about where a political philosophy falls on a compass AND you can talk about how an individual differs from the philosophy they claim to espouse.
I’m not really curious to hear more about your point because you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that your point isnt actually coherent or useful for everyday (or even academic) discourse.