[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 3054



File: 1479469695815.png (362.54 KB, 300x300, 68747470733a2f2f692e737461636b2e696d6775722e636f6d2f506850646e2e706e67.png)

No.3054

I'm trying to learn more about world politics and I come across this graph/chart thing. It shows that liberalism is at the center of all ideologies? I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that it should be more towards the left. Seems that this is biased to make left leaning policies more balanced...

So, lainons of /civ does anyone have a more accurate representation?

  No.3057

No thats pretty accurate.

  No.3058

>>3054
I guess you live in the US. Liberals over there are economically on the right compared to a lot of places in the world.

It doesn't really makes sense to put everything on the left/right spectrum. The spectrum varies a lot depending on where & when you live.

In France, the democrats would be considered on the right. But 100 years ago, they'd be extreme-left.

And although the political compass is better than just an uni-dimensional spectrum, it's still not perfect.

  No.3060

Oh yeah, that's the Political Compass.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/

I've taken the test a couple times, and I usually come out somewhere around the Dalai Lama.

  No.3061

File: 1479480399503-0.png (33.57 KB, 200x200, us2016.png)

File: 1479480399504-1.png (6.19 KB, 200x200, axeswithnames.gif)

It certainly serves as a springboard for discussion, ne?

  No.3066

>>3058
not US but I'm confused with all the terms being used in the US media... just like you pointed out "left-wing liberal (US)" is still on the right.

>>3060
Thanks Lainon this helps! (Turns out I'm some sort of communist hah)

>>3061
Wait. So, Tremp and Clonton are essentially the same party? Why is the Sandman over on the left? I'm guessing this where Clonton is "supposed" to be? (according to her public position on things)

  No.3069

Left is anti-capitalism. Liberals still like capitalism.

  No.3070

>>3069
you'ld notice that liberals are put in the center, not on the left.

  No.3072

File: 1479499333778.png (153.4 KB, 200x81, ff6929e84a89ac76a7e5b23af1ee6c0a28ab27b7.png)

Yes, it belongs in the centre, see pic. related.

Mutualism and anarchism belong to the left, national "socialism" to the right and there's no such political ideology as "ultra-anarchism", "anarcho-capitalism", "activism" or "statism".

  No.3086


  No.3087

>>3061
I'm surprised Donald is more left than H*llary.

>>3066
Komrade's a self-proclaimed democratic socialist.

  No.3097

>>3086
>things that have wikipedia pages must be real and/or make any sense
anyone that knows anything about anarchism and capitalism realizes that they are in no way compatible
ancap is a joke
like commienazi

  No.3100

>>3086
Anarcho-Capitalism exists only on the internet. It is a made up ideology by YouTubers to rake in views by the ill-informed and delusional, thus earning an ad revenue.

You will never see an AnCap party in the real world because anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron, and who ever says they're an ancap must be a moron high on oxys.

  No.3138

>>3100
The ancoms say to the ancaps: you need a state to have private property.
The ancaps say to the ancoms: you need a state to stop me from having private property.
People with half a brain between their ears say to both of the above: whatever moral system you subscribe to, you need a state to enforce it.

  No.3139

>>3138
If the property is collective, then there's no need for a state to enforce private property, as it belongs to everyone.

  No.3140

>>3061
>Ťrump
>authoritarian

>Clinton

>that conservative

What retard even made this chart? You should feel terrible for posting this, christ.

  No.3142

>>3140
she's pretty fuarrrking conservative. Being vaguely against capitalism becoming nastier doesn't make you a leftist.

That, and Drumpf has called himself the "law and order candidate". His cabinet is looking orwellian. I'm pretty fuarrrking sure he's authoritarian.

  No.3145

File: 1479622265276.png (1.9 MB, 200x180, welcome-to-yesterday.jpeg)

>>3139

Even in an ideal scenario the state would need to enforce public access and distribution to ensure that finite resources aren't hoarded, used completely, or taken by "outsiders". Even "renewable" resources can only be produced and distributed in limited quantities.

In every real case ever demonstrated the massive bureaucracy overseeing enforcement hoards disproportionately more resources than what is afforded to the public.

  No.3147

>>3145
well, depends what you think a state is. I think those duties can easily be performed by a loose horizontal structure much weaker than a state.

This is a bit of a tangent though.

  No.3149

File: 1479630583063.png (40.01 KB, 200x158, f4baaeaa7a7d7216b7523a88395258e35590f1632553208a03da2f771710d8fc.jpg)

>>3142
>she's pretty fuarrrking conservative.
Free trade and open borders isn't conservative, think about the words you're using before you use them. Thanks.

>I'm pretty fuarrrking sure he's authoritarian.

No.

Please read what both of these people want. And for your sake I hope you're not American, because if you are you're one of the reasons the political climate is do bad here; people saying soykaf that's just plain wrong and swearing up and down it's the truth.

  No.3152

File: 1479639136174.png (16.05 KB, 161x200, ‮ℋ₮⋃ℜ₸‭.png)

>>3149
>Free trade not conservative
Sorry, free trade has always been a pet project of the economic elite no matter what side of the political spectrum they're on. It was never exclusively promoted by the left or right, it was always pushed by elites on both sides in spite of the exploitative labor conditions it depends upon. There was an unfounded expectation among elites that the economic benefits of free trade would "trickle down" and serve to democratize authoritarian societies lacking human rights. Obviously this is not the case. The elite multinationals controlling the economies of these societies have benefited greatly while the societies themselves have been psychologically, spiritually, and materially decimated in ways that people not living in those circumstances can never fully comprehend.

>No.

Really? Tromp isn't an authoritarian? Consider that he appears to be surrounding himself with militant authoritarians at the moment.
>Please read what both of these people want. And for your sake I hope you're not American, because if you are you're one of the reasons the political climate is do bad here; people saying soykaf that's just plain wrong and swearing up and down it's the truth.
Do you literally believe what the political actors of 2016 are saying to the public?

We are living in a post-truth era. Find your own truth while you still can.

  No.3156

File: 1479653747060.png (30.76 KB, 200x200, aus2016.png)

Spare a thought for us in Ausfailia sometime, and the choice we're presented with of being fuarrrked in the ass, fuarrrked in the face, or being fuarrrked in the ass and face.

  No.3161

>>3152

> There was an unfounded expectation among elites that the economic benefits of free trade would "trickle down" and serve to democratize authoritarian societies lacking human rights.


Trade has democratised formerly soykafty societies and increased standard of living... what are you talking about? Do you have numbers to support this belief? Free trade helps the poorest people in a society the most, more purchasing power for the poor /dt cheaper commodities = more $$$ in the hands of poor people.


> Ways that people not living in those circumstances can never fully comprehend.


Explain it to me then? How is China today worse than China in the 1960's.

  No.3163

File: 1479706595536.png (114.73 KB, 200x150, your-brain-is-rigged.jpg)

>Free trade helps the poorest people in a society the most
Global markets are reducing living standards globally.

>$$$ in the hands of poor people

Ayy lmao! 62 people own > 50% of all global resources.

>How is China today worse than China in the 1960's.

Authoritarian single-party kleptocracy. Cancer villages.

  No.3169

>>3163
>Global markets are reducing living standards globally.
What's your metric for that? By most measurements I can think of the general society certainly isn't getting poorer. We haven't had a dip in real GDP since 2008-2009 and median income is at its highest since 1999.

  No.3170

File: 1479786199014.png (9.05 KB, 200x200, 365c1071acd4838637ff457a879dba3191a1d150734c693291fb00aaf79bede6.jpg)

>>3152
>Do you literally believe what the political actors of 2016 are saying to the public?
>We are living in a post-truth era. Find your own truth while you still can.

Oh god shut the fuarrrk up

  No.3172

>>3163
Progressive politics of USA is reducing living standards globally. Decolonization, which means soykafty governance by ultra low iq people couldn't end in a good way.

>Ayy lmao! 62 people own > 50% of all global resources.

And what's bad with that? Do you think the consume all of this? If you'd look carefully you'd see that they invest it - so they give the capital to investors and thus allocate resources optimally and make further economic growth possible.

  No.3181

File: 1479851889424.png (4.37 KB, 125x104, 1479701659237s.jpg)

>>3169
>What's your metric for that? By most measurements I can think of the general society certainly isn't getting poorer.

You're right but refer to this lain, >>3152 he's right we are living in a post truth era of politics. And comrade SДИDЗЯS promises of free chicken and circuses seem to resonate more with a crowd that FEELS they've been stepped on forever.


>>3163
> Authoritarian single-party kleptocracy. Cancer villages.

Yeah you're right but China also has a middle class now. The episode I was referring to was the great Chinese famine caused by the great leap forward. The one with the widespread cannibalism where people were so hungry they had to paint the bark back onto the trees in Mao's hometown because the people had eaten it.
Centralisation and excessive government regulation results in the inefficient distribution of resources. China is still heavily centralised and regulated the issue isn't the free market. It's the fuarrrking government.

