Is the left right political spectrum still applicable
YES is short answer .
Long answer is
Yes to a point with these explainations
You have to explain or know what youre plotting on the spectrum
The spectrum remains true for all the main ideologies but not the same for those that change like people or political parties . For the most part Political parties were easily plotted up until WWI or WWII but since then, especially with the onset of neo liberalism from 1979 weve got parties that do a mixture of policys making them harder to plot . All political parties in NZ are just capitalist parties - As in the rest of the west , they are arguing about the size of govt intervention to make capitalism work. As a consequence they use all manor of policies . The more left political parties used to tax and/or borrow and spend and regulate. While the more right wing liberal parties traditionally used to reduce govt tax and size and practice austerity.
Look at NZ the social democrat party NZ Labour brought in neo liberalism in 1984, it later refused to sign the declaration on indigenous rights under Helen Clark ,and also lowered the corporate tax rate 2% and had a 50,000 immigration policy . The next govt National (formed from liberal party and the reform party) sold state assets and reduced workers rights but also increased immigration by double on average to 100,000 . increased the government debt massively and spent . Our most right wing party a neo liberal party was formed from that disastrous 1984 Labour party.
They do what ever they need to do to make the money economy function to provide jobs and get voted back in. This has blurred the lines on the right side of the spectrum. The left is still anti-capitalist and not standing in elections so tends to get forgotten about .
Meanwhile poor old USA has main 2 right wing liberal parties on economics that favour big business and oligarchs and only differ on social issues like human rights.
Lets dive into it;
The political spectrum arose from the 1789 French revolution after ending the French monarchy , taking earlier philosophers ideas like François-Noël Babeuf (communist) John Locke (liberal) or Edmund Burke & Joseph de Maistre (conservatives) and putting them into practice.
In the new national assembly of the people the radical progressives of the socialists and liberals sat on the left and the conservatives who were trying to protect (conserve) the monarchy and the existing authoritarian system or at least slow that change sat on the right. Originally they were seating positions but now refer to ideology.
It described government style and human rights /social issues and somewhat economic issues. But as liberalism became dominant and capitalist economic system became established, the status quo, liberalism moved to the right, and economics became as (and more in my opinion ) integral to politics than social issues. Theres no social freedom without economic freedom.
Liberalism is the type of government and society where human rights are created and government is created with consent of the people and protects peoples individual rights of life , liberty and property. They believe in meritocracy and one law for all. Thats the basis of all western countries today. They are liberal democracies with capitalism based on private property and profit as the economic system.
The radicals became the utopian socialists and later Karl Marx rebutted utopian socialism and espoused communism which coincided with the rise of anarchism . Anarchism while in conflict with Marxism on implementation is still considered communism as most definitions of anarchism fit Marxs description of communism. Communism being a society of no class, no state and no money. They were both in the 1st international until most anarchists left over disagreements.
Communism and socialism oppose liberalism and capitalism and want a collective ownership of "private property" aka the means of production for more democracy and freedom than capitalism can give.
The workers and socialists in late 1800s formed socialist parties like the Germanys SPD, Spains PSOE and the Labour Partys of Britain , NZ and Australia and were called either democratic socialists or social democrats . When they mostly voted for war in WWI it was the end of their socialism in practice and in politics and a slow march to supporting capitalism with reforms instead of opposing it . And by WWII there was no left wing social democrat party's left.
When Classic liberalism faltered and failed in the great depression , after WWII some liberals moved left and introduced modern liberalism aka social liberalism to help society by using government to reduce privilege and create equal opportunity. They still believed in meritocracy and unequal outcome. After the 1970s oil crises and stagflation capitalism faulted again, Milton Friedman introduced his neo liberalism and "liberal conservative" parties came to power in UK (Thatcher) and USA (Reagan) neo liberals came to power and moved liberalism back further right. Neo liberals were classic liberals with government market intervention especially with monetary policy to make the failing free market work as advocated by Milton Friedman.
This recent USA orientated single axis spectrum frequently shown describes government style and social issues but not economics.
Once you add economics everything from social democracy moves right . Social democracy becomes center right/right and liberals/liberalism in all its variations move further to right.
There isnt an accurate spectrum drawn for it but it would be something like this , from a video explaining socialism- fascism and liberalism variations are under capitalism.
As you go from left to right
- you resist change more
- you believe human nature is worse
- society and system gets more authoritarian (both privately and government combined)
- freedom gets less - it declines from positive freedom to negative freedom to Dictatorships
- you believe in larger/taller hierarchy’s
- you go from international to national to super national
- the more your humanity and empathy and compassion decreases
- in general the state gets bigger as you move right think ;
socialism --> liberalism --> conservatism/fascism
- and in general the left blame the complete system while the right blame just the government or workers.
(note it applies to liberalism in general but not specifically to social democracy v modern liberalism v neo liberalism which decrease govt size as you move right . But they are all capitalist so im lumping them together . One further point, try and leave a liberal capitalist states jurisdiction and you will find it very authoritarian)
It should look more like this
This covers ideology and failed attempts at socialism through democracy. But what about governments in practicality .While it covers the liberty v authoritarianism of the total system , it doesnt cover size of government and its authoritarianism v liberty of just the government ( Russian revolution, Maoism and Hitler ), for that you need a 2nd axis graph. Generally in practice states that try to bring in socialism have been attacked by liberal capitalists especially USA so have remained authoritarian in order to defend themselves and survive)
Something like this.
