The idea of a “libertarian - authoritarian” spectrum is already false, what’s important is the class character of a society. Ie, are the working classes in control? Or are capitalists in control? Just nakedly calling something “libertarian” or “authoritarian” is meaningless without class analysis, and libertarianism isn’t necessarily non-authoritarian, revolution is the wielding of absolute authority over another group and that’s the most common method of gaining control.
If I say I’m a Marxist-Leninist, people generally know what that means. If someone says they are an anarcho-communist, then people know what that means. Even if the depth of knowledge someone has isn’t that great, it’s better than people trying to guess from a reductive quadrant based system that increases confusion, rather than decreasing it.
The idea of a “libertarian - authoritarian” spectrum is already false,
?
Like, etymologically?
As in liberty’s granted by those in power, and authority of the individual?
I’m guessing that’s not what you mean though, given the rest of what you’ve said.
what’s important is the class character of a society. Ie, are the working classes in control? Or are capitalists in control?
Glad we have you here to dictate what’s important.
You get that I’m not proposing replacing one singular scale with another though, right? It does not serve us and our comprehension of this stuff to reduce to one linear measure, be that solely an economic left/right scale, nor solely a liberty/authority scale (nor worse, reducing these to 1-big binary). It serves us better to see both. We’d not be able to do such, as you’ve just done, depicting marxist-leninist contrast to anarcho-communist, if we did not have both axes. So… what are we arguing about here? Are we just saying the same thing differently? I’m not sure what you’re attempting to throw out, with regards to the political compass. It’s simply one means of measuring this stuff, offering yet more subtle nuance. Where it falls short of this, is not helped by throwing it out, but by improving it (at least, potentially ~ I’ve seen some tragic failures of adding a 3rd dimension to it, poorly conceived, corrupted worse by the biases of whoever created it).
Are the working class totalitarianised, and have a council who are “more equal than others”?
Are the capitalists mere marketeers and not really reducing people to mere “capita”?
See? Even these qualifiers and terms are lacking in specificity that avoids conflations beyond how they may first be interpreted.
I’m no fan of either big brother, nor big baron.
Also, ~ though this may be drifting a mite off topic here ~ we’ll never achieve a true emancipation so long as we peg our political power to our labour… our enslavement. Bit of a “work makes you free”. Coercing corruption of the working class into complicity in maintaining the wealth extracting rents on all, with their wealth dependent upon the capitalists, (or the worker collective, if ridding any such egregious iniquitous capitalist ruler/owner).
I’ve seen some attempts to put small boxes all over the political compass, with the various names of political philosophies, and never seen it done where there’s not awkward misfits (perhaps most especially along the bottom, with all the anarchists ~ like where I saw one place “anarcho-monarchism” around -3,-10). It does not work like that. Admirable as it is to attempt such. But because the political compass lacks depth, this will always be a misfit. As is any map, compared to the terrain, as it’s not a 1 for 1 comparison, and merely an attempt to usefully help navigate the terrain.
Like I say… what the political compass needs, is more, to overcome these shortcomings. Not reduced to less. Lets not throw the map baby out with the not-terrain bathwater, in favour of an even worse map even more prone to orwellian contortions.
Endlessly, we see “left” and “right” used to hoodwink those wanting freedom, into allying themselves with their authoritarian counterparts, with the half-truth (or, quarter truth) fearmongering that the other “side” are the authoritarian ones trying to take your power and freedom away.
This can just as easily be done with the other axes, to whatever absolute economic dogma side’s currently most eager to so use such a manipulative ploy. Though more readily, it falls to using left and right to divide people into opposing (even, opposaming) groupthinks, with one one side eagerly getting back one freedom loudly, at the expense of two on the other side, and vice versa, sending us tacking ever towards totalitarian tyranny. At least while we keep falling for it.
And where the libertarian right have a mechanistic drift to authoritarianism, to monopoly, where money is power, and it takes money to “make” moneny, the consolidation of wealth (and therefor power) is inevitable, the libertarian left have a more wishy-washy slip of philosophy to look out for, too easily primed for it, in fear of big baron, feeling like they need big brother to fight big baron.
Whereas, if the libertarian left, and libertarian right (at least the middle diagonal halves of each), were to, instead of allying themselves with their authoritarian counterparts, ally with each other, for freedom, then there may be a more robust freedom for each and all, not merely a liberty at the expense of however much the central authority decrees is acceptable. ~ Which is an idea that seems to trouble the established authorities sufficient to keep peddling the misnomer that malarchy is “anarchy”, and committing all kinds of false flags to problem-reaction-solution us back into clamouring for big brother, big baron, big bully, big blight, big bot, big bank, whichever big b, to save them, even though that’s going right back into the arms of those who were already keeping the people down, and committing the false flag crimes pretending to be the unruly people that people cannot trust. And that’s just for one example of many, where the orwellian contortions gain easier traction, when people do not have a political compass.
