NationStates Jolt Archive

Well many people feared the collapse of the degenerated workers states (Soviet bloc) would bring about a massive shift to the right and reactionary politics worldwide, and although with Reagan and Thatcher it certainly seemed that way, it also seems today that the Left has made somewhat of a comeback. If you look worldwide at the numbers of parties in government which have socialist/social democratic or the like ideologies is quite large, and with politicians like Chavez, da Silva etc. So my question is, how do the people of NSG see and feel about the future of the New Left and it's directions. Personally I hope the left will find new direction in going back to the ideologies of self-management, workplace democracy and grassroots mass movements. I hope we can put forward a valid critique of liberal capitalism and globalisation in favor of a more democratic economic system based on common ownership.

Thoughts?

Grouping a democrat like Lula with a wannabe despot like Chavez is almost comic Schatzlein.

Grouping a democrat like Lula with a wannabe despot like Chavez is almost comic Schatzlein.
Sorry, but Chavez was elected, no? And if you check out his policies they are vastly decentralized in economic terms, the creation of state micro-credit business, communal workshops, redistribution of unused land for subsistence. The other part he is centralizing in is the oil industry, but this is hardly surprising and hardly indicative of despotism in any way, oil industries would be all but impossible to run as decentralized communes, and in that regard his oil policy is surprisingly more Norwegian than Marxist. And if your also talking about extension of political power, I am not so concerned, the theory of democratic centralism (leninist/marxism/trot) is the single-party vanguard controlled directly by the people through mass organization, every person is a member of the popular party. The opposition just want to make the country a virtual oil rig of the US anyways.

Chavez's party = democratic socialism
Lula's party = democratic socialism

"left" and "right" should fade into obscurity, as you can't define social control/freedom AND economic control/freedom with a single one-dimensional scale.

Sorry, but Chavez was elected, no? And if you check out his policies they are vastly decentralized in economic terms, the creation of state micro-credit business, communal workshops, redistribution of unused land for subsistence. The other part he is centralizing in is the oil industry, but this is hardly surprising and hardly indicative of despotism in any way, oil industries would be all but impossible to run as decentralized communes, and in that regard his oil policy is surprisingly more Norwegian than Marxist. And if your also talking about extension of political power, I am not so concerned, the theory of democratic centralism (leninist/marxism/trot) is the single-party vanguard controlled directly by the people through mass organization, every person is a member of the popular party. The opposition just want to make the country a virtual oil rig of the US anyways.

Chavez's party = democratic socialism
Lula's party = democratic socialism

The difference being that Lula da Silva is working hard to rule within the constraints of the Brazilian democratic system. He does not villify his political opponents at traitors and spies, as Chavez does. He does not legitimize his rule based off of some bogeyman story about the "US is coming to get me, LOLZORZ!" and he cooperates with all elements of society.

The difference being that Lula da Silva is working hard to rule within the constraints of the Brazilian democratic system. He does not villify his political opponents at traitors and spies, as Chavez does. He does not legitimize his rule based off of some bogeyman story about the "US is coming to get me, LOLZORZ!" and he cooperates with all elements of society.
You know right that the US state dept funds opposition groups and media in Venezuela, especially the RCTV which sponsored the military coup, their is also substantial evidence of the US's involvement in Venezuelan politics. Couple this with the US history in Latin America against the Left, I think he's justified in his thinking. His opponents, in all categories which one can use to describe traitors, are indeed traitors, they obviously want to put in the WTO/IMF and enslave Venezuela both indirectly and directly to US economic and political interests - treason.

You know right that the US state dept funds opposition groups and media in Venezuela, especially the RCTV which sponsored the military coup, their is also substantial evidence of the US's involvement in Venezuelan politics. Couple this with the US history in Latin America against the Left, I think he's justified in his thinking. His opponents, in all categories which one can use to describe traitors, are indeed traitors, they obviously want to put in the WTO/IMF and enslave Venezuela both indirectly and directly to US economic and political interests - treason.

How does that sound like anything BUT propaganda to you?

"left" and "right" should fade into obscurity, as you can't define social control/freedom AND economic control/freedom with a single one-dimensional scale.

First, "economic control/freedom" certainly, and plausibly "social control/freedom", are poor terms that reflect a certain ideological bias.

Second, politics do not fit neatly onto a two-dimensional spectrum either. This becomes especially clear when considering questions like gender and race.

"I believe in equality and genuine autonomy for women. Therefore, I am against pornography and in favor of abortion rights."

Neither "social freedom" nor "social control" nor some moderate compromise accurately describes this position.

"I believe in equality and genuine autonomy for women. Therefore, I am against pornography and in favor of abortion rights."

Neither "social freedom" nor "social control" nor some moderate compromise accurately describes this position.

Maybe because those two opinions make for inconsistent position. And maybe that is the bigger problem: politics that are not about taking consistent stances, but about supporting or opposing whatever hot-button issue is currently in the news. If politicians were more consistent and less opportunistic, a 2-dimensional chart would be pretty damn effective at labeling individuals.

First, "economic control/freedom" certainly, and plausibly "social control/freedom", are poor terms that reflect a certain ideological bias.

Second, politics do not fit neatly onto a two-dimensional spectrum either. This becomes especially clear when considering questions like gender and race.

"I believe in equality and genuine autonomy for women. Therefore, I am against pornography and in favor of abortion rights."

Neither "social freedom" nor "social control" nor some moderate compromise accurately describes this position.

Better terms than "left" or "right" however. At least with "social freedom/control" you get some idea what the hell one is talking about.

Better terms than "left" or "right" however. At least with "social freedom/control" you get some idea what the hell one is talking about.

In needs to be simplified for the masses. That is why there is one word to describe two sides that are vastly complex.

As far as the "left" side of politics seemingly making a comeback. There is always ebbs and flows in politics. What is common and seemingly normal will be tomorrows rarity. Then the cycle will come back around again and will repeat.

