Prog & Politics

Left of centre or Marxist Communist in the States

tamijo wrote: Generally left, but depends a lot on the issue in question

Inferring someone's political orientation from their musical tastes is bound to end in tears. Perhaps there was a time during the late 60's to early 70's when an artist's music could be said to reflect the views of their fan demographic? (that strikes me as incredibly unlikely now given that traditional Socialism as I understand it, has been dead in the water for at least 20 years)

I am left of left of center.

I think political shade should be treated cautiously. The visible part of the political spectrum is on the far right, beyond it is a sort of infrareactionary wavelength, to the left of the visible spectrum is a whole host of different wavelengths, culminating in the dreaded gamma ray... wait I took this analogy too far.

manofmystery wrote: jude111 wrote: manofmystery wrote: I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other. There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...     They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

CPicard wrote: JJLehto wrote: CPicard wrote: Extreme Center.  More extremely centrist than I? No way bro, I am so centrist I'm all over the map. I am so centrist that I'm in the point in the middle of the map.

I swing both ways.

manofmystery wrote: They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is.

So then, what you are saying is that every country in the world is authoritarian, and therefore to the right of center? Although Ayn Rand might agree, I don't see how that helps.

And how would you create a poll to reflect your rainbow-colored, holistic multi-level theme-parked inter-dimensional 3D political graph? A graph atomized to such an extent would look a lot like the New York City White Pages phone book, I imagine...

And how does  that work out in America exactly? It's not like you can vote in rainbow colors. You have two choices. You don't even have a parliament, or multi-parties. (Come to think of it, those in here who have that - I don't hear them complaining.)

Epignosis wrote: It doesn't work out because we have a one party system that pretends to be two (these goons are all the same), and we'll wind up being the next Greece in a decade or two.  Also, we are mostly comprised of morons.

No, you won't be the next Greece. Greece may be broke, but they still have the Acropolis, the Parthenon, countless ancient temples and architectural wonders of the world. Not to mention stunning islands like Santorini, Mykonos, Nisyros, etc. America will have broken down gas stations, collapsing Wall Marts, and rusting cars on cracked highways. If only the US could be the next Greece, I would return.


Edited by jude111 - March 31 2012 at 19:50

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The T wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: manofmystery wrote: jude111 wrote: manofmystery wrote: I disagree with the parameters.  You cannot measure political persuasion this way.  Dividing into "left" and "right" like this has been an effective way of getting people to accept authoritarianism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand.  If you wish to view politics as a flat spectrum then view it as a sliding scale from anarchy/libertarianism, at one end, to authoritarianism, on the other. There are problems with your "libertarianism to authoritarianism" scale. As far as I can tell, there's no difference between Sweden and Nazi Germany - they are both "authoritarian" because they have rather large governments. Unlike Somalia, which enjoys freedom, because they have no pesky government interference, raising unwanted taxes to build unwanted and undesirable wastes like hospitals and schools and electric power plants. That is to say, it seem that on your scale, Somalia *would be* libertarian, and Sweden, Norway, North Korea and Nazi Germany would all be authoritarian to varying degrees. I'm not sure many would agree with this...     They are all authoritarian to varying degrees.  It's a sliding scale, as I said.  Also, Just a brief article about Somalia Either way, it doesn't change how flawed the left to right spectrum is. That's the best I've ever heard it explained, thanks ManofMystery! And to clarify, Jude111, Libertarianism isn't the same thing as anarchy, which is happening in Somalia and was happening in Haiti not too long ago.  Anarchy is at the very far end of the (both) freedom spectrums, while libertarianism seeks to be as close to that end as possible without slipping into anarchy. Anarchy isn't necessarily a bad thing. People immediately link anarchy with fire in the streets and looting and that. Anarchy just means, in its simplest definition, absence of government. Absence of government doesn't mean abscence of some legality or some order. Check out anarcho-capitalism (there are other anarchist currents too).    And how, may I ask, do you maintain legality and order without someone to enfore it?

The problem is getting through the simple basic idea that legality can be enforced without a government. People can do a lot of things (EVERYTHING) without a government. A quote quoted by MoM (here in more detail) can illlustrate: