Jump to content

The definition of control vs freedom


Recommended Posts

On 4/6/2022 at 1:50 PM, c3k said:

A much more useful measure of politics uses a different spectrum. (BTW, "right wing fascist" was a label used by the Communists in the '20s to differentiate two different forms of socialism).

The spectrum to use is linear. On the far right is total individual liberty. Call it anarchism.

On the far left is total government control. 

Using that, one can see that fascism, socialism, communism are much more closely related than democracies.

There are variants on this, but freedom vs. control is a much more useful measure. It shows that "right wing fascists" are really just a form of left-wing totalitarianism. (And, boy, do they hate being reminded of that.)

 

21 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Although I think the terms 'left' vs 'right' are inadequate and lead to narrowmindedness, this description is far from accurate or complete.

Anarchists are generally considered / see themselves as extreme left while those that want state enforced rules  for discrimination and oppression of specific groups of people (fascists) are generally seen as extreme right.

FYI large parts of Western Europe have been or are successful social-democracies for a long time. 

To not go off topic too much conceptually left is more about social equality while the right is more about each men for himself. But then there are many more perspectives. Generally the 'extreme' variants of either spectrum are considered to be conceptually similar if implemented in practice by a state. It always leads to autocracy / dictatorship.

Anyway to describe right as freedom and left as control is far to simple besides plain wrong.

 

 

19 hours ago, c3k said:

Lolz...   It is a different perspective. As such it cannot be "plain wrong". And it is one that is much more internally consistent and does not require nuanced dialectic to describe the differences in various forms of government.

As mentioned elsewhere, adding a dimension for state vs. private ownership of means of production is part of that model.

And, as I stated to someone else, I'd love to have a discussion about HOW to describe these issues in another thread. (I do not want to discuss the benefits/drawbacks of the various political philosophies, but just HOW to correctly describe their relationship to one another.)

@c3k so here we are 😉

Trying to establish as fact the idea that conceptual definitions of 'control' vs 'freedom' are aliases for 'the political left' vs 'the political right', is plainly wrong. The concepts of freedom and control(/oppression) aren't even in the same dimension, let alone ballpark, as political concepts/leanings like left vs right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent!

Let me begin. :)

Ignore EVERYTHING about left and right that you've heard before.

One such thing (to be ignored) is Left wing is liberal and right wing is...something else. By their own definition, Communists are the furthest left form of government. (According to the linear left/right to be ignored. ;) ) Fascists were described by the communists as being "right wing". Well, of course: EVERYTHING is to the "right" of communism. 

And, what is liberalism? Are we speaking of modern American liberalism where you get "cancelled" if you don't adhere to the ideology or, even worse, are accuse of heresy? Or are we speaking of classical liberalism?

Shrug.

As I stated, ignore all that crap.

Instead, start with your linear comparison, but replace the left with "control" and the right with "freedom".

More...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...continued.

 

Total control of the individual by government ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- complete unfettered individual freedom

 

That's the yardstick.

Now, we can expand into more dimensions later (and we'll need to), but for now, let's keep it linear.

Other descriptions talk about a circle with the "right" (<- whatever that means) bending around and meeting the "left". Those rely upon arcane descriptors, puzzling dialectic, and nuanced doctoral theses relegated to dusty shelves in academia. Similarly, there are "horseshoes", etc.

But, as I said, let's use the above linear descriptor for now.

"Complete unfettered individual freedom" is akin to, if not actually defined as, anarchy.  That doesn't work. It devolves almost immediately into violence. For protection, individuals then gather into trusted groups. Usually you trust your family. Then you get clans, etc.

We can delve into those forms later.

 

Edited by c3k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

 

 

@c3k so here we are 😉

Trying to establish as fact the idea that conceptual definitions of 'control' vs 'freedom' are aliases for 'the political left' vs 'the political right', is plainly wrong. The concepts of freedom and control(/oppression) aren't even in the same dimension, let alone ballpark, as political concepts/leanings like left vs right.