Thoughts?

I think phrases like "New Left" are silly.

Maybe because those two opinions make for inconsistent position.

No, they don't.

Better terms than "left" or "right" however.

As far as describing capitalist libertarianism, yes.

As far as describing the stance of anti-porn feminism, anti-hate speech anti-racism, or pro-affirmative action anti-racism (I don't mean to imply that all of those positions are equivalent), I'm not sure... "left-wing" seems to work better than the two-dimensional alternatives, though that too has its problems.

How about Neo Liberal?

Already taken.

The "New Left" as Andaras Prime is using it is not particularly fond of neo-liberalism.

I think phrases like "New Left" are silly.

How about Neo Liberal? We can just call them NeoLibs and say it as if it is something evil..... :D

Chavez and da Silva are the heralds of the new left? God, nearly every country in the world is shifting further and further rightward. People like prosperity, it seems.

I think phrases like "New Left" are silly.
I still think that Political Compass has hit the nail on the head.

Left/Right Libertarianism and Left/Right Authoritarianism.

*nods*

Vauge enough to encompass everyone; exact enough to stop classification arguments.

Chavez and da Silva are the heralds of the new left? God, nearly every country in the world is shifting further and further rightward. People like prosperity, it seems.

Lula is to the left of our previous President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. And Brazil improved quite a bit under Lula's rule. So, Left = Prosperity for everyone. Right = Prosperity for the rich only.

Bearing in mind: I voted for Heloísa Helena, a candidate further left than Lula is.

How does that sound like anything BUT propaganda to you?

Putting political ideology, of whatever type, aside for the moment, economic and political intervention on the part of the United States in Central and South America (as well as Europe, Cuba, the Middle East, South/East Asia) in opposition to the spread of (Soviet) Communism is basic History and International Relations 101 type stuff.

Established in 1823 (obviously well before the Cold War), the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would view as a threat any effort on the part of European powers in interfere in the affairs of any other nation in the Americas. This same concept (combined with Domino Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory)) was thus used to justify interventions by the United States into Central and South America in order to counter the Soviet Union.

At any rate, ill results of the United States' interventions, such as the rise to power of the Augusto Pinochet regime in Chile or Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair are a little difficult to dismiss as simple "propaganda."

Chavez ... [is a herald] of the new left?

Only in a soviet socialist republic.

Chavez and da Silva are the heralds of the new left? God, nearly every country in the world is shifting further and further rightward. People like prosperity, it seems.
And statism...

*shakes head*

"left" and "right" should fade into obscurity, as you can't define social control/freedom AND economic control/freedom with a single one-dimensional scale.

You raise an interesting point. Over time, definitions can change, so that what was radical in one century may be seen as conservative in the next. That's where the primary trouble lies: "left" and "right" can't be used as reliable measures because they never stand still. Imagine trying to compare weather records, if a new temperature scale were adopted, every twenty years.

"Left wing" and "right wing" do have their place and they can be useful, when illustrating or explaining concepts in history. The use of the adjectival phrases could be restricted to histories of Europe, between the mid-Seventeenth and early Twentieth Centuries but many would consider that to be a strict view.

In the French Assembly of 1792, the radicals, who wanted to abolish the monarchy and institute drastic reforms. gathered on the Speaker's left and the Conservatives, who wanted the power of the monarchy to be restored, were to his right. In between the two, a range of more moderate opinions completed the circular shape.

It might be fair to describe other European politicians of the same period [c1700-c1920] as "left wing" or "right wing", depending on whether they wanted to maintain the power of the monarchy, the aristocracy [both politically (e.g. within the legislature) and socially (e.g. in the area of land reform) and the Church. It would probably be acceptable to apply the terms to Spain, until well into the Twentieth Century, but the situation, there, was not typical of that in other, Western-European countries.

The Civil War period in England presents the same difficulty as the present day. The "Roundheads" were a very mixed bunch of people. Some wanted a reformed monarchy; most wanted Parliament to take control; and a few wanted widespread social reform or the replacement of Anglicanism with Presbyterianism. Cromwell was politically radical but socially conservative: he banned Christmas, which is, in origin, a pagan festival. On the "Cavalier" side, many were prepared to compromise, while Charles I was not.

After the demise of most of Europe's ancien regimes (and the replacement of the conflict, between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, with one, between the middle classes and the working classes), the meanings of "left wing" and "right wing" had become increasingly confused but the popularity of the terms was undiminished.

For many years, those on the extreme "left" and extreme "right", in the senses used by journalists, have had more in common with each other than with more reasonable people on their respective "sides". Look at the way the National Front and "Socialist Worker" tried to hijack local disputes in British cities or Nazis and Communists behaved on the streets of Germany, in the 1920s.

Before the advent of Margaret Thatcher (and the grey-suited Cabal, for which she was originally the figurehead), a centre-ground Tory MP [one of the overwhelming majority, within the Conservative Party] had nothing whatever in common with a skinhead, who was looking for immigrants to beat up; any more than a committee of middle-of the-road Labour MPs could be compared to a Trotskyist student group. Since that time, the whole political spectrum has shifted a very long way to the "right". Someone, such as Roy Hattersley, who was looked upon a right-winger within the Labour Party in the time of Wilson and Callaghan, was thought of as being on the extreme Left of the Party, during the Blair era (at least by the leadership of "New Labour").

Many of today's politicians more closely resemble European fascists [Nazis were in a different category. I don't count them as true fascists.] of the 1930s than supporters of the French monarchy in the early 1790s or their radical opponents. Some political scientists have examined the similarities, between Tony Blair/"New Labour" and Mussolini/Italian Fascism, particularly in the areas of corruption and the involvement of Big Business in the running of their respective countries. It's frightening how much modern "democratic" politicians have adopted the rhetoric, techniques and even policies of the pre-war "Far Right", albeit with "cuddly" personae for the benefit of television audiences.