So again, I’m VERY keen, to hear what the better proposal is, so I can comprehend it without it seeming like a regression into worse reductivism and worse susceptability to having the Orwellian wool pulled over our eyes.
(watches video…
… gives itself away to have pre-decided, in its tone, from the start, rather than an impartial critique and exploration. It’s also misrepresenting it considerably. E.g.
depicting it as just 4 quadrants (rather than two intersecting scales both from -10 to 10), it is not that reductive… like your score does not come out as just which quadrant your answers put you in.
argues with tone against the political compasses decried folly of depicting left as government driven and right as market driven (… how much “government” is there at -10,-10? … how much government is there at 10,10), asserting, again, with scoffing smug tone, that the two axes are not better than one…
OMFG, this is an hour and a half long… This is already painful in the first 3 minutes.
She admits she’s biassed, but refuses to reveal her bias. … C’mon. There are FAR better critiques of the political compass out there than this. Sorry. Not going to put up with this. So many philosophical/epistemological blunders in this.
I’d probably agree with a significant amount of the critiques in this, but it’s too sickening to put up with. [Eesh… as it continues to play in the background as I type, the way she questions the statements so far, misses the point, and misses better critique and analysis of the statements, especially as to which directions they are weighed and interpreted ~ like I say… there are better critiques out there. (and again, not corroborating the idea of throwing it out in favour to leave us without a compass, rather than to improve the compass. ~ And, enjoyable irony, that she has an emotional argument against the emotional content rather than (for want of a better word) rational.]
great video
no.
Very sub-par, by my estimate.
(Ee-gads! She really needs a political compass too… making silly faux-pas, succumbing to government/corporate/cultural deceptions as if they’re reality, and the test needs to be corrected to that view. So painful. Jeez. … Ow my head… the biases asserted, decreeing what should be, while not acknowledging it as bias… naive realism… groupthink prone… cant get there from here. Ow. I’m guessing she made the intro (where she admits to secret biases) after the rest, to cover her ass for doing just the same thing lamented against. Not just hypocrisy, but narcissism detected. Guess this is all reflex from narcissistic injury. Lots of camouflage (ironically mirroring her face) and attack in place of introspection and consideration. Exhausting weak arguments, that I could do better than. And this is the means by which she’s (and you’re(?)) going to try throw the baby out with the bathwater??? … To advocate the magical words that we magically all understand the same and that would never be subject to Orwellian abuse into newspeak… ? I’m gonna need a stronger argument for that, and a stronger (or any) refutation of what I’ve said. ~ and without false dichotomy, strawman, equivocation, argumentum populum, appeal to authority, oversimplifiction, false analogy, circular reasoning and non-sequitur fallacies (and whatever more that slipped by my attention. Like I say… epistemological blunders. But I guess that’d be compelling, and even seem great, to those not actively seeking sound (not just valid) arguments to find the truth. Exhausting, says appeal-to-complexity me, hah!)
)
~ So, like I say… what’s better? (I recently explored a page with about 8 different alternatives on it, to varying wealth of insight ~ alas, lost that link ~ so there is ample room .
That’s the real quest.
Clearly, what’s better, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And we cant get there from hypocritical lambasting of biases while having your own which you wont challenge nor show.
So, the quest continues. The search for better maps. Not succumbing to dancing reductive conflationary Orwellianised labels (and the groupthinks they inspire) as if we’re in la-la land beyond Wittgenstein’s warning.
Remember when I ended my initial reference to the political compass here with “for a start”?
*nods*. That.
Lets not run backwards from that.
Also, the venn diagram in the original post here, falls foul of much of what I’m railing against here. Orwellian conflations, leading to nonsensical conflations and cognitively dissonant implausibilities.
This ramble doesn’t really say anything. You meander around, and then fail to give any examples of how revolutionary th0t misses the point. You also keep going on and on about “big brother,” etc. The entire “libertarian/authoritarian” spectrum is false, as a worker run state has been enormously emancipatory historically.
My answer is simple, abandon the awful false spectra of the political compass in favor of direct comparison.