  No.3187

>>3170
come on, there's no need for that

  No.3189

File: 1479876929241.png (45.02 KB, 134x200, 623492_stock-photo-senior-using-laptop-computer-on-sofa.jpg)

>>3172
>And what's bad with that?

>what is bad about a financial and political oligarchy

  No.3199

>>3169
-decline in real wages
-longer working hours
-alienation
-underemployment(internships, part-time/temp jobs, etc) is ridiculously high in the US, probably in other places too.

Basically, yeah, things could be a lot worse, but they could be a *lot* better.


>>3181
>the issue isn't the free market. It's the fuarrrking government.

it's incorrect to think the two can ever be separated.

  No.3201

>>3172
>And what's bad with that?
your right - 1 man should own 99% of the world - then its all good cus he makes soykaf happen... kek

  No.3202

>>3172
Here is a pro-state, pro-capitalism defense of decolonization (in a few sentences). These aren't necessarily facts, just some things to think about:

Capitalism, as we understand it in the US, cannot thrive without a strong and consistent (not necessarily just) state to create property rights.

Colonization damages the power of one state, without equally increasing the power of another. Its fooling no one. Can capitalism truly exist in a place where you know the everything exists only because a foreign power allowed it? Can you really invest in something that may be taken if a country across the sea decides so?

  No.3203

>>3199
>it's incorrect to think the two can ever be separated.
and why is that?

  No.3207

>>3203
Capitalism cannot exist without a capitalist state to enforce private property rights(if a company hires a private army to enforce their property rights, they're just a for-profit state). A capitalist state cannot exist without capitalism. There ya go.

  No.3212

>>3054
I would say liberalism is actually more to the right, but progressivism and anarchism are in the wrong place, and "ultra-capitalism," "ultra-anarchism," "anarcho-socialism," "activism," and "statism" all sound like fake ideologies that nobody identifies as. Also, "libertarianism" is a misnomer.

Progressivism ought to be near social democracy or democratic socialism, because most self-identified progressives in the USA supported the candidacy of Komrade SДИDЗЯS, who identifies as a socialist but is probably more of a social democrat.

"Anarchism" is not a right-wing ideology in the economic sense, most anarchists will tell you that the government is necessary to sustain capitalism and so eliminating the state will bring about some form of communalism
>inb4 ancaps
they're a distinct ideology from anarchists, rothbard (?) himself said they shouldn't identify as anarchists

"ultra-capitalism" and "ultra-anarchism" sound fake, I do not know any capitalists or anarchists who would describe themselves as such. There are "ultra-leftists," apparently, who are close to left-communists (as opposed to marxist-leninists and derivatives), but that word is also mainly used as a pejorative.

"anarcho-socialism," I am not sure about because socialism is a blanket term that seems to include most anarchists.

"statism" is a pejorative libertarians and anarchists use to describe people who like the government.

"activism" is an activity and not a form of government/social structure/ideology.

I'd probably have criticisms for ideologies in the upper-right, but I am not very familiar with how those people identify and I think they're more likely to take uncited charts like this one seriously.

"n@tional socialism" is a strange one as well, I would have to do more research because there are apparently different groups identifying by it. You can have "socialism in one country" types or you can have racist types, it seems. I am not a fan of either, but for different reasons.

"libertarian" and "left-libertarian" are misnomers because people who identify as libertarian in the USA versus the rest of the world are very different, these people would be classified as "left-libertarian" in the USA or anarchist. Libertarian started out as a code word for anarchist, actually, but american libertarians took the label on their own and made it incredibly capitalis.

  No.3215

>>3207
capitalism can exist without any said "state" (i.e. government) in place to enforce it's rights, because capitalism itself is just a combination of supply and demand. no government is necessary to ensure that the supply/demand dynamic exists. if a company hires people (guards) to ensure their property doesn't get broken into, that doesn't make them a "state" (i.e. government), because a government must collect taxes enable its existence and operations. they aren't paying the guards with tax money, they're paying them with money that the corporation earned. corporations, corrupt as they may be, do not collect taxes.

  No.3216

>>3215
>capitalism itself is just a combination of supply and demand.

let's be specific here: literally any economic system has supply and demand. Capitalism is defined by these things that make it distinct:

-wage labor: you work for a guy or group of guys, he keeps what you make, he pays you in return.
-free movement: you're not literally forced into a specific line of work or place of residence... usually.
-private property: a particular person or group of people gets to keep all the outputs of certain resources(mines, factories, farms, etc.).

Now that we're on the same page, I'll address the other stuff.