It has been said that the left/ right political scale is better represented as a circle than a straight line. The further to the "left" or "right" someone moves, the closer he is to his "arch-enemies", in terms of methods and approach. [The idea of the circle brings us back to the origins of the terms, in the round chamber of the French Assembly, in 1792.] Hitler and Stalin are the most striking examples in history. One was an ultra-nationalist xenophobe and racist and the other supposedly a Marxist of sorts. Both were deranged mass murderers and ruthless dictators.

Applying the labels is a habit, which many will find hard to kick. The simplistic and the sloppy will probably continue to apply them to the modern era, no matter how inaccurate or irrelevant they might be. That's something we have to accept and it will, therefore, be necessary to refer to such usage, from time to time. However, beyond that, it would help to make writing more accurate and meaningful, if use of "right wing" and "left wing" were kept to a minimum.

Established in 1823 (obviously well before the Cold War), the Monroe Doctrine stated that the United States would view as a threat any effort on the part of European powers in interfere in the affairs of any other nation in the Americas. This same concept (combined with Domino Theory) was thus used to justify interventions by the United States into Central and South America in order to counter the Soviet Union.

What about the equally important Guano Act, under which the United States still claims all sorts of little islands, with which it could have no real connection?

When you think about the amount of **** that American politicians talk, it's amazing that Congress felt the need to secure overseas sources.

I think these lines taken from F&G's George Bush Approval Rating thread apply quite effectively to what Hugo Chavez and his supporters say about themselves.

1. Bush is faithfully devoted to democracy and freedom; yet these ideals exact a terrible price as they allow the public to register their discontent with Bush. He also allows anti-American cells to operate freely within the US, poisoning innocent ears with their hateful rhetoric which is highly critical of him.
2. Bush is a visionary who possesses a glorious long-term vision for this country, yet is misunderstood by the narrow-minded and artless who cannot grasp his complex concepts.

I don't have the idiotic political blinders that Andaras Prime has, when dealing with Chavez.

Well many people feared the collapse of the degenerated workers states (Soviet bloc) would bring about a massive shift to the right and reactionary politics worldwide, and although with Reagan and Thatcher it certainly seemed that way, it also seems today that the Left has made somewhat of a comeback. If you look worldwide at the numbers of parties in government which have socialist/social democratic or the like ideologies is quite large, and with politicians like Chavez, da Silva etc. So my question is, how do the people of NSG see and feel about the future of the New Left and it's directions. Personally I hope the left will find new direction in going back to the ideologies of self-management, workplace democracy and grassroots mass movements. I hope we can put forward a valid critique of liberal capitalism and globalisation in favor of a more democratic economic system based on common ownership.

Thoughts?

They, and you, are the old authoritarian left that just cannot be wiped out.

Lula is to the left of our previous President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. And Brazil improved quite a bit under Lula's rule. So, Left = Prosperity for everyone. Right = Prosperity for the rich only. Yes, evidently. :rolleyes:

Bearing in mind: I voted for Heloísa Helena, a candidate further left than Lula is.Surely not?!

And statism...

*shakes head*
Economic liberalism lends itself toward diminishing statism, contrary to economic leftism whuch lends itself to top heavy, sprawling bureaucracies.

Grouping a democrat like Lula with a wannabe despot like Chavez is almost comic Schatzlein.

Chavez is no despot, but if you want some real propaganda, then try the filth that the USA's mainstream media publishes about him. It really is unbelievable how low they can sink just to tell one more lie about Chavez; contrary to what FOX news may have told you, Chavez was elected democratically, newspapers can print what they like, and Chavez is not a bloodthirsty communist dictator.

"I believe in equality and genuine autonomy for women. Therefore, I am against pornography and in favor of abortion rights."

Neither "social freedom" nor "social control" nor some moderate compromise accurately describes this position.

No, "social control" - if by social control you mean restricting autonomous freedom - accurately describes that position.

Thing is, at the end of the day, we are all against fascism, until we are not.

Chavez is no despot, but if you want some real propaganda, then try the filth that the USA's mainstream media publishes about him. It really is unbelievable how low they can sink just to tell one more lie about Chavez; contrary to what FOX news may have told you, Chavez was elected democratically, newspapers can print what they like, and Chavez is not a bloodthirsty communist dictator.
In breaking news, Chavez is introducing yet another bill to further extend his powers and stay as 'El Presidente'.

In breaking news, Chavez is introducing yet another bill to further extend his powers and stay as 'El Presidente'.

Oh, he's the next Idi Amin alright. All the signs are there.

"I believe in equality and genuine autonomy for women. Therefore, I am against pornography and in favor of abortion rights."

Neither "social freedom" nor "social control" nor some moderate compromise accurately describes this position. No, it is equal measures of both. Social freedom in allowing women to do as they please with their bodies (Rip unwanted fetuses out of it), and social control for not allowing them to do as they please with their bodies (Take pictures of it and sell them for money).

In breaking news, Chavez is introducing yet another bill to further extend his powers and stay as 'El Presidente'.

I may not agree with everything he does, but he is by no means a despot.

I may not agree with everything he does, but he is by no means a despot.
I never called him a despot. I called him a poor example for the leadership of the 'new left'. Both because he is a lousy leader, and because he and Lula together are dubious signals of a resergence of some imaginary 'new left'.

I may not agree with everything he does, but he is by no means a despot.

Not yet. But he's obviously a complete Walter Mitty, which is fine for ordinary people, however he is in power. It never ends well.

Oh, he's the next Idi Amin alright. All the signs are there.

Chavez will only be as bad as Bush when he attacks a country unprovoked. So far everything he's done pales in comparison to what Bush did, and does, on a regular basis. So, before criticizing him for "harming civil rights in Venezuela", you might want to criticize Bush for doing the same AND for raping a country.

