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.
Not all political spectrums are acccurate, many i see are just wrong as the makers dont understand politics.
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 - Both USA 2 main political parties are right wing liberal parties of big business. 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. But all partys do a mixture.
Look at NZ the social democrat party NZ Labour brought in good welfare reforms in its first time in office in 1935 , 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 generally does not stand in elections so tends to get forgotten about and left of the spectrum. But when its remembered people confuse the ideology with people that tries to carry it out.
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 the 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 generally the basis of all western countries today, some fulfil this better and more fully than others. 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. All communists and most socialists call todays social democrats right wing. They should be called neo social democrats to distinguish them from pre WWI ones.
When Classic liberalism faltered and failed in the great depression in 1929, 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 and partially economics.
Once you add complete 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 believe human nature is worse
- you resist change more
- society and system gets more authoritarian (both privately and government combined)
- similarly the less democracy you get
- 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
- the less progressive and radical you are.[in general]
- the less truthful, honest and responsible individuals including podcasters and politicians become (in general)
- 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 part of it either 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 .Most people call left and far left and far right wrong . as most western countries dont have any of those in parliament/government, thou its more noticeable in USA and UK having 2 conservative parties in and out of government. 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 is a version of fascism and 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 it . 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Note
Communism and neo liberalism describe both govt , ideology and economics . Economics is covered here
-------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit
The USA is unique, and its political terminology doesn't align with the broader Western world and cannot be compared to it , requiring careful examination. Its wrong and problematic for the normal west having conversations about usa politics and trying to understand it .
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 which means changing word definitions 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 although USA state was founded on separation of church and state but parts of US was heavily Christian like the bible belt (early slave confederation slave state) so influenced with their 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 the Democrats and the Republicans . 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 in 1960s, and the Republican Party became more conservative by today's U.S. standards , especially from Nixon onwards , 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, liberals are often called leftists but 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," or "leftists" they resort to labeling neoliberals that dont hold christian conservative values as "libertarians," USA Liberterians are basically classic liberals espousing neo-clasical economic. Some "libertarians", such as Ron Paul supporters, also criticise the banking system as part of the problem.
This is of course inaccurate. True libertarians are anarchists—left-wing thinkers who reject all forms of coerced authority, which includes capitalism , not just government.
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 conservative economic policies would mean reverting to feudalism, so their economic stance is firmly neoliberal.
Thus, the U.S. political spectrum really looks something like this, from center to right using correct terms (not their misleading ones) :
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 favouring big business and billionaires..
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.
Konkins Minarchism and Rands Objectivism are strains of USA libertarian thought.
Ayn Rand and Objectivism:
Ayn Rand, the philosopher behind Objectivism, is often associated with USA libertarianism. Objectivism advocates for radical individualism, free markets, and a minimal government, emphasizing the importance of rational self-interest and capitalism. Rand's philosophy rejects altruism and collectivism, championing the idea that individuals should live for their own sake, without sacrifice to others. However, Rand's vision of a minimal government does not align with traditional anarchism. Her form of libertarianism is deeply rooted in capitalism, making it inherently different from left-wing anarchism, which opposes capitalism due to its coercive nature. Rand's ideology is an example of the USA libertarian tradition, which is largely about free-market capitalism.
Anarcho-Capitalism (Ancaps):
Anarcho-capitalism, often attributed to thinkers like Murray Rothbard, seeks to combine the principles of anarchism—particularly the rejection of the state—with capitalism. While this may seem like a natural extension of anarchism's anti-state ethos, it is fundamentally contradictory. Traditional anarchists argue that capitalism itself is a form of coercion through exploitation—specifically wage slavery and debt—and therefore cannot coexist with true anarchism. In this sense, anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchism. It is more accurately described as a right-wing version of libertarianism that still supports capitalist structures and is thus not aligned with left-wing, anti-authoritarian anarchism.
Minarchism and Agorism:
Minarchism, often linked to agorism, a form of activism developed by Samuel Edward Konkin III in the 1980s, synthesizes aspects of anarcho-capitalism and USA libertarianism. Konkin's theory, agorism, argues for the gradual dismantling of the state through counter-economic activities—essentially building a society outside the control of state and corporate power. While minarchism advocates for a minimal state that exists solely to protect individual rights, it is often seen as a more pragmatic approach for libertarians who may view the immediate abolition of the state as unrealistic.
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.
Most USA libertarians and ancaps do not believe we live in true capitalism, but given we've had the same liberal capitalist democracies since the Industrial Revolution and no other systems have been fully implemented, capitalism was described by Karl Marx and Louis Blanc it's difficult to hold that view. USA libertarianism , its objectivism and Minarchist variations and anarcho-capitalism, along with communism and anarchism, have not been implemented in full in any state, so they remain theoretical. It is only versions of liberalism that have been practiced. That being said, there are some examples of anarchism and some states that came close to socialism and would be considered a third way china or fascism not Blairs Labour party theorys.
----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Character
One final thought and this is more anecdotal (personal) evidence and opinion than fact and to be fair this is definitely true of USA not so much NZ because i think we arent as divisive yet and have a different culture but we are slowly taking on USA toxic divisive political culture via our most right wing parties..
The further right you go especially within government ;
- The lower their emotional intelligence:
It should be noted the more right wing you are studies show the low emotional intelligence shows yup more in right wing people, here , here which may tie into an onstage debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson , Harris said "so youre saying stupid people need stories" [ he was prob referring to theists being atheist himself] and Peterson replied "i am saying that to some degree, if you look , if youre not exceptionally cognatively astute you should be traitional and conservative. here
Research has explored the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and political ideology, suggesting that there may be some correlations between right-wing beliefs and certain emotional traits like lower empathy and greater emotional reactivity. Studies have found that right-wing individuals tend to exhibit higher emotional reactivity to threats and are more likely to seek certainty and order, potentially leading to a lower emotional tolerance for ambiguity. These individuals may also score lower on empathy and compassion, particularly when it comes to social justice issues or marginalized groups. This could indicate a lower ability to understand and share the emotions of others in complex social situations.
On the other hand, left-wing individuals have been shown to score higher on measures of empathy and compassion. They may be more emotionally attuned to issues of inequality, fairness, and diversity, which could be linked to higher emotional intelligence in those areas. Some studies also suggest that conservatives may rely on defensive emotional strategies when encountering challenging or contradictory information, indicating a less flexible emotional response. However, these findings are not universally conclusive, as emotional intelligence is a multi-dimensional trait influenced by a wide range of factors, including culture, upbringing, and personal experiences.
List of Studies:
Carney et al. (2008) - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Found that conservatives tend to seek order and certainty, which may correlate with lower emotional flexibility.
Jost et al. (2003) - Psychological Bulletin: Found that conservatives show higher levels of threat sensitivity and anxiety about change, suggesting lower emotional resilience.
Klein et al. (2019) - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Found that liberals scored higher on empathy and compassion, especially toward outgroups and marginalized communities.
Hibbing, Smith, and Alford (2014): Explored physiological responses and found that conservatives show greater emotional responses to threats, while liberals are more attuned to emotional cues related to fairness and inequality.
Lammers et al. (2011): Found that conservatives are more likely to use emotionally defensive strategies when encountering conflicting emotional information.
Pratto et al. (1994) - Social Dominance Orientation: Found that individuals with higher social dominance orientation (often linked to right-wing ideologies) tend to show lower empathy and emotion regulation toward outgroups.
the more politicians lie Rubin & 86
the more they gaslight
the more bias and double standards - on Piers
Comments
Post a Comment