I will find a better graph and post it but in the meantime , this was drawn by a right winger capitalist supporter probably an anarcho capitalist (orange circle) an ideology that is an oxymoron and couldnt exist in reality. But heres the errors ;
Statist communist doesnt exist and is an oxymoron as communism is anti state . I would say the same about despotic socialism given socialism meaning today of "the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange", any socialism like democratic socialism that has a state it would have to be democratic as democracy and freedom is the main aim of socialism. Social reformist is probably the modern social democrat which I call the neo democrats to distinguish them from pre WWI ones and are drawn too far to left while all liberalism is right wing as graphs 2 & 3 above .
You could argue Leninism was despotic socialism as he redefined socialism as that transitory period between capitalism and communism they got stuck in. But Marxism is not , which is communism , therefore it should be with anarcho communism and anarcho syndicalism which also believe in revolution.
If you are going to say an ideology is positioned by the way its implemented then liberalism would have to be very authoritarian as it took series of bloody revolutions and wars to implement and is still held together with armys, police and prison and NAZIsm is very libertarian as NAZI party got power through democracy , it was elected. and passed legislation to make a dictatorship . You cant rate one one way and others another way to suit your political agenda . They are still held together with armys police and prisons.
In NZ it looks something like this. Except it also misses socialism on the left side of the political spectrum.
Fascism is the hardest to pinpoint , while its based on conservatism ideology its economic policy is misunderstood . Not all 5 fascist states in 1930s were identical . Nazism however is mostly a made up ideology thou Hitler wrote 25 point program in 1921 when he joined the party and renamed it. They still made up much of it as it went along and applied . Fascism including Nazism would be under capitalism by most peoples accounts because it was fundamentally a system of private property. Thou some in the right wing call it socialism but to do this you would have to accept Hitlers new rewriting of the definition of socialism ie Race based national socialism. Which fails most if not all of the definitions of socialism especially democracy,. It was government control of the economy to force workers and capitalists to cooperate together for the third Reich . Unions were banned and a one large govt controlled union used. It was nation syndicalism controlled by govt . The other thing was it was corporatist. If you insist its not capitalism then you would need a venn diagram (just for the economics).
hhttps://www.quora.com/Is-using-the-left-right-political-spectrum-still-useful
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Edit
The USA is unique, and its political terminology doesn't align neatly with the broader Western world and cannot be compared to it , requiring careful examination. The U.S. describes its political landscape in ways often distorted by a narcissistic focus on its own history and experiences. To understand the U.S. political system, one must first grasp the typical Western political spectrum above and then place the U.S. within it. This involves unpacking how the U.S. developed its own terminology and what these terms truly represent.
The U.S. built its nation through conquest, war, and pioneering, fostering an individualist national identity rooted in "blood and soil" ideologies and Christian values. This history suppressed unions and socialist movements and cultivated deep-seated anti-socialist sentiment. Without strong socialist or social democratic parties gaining power, there was no significant advocacy for collective or even social democratic ideas, resulting in two right-wing liberal parties. Adding to the complexity, the Republican Party was originally the more liberal and progressive party both socially and economically, while the Democrats supported slavery , even well after the Civil War. Over time, this reversed: Democrats shifted left during the Civil Rights Movement, and the Republican Party became more conservative by today's U.S. standards probably influenced by christianity.
In contrast, most Western nations—like the UK, New Zealand, and Germany—had/have active social democratic parties (such as the Labour Party or SPD). The U.S.A however, experienced only a brief progressive phase before World War I and never embraced the collective ideologies prominent in other Western democracies. Where the typical Western political spectrum spans communist, socialist, social democratic, and modern liberal (neoliberal) parties, the U.S. political landscape is framed differently depending on who is describing it.
Right-wing commentators often oversimplify the spectrum into three categories, from left to right:
Liberals, Libertarians, Conservatives.
This framing is misleading, as liberals are not inherently left-wing. In the U.S., the center often refers to itself as "progressive" rather than "liberal." But how can the ideologies differ if the terms are used interchangeably? The confusion results in "progressives" being seen as center/center-right, while "modern liberals" are right-of-center with some overlap. Because the right lumps these two ideologies together under "liberals," they resort to labeling neoliberals as "libertarians," which is also inaccurate. True libertarians are anarchists—left-wing thinkers who reject all forms of coerced authority, which includes capitalism , not just government. Some "libertarians", such as Ron Paul supporters, even critique the banking system as part of the problem.
Meanwhile, U.S. conservatives are best described as neoliberal conservatives. They advocate free-market economics and small government but maintain strong conservative social values, often influenced by Christian ideology. Advocating truly liberal economic policies would mean reverting to feudalism, so their economic stance is firmly neoliberal.
Thus, the U.S. political spectrum looks something like this, from center to right:
Progressives → Modern Liberals → Neoliberals → Neoliberal Conservatives
The Democratic Party encompasses a mix of progressives, social democrats, modern liberals, neoliberals, and even some neoliberal conservatives. The Republican Party, by contrast, consists predominantly of neoliberals and neoliberal conservatives, with both parties heavily shaped by corporate donations.
Explained here by Destiny and better by David Pakman Leftist vs Socialist vs Liberal vs Progressive: Political terms explained
Leftist seems to be a derogatory right wing term and means just left of who evers talking , in the usa that could be democrat party or Bernie Sanders or AOC if used within the democrat party. Non of which are socialist or left wing.
Another oddity in the U.S. political landscape is the existence of anarcho-capitalism (ancap), a movement created by Murray Rothbard in the 1960s. This ideology attempts to combine anarchism with capitalism, but it is fundamentally contradictory. An oxymoron. Anarchism rejects all forms of coerced authority, including capitalism, and true left-wing anarchists dismiss anarcho-capitalism as a "non-true" form of anarchism.
Comments
Post a Comment