WHOA.

I think I see where you and I have miscommunicated.

In no way shape or form did I convey (or intend to convey) that "the political right" is an alias for "freedom" or vice versa.

Leaning left/right needs to be defined. What do you mean when you say "political right"? What about "political left"? How do you tell the two apart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, c3k said:

WHOA.

I think I see where you and I have miscommunicated.

In no way shape or form did I convey (or intend to convey) that "the political right" is an alias for "freedom" or vice versa.

Leaning left/right needs to be defined. What do you mean when you say "political right"? What about "political left"? How do you tell the two apart?

Lol, I began to state that in my opinion 'left' and 'right' are inadequate ;-). 

However in the political sense (except extremist, which don't really matter for democracies anyway, so are irrelevant when one actually considers discussing about pro / cons of political leanings), the 'left' spectrum is about social-equality, egalitarianism, regulation of 'the market' is necessary. Right spectrum is more about 'each men for his own', 'no regulation of the economy', 'the market will solve itself in optimal form'. Now those are by far not complete lists, but that's how political parties on the left vs right present themselves.

Personally I feel that both/all schools of thought have merit and why not use the best of both worlds? Privatizing shouldn't be all goal in and of itself and surely has caused a lot of issues in many countries, at the same time there are plenty of examples of overregulating trying to accomplish social-equality. 
But people working on slave-labour wage double jobs without medical insurance is undesirable, so some regulation is needed. Preferably in a way as simple as possible which is actually enforceable and than IS also enforced.

Coming back to your post, I feel that shoving everything which has been attributed to left/right and replacing that with the control / freedom concept is just more confusion upon established inadequate political concepts which lead to narrowmindedness. 
My political leaning is 'left-right' :)

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Lol, I began to state that in my opinion 'left' and 'right' are inadequate ;-). 

However in the political sense (except extremist, which don't really matter for democracies anyway, so are irrelevant when one actually considers discussing about pro / cons of political leanings), the 'left' spectrum is about social-equality, egalitarianism, regulation of 'the market' is necessary. Right spectrum is more about 'each men for his own', 'no regulation of the economy', 'the market will solve itself in optimal form'. Now those are by far not complete lists, but that's how political parties on the left vs right present themselves.

Picking what I bolded...

How does your definition of "right" correspond with "right wing fascism" or Nazism? (Is Nazism a left-wing or right-wing political ideology in your view?)

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Personally I feel that both/all schools of thought have merit and why not use the best of both worlds? Privatizing shouldn't be all goal in and of itself and surely has caused a lot of issues in many countries, at the same time there are plenty of examples of overregulating trying to accomplish social-equality. 
But people working on slave-labour wage double jobs without medical insurance is undesirable, so some regulation is needed. Preferably in a way as simple as possible which is actually enforceable and than IS also enforced.

Ahh, picking and choosing implies a choice. I'm not going to get into a debate on which politic is "better" or "worse" than another.  Just about how to describe them. ;)

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Coming back to your post, I feel that shoving everything which has been attributed to left/right and replacing that with the control / freedom concept is just more confusion upon established inadequate political concepts which lead to narrowmindedness. 
My political leaning is 'left-right' :)

^^^

Was Pinochet's administration a right-wing government or a left-wing government? If left-wing is opposite to right-wing, how can they meet around the back side of a spectrum?

I firmly believe that the currently accepted left-wing/right-wing is intentionally confusing. I think a control/freedom spectrum is LESS confusing.

 

Edited by c3k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, c3k said:

Picking what I bolded...

How does your definition of "right" correspond with "right wing fascism" or Nazism? (Is Nazism a left-wing or right-wing political ideology in your view?)

Ahh, picking and choosing implies a choice. I'm not going to get into a debate on which politic is "better" or "worse" than another.  Just about how to describe them. ;)

^^^

Was Pinochet's administration a right-wing government or a left-wing government? If left-wing is opposite to right-wing, how can they meet around the back side of a spectrum?