Chavez will only be as bad as Bush when he attacks a country unprovoked. So far everything he's done pales in comparison to what Bush did, and does, on a regular basis. So, before criticizing him for "harming civil rights in Venezuela", you might want to criticize Bush for doing the same AND for raping a country.

What, if anything, does this have to do with Bush?

Chavez's regime is ultimately doomed to failure. It will fail because he is a walter mitty. And when it starts to get bad he will use his power to try and make the world conform to his fantasy.

I really have no opinion about the man's politics, but he's clearly a nutter.

Chavez will only be as bad as Bush when he attacks a country unprovoked. So far everything he's done pales in comparison to what Bush did, and does, on a regular basis. So, before criticizing him for "harming civil rights in Venezuela", you might want to criticize Bush for doing the same AND for raping a country. What about this; 'Bush and Chavez lick nuts'? Trying to distract from Chavez's own shittyness with a reference to the least popular politician in the world?

"By consistently and overtly eroding liberties and constitutional safeguards and foundations of freedom, Chavez has shown himself to be a sinister dick"
"But Bush eroded the foundations of freedom AND raped a country"
"Yes, and everyone agrees that Bush is a sinister dick also. Back to the point at hand; Chavez is a sinister dick."

What, if anything, does this have to do with Bush?

Chavez's regime is ultimately doomed to failure. It will fail because he is a walter mitty. And when it starts to get bad he will use his power to try and make the world conform to his fantasy.

I really have no opinion about the man's politics, but he's clearly a nutter.

1- The president you never cease to defend in these forums has claimed to be directed by GOD!

2- You don't know how will Chavez react IF things go bad.

3- Yes, you do, and due to your previous support for all that's far-Right, I can assume with some safety that it's somewhere near Rev. Jerry Falwell.

What about this; 'Bush and Chavez lick nuts'? Trying to distract from Chavez's own shittyness with a reference to the least popular politician in the world?

"By consistently and overtly eroding liberties and constitutional safeguards and foundations of freedom, Chavez has shown himself to be a sinister dick"
"But Bush eroded the foundations of freedom AND raped a country"
"Yes, and everyone agrees that Bush is a sinister dick also. Back to the point at hand; Chavez is a sinister dick."

I'm not here to defend Chavez - even because his antics have nothing to do with the Left. I'm here to point out that people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

1- The president you never cease to defend in these forums has claimed to be directed by GOD!

2- You don't know how will Chavez react IF things go bad.

3- Yes, you do, and due to your previous support for all that's far-Right, I can assume with some safety that it's somewhere near Rev. Jerry Falwell. All irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Lacadaemon was a raving lunatic, he made a critique on Chavez, and you dove for the red herring to Bush.

1- The president you never cease to defend in these forums has claimed to be directed by GOD!

2- You don't know how will Chavez react IF things go bad.

3- Yes, you do, and due to your previous support for all that's far-Right, I can assume with some safety that it's somewhere near Rev. Jerry Falwell.

1 - No, I really think bush is a bit of a wanker. But that's beside the point. (Though he was stellar last week).

2. Yes I do. He's a complete Mitty. And this can't end well.

3. If Gerry Falwell wasn't dead already, and he passed me on the street, and I thought I could get away with it, I would absolutely slot the fucker.

I'm not here to defend Chavez - even because his antics have nothing to do with the Left. I'm here to point out that people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Irrelevant. Either you were simply looking to for an excuse to bitch about Bush, or you somehow think that by making Bush look worse than Chavez, Left>Right. *sigh* Forget it.

All irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Lacadaemon was a raving lunatic, he made a critique on Chavez, and you dove for the red herring to Bush.

I probably am - raving lunatic that is.

Still it takes one to know one. ;)

I probably am - raving lunatic that is.

Still it takes one to know one. ;)

So... You're calling HIM a raving lunatic? Cuz I never called you one.

Yet.

Ah well. 3 AM here. Laters.

I hate to rain on AP's parade, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
The New Left is a term used in different countries to describe left-wing movements that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. They differed from earlier leftist movements that had been more oriented towards labour activism, and instead adopted a broader definition of political activism commonly called social activism. The U.S. "New Left" is associated with college campus mass protest movements and radical leftists movements. The British "New Left" was an intellectually driven movement which attempted to correct the perceived errors of "Old Left" parties in the post-WWII period. The movements began to wind down in the 1970s, when activists either committed themselves to party projects, developed social justice organizations, moved into identity politics or alternative lifestyles or became politically inactive.

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.

No, "social control" - if by social control you mean restricting autonomous freedom - accurately describes that position.

Abortion rights are not "social control", and the objective here is not "social control" in either case anyway. Quite the opposite.

No, it is equal measures of both.

Yes, yes, that's the obvious answer.

But it doesn't fit. The position described is not "centrist", it is not a compromise. It doesn't indicate some competing mixture of "authoritarian" and "libertarian" ideological tendencies. To the person advocating the position, the two stances do not compete at all. They are built on a framework that simply does not fit into the "social control/social freedom" dichotomy the way the Political Compass wants it to.

You can think of this as akin to the problem faced by libertarianism in the left/right dichotomy--they end up being labeled as "centrists" because they combine social liberalism with economic conservatism, despite the fact that their ideology is not "centrist" in the slightest.

Further complicating the matter is that sexism ("women should remain in the home") is generally regarded as an authoritarian stance, and feminism ("women should be granted full equality") is generally regarded as a libertarian one... yet certain stances of radical feminists end up moving in the "authoritarian" direction, towards the sexists and the social conservatives they hate more than anyone. That makes little sense.

Another example would be Catholic "culture of life" advocates, against abortion and stem cell research but also against the death penalty and war... not as a compromise or a mixture, but as part of one coherent very strongly-held position in favor of their conception of the sanctity of life.

It seems to me that the Political Compass only really works for right-wing libertarians, for whom the categories of "social freedom/social control" and "economic freedom/economic control" make real sense... though it is generally better than the alternatives in most other cases, too.