I flipped out at 45 minutes into the vid… had to stop it… the hypocriticality and non-sequitors just got too much for my poor autistic INTP brain to take any more of. Holy fuuuuuuu~
Gonna need some time away from computer to restore homeostasis. Wow was that bad. If she were in my presence, in sharing a conversation on critiquing the political compass, I’d feel compelled to assert “Stay off my side!”. XD Ilithiophobia triggered.
The idea of a “libertarian - authoritarian” spectrum is already false, what’s important is the class character of a society. Ie, are the working classes in control? Or are capitalists in control? Just nakedly calling something “libertarian” or “authoritarian” is meaningless without class analysis, and libertarianism isn’t necessarily non-authoritarian, revolution is the wielding of absolute authority over another group and that’s the most common method of gaining control.
If I say I’m a Marxist-Leninist, people generally know what that means. If someone says they are an anarcho-communist, then people know what that means. Even if the depth of knowledge someone has isn’t that great, it’s better than people trying to guess from a reductive quadrant based system that increases confusion, rather than decreasing it.
Here’s a great video going over the political compass’s absurdities.
?
Like, etymologically?
As in liberty’s granted by those in power, and authority of the individual?
I’m guessing that’s not what you mean though, given the rest of what you’ve said.
Glad we have you here to dictate what’s important.
You get that I’m not proposing replacing one singular scale with another though, right? It does not serve us and our comprehension of this stuff to reduce to one linear measure, be that solely an economic left/right scale, nor solely a liberty/authority scale (nor worse, reducing these to 1-big binary). It serves us better to see both. We’d not be able to do such, as you’ve just done, depicting marxist-leninist contrast to anarcho-communist, if we did not have both axes. So… what are we arguing about here? Are we just saying the same thing differently? I’m not sure what you’re attempting to throw out, with regards to the political compass. It’s simply one means of measuring this stuff, offering yet more subtle nuance. Where it falls short of this, is not helped by throwing it out, but by improving it (at least, potentially ~ I’ve seen some tragic failures of adding a 3rd dimension to it, poorly conceived, corrupted worse by the biases of whoever created it).
Are the working class totalitarianised, and have a council who are “more equal than others”?
Are the capitalists mere marketeers and not really reducing people to mere “capita”?
See? Even these qualifiers and terms are lacking in specificity that avoids conflations beyond how they may first be interpreted.
I’m no fan of either big brother, nor big baron.
Also, ~ though this may be drifting a mite off topic here ~ we’ll never achieve a true emancipation so long as we peg our political power to our labour… our enslavement. Bit of a “work makes you free”. Coercing corruption of the working class into complicity in maintaining the wealth extracting rents on all, with their wealth dependent upon the capitalists, (or the worker collective, if ridding any such egregious iniquitous capitalist ruler/owner).
I’ve seen some attempts to put small boxes all over the political compass, with the various names of political philosophies, and never seen it done where there’s not awkward misfits (perhaps most especially along the bottom, with all the anarchists ~ like where I saw one place “anarcho-monarchism” around -3,-10). It does not work like that. Admirable as it is to attempt such. But because the political compass lacks depth, this will always be a misfit. As is any map, compared to the terrain, as it’s not a 1 for 1 comparison, and merely an attempt to usefully help navigate the terrain.
Like I say… what the political compass needs, is more, to overcome these shortcomings. Not reduced to less. Lets not throw the map baby out with the not-terrain bathwater, in favour of an even worse map even more prone to orwellian contortions.
Endlessly, we see “left” and “right” used to hoodwink those wanting freedom, into allying themselves with their authoritarian counterparts, with the half-truth (or, quarter truth) fearmongering that the other “side” are the authoritarian ones trying to take your power and freedom away.
This can just as easily be done with the other axes, to whatever absolute economic dogma side’s currently most eager to so use such a manipulative ploy. Though more readily, it falls to using left and right to divide people into opposing (even, opposaming) groupthinks, with one one side eagerly getting back one freedom loudly, at the expense of two on the other side, and vice versa, sending us tacking ever towards totalitarian tyranny. At least while we keep falling for it.
And where the libertarian right have a mechanistic drift to authoritarianism, to monopoly, where money is power, and it takes money to “make” moneny, the consolidation of wealth (and therefor power) is inevitable, the libertarian left have a more wishy-washy slip of philosophy to look out for, too easily primed for it, in fear of big baron, feeling like they need big brother to fight big baron.
Whereas, if the libertarian left, and libertarian right (at least the middle diagonal halves of each), were to, instead of allying themselves with their authoritarian counterparts, ally with each other, for freedom, then there may be a more robust freedom for each and all, not merely a liberty at the expense of however much the central authority decrees is acceptable. ~ Which is an idea that seems to trouble the established authorities sufficient to keep peddling the misnomer that malarchy is “anarchy”, and committing all kinds of false flags to problem-reaction-solution us back into clamouring for big brother, big baron, big bully, big blight, big bot, big bank, whichever big b, to save them, even though that’s going right back into the arms of those who were already keeping the people down, and committing the false flag crimes pretending to be the unruly people that people cannot trust. And that’s just for one example of many, where the orwellian contortions gain easier traction, when people do not have a political compass.
So again, I’m VERY keen, to hear what the better proposal is, so I can comprehend it without it seeming like a regression into worse reductivism and worse susceptability to having the Orwellian wool pulled over our eyes.
(watches video… … gives itself away to have pre-decided, in its tone, from the start, rather than an impartial critique and exploration. It’s also misrepresenting it considerably. E.g.
OMFG, this is an hour and a half long… This is already painful in the first 3 minutes.
She admits she’s biassed, but refuses to reveal her bias. … C’mon. There are FAR better critiques of the political compass out there than this. Sorry. Not going to put up with this. So many philosophical/epistemological blunders in this.
I’d probably agree with a significant amount of the critiques in this, but it’s too sickening to put up with. [Eesh… as it continues to play in the background as I type, the way she questions the statements so far, misses the point, and misses better critique and analysis of the statements, especially as to which directions they are weighed and interpreted ~ like I say… there are better critiques out there. (and again, not corroborating the idea of throwing it out in favour to leave us without a compass, rather than to improve the compass. ~ And, enjoyable irony, that she has an emotional argument against the emotional content rather than (for want of a better word) rational.]
no.
Very sub-par, by my estimate.
(Ee-gads! She really needs a political compass too… making silly faux-pas, succumbing to government/corporate/cultural deceptions as if they’re reality, and the test needs to be corrected to that view. So painful. Jeez. … Ow my head… the biases asserted, decreeing what should be, while not acknowledging it as bias… naive realism… groupthink prone… cant get there from here. Ow. I’m guessing she made the intro (where she admits to secret biases) after the rest, to cover her ass for doing just the same thing lamented against. Not just hypocrisy, but narcissism detected. Guess this is all reflex from narcissistic injury. Lots of camouflage (ironically mirroring her face) and attack in place of introspection and consideration. Exhausting weak arguments, that I could do better than. And this is the means by which she’s (and you’re(?)) going to try throw the baby out with the bathwater??? … To advocate the magical words that we magically all understand the same and that would never be subject to Orwellian abuse into newspeak… ? I’m gonna need a stronger argument for that, and a stronger (or any) refutation of what I’ve said. ~ and without false dichotomy, strawman, equivocation, argumentum populum, appeal to authority, oversimplifiction, false analogy, circular reasoning and non-sequitur fallacies (and whatever more that slipped by my attention. Like I say… epistemological blunders. But I guess that’d be compelling, and even seem great, to those not actively seeking sound (not just valid) arguments to find the truth. Exhausting, says appeal-to-complexity me, hah!) )
~ So, like I say… what’s better? (I recently explored a page with about 8 different alternatives on it, to varying wealth of insight ~ alas, lost that link ~ so there is ample room .
That’s the real quest.
Clearly, what’s better, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And we cant get there from hypocritical lambasting of biases while having your own which you wont challenge nor show.
So, the quest continues. The search for better maps. Not succumbing to dancing reductive conflationary Orwellianised labels (and the groupthinks they inspire) as if we’re in la-la land beyond Wittgenstein’s warning.
Remember when I ended my initial reference to the political compass here with “for a start”?
*nods*. That.
Lets not run backwards from that.
Also, the venn diagram in the original post here, falls foul of much of what I’m railing against here. Orwellian conflations, leading to nonsensical conflations and cognitively dissonant implausibilities.
Better maps still needed. :)
This ramble doesn’t really say anything. You meander around, and then fail to give any examples of how revolutionary th0t misses the point. You also keep going on and on about “big brother,” etc. The entire “libertarian/authoritarian” spectrum is false, as a worker run state has been enormously emancipatory historically.
My answer is simple, abandon the awful false spectra of the political compass in favor of direct comparison.
I flipped out at 45 minutes into the vid… had to stop it… the hypocriticality and non-sequitors just got too much for my poor autistic INTP brain to take any more of. Holy fuuuuuuu~
Gonna need some time away from computer to restore homeostasis. Wow was that bad. If she were in my presence, in sharing a conversation on critiquing the political compass, I’d feel compelled to assert “Stay off my side!”. XD Ilithiophobia triggered.