NationStates Jolt Archive

Wandering around this big old net recently, I came across an idea that clicked:

The "economic left/right" axis often used as part of a political spectrum needs fixing. Instead of left=regulated/right=un-regulated, it puts unregulated free market capitalism in the center, and the corporatist market, regulated in favor of business owners on the far right.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/policomp5.gif

I certainly have issues with the classification of certain persons there (Stalin should be at the top left, not the bottom!), but overall, it seems to work better than the standard model.

I'll happily take a lower center position on that graph.

What do you think?

Interesting...I'd put myself somewhere near greenpeace...

Interesting...I'd put myself somewhere near greenpeace...

Probably about 5 pixles left of Friedman and about halfway to the bottom fromn Greanpeace, myself.

Wandering around this big old net recently, I came across an idea that clicked:

The "economic left/right" axis often used as part of a political spectrum needs fixing. Instead of left=regulated/right=un-regulated, it puts unregulated free market capitalism in the center, and the corporatist market, regulated in favor of business owners on the far right.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/policomp5.gif

I certainly have issues with the classification of certain persons there (Stalin should be at the top left, not the bottom!), but overall, it seems to work better than the standard model.

I'll happily take a lower center position on that graph.

What do you think?

It depends, typically if you are very right wing you favour smaller government and may not favour corporations as much.

It depends, typically if you are very right wing you favour smaller government and may not favour corporations as much.

That's the attractor for this idea to me. It puts the extremes of negative and positive economic liberties on the ends, and the true free market in the middle.

That's the attractor for this idea to me. It puts the extremes of negative and positive economic liberties on the ends, and the true free market in the middle.

For me, Corporatism and Socialism are very similar. They are both regulated economies, but one is regulated by the government and the other regulated by the" corporations maaan."

It's interesting that everyone on the right except for Mussolini is American, and everyone on the left except for Greenpeace and the Amish is not. I think Americans have have a different concept of the free market than the rest of the world (and that's not necessarily a bad thing).

I also like thinking that if Stalin were more socially conservative, he would live in Pennsylvania and make quality furniture with simple tools.

For me, Corporatism and Socialism are very similar. They are both regulated economies, but one is regulated by the government and the other regulated by the" corporations maaan."

Which isn't the usual definition of the economic right end of the scale. Usually the right end of the scale favors corporations.

Well that's a poser and no mistake. Consider me thinking.

It's interesting that everyone on the right except for Mussolini is American, and everyone on the left except for Greenpeace and the Amish is not. I think Americans have have a different concept of the free market than the rest of the world (and that's not necessarily a bad thing).

I also like thinking that if Stalin were more socially conservative, he would live in Pennsylvania and make quality furniture with simple tools.

It's a poor sampling,and not necessarily accurate, as I intimnated with my comment re Stalin.

Well that's a poser and no mistake. Consider me thinking.

Good. :D I'd rather be asking questions that make people think than almost anything else. (One of the resaons I ended up a teacher...)

I also like thinking that if Stalin were more socially conservative, he would live in Pennsylvania and make quality furniture with simple tools.
Hahahahahahaha.. I haven't roflmao that hard in a long time. :D

In a free enterprise economic system, there is financial freedom -- people keep (more of...) what they earn, may spend/invest as they see fit, etc.

In socialism, you have forced (government-manipulated) economic equality.

When people are free to act, some will be more swuccessful than others. It is the same way in the corporate world -- some companies will simply be better (and possibly bigger, though not necessarily) than others. Ideal free enterprise allows for the possibility of monopolies. That's where regulation comes in.

I think Reagan was a lot more socially conservative than Bush.

Which isn't the usual definition of the economic right end of the scale. Usually the right end of the scale favors corporations.

So yours is no different then?

It's a poor sampling,and not necessarily accurate, as I intimnated with my comment re Stalin.
That's true, but I think even a better sampling would show something similar.

I am still not sold on most of the market anarchist opposition to the corporation, even on part of the Austrian School. My only thought on the matter is that a cooperative firm will be a lot more efficient on a purely free market than today's hierarchical, bureaucratic corporation which enjoys limited tort liability.

Daistallia, I recommend you look into the works of Kevin Carson at anti-state.com. The guy falls into many pitfalls, but he has written some interesting work on the corporation. Also be sure to check Stephan Kinsella's and Walter Block's responses to his writings.

So yours is no different then?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The usual left-right scale claims to put unregulated free market capitalism on the right end, but actually puts a regulated market pro-corporate capitalism there.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The usual left-right scale claims to put unregulated free market capitalism on the right end, but actually puts a regulated market pro-corporate capitalism there.

I love that aspect of this graph. I often think of Chile under Pinochet when people use the term 'free market'. Detractors of the free market point to Chile as an example of the horrors of the free market (as I did in my youth), but to me it seemed more like a corporatist market. A truly free market would not use government power to expand corporate power. Instead, it would have a separation of corporation and state similar to the western ideal of separation of church and state, if you will. A truly free market would be completely separate from the political sphere, in my opinion.

I like this very much. Place me somewhere close to Greenpeace but a little closer to the right.

Detractors of the free market point to Chile as an example of the horrors of the free market (as I did in my youth), but to me it seemed more like a corporatist market. A truly free market would not use government power to expand corporate power.
There's a book by the late John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist, that gives the history of the past hundred years or so from an economic view. In it, he points out that the US has always been business-friendly (maybe even business-fanatic) but has also had a very "free" concept of the free market. Around the turn of the 20th century, anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws were put into place. This didn't happen much in Europe, not because Europeans were pro-monopoly, but because the idea of a completely separate government and business world wasn't the standard. I think today that still shows, where there are huge Japanese monopolies but few American versions of Standard Oil still in existence, and also in government services, where healthcare and welfare are more often government-run in Europe than in the US.