The emergence of leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Ortega isn't really new. It's part of the average South American country's beautiful, natural life style:
1. Colony
REVOLUTION
2. Liberal, anti-American oligarchy
(Around this time, the USSR would start funneling cash, if it still existed)
REVOLUTION
3. Conservative, anti-Communist oligarchy
(Around this time, the US starts funneling cash down south)
REVOLUTION
4. Liberal oligarchy <-------We are right here

And so it goes.

Yes, yes, that's the obvious answer.

But it doesn't fit. The position described is not "centrist", it is not a compromise.It is a clear compromise between allowing women to do what they will with their bodies in one regard, whilst disallowing them to do so in another (according to a externally consistent position you hold). It doesn't indicate some competing mixture of "authoritarian" and "libertarian" ideological tendencies. It does. On one hand you are liberally allowing women to abort fetuses, and on the other you are authoratively disallowing them to sell pictures of their naked bodies. To the person advocating the position, the two stances do not compete at all. Externally, according to the subjective stance they hold there is no competition. The political compass serves to take subjective political stances (which are always subjectively consistent) and translate them into an objectively comparable scale measured in terms of restrictive/permissive axis. It does not require that the individuals who take the test measure of define their own subjectively consistent stance in the same terms as the political compass. This would be impossible. Rather they build a snapshot of that position in terms of economic and social permissiveness. They are built on a framework that simply does not fit into the "social control/social freedom" dichotomy the way the Political Compass wants it to. No ideas completely fall into the control/freedom axis perfectly, because usually people do not base their stances on a balance of control/freedom. Political Compass does not 'want' it to be that way either. It is simply a tool which takes a bilateral snapshot of a political view, illuminating the essential positions for easy comprehension and comparison. Your terms do not need to match the terms of comparison, in fact it would be strange if they did.

When Sydney has a blisteringly cold day of 5 degrees celsius, we do not complain that the measurement of this temperature in degrees does not illustrate how cold that day is for sydney to people who check it in Stockholm.

You can think of this as akin to the problem faced by libertarianism in the left/right dichotomy--they end up being labeled as "centrists" because they combine social liberalism with economic conservatism, despite the fact that their ideology is not "centrist" in the slightest. On the political compass libertarians com up as socially and economically liberal.

Further complicating the matter is that sexism ("women should remain in the home") is generally regarded as an authoritarian stance, and feminism ("women should be granted full equality") is generally regarded as a libertarian one... yet certain stances of radical feminists end up moving in the "authoritarian" direction, towards the sexists and the social conservatives they hate more than anyone. That makes little sense. It makes plenty of sense because radical feminists are sexist too. You'll find most people that dedicate themselves to an ideology of hate a little separated from that which they hate.

Another example would be Catholic "culture of life" advocates, against abortion and stem cell research but also against the death penalty and war... not as a compromise or a mixture, but as part of one coherent very strongly-held position in favor of their conception of the sanctity of life. Yet alone this is not comparable on even terms with other ideas. By translating each of those points into authorative/liberal values, you can get a comparison with other ideas on those terms. If a cotholic did not like the light that painted his ideas, he could easily create a new test to translate people's ideas into terms of 'life vs death policies'. It just turns out that life/death isn't really useful to many people when they consider politics. They want to know the effects on the freedom of individuals, which is why the political compass focusses on policial permission measurement.

It seems to me that the Political Compass only really works for right-wing libertarians, for whom the categories of "social freedom/social control" and "economic freedom/economic control" make real sense... though it is generally better than the alternatives in most other cases, too. No you just don't like being branded an authoritarian, which in the terms of the test criteria (namely; individual freedom), you are. You should be well reconciled with the fact that your ideals are not totally conducive to individual freedom. However, if it still bothers you, why not create a test which measures social justice and social freedom (or whatever)?

New Limacon, you should probably tell the thousands of Caracas people who used to live in shanty towns but now have concrete government housing and micro-credit loans to start businesses. In the past oil booms never benefited the lower class, now they do, you can't argue with that, do you want to have a cry because the upper class aristocracy are getting taxed heavily, honestly who cares, if I were Chavez I'd tax them more.

It is a clear compromise between allowing women to do what they will with their bodies in one regard, whilst disallowing them to do so in another (according to a externally consistent position you hold).

First, I never said I hold that position. I don't. I'm not particularly antagonistic towards pornography as such.

Second, this only appears as a "compromise" because you wish to impose your own standard on it: a particularly narrow conception of libertarian freedom.

In essence, your position here is the equivalent of me insisting that the one-dimensional spectrum works, because libertarianism, too, is fundamentally a compromise: between advocating equality on the one hand (for gays, women, and racial minorities) and inequality on the other (between rich and poor.)

That would be stupid, because the leftist framework of "equality" has nothing to do with the ideological basis of libertarianism. A radical libertarian is not engaging in a compromise between equality and inequality; she is radically advocating positions in accordance with her own standard.

The political compass serves to take subjective political stances (which are always subjectively consistent)

Yes, but my point has little to do with "consistency."

I can consistently hold that society needs a compromise between social freedom and social order. That's genuinely centrist.

There is no "compromise" in the position I gave, though.

It does not require that the individuals who take the test measure of define their own subjectively consistent stance in the same terms as the political compass.

If we expect it to be an accurate display of people's ideological viewpoint, we should expect its standards to at least approximate those of people likely to take it. They don't.

In effect, the Political Compass does not tell us what people's ideological viewpoint is. It tells us the degree to which they are libertarian or non-libertarian on two axes.

When Sydney has a blisteringly cold day of 5 degrees celsius, we do not complain that the measurement of this temperature in degrees does not illustrate how cold that day is for sydney to people who check it in Stockholm.

Indeed. But we do not ask people in Stockholm to think of temperature in the way Sydney does, either.

