slug.com slug.com

1 4

The concept of our left-right political spectrum that has been foisted upon us is a big reason for a lot of our present day confusion. I know that statement will be immediately negated as too simplistic.
However, there have been at least a few attempts to make it more comprehensive and understandable to the average person. It's been expanded into different dimensions, aligning economic, social and governmental fields. It's been suggested it be circular in nature.

The most easily understood, and thus condemned or rejected for its simplicity, is one that is a true political dichotomy. Left and right are dichotomies that are politically expressed as liberalism and conservatism. A true "political" dichotomy goes from no government and progresses to total government. In other words, anarchy to totalitarianism, neither of which in my estimation, is desirable. Especially in the context of building a rational society or civilization.

The left-right political spectrum is, in my view, what is simplistic and also in error. It is obvious that no two totalitarian regimes can coexist in a common or proximate geographical location. One will always seek to dominate and destroy the other. It would illicit a period of constant war. Both right-wing and left-wing socialism are forms of totalitarianism. They are erroneously presented on our current political spectrum as opposites when in fact their objective is the same - total political control. This similarity of objective should place them very closely together on a political spectrum - not as opposites. There is no doubt they will be oppositional but they are not opposites. There similarities in goals preclude them from co-existing.

Anyway, Marxism, Maoism, communism, fascism, nazism, socialism, have similar goals and we can see that all will attempt to be dominant within their own geographical location. The Communist philosophy is international in its scope so it will force combining with other forms of socialism or upon destroying them.

FrankZeleniuk 8 Mar 25
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

For the most part, I don't associate with either far left or right, and the word liberal is the best word to describe someone like me, or nowadays in the USA that's called being libertarian. Over the years the political spectrum in my country has shifted, so by today's standards someone like me would now be considered just right of center.

I agree with many libertarian perspectives but reject any of its anarchist tendencies. Perhaps there should be a separation of state and business as there is a separation of church and state. In international affairs I feel the state has a purpose, and as a final arbiter of justice. Most all else can be handled by lower levels of governance, such as at a State or municipal level.
My relation with the libertarian philosophy would be probably described as minarchist libertarianism.

A far more understandable linear political spectrum would go from anarchy to total government.

@FrankZeleniuk While I may not totally agree with anarchism, I can understand why some feel that way, and human nature plays a role in that. Some human beings may have no qualms with going along with societal structures, while others may tend to think more for themselves and are more individualist, and in turn actively resist the (perceived or not) authoritarianism of other human beings.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:408387
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.