[wildman]

A more useful political classification could have multiple dimensions e.g. those of liberal - conservative moral values , totally-state-controlled-economy - private ownership with total laissez-faire, ...

I have always thought there is also a powerful psychological dynamic going on beyond just formal political ideologies.

On the one hand you might have someone who sees social organization, systems and human history as a work in progress. No "final solutions" They are comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity in human relationships and are open to the idea that there may be more than one "right" way. Sort of a muddle through approach.

On the other hand there are those who require a high degree of certainty. They think in terms of a right way and only one right way. They may not know what the right way is but they are sure one exists. Most often these folks cling to a guru - Marx on the left, Rand on the right for instance. Also these folks tend to be utopian with some ideal future society where you will have a workers paradise or a free market that will cure hemorrhoids if the state would just get out of the way.

I often wonder if this isn't the real basis for ideology - a certainty-uncertainty continuum.

Just another thought to throw into the grinder.

---

Last edited by wildman; 05-01-2011 at 03:40 PM.

[shooz]

The problems with some of theses descriptions lies in thinking of them as a right left dynamic.
Although convenient, it doesn't really apply.
It's too linear.
Your description of the "right" way, suggests that the "left" must be the wrong way.
Trust me, lots of people think this way, just ask the marketeers.

In your dynamic of Marx on the left and Rand on the right, Where is Hitler?
By this thinking, he would have to be somewhere on the line between the two.
He was somewhere else entirely.
All this right v left thinking is becoming a problem.
We live in a three dimensional space.

Just another thought.

[wildman]

In your dynamic of Marx on the left and Rand on the right, Where is Hitler?

They all belong together.

Perhaps its my poor writing but I thought I was making it clear that I wasn't thinking in terms of right and left. I used the two terms merely as a convenient convention.

[stevewig]

I suspect that this discussion is not getting anywhere very fast at the moment – more like discovering what the meaning of “is”, is.

Most people would have a hard time describing in words what “fascism” is (you probably need a book to do that – same thing with socialism) but they sure would know it when they see it. Just think Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and some of the past South American dynasties. Everyone knows it is certainly Right Wing extremism as opposed to Left Wing extremism even if it doesn’t fit neatly on the straight line between the extremes.

Everyone knows it when they see it and everyone can smell it when a fascist personality expresses his opinions.

I do not believe that currently there is any fascist politician in the USA but there is a strong and extreme right wing.

I do not believe that there is an extreme left wing – as in socialist/communist. I have never heard a modern day US politician advocating socialism or communism. For example it is a lie to tell the masses that your new medical plan is socialism. The lie does work and people are persuaded to vote against their own best interest as a result.

Additionally, I honestly believe that short of a civil war the American Constitution protects against fascism or socialism/communism ever gaining a foothold.

The main problem to my mind is using extreme language deliberately to gain electoral advantage over many unsophisticated voters. In other words, and (as stated above also) for example, using the “socialism” fear factor to get your own way against the best interest of those millions who have no health insurance.

[redrockcoulee]

I suspect that this discussion is not getting anywhere very fast at the moment – more like discovering what the meaning of “is”, is.

Most people would have a hard time describing in words what “fascism” is (you probably need a book to do that – same thing with socialism) but they sure would know it when they see it. Just think Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and some of the past South American dynasties. Everyone knows it is certainly Right Wing extremism as opposed to Left Wing extremism even if it doesn’t fit neatly on the straight line between the extremes.

Everyone knows it when they see it and everyone can smell it when a fascist personality expresses his opinions.

I do not believe that currently there is any fascist politician in the USA but there is a strong and extreme right wing.

I do not believe that there is an extreme left wing – as in socialist/communist. I have never heard a modern day US politician advocating socialism or communism. For example it is a lie to tell the masses that your new medical plan is socialism. The lie does work and people are persuaded to vote against their own best interest as a result.

Additionally, I honestly believe that short of a civil war the American Constitution protects against fascism or socialism/communism ever gaining a foothold.