Your example actually illustrates my point: like considerations of temperature, there is a fundamental relativity to political spectrums. Generally they tend to measure support for or opposition to a given broad ideological conception; thus everyone's stances are defined in accordance to that ideology.

If I am actually concerned with understanding what 5 degrees celsius means to people in Sydney, I must actually ask them, and listen to what they say... not consult a temperature measure (like degrees celsius) which, though "objective", is fundamentally relative in interpretation.

On the political compass libertarians com up as socially and economically liberal.

Forgive my US-centric terminology.

Socially liberal and economically right-wing, if you prefer. It's still a "compromise" on the two-dimensional spectrum.

It makes plenty of sense because radical feminists are sexist too.

Not really. But let's not argue about it.

By translating each of those points into authorative/liberal values, you can get a comparison with other ideas on those terms.

Yes. But this comparison is meaningless when it ends up, say, grouping Catholics in favor of social welfare and banning abortion with leftists whose "authoritarianism" is in part founded in anti-religious sentiments.

If a cotholic did not like the light that painted his ideas, he could easily create a new test to translate people's ideas into terms of 'life vs death policies'.

Yes, and you notice how much the Pope likes doing this?

That would not be very useful either.

They want to know the effects on the freedom of individuals

Well, some people do, maybe.

Not me. I'd much rather understand someone's worldview--the framework in which they make their political stances.

Thinking in terms of spectrum politics generally involves understanding someone else's political stances through yet another person's worldview. (Or perhaps your own.)

No you just don't like being branded an authoritarian, which in the terms of the test criteria (namely; individual freedom), you are.

Last time I checked, my Social Libertarian/Authoritarian score was in the -8s... consistently far more "libertarian" than most of the right-wing libertarians I know.

Try again.

You should be well reconciled with the fact that your ideals are not totally conducive to individual freedom.

No, my ideals are perfectly conducive to individual freedom. Indeed, my ideals are the most conducive to individual freedom.

I just don't think of individual freedom on your terms. Which is yet another demonstration of my point.

However, if it still bothers you, why not create a test which measures social justice and social freedom (or whatever)?

Because that wouldn't be very useful either.

Well many people feared the collapse of the degenerated workers states (Soviet bloc) would bring about a massive shift to the right and reactionary politics worldwide, and although with Reagan and Thatcher it certainly seemed that way, it also seems today that the Left has made somewhat of a comeback.
And how is the left, in this case, not reactionary?

It's simply a reaction to the right wing being in power for too long, rather than the left wing.
If you look worldwide at the numbers of parties in government which have socialist/social democratic or the like ideologies is quite large, and with politicians like Chavez, da Silva etc.
Chavez and da Silva are absolutely in the minority.

There is no left wing government in power in Europe, most of the countries in South America are so poor that it doesn't matter whether they've got a left wing or right wing government, because the poor hardly ever get anything regardless, and Africa's full of capitalist states.

Now that Tanzania, previously a really solid left-wing-ish state, is under new leadership, I'm not so sure about it.

And don't try and convince me that Asia or North America have any real socialism going on. China's stopped that and nowhere else in Asia is anything like as socialistic as that state.
So my question is, how do the people of NSG see and feel about the future of the New Left and it's directions. Personally I hope the left will find new direction in going back to the ideologies of self-management, workplace democracy and grassroots mass movements. I hope we can put forward a valid critique of liberal capitalism and globalisation in favor of a more democratic economic system based on common ownership.

Thoughts?
Common ownership is a crock, 'nuff said.



The only way that the left is going to be popular again is if it does these 3 things :

1) Take out the whole 'proletariat / bourgeoisie' crap.

It pisses almost everyone off who's not some kind of socialist who considers Marx to be the be-all and end-all of the socialist movement, and especially pisses most working or lower class people I've ever met off, since it's an unnecessarily pretentious word filled with rhetoric about a real set of people, all of whom are diffeerent.

2) Drop the whole shared ownership thing.

If it hasn't worked in 2 states in which the state had absolute power, why is it going to work in any state which lets its citizens complain when their TV is taken away to give to some random who they've never met and don't care about. It's not in our culture in the West, the only place it really worked was with the Native Americans and, well, we see how far that got them, eh?

3) Be realistic about taxes.

People with money don't want tax hikes so that it goes to the poor. The ones who don't mind are in the minority, and keep in mind that these people are what a modern democracy is realistically based on, since they're the people in control of the businesses which have become extremely powerful.

1- The president you never cease to defend in these forums has claimed to be directed by GOD!
True. George Bush = a bit of a populist when it comes to that.

"Hey Pres, why the Iraq war?"
"God"
"The Midwest says 'fair enough' and prays for the lamentation of The Liberals"
2- You don't know how will Chavez react IF things go bad.
He's already increased military spending quite a lot within his own lands, supposedly to counter the perceived threat from the US.

This is a man who led a coup d'état in 1992, and it's not like with his new and improved army, he couldn't rule under martial law if it came to it for him. He's still got some high-up contacts in the army, and if he secured them more rights to do what they liked, and more funding, then they'd be on his side.

That's what I'd do if I was feeling despotic, anyway.
3- Yes, you do, and due to your previous support for all that's far-Right, I can assume with some safety that it's somewhere near Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Chavez = nutter obsessed with Bush.

His policies are fairly sound, but the guys a nutjob.

New Limacon, you should probably tell the thousands of Caracas people who used to live in shanty towns but now have concrete government housing and micro-credit loans to start businesses. In the past oil booms never benefited the lower class, now they do, you can't argue with that, do you want to have a cry because the upper class aristocracy are getting taxed heavily, honestly who cares, if I were Chavez I'd tax them more.
I beg your pardon?

I wasn't suggesting Venezuela should return to its more capitalist past; I'm not sure how you could have inferred that from what I said. I was disagreeing that this was anything new.

