as has been demonstrated in pic related, the so-called "far right" is actually the "far center" (or maybe even the "radical center", so to speak?) or at most far right-of-center-but-not much.
So who are the real far-right?
(if anyone knows who are the radical libertarian centrists and moderate extreme right and left, lemme know too)
Secular monarchists, the might makes right types. Theocracies actually creep to the left authoritarian quadrant.
>who are the real far right (on the compass)
Pinochet-like national(ist) capitalists
Pure capitalism is far right... which should be rather obvious considering anarcho capitalism is in the bottom-right corner. Top right... hard to say, NatSoc and Fascism have too much collectivism to go into that corner. I guess when a few rich are the rulers is top-right, so crony capitalism, maybe even monarchism...
The question is: what is communism without collectivism?
but he's not that far on the "far" part to be on the same level as hitler and stalin, he's probably half-far right
something like traditional absolutist monarchies? they actually were the "far-right" in XIXth century europe
So maybe an authoritarian aristoracy that doesn't step on snek?
I didn't mark people as non-collectivist commies tho, I marked antifa/ancom as "anti-state" leftists, which doesn't mean I think their retarded stateless commie society can exist, just that they're full-collectivist but say they don't believe in the state
I guess the difference is that commies force their bs on people through the state, and ancom through the violent masses
The reality is that left-right is nonsense.
Some "intellectual" stated that the more egalitarian your ideology is, the further left it is, and the more hierarchical/anti-egliatarian your ideology is the further right it is.
But the truth of the matter is that it's all fucking retarded. National Socialism isn't radical center (an oxymoron by the way), it combines a ethnic-nationalist soft-collectivist worldview with market economics and antisemitism+anticommunism. That is neither left or right and it certainly isn't center.
there's nothing oxymoronic with radical center tho
and third way = centrism, since it takes shit from both sides but doesn't fit either
No, traditional monarchs have the potential to shift left. Think Russian autocracy style, like the families descended from Vikings who justify their claim through conquest.
Every authoritarian step on snek, people who just want to be left alone and leave others alone, or reimburse others, are a rare breed.
Just very poorly defined.
The question really comes down to how each side defines equality or how they imagine stuff or power to be distributed.
the graph doesn't need to be viable tho
There are some ancap articles shilling for traditional monarchs saying they don't mess with the market and people's (economic mainly) freedoms nearly as much as democracies.
Think if the king of Liechtenstein abolished congress and ruled like the ancap he is for ex, not even taxes to keep the state going, people pay the royal family as a service, but there is no congress, no monarchy, nothing, he's an absolute ruler who could change this at any time, but in practice he doesn't. Is he, de facto, far-right?
Huge welfare state ("socialism") and the German collectivism with the plan to abolish the classes pushes the ideology to the left, somewhat capitalist/fascist economy, nationalism, anti-semitism, racism pushes it to the right. The one party dictatorship makes it authoritarian. The result is radical centrism.
Radical centrism is an oxymoron when you only use one axis for the political spectrum, which of course is useless. Even the two axis version is limited. Adding a third axis where the three axis are "form of government" (liberal or authoritarian), social aspects (racism, egalitarianism etc) and economy (capitalist, welfare state, communist etc).
>and third way = centrism, since it takes shit from both sides but doesn't fit either
To understand what "center" even means you have to understand where left-center-right even comes from, which is retarded by the way. If I remember correctly, it all began with something as simple as the seating arrangements of the first French parliament. Socialists and collectivists sat on on the left of the chamber, the nationalists and monarchists sat on the right of the chamber with the moderates who disagreed with both sat in the middle. That's literally it. Centrism is literally the moderate area, and "Radical Centrism" is actually "Radical Moderatism" which is an oxymoron.
The real position of National Socialism doesn't sit on the left-right, but it takes elements from both. But at the same time it's clearly not moderate. That means that it's worldview is technically syncretic.
But the reality comes back to what I said in the beginning: the left-right spectrum is nonsense.
what if someone is so mad people keep disagreeing over policy and decides to pick parts from both sides and force them to follow his moderate wishes with an iron fist?
literally a radical centrist
why must all centrists be moderate?
I'm not saying what you said doesn't have a basis in reality, but we're literally arguing over semantics here. This wouldn't occur if the left-right spectrum was properly definable or even sensible.
Feudalism
One family controls all, all are employed by one family. From the CEO through to the managers and employees. Or king lords and serfs. It is capitalist as the state is the buisness.
fixed
ignore the fascist flag next to nazi. forgot to delete it
There's too many variables to determine what makes a party/movement politically active. Having broad labels like left, right, authoritarian/libertarian, etc. does nothing except spread confusion. "social" determinates are entirely cultural as well. You're better off just stating the particular ideological specifics of each group and be done with it.
Nope theocracies can come in all flavours. And are usually much closer to the centre than that.
That is far right because you assume philosopher kings aren't a myth, anyone like this would necessarily reject power due to believing they're a proxy for abuse from others or even that they themselves aren't trusted.
Yes, you could argue this is below the mid point and into the libertarian quadrants, but it's unrealistic like the levels of social engineering left libertarianism requires.
The 2d spectrum is a start, usually nationalistic issues are right wing and cosmopolitan issues are left wing.
The deus vult flag is actually left libertarian, the black over the white allude to force when necessary. It's the anarchopacifist flag.
>white supremacists
>muslims
>fascists
>anywhere close to ancapistan levels of free market
hm, n
And the UN is waaaay more authoritarian, it's the falg of globalism
I dont see why this is so hard to comprehend far right is capitalism. Gold wealth and shekels. Full state control invested in an individual is a monarchy.
The answer is feudalism. Feudal states dont have to be a monarchy but they do have to have one at the top mid tier managers and people at the bottom.
Also most importantly as with everything north of the x axis its actually fucking possible unlike this retarded anarchist flags.
green quadrant is the dumber desu
It would never work unless it's in a state of constant street-rioting and mob rule, and that's hardly libertarian
deus vult isn't theocracy, it's military orders, the power is with knights
Exactly. Final fucking redpill from me. That meme graph is actually a fucking sphere/globe. With economic power along the equator and authoritarian libertarian as poles. The reason being once full authoritarian regime is achieved it can switch between communism and capitalism with ease and the cunt at the top is the sole profiteer anyway. There is no massive shift in economic policy. The same can be said at the "libertarian" end of the spectrum once mob rule is established cunts will do what they want until a system is settled on.
I could push this one step further and remove the authoritarian y axis and replace it with a social control only axis and it still works shifting the authoritarian scale to elevation or the z axis with close to the origin as full control and the extremities mob rule. Anarchism at this point becomes a meme as it exists in the void beyond the sphere and a system of govt will always be restored.
Tldr the graph is a meme for a reason
Deus vult is not a system of government and doesnt belong on the meme graph, but fuck it its a meme anyway.
Second thoughts Deus vult, could imply a system of govt. As a theocratic military dictatorship but then I'd slap right their next to nazism. Because thats essentially what nazism was anyway.
the idea of national socialists being centrists is complete bogus. they might not be as far left as marxist socialists, but they still harbour enough socialist ideas to but them close to the left edge.
also there's no authoritarian right, like there's no anti-authoritarian left position. that simply doesn't make sense. (left wing ideas about sharing are inherently authoritarian due to the mechanics of sharing, and right wing ideals of individualism, and that is what is left after you strike off any other right-wing attribute that can easily also be attributed to the left, are incompatible with authoritarianism. Yes, you fascist faggots, you are all leftists.)
Fascism doesnt imply socialism.
but this is true of most countries, they're not laissez faire but they aren't socialist either, most countries are there in the middle