The main problem to my mind is using extreme language deliberately to gain electoral advantage over many unsophisticated voters. In other words, and (as stated above also) for example, using the “socialism” fear factor to get your own way against the best interest of those millions who have no health insurance.

Steve

I think that was an excellent post however I disagree on one point, that of your constitution protecting against the extremes. The Soviet constitution I was taught was a very strong one and the German one was ignored. It is not just the constitution but those willing to protect and enforce it (I do not mean the military but mostly the common person) that is the real protection and we can surrender that almost without knowing it. Having said that I do not think that your country is in any danger of that for the moment however there does seem to be a movement to limit those who can partake in your democracy and that should be a bigger concern in the present climate. I do not mean an immediate crisis but a disturbing trend that I think moderates from all sides should work together to prevent.

[jolepp]

An interesting attempt to analyse some historical / contemporary politicians with a two-axis model:





These guys have a comprehensive quiz where you can find your own position on the chart: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

A mini-quiz with a similar idea: Advocates for Self Government

[GeneV]

I often wonder if this isn't the real basis for ideology - a certainty-uncertainty continuum.

Just another thought to throw into the grinder.

I tend to agree with that, at least in terms of the ideology to which one gives lip service and the ideology to which people respond.

[Coeurdechene]

Around Marx's (founding father of communism I'd say) time there were others in favour of socialism who thought reforming the existing order would be the way to go.

Not really...socialism was revolutionary, it was much more marxian than today, it believe in class struggle and in the inevitable revolution and rise of the proletariat as central class in the final phase of the dialectic conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Socialist believed in mass revolution and the overthrowing of the bourgeois strucures. The real root of today's social democratic parties lies in the conservative derive of the parties elites. As studied by Mitchels and formulated in his Steel law, the elites used the hierarchical strucures of the socialist parties to impose their, more conservative, line over the bases of said parties. That is when properly "comunist" parties were born, comunism denounced the "revisionism" of social-democracy, it's straying from the correct political line and it's turning into bourgeois parties.
Socialism was revolutionary and today self-called socialism is no longer conected to the original one, it keeps some mythical ties, some figures and emotional links but it has no longer the same values and ideology it's roots are not proper socialism, but the revision of it done by people like Bernstein and other party leaders.
Because of how things were at the time most of the political tendencies that had their social base in the proletariat were revolutionary too: just as the blanquists, anarchists (proudhonian, bakuninist, individualists or comunists), even part of the "utopian" socialists that coexisted with the former...


As to fascism, speaking rigurously, it is a political and social movement of the 20s, where only italian fascists and National-socialists fit entirely...Spain was a tad more complex, being an authoritarian regime where various cliques coexisted and fighted over power (ranging from ultracatholics, almost Ancien-regime-like traditionalist like the carlistas, fascists from the falange, conservatives...), so the spanish regime was very different things depending on who was in power and wich time we consider.

I think that it would be much more usefull to abandon those old words with so many ties and emotional charge of the past to describe acurately the new phenomenons.
In western democracies i think that using authoritarian and totalitarian trends to describe some of the things that have appeared with the securitarian speech is better.
The usage of fear as a way to shore up power and a precise set of policies is an authoritarian derive and when the origin of the threat is identified as a particular ideology promoted by a social sector (just as with the criminalization of the izquierda abertzale here in spain) we are sunking in the totalitarian logics, and drifting away from the "liberal" principles that are suposed to be the base of the legitimacy of these states.
I think it's important to partially abandon the usage of the word fascism to better desccribe the new "extreme-right" parties that use a "democratic" language bundled with some xenophobic or racial distinctions and the revindication of the importance nationalism. They are different from old-school fascism since this had an explicit rejection of the liberal and "democratic" values in conjunction with a cult of violence while the new extreme-right has a more "politically correct" speech and in a way they are more dangerous, because they are more subtle and insidious.

[wildman]

I tend to agree with that, at least in terms of the ideology to which one gives lip service and the ideology to which people respond.

For instance Schooz asked where I would put Hitler compared to Marx and Rand and I said all together.

That's because they are all essentially authoritarian in nature. They all, to a lesser or greater extent, attempt to give a comprehensive explanation of how the world works.