I firmly believe that the currently accepted left-wing/right-wing is intentionally confusing. I think a control/freedom spectrum is LESS confusing.

 

Well I didn't 'invent' these stuffs and indeed this is not about which side is better, let's stay far from that :). The examples given was to show examples of why policy doesn't have to be a zero sum left vs right game.
Also, my English is fine but not my first language and discussing these stuffs isn't something I usually do in English.

With all that said: fascism is considered on the far-right extremist spectrum. For example in our country we have parties on the far right (not yet extreme, at least not en public) spectrum who are officially / basically want our country to be only for 'original' people and immigrants are encouraged to go back 'home'. 

Let's say they would get hold of power by a majority of the vote and have enough seats in parliament to change the constitution so that immigrants get less rights than 'original' people and for example can be discriminated against without repercussions. 
They also institute new police force controlled by the party (so like a paramilitary, not unlike SA) to help enforce the new laws. 
And why would we need new elections? 
In that situation we would have become a fascist country.

Nazism is more of an 'occult' than a political ideology. The vehicle they chose for their 'political' ambitions was the NSDAP, a 'national-socialist' party. Now I think the name is just a placard, but 'national-socialism' can be interpreted as both extreme-left and extreme-right. 

Pinochet's administration was a dictatorship. I don't know too much about the policies of Pinochet, but I'm also not sure if it is useful to try to place a placard 'left' or 'right' on it. It would be arbitrary at best.

Another interesting question is the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'. Is North-Korea democratic? Is it a republic?
No, definitely not. They identify with the extreme-left / communism, or at least once did. But their policies don't necessarily differ much from an extreme-right fascism state.

So in my opinion, states like North-Korea / Nazi-Germany etc are first and foremost dictatorships / autocracies who lean to wherever they feel they need to lean and will call it left, right or center just to suit their control. If anything it's political travesty / flexibility to suit the needs of the day. The only principle they maintain is to stay in power at the cost of everything else.

---

I'm not sure whether left-wing/right-wing is intentionally confusing, but confusing/inadequate it is indeed. I'm don't necessarily agree that a freedom vs control spectrum would be less confusing, mainly because of two reasons:

* One could still 'claim' to be pro freedom but in practice be a control-state but explain that as a freedom state (in our country, we provide our people real freedom by deporting unwanted people to be free somewhere else ;-). Besides, an extreme form of freedom would not necessarily mean that everyone in society is as free as the other. 

* In many democratic countries there are a lot of political parties in the political spectrum, who position themselves on the traditional political left/right/centre spectrum. For example, here's a list of our political parties including their leaning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands

How would it be less confusing for people to choose their preferred leaning, if they ditched the left/right and replaced it with freedom/control? Political parties being political I'm sure all of them would claim the best way of freedom with only strictly necessary control. 
And or party X claims that the way of freedom/control implemented by party Y is actually leading to less freedom for people, while obviously the other party will claim the contrary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

...we have parties on the far right (not yet extreme, at least not en public) spectrum who are officially / basically want our country to be only for 'original' people and immigrants are encouraged to go back 'home'. 

We need to take into account that western nations are pretty much the only nations in the world which actively welcome immigrants on the assumption that immigrants will assimilate and become good (US, British, EU etc) citizens who will "fit into" the host nation's culture (and presumably pay taxes to support the increasingly elderly populations who require increasing amounts of social services etc).

I have had the good fortune to have traveled widely around the world and this generous open-ness is not the norm.  For example countries in Asia... eg: Japan, China etc are very mono-cultural - other than tourists, outsiders are discouraged - look at how the Uyghurs are treated and also the Tibetans etc.  

Where immigration is restricted and/or the immigrants have assimilated (am thinking S American nations) there is less tension - altho' I was told it still exists.  