First, I never said I hold that position. I don't. I'm not particularly antagonistic towards pornography as such. You s[ecifically said you were 'against' pornography.

Second, this only appears as a "compromise" because you wish to impose your own standard on it: a particularly narrow conception of libertarian freedom. I don't. But you may. Or you may not. The point of the test isn't to assert it's definition is right (this is implicit though), the point is to trnslate a view point in the terms of the conceptions it holds, narrow or not.

In essence, your position here is the equivalent of me insisting that the one-dimensional spectrum works, Yes. The one dimensional spectrum does exactly as it intends. However, due to it's simplicity it isn't very telling of a persons positions. because libertarianism, too, is fundamentally a compromise: between advocating equality on the one hand (for gays, women, and racial minorities) and inequality on the other (between rich and poor.)[/qote] I would word it as equality of individuals over equality of groups, but yes, why not.

That would be stupid, because the leftist framework of "equality" has nothing to do with the ideological basis of libertarianism. That doesn't matter. The point isn't to understand why I hold my beliefs, or the framework behind them. The point is simply to encode what positions those beleifs entail. Painting my views as a comprimise on a leftist scale would help leftist understand that. A radical libertarian is not engaging in a compromise between equality and inequality; she is radically advocating positions in accordance with her own standard. Yeah, and those positions will be demonstrated to some extent by the test, as it intends.

Yes, but my point has little to do with "consistency."

I can consistently hold that society needs a compromise between social freedom and social order. That's genuinely centrist.

There is no "compromise" in the position I gave, though. Fair enough, but the compromise doesn't matter either. The point of political compass isn't to demonstrate how much 'compromise' there is in an ideaology. With a score of 0/0 you can still have a completely uncomprimising view. It is just to illustrate the practical implication of said view in terms of individual freedom.


If we expect it to be an accurate display of people's ideological viewpoint, we should expect its standards to at least approximate those of people likely to take it. They don't. It isn't really a telling display of a viewpoint, so much of a snapshot of the implications of said viewpoints in certain areas. Just like a balance sheet doesn't actually show how well a company is performing.

In effect, the Political Compass does not tell us what people's ideological viewpoint is. It tells us the degree to which they are libertarian or non-libertarian on two axes. Yes, the purpose of the test.

[quote]Indeed. But we do not ask people in Stockholm to think of temperature in the way Sydney does, either.

Your example actually illustrates my point: like considerations of temperature, there is a fundamental relativity to political spectrums. Generally they tend to measure support for or opposition to a given broad ideological conception; thus everyone's stances are defined in accordance to that ideology.

If I am actually concerned with understanding what 5 degrees celsius means to people in Sydney, I must actually ask them, and listen to what they say... not consult a temperature measure (like degrees celsius) which, though "objective", is fundamentally relative in interpretation. Yes, but the people in stockholm don't care what the temperture means to sydneysiders, they just want to know the temperature. If they cared, they would make an international phone call and discuss it. It is the same for political compass. It is a way of giving an incomplete snapshot of your stances in the terms of individual libertarianism, for those who don't care to discuss (or for those you don't care to discuss with)

Forgive my US-centric terminology.

Socially liberal and economically right-wing, if you prefer. It's still a "compromise" on the two-dimensional spectrum. Not on the political compass though. On the political compass it is a clean high score in both social and economic liberalism. Nevertheless, we have discussed the point of compromise, and so your point carries and has been addressed.

Not really. But let's not argue about it. Agreed. *tiptoes around dirty topic*

Yes. But this comparison is meaningless when it ends up, say, grouping Catholics in favor of social welfare and banning abortion with leftists whose "authoritarianism" is in part founded in anti-religious sentiments. Meaningless to most, whichis why I suggested it would't fly. Thats why political compass is so popular though, it puts different ideaologies, with different frameworks, into one set of terms to which most of globalised society subscribes (Individual freedom vs individual contol).

Yes, and you notice how much the Pope likes doing this? The pope, like most religious fuckwits, enjoys and depends on misinterpreting the real world.

That would not be very useful either.

Well, some people do, maybe.

Not me. I'd much rather understand someone's worldview--the framework in which they make their political stances. In which case you'd talk to them, because no test, no matter how comprehensive, could do that (unless you wrote it yourself according to your own standards, and even then).

Thinking in terms of spectrum politics generally involves understanding someone else's political stances through yet another person's worldview. (Or perhaps your own.) Yes.


Last time I checked, my Social Libertarian/Authoritarian score was in the -8s... consistently far more "libertarian" than most of the right-wing libertarians I know.

Try again. Ok I admit I was being a bit venomous, so why don't I just drop it.

No, my ideals are perfectly conducive to individual freedom. Indeed, my ideals are the most conducive to individual freedom.

I just don't think of individual freedom on your terms. Which is yet another demonstration of my point. yes, but few people do think of feedom in your terms, so if you wanted to conveniently nd easily convey you political stnces to them you'd have to give it to them in theirs, unless you had the time to explain it to them in extended discussion.

Chavez = nutter obsessed with Bush.

His policies are fairly sound, but the guys a nutjob.

I'm sure you wouldn't see Bush as a threat if he:

1- Had a history of invading countries he didn't like;

2- Had expressed his dislike for your regime, democratic or not;

3- Had funded a coup against you.

Would you?

3- Had funded a coup against you.



That one sounds awfully specious to me. All the evidence I've seen is that the 2002 coup d'etat was an entirely domestic affair, of which the US had some, currently unknown, degree of foreknowledge.

As for number one, I must say there are far more countries that the US has problems with that Bush has not invaded than there are that he has. Iran, North Korea, Russia, Belarus, etc.

And, fuck, folks, you've got some supermassive post trees going here.

That one sounds awfully specious to me. All the evidence I've seen is that the 2002 coup d'etat was an entirely domestic affair, of which the US had some, currently unknown, degree of foreknowledge.