>if a company hires people (guards) to ensure their property doesn't get broken into, that doesn't make them a "state" (i.e. government), because a government must collect taxes enable its existence and operations.


I disagree. First, government does not imply statehood. As you said, states have to do certain things, but governments don't. They just have to govern.

Second, states can exist without taxes. I point to states such as China(particularly during the Mao period) where the state simply asked/forced people to do work. Another example would be highly corrupt states like banana republics: they sometimes collected no taxes, and were funded more or less entirely by outside corporations/states voluntarily giving them money. Perhaps a good definition of a state is, the highest de jure organization in a particular domain that can authorize the use of force. That covers every state I can think of.

  No.3217

>>3216
whups, forgot the last part of capitalism: markets.

  No.3220

>>3207
>people will never agree on private property being respected without a state strongarming them
>once the revolution comes everyone will magically agree to never pay a wage to anyone else ever, I know this because the magic of muh blank slate

  No.3228

>>3217
You don't need markets for capitalism. Example: the planned capitalism of the Soviet Union.

  No.3229

>>3228
Sure, maybe under the silly Marxist interpretation of what is or is not capitalism (ie literally everything that isn't "moneyless utopia dreamtime")

  No.3248

>>3216
>As you said, states have to do certain things, but governments don't. They just have to govern.
hate to be a dick here, but you just contradicted yourself by saying that governments don't have to do anything and then saying that they have to govern. kinda muddies your point.
>Second, states can exist without taxes.
perhaps, but 99% of the time they must extract tax money to exist and operate. the unusual cases that exist like the ones you mentioned are on the fringe.

  No.3254

>>3061
Hate to burst your bubble, but SДИDЗЯS and Clinton are both more authoritarian than Drumpf. While Drumpf is still an authoritarian, he at least somewhat believes in the free market and in some cases believes states should regulate rather than the federal government and believes in some degree of de-regulation. He's also less interventionist than SДИDЗЯS and Clinton. Economically SДИDЗЯS is for bigger government and socialism which is very authoritarian. Clinton wants the federal government to control every aspect of your life and hasn't found a country she doesn't want to invade.

Don't get me wrong, Drumpf is an authoritarian, but quit buying into the MSM meme that Drumpf is biggest authoritarian of them all. With the exceptions of Rand Paul, Gary Johnson (fake libertarian), and Jim Webb Drumpf is probably the least authoritarian of the 2016 candidates.

  No.3255

>>3254
Of course this is based on his campaign because that's the only thing I can compare apples to apples. Looking at his cabinet proposals things start to look worse. Either way, please learn what authoritarianism and libertarianism are before you start ranking candidates by who's the most or least authoritarian because almost everyone I've encountered that says Drumpf is an authoritarian seemed to forget about the rest of the candidates. Heck, a lot of these people are more authoritarian than Drumpf himself.

  No.3256

>>3149
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"

Quit perpetuating this Orwellian double-speak. Free trade means free trade. Government takes a hands off approach. No regulations, no taxes, no quotas, no councils, no international courts, etc. Free trade means the government gets out of the way and lets people interact voluntarily. NAFTA, TPP, TPIP, etc. are the antithesis of free trade. Clinton isn't for free trade. She wants government involved in every aspect of trade.

  No.3261

>>3256
It doesn't matter what you think free trade ought to mean, when people say "free trade" they mean NAFTA etc. You are going to spend a lot of time and energy debating terminology unless you admit this.

  No.3262

>Anarcho-Capitalism

That chart can't be taken seriously. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't a real political or economic ideology. It only exists on the internet and in the heads of those who call themselves AnCaps.

  No.3265

>>3262
You left out "activism" listed as an ideology, and then there's "anarchism" followed by "ultra-anarchism". These charts are always a joke, the alignment chart in D&D is about as useful.

  No.3270

>>3261
Words have meanings and when people allow tyrants to hijack the meaning of words it fuarrrks up people's ability to think, gather information, communicate, and organize. It makes it so people can't even agree on simple definitions let alone the bigger picture. It's an effective way to dumb people down and divide and conqueror. The word free means something. Free trade means free trade, not non-free trade. Freedom doesn't mean government restricting freedom. Some people might think I'm taking this too seriously, but words are important. Our words become our thoughts. Our thoughts become our actions. Our actions become our values. Yada-yada.

  No.3271

>>3270
I did just say you were going to waste a lot of time on this. I see I was right.

  No.3272

>>3271
So we should just allow society to devolve into an Orwellian nightmare?

  No.3273

>>3272
non sequiter.

  No.3275

>>3273
Explain.