In the US there has been rising problems.  I listen to NPR regularly and have heard very angry people say that they refuse to assimilate as they refuse to "adopt the white man's racist values" or somesuch.  But, if they took that approach in China or Japan or India or middle east or...

By the above definition of "Nazism/fascist" most other nations could easily come under the label of "fascist".

 

Edited by Erwin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

western nations are pretty much the only nations in the world which actively welcome immigrants on the assumption that immigrants will assimilate and become good

I think (or maybe hope) in the UK as an example most people recognise the positives that immigrants bring.  Of course not everyone sees it like that, and the often quoted line is that if you think your job / wages / housing are being threatened by immigration you start to take a more contrary view. 

Not sure where this all sits with IMO stupid things like Brexit, slow acceptance of refugees etc. but my original sentence is where I hope we're at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...continuing on with HOW to describe political philosophies (and NOT talking about which is better or worse)...

I'll use shorthand for my continuum: the Total Control will be TC and Total Freedom TF, thus:

TC---------->     ----TF

I'll contend that a form a Fascism has the same limited freedoms as a form of Marxism, thus:

TC----->   Fascism/Marxism ------TF

Yet, there are some differences in the root ideologies of Fascism and Marxism. Most of those can be expressed by how they value or allow private ownership of businesses (or the "means of production", Lolz...).

Let's introduce a vertical axis to represent private ownership/property rights vs. collective/government ownership/lack of property rights

Now we have a two dimensional way to describe (or plot) different forms of government.

(FWIW, I found this continuum years ago. I started researching this after someone couldn't define "neo-con" or "alt-right" after using them repeatedly in a conversation. The more I dug, the more I found that most people get confused when you ask them what defines left-wing vs. right-wing. The Control/Freedom measure is NOT mine...but it is the most useful I've found.)

We can talk about other dimensions later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 4/8/2022 at 4:51 PM, Erwin said:

We need to take into account that western nations are pretty much the only nations in the world which actively welcome immigrants on the assumption that immigrants will assimilate and become good (US, British, EU etc) citizens who will "fit into" the host nation's culture (and presumably pay taxes to support the increasingly elderly populations who require increasing amounts of social services etc).

I have had the good fortune to have traveled widely around the world and this generous open-ness is not the norm.  For example countries in Asia... eg: Japan, China etc are very mono-cultural - other than tourists, outsiders are discouraged - look at how the Uyghurs are treated and also the Tibetans etc.  

Where immigration is restricted and/or the immigrants have assimilated (am thinking S American nations) there is less tension - altho' I was told it still exists.  

In the US there has been rising problems.  I listen to NPR regularly and have heard very angry people say that they refuse to assimilate as they refuse to "adopt the white man's racist values" or somesuch.  But, if they took that approach in China or Japan or India or middle east or...

By the above definition of "Nazism/fascist" most other nations could easily come under the label of "fascist".

 

 

I've been trying to find the good stuff you're smoking, but even in NL they don't sell that unfortunately or it just ain't working for me.

You're selectively quoting a passage from my post and from there somehow connect the west / white nations being supposedly the only nations welcoming 'others', to a generalization of China, Japan, ME or India, culminating in most 'other' (?) nations could be called fascism according to what I posted. 

My advise for you would be to visit some countries outside the West for a change and experience how the world actually is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/9/2022 at 1:30 AM, c3k said:

...continuing on with HOW to describe political philosophies (and NOT talking about which is better or worse)...

I'll use shorthand for my continuum: the Total Control will be TC and Total Freedom TF, thus:

TC---------->     ----TF

I'll contend that a form a Fascism has the same limited freedoms as a form of Marxism, thus:

TC----->   Fascism/Marxism ------TF

Yet, there are some differences in the root ideologies of Fascism and Marxism. Most of those can be expressed by how they value or allow private ownership of businesses (or the "means of production", Lolz...).

Let's introduce a vertical axis to represent private ownership/property rights vs. collective/government ownership/lack of property rights

Now we have a two dimensional way to describe (or plot) different forms of government.

(FWIW, I found this continuum years ago. I started researching this after someone couldn't define "neo-con" or "alt-right" after using them repeatedly in a conversation. The more I dug, the more I found that most people get confused when you ask them what defines left-wing vs. right-wing. The Control/Freedom measure is NOT mine...but it is the most useful I've found.)

We can talk about other dimensions later.

Erwin's distraction and the fact that I've been rather busy delayed my response a bit.

Anyway; I understand the idea of providing a simpler scale for political identity by making the scale about government control with one side being no control and the other side being maximum control. It would surely be a simpler scale than the vague left and right we have now.

The issue's I see with it are:

A) redefining established concepts, no matter how vaguely defined, on another scale is always a bad idea. But that could be solved by choosing other terminology (i.e. no left/right).

B ) there are nuanced differences in policy flavoring, currently incompetently addressed left vs right, which aren't included in the 'more/less government control scale'.

So political parties will still need another scale to differentiate from each other. I don't see how this solves anything basically.

Conceptually it wouldn't be that different from "Ok, from now on we will name all things considered 'problems' as 'challenges' instead" and believing that it would make a difference with regards to addressing any of these problems/challenges. 

My solution is to just forego the left right spectrum and look for policy I can identify with or is imo wise. It is not required to be 'binary' when it comes to governmental policies just because someone once thought up that there ought to be 'a left' and 'a right'.
Might be me though, if someone tells me to go either left or right I'll probably try crashing through the middle 😉

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

You're selectively quoting a passage from my post a

It is called a strawman argument (vogelverschrikker). Giving the impression of refuting an opponent which was not presented by the opponent. I just bud in because it saves you a lot of writing. By the way your English is excellent for me Dutch has become a second language on the same level as your English I hope. We have a separation of Church and state. Imagine we were run by the dominant nomination, and we can't have an influence who is elected for pope, bishop or priest and must accept faiths and traditions as fact. Science natural justice goes right out of the window. Believe it or not it is attractive for some NATO member states like Turkey and Poland where the prevailing religion is far more powerful.  

Edited by chuckdyke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

It is called a strawman argument (vogelverschrikker). Giving the impression of refuting an opponent which was not presented by the opponent. I just bud in because it saves you a lot of writing. By the way your English is excellent for me Dutch has become a second language on the same level as your English I hope. We have a separation of Church and state. Imagine we were run by the dominant nomination, and we can't have an influence who is elected for pope, bishop or priest and must accept faiths and traditions as fact. Science natural justice goes right out of the window. Believe it or not it is attractive for some NATO member states like Turkey and Poland where the prevailing religion is far more powerful.  

Thanks! :)
There are indeed various fallacies Erwin has some habit of using ;-). 
Once my English was supposed to be of academical level, but like everything one doesn't use often it rusts. Working in the Dutch (semi) public sector for 10 years doesn't help lol.
I'm very happy for our separation of Church and State. On that note it is funny that many countries across the world have become more 'strict' on the subject of religion conformity since the 60/70/80s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Control--Freedom" axis is inadequate because it ignores the question of "Freedom for whom?" Freedom and opportunity aren't always equally distributed.

A slavery-based system looks like near-total freedom to the slaveowner. What if we ask the slave? The same goes for a traditional underclass.

When we remember this, we find ourselves going back to a more traditional Right/Left model, in which freedom/wealth/etc are reserved for privileged groups or expanded to the wider populace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Holman said:

The "Control--Freedom" axis is inadequate because it ignores the question of "Freedom for whom?" Freedom and opportunity aren't always equally distributed.

A slavery-based system looks like near-total freedom to the slaveowner. What if we ask the slave? The same goes for a traditional underclass.

When we remember this, we find ourselves going back to a more traditional Right/Left model, in which freedom/wealth/etc are reserved for privileged groups or expanded to the wider populace.