As for number one, I must say there are far more countries that the US has problems with that Bush has not invaded than there are that he has. Iran, North Korea, Russia, Belarus, etc.

And, fuck, folks, you've got some supermassive post trees going here.

Let's not forget that Bush is a psychopath in control of a superpower here. Listen, I'm not even defending Chavez's methods or his sanity, but on the issue of not trusting Bush, he'd be insane if he did.

Let's not forget that Bush is a psychopath in control of a superpower here. Listen, I'm not even defending Chavez's methods or his sanity, but on the issue of not trusting Bush, he'd be insane if he did.

Except that the Bush administration seems to be fully capable of cooperating with other Latin American leftists, such as Lula da Silva, and even Evo Morales, to a degree. Chavez, though, is the one who has created this so-called conflict with the US, and he has done so in order to use it to his political advantage. The Bush Administration, being the belligerent, uncooperative inept stumblers that they are fell right into the trap.

What really impresses me about Chavez, though, is that he seems to have adapted the M.O. of the Bush administration, especially in regards to foreign threat, and utilized it entirely successfully.

What really impresses me about Chavez, though, is that he seems to have adapted the M.O. of the Bush administration, especially in regards to foreign threat, and utilized it entirely successfully.
He's like Rush Limbaugh when Bill Clinton was president; his success lies in bashing the powers that be. When Bush leaves office, I will be interested to see how Chavez handles it.

Except that the Bush administration seems to be fully capable of cooperating with other Latin American leftists, such as Lula da Silva, and even Evo Morales, to a degree. Chavez, though, is the one who has created this so-called conflict with the US, and he has done so in order to use it to his political advantage. The Bush Administration, being the belligerent, uncooperative inept stumblers that they are fell right into the trap.

What really impresses me about Chavez, though, is that he seems to have adapted the M.O. of the Bush administration, especially in regards to foreign threat, and utilized it entirely successfully.

Lula isn't nearly as "left" as Chavez. I do wonder what would happen if Heloísa Helena got elected, but remember that there were some American "people" in 2002 suggesting coups even in MY country should Lula (who is not all that "left") get elected.

Lula isn't nearly as "left" as Chavez. I do wonder what would happen if Heloísa Helena got elected, but remember that there were some American "people" in 2002 suggesting coups even in MY country should Lula get elected.

What sort of moron advocated that position? The geniuses of the 700 Club?

What sort of moron advocated that position? The geniuses of the 700 Club?

The Washington Times... I couldn't find the whole article, but...

http://www.google.com.br/search?q=washington+times+%22new+axis+of+evil%22+Lula&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The Washington Times... I couldn't find the whole article, but...


[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/NATION/108200067/1001]You mean the same paper that has this as a headline today? (]http://www.google.com.br/search?q=washington+times+%22new+axis+of+evil%22+Lula&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a[/url)

It's extremely far to the right, so much so as to typically make bush look slightly pink. I'd take whatever it says with a grain of salt.

You mean the same paper that has this as a headline today? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/NATION/108200067/1001)

It's extremely far to the right, so much so as to typically make bush look slightly pink. I'd take whatever it says with a grain of salt.

Does make one think, though. Were it Heloísa, what other newspapers would advocate a coup? Wall Street Journal? The Post?

He's like Rush Limbaugh when Bill Clinton was president; his success lies in bashing the powers that be. When Bush leaves office, I will be interested to see how Chavez handles it.
He won't, which is why he'll have to find a new target VERY QUICKLY to distract people from the corruption in the leadership that's started up again or he'll get voted power - unless, of course, he just rules by martial law.

What I'm more interested in at the moment is what's going to happen in Cuba after Fidel properly dies.

Does make one think, though. Were it Heloísa, what other newspapers would advocate a coup? Wall Street Journal? The Post?

Doubtful, like most of the American public, they are rather big fans of democracy, and would probably treat such a situation as they did Evo Morales, perhaps lamenting the impact that it will have on the international sugar trade and ethanol, but not advocating a coup d'etat.

Doubtful, like most of the American public, they are rather big fans of democracy, and would probably treat such a situation as they did Evo Morales, perhaps lamenting the impact that it will have on the international sugar trade and ethanol, but not advocating a coup d'etat.

Brazil, 1964. Chile, 1973... And on goes the list.

New Limacon, you should probably tell the thousands of Caracas people who used to live in shanty towns but now have concrete government housing and micro-credit loans to start businesses. In the past oil booms never benefited the lower class, now they do, you can't argue with that, do you want to have a cry because the upper class aristocracy are getting taxed heavily, honestly who cares, if I were Chavez I'd tax them more.

I still see thousands living in shanty towns, actually, I can see said shanty towns from my window. That is my main proble with the Chávez's administration. You keep misspelling "Chávez", by the way.

I prefer Lula measures against poverty and insecurity. Did you see his last plan of crime fighting? That is pretty progressive, I would like Chávez to address the crime problem here in Caracas as well. Yet he always dodge the issue.

I still see thousands living in shanty towns, actually, I can see said shanty towns from my window. That is my main proble with the Chávez's administration. You keep misspelling "Chávez", by the way.

I prefer Lula measures against poverty and insecurity. Did you see his last plan of crime fighting? That is pretty progressive, I would like Chávez to address the crime problem here in Caracas as well. Yet he always dodge the issue.

My keyboard doesn't seem to have an accented a.

Brazil, 1964. Chile, 1973... And on goes the list.

Our current President was flying kites when the Coup d'etat in Brazil was carried out, and the Chilean coup was one of the final acts of a dying, criminal administration.

Our current President was flying kites when the Coup d'etat in Brazil was carried out, and the Chilean coup was one of the final acts of a dying, criminal administration.

Still we in South America have no reason at ALL to trust the US not to pull the same crap. Especially given that, after the coup, the US recognized the unelected military junta, the democracy-lovers that they are.