A person who requires, psychologically, a great deal of certainty can be easily seduced by authoritarianism.

Then there is always the problem of history. Germany under the Weimar Republic had suffered through some of the worst economic conditions ever seen by any advanced country and then came the world wide depression on top of that. By 1930 the German people needed certainty and the Nazi party, waiting, was happy to oblige - "at least they made the trains run on time".

FDR during the 30,s was very different. A pragmatist who held no rigid ideology he simply wanted to alleviate the immediate suffering, avoid total collapse of the social system and to some extent narrow what he saw as the extreme economic differences between the classes that had developed during the 1920's. It was often said of him that he had no problem killing a program if he thought someone had a better idea.

Speaking only for myself I have no problem saying I'm firmly in the "muddle our way through" ideological camp. To me a high degree of certainty is always suspect and dangerous.

[wildman]

the new extreme-right has a more "politically correct" speech and in a way they are more dangerous, because they are more subtle and insidious.

.............Yes

[newarts]

A more useful political classification could have multiple dimensions e.g. those of liberal - conservative moral values , totally-state-controlled-economy - private ownership with total laissez-faire, ...

Thanks for your lucid (as usual) contribution but I think we may be experiencing a new dimension of government. That is:

Government by private corporation.

It is not that our government(s) are increasingly laissez-faire regarding private enterprise; rather governments have become, if not the agents of private corporations, at least powerless to control private global corporations.

The US and world banks had no choice but to bail out financial institutions which were "too big to fail" because they really were too big to fail - those instututions were in defacto control of the governments and remain in that position.

This phenomenon is not confined to the USA but is world-wide as the practical financial system has become global. No government is in practical control of BP or Exon or Goldman Sachs or any number of large corporate entities.

In part this is due to a well-developed global financial system that knows no sovereign boundaries and privately held corporate entities under the practical control of no government. Visa, Pay-Pal, and international internet financial exchange agreements binding on corporations know no national boundaries.

Like it or not the only solution to such a situation is for the people to seize back the reigns of control from corporations. This was done in the early 20th century in the US when corporations became more powerful than the individual states and rode rough-shod over them. The solution at the time was the imposition of a strong federal government system of economic controls backed up by force.

Now that a century has passed and the power of corporations has out-stripped that of nations, the only solution is that nations band together to bring corporations under a uniform global set of rules. World Government. There is no other choice.

PS similar situations are not unprecedented in history...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

The Dutch East India Company (Dutch: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, VOC) was a chartered company established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock.[2] It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[3] negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.[4]...

[Coeurdechene]

World Government

or decroissance...
The thing about big organizations is that they are too impersonal, it is really difficult to atribute political responsabilities on concrete individuals wich throws those gigantic organizations on their own dinamics (this is how BP, total, endesa, or coca-cola have no trouble using private armies to repress and silence the reivindications of local populations of territories that they exploit.).

[newarts]

or decroissance......

I'll bet it'll require the threat (if not use) of deadly force.

Perhaps deadly economic force will be sufficient; but even that will rely on global agreement between publics rather than for-profit private entities. That implies World Government backed up by lethal force.

[Coeurdechene]

Perhaps deadly economic force will be sufficient; but even that will rely on global agreement between publics rather than for-profit private entities. That implies World Government backed up by lethal force.

...unless the economic climate and this level of globalization start to be unsustainable due to the rising costs of fuel and those derived of environmental degradation.

But you may be right...in fact world government, kind of, exists already and it is more probable to see it in the shape of what Gibson or Orwell have imagined (two different visions "private" and "public" managed) than something remotely ressemblant to the formal western democracies...Damn, today looks a lot like what Costa Gavras depicted in "section speciale" about the vichy regime...lets just hope people will react before we become some kind of zaibatsu or state property.

[jeffkrol]

Hey, that was fun thanks...........I suppose it won't surprise anyone.......



http://www.politicalcompass.org/
i'm almost in the same spot as Gandhi......... not quite sure I buy that.....

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs

U.S.neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.