Good points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Australia we have a two-party system and either the Liberal or the Labor party will decide who becomes a minister or prime minister. One party systems, only one party decides who becomes the president and they still call themselves democratic. At its height the Chinese communist party had 4 million members and only they have any influence. In other words the UN gave veto power to 4 Million people. A good start is with the UN when we talk about democracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Holman said:

The "Control--Freedom" axis is inadequate because it ignores the question of "Freedom for whom?" Freedom and opportunity aren't always equally distributed.

That's absolutely rubbish.

Wealth is not equally distributed.

Land productivity is not equally distributed.

Height, weight, work ability, etc. are all not "equally distributed".

The key issue is whether ANY of the opportunities are AVAILABLE. 

In a true Communist system (A very controlled system that has never been instituted (more on that later)), no one has the opportunity to become wealthy.

In a system giving Freedom (not Anarchy), does everyone have the opportunity to become wealthy by, say, surfing? Sure. How many can do it?

If you think of a system that tries to equally distribute "freedom and opportunity" you end up with some extremely oppressive Control systems. Think Pol Pot.  

 

11 hours ago, Holman said:

A slavery-based system looks like near-total freedom to the slaveowner. What if we ask the slave? The same goes for a traditional underclass.

The "traditional" underclass, in  system with Freedom, is not static. It does not become generational.  In systems with Control...it does. 

11 hours ago, Holman said:

When we remember this, we find ourselves going back to a more traditional Right/Left model, in which freedom/wealth/etc are reserved for privileged groups or expanded to the wider populace.

"Privileged" groups only exist when a Control system exists that creates such things. Look at the Soviet Union: those in Control had all the wealth and privilege.

 

Again, the traditional Left/Right model is a creation of the far Left. It puts Freedom as some sort of delicate central balance position.

Using the Control/Freedom axis, you can see that total Freedom (extreme right of the axis) is individualist to an extreme. It's total anarchy. As you move left, towards more control, that gets limited.  At some point on the axis, there are Controls against things like stealing and murder. As you move more and more towards the Control side, there are more and more Controls on the individual. 

If you're concerned about differentiating between property ownership, you add that axis to the Control/Freedom model.  If Control/Freedom is the X axis, then ownership becomes the Y axis. Individual ownership is positive Y, government ownership is negative Y.  

Using a Left/Right model is inadequate to describe why Fascism is a "right" and Socialism is a "left". 

Why is a Nazism a Right, but Soviet Socialism a Left?

Left/Right is a tool of the Left to create political distance from quite similar Leftist systems. 

 

A quick edit: I'm doing this in just a few spare moments and I'd like to expand a bit more. I'm assuming that others can make follow the logic without me laying it out step by step.

Here's an example: Steve posted a link/story about an Alt-Right group (and, yes, someday I'd like to see Alt-Right defined) that is aligned with Putin. Is Putin's Russia a Left or a RIght system of government? 

Edited by c3k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/27/2022 at 1:15 PM, c3k said:

The "traditional" underclass, in  system with Freedom, is not static. It does not become generational.  In systems with Control...it does. 

"Privileged" groups only exist when a Control system exists that creates such things. Look at the Soviet Union: those in Control had all the wealth and privilege.

Do you have any foundation for these statements / assumptions outside of your theories?

For example, compared to USA Sweden is a much more 'left' oriented country. But in Sweden you have more chance to move between classes compared to USA. Privileged groups certainly exists in countries where 'the market' decides relatively more than countries where there is more control from the elected Government. For example my country has more 'control' than the USA, but I doubt we have more 'privilidged' groups. If you look at wealth distribution, you could come to wildly different conclusions.

This database might interest you, it gives a couple of scales which say much more about a country: 
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/

For example try putting in Sweden vs United States.

 

On 4/27/2022 at 1:15 PM, c3k said:

Again, the traditional Left/Right model is a creation of the far Left. It puts Freedom as some sort of delicate central balance position.

Using the Control/Freedom axis, you can see that total Freedom (extreme right of the axis) is individualist to an extreme. It's total anarchy. As you move left, towards more control, that gets limited.  At some point on the axis, there are Controls against things like stealing and murder. As you move more and more towards the Control side, there are more and more Controls on the individual. 

It is a product of the French revolution. It's not only the 'traditional' model, it IS the CURRENT model. However, thinking that 'freedom' can be on one side of a scale (in your case the right) of the scale and explain all political ideologies is shortsighted. You only have to read about Abraham Lincoln's sheep & wolfs concepts to arrive at that conclusion.

What actually is 'freedom'? Is that 'freedom for everyone' or rather 'freedom for the wolf'?

 

On 4/27/2022 at 1:15 PM, c3k said:

A quick edit: I'm doing this in just a few spare moments and I'd like to expand a bit more. I'm assuming that others can make follow the logic without me laying it out step by step.

I'm not sure we can all follow 'the logic' your thinking of.

 

On 4/27/2022 at 1:15 PM, c3k said:

Here's an example: Steve posted a link/story about an Alt-Right group (and, yes, someday I'd like to see Alt-Right defined) that is aligned with Putin. Is Putin's Russia a Left or a RIght system of government? 

According to both our Military Intelligence Service and General Intelligence Service, Russia is currently a extreme-right system of government and is mainly attracting 'extreme right' ideologies in our country. This is the general consensus. 

https://nos.nl/artikel/2426805-oorlog-rusland-voedt-denkbeelden-extreemrechts-in-nederland-waarschuwt-aivd

But like Steve, others and me have said: there is virtually not much difference between extreme left or extreme right.

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of "freedom", call it "individualist"  and instead of "control" call it "collectivist". Does that make more sense?

As to generational servitude...this is veering into a discussion on relative merits/drawbacks of political systems. My intent is NOT to get into that mess.

Using your last sentence: "there is virtually not much difference between extreme left or extreme right".   <- That is proof, ipso facto, that the Left/Right description has failed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, c3k said:

Instead of "freedom", call it "individualist"  and instead of "control" call it "collectivist". Does that make more sense?

Imo calling left more about 'collectivism' and 'right' more about 'individualism' does indeed make (much) more sense. However it doesn't necessarily address the nuances in policy differences that exist and are currently incompetently defined by 'left' and 'right'.

19 hours ago, c3k said:

 

Using your last sentence: "there is virtually not much difference between extreme left or extreme right".   <- That is proof, ipso facto, that the Left/Right description has failed.

Well, I arrived at this discussion with that idea basically "Although I think the terms 'left' vs 'right' are inadequate and lead to narrowmindedness".

This discussion started with your suggestion that changing left/right into freedom/control would improve stuff. I have argumented why I don't think it will change anything and why it's not a good idea in my opinion.

 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lethaface said:

This discussion started with your suggestion that changing left/right into freedom/control would improve stuff. I have argumented why I don't think it will change anything and why it's not a good idea in my opinion.

 

Just to be clear, this is not an idea that I came up with. I came across it in my study of politics and found it a much "cleaner" solution when looking at fascist/socialist regimes and democracies.

Adding the Y axis for individual ownership vs collective ownership creates a 2-dimensional map with a clear delineation between fascism on side and communism/soviet-style socialism on the other, yet both being to the left of the X axis.

I've been incredibly busy and traveling. When I get some time, I'll post some images that show exactly what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lethaface said:

FRg1TssaAAEimsG?format=jpg&name=small

Hope you don't mind me using your diagram to illustrate the type of model we were taught some 35-40 years ago. Definitions are changing. Nobody announces these polar shifts, they just kind of show up and the masses run with it. Many Conservatives are confused they are considered right wing now. The opposite of Liberalism was Conservatism. Socialism was a response to capitalism. Heck I remember Liberal and Conservative Democrats 😉

 

old definition - Copy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...