Political charts from left and right wing perspective, which one make more sense?

Political charts from left and right wing perspective, which one make more sense?

Other urls found in this thread:

againstred.blogspot.com.br/2007/09/revolutionary-mentality-by-olavo-de.html?m=1
aoiusa.org/leite-the-revolutionary-mentality-is-the-confusion-of-our-time/
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Neither make sense.

The righthand graph implies left wing = moral freedom. Which is completely untrue. It's just a different flavor of moral authority.

Both imply right wing = economic freedom, which isn't true at all. Where left wing is neccessarily collectivist, right wing doesn't imply anything about economic freedom. It CAN be economically free, but is usually just as interventionist as any other big guv philosophy. And as Hitler's Germany proved, right wing doesn't even exclude being collectivist.

The diamond one is the most retarded thing fuck

The right graph makes zero sense.

>Where left wing is neccessarily collectivist, right wing doesn't imply anything about economic freedom. It CAN be economically free, but is usually just as interventionist as any other big guv philosophy. And as Hitler's Germany proved, right wing doesn't even exclude being collectivist.
That's why there's a second axis you dumb cunt.

>That's why there's a second axis you dumb cunt.
And on neither of the two graphs is the second axis marked as being left vs right you dumb croat shit fuck.
They both imply right wing means economic freedom when it doesn't.

Just remove "left" and "right"
They're just useless and stupid terms anyways

>They both imply right wing means economic freedom
Except they don't. The left graph says "economic right", which is then divided into libertarian (free market) and authoritarian (regulated market).
Not gonna comment on the right graph because its retarded.

>The left graph says "economic right", which is then divided into libertarian (free market) and authoritarian (regulated market).
My apologies to you, i guess. But the left graph is taken from the political compass, which treats free market as "economic right" and communism/socialism as "economic left".
The authoritarian/libertarian subdivide in their logic has nothing to do with economics but with moral politics (i.e. moral authority).
I can see why the left graph would seem less retarded if you don't recognize the political compass, so sorry for namecalling you in that case.

Saved the one on the right although the axis are poorly done

>The righthand graph implies left wing = moral freedom. Which is completely untrue. It's just a different flavor of moral authority
It's freedom (aka degeneracy) for them, not for you to go against their "freedom", while the right recognizes limits to oneself's desires too

If you fully separate economics and morals then maybe you could argue that. However doing so is impossible. Which makes the wording retarded, at the very minimum.
Regardless i would count the social deconstructions that come follow from the left's egalitarianism as a moral authority. Think gender and racial quotas, and the lack of freedom of association.

what does this mean guys

this should explain a lot

...

it means you are a cuck for not being all the way in the bottom right corner

Again, they force their shit on others so they can better indulge in hedonism, but they don't feel constrained by anything, being no surprise that they keep inventing new contradictory B's every couple years, they just pursue hedonism and then justify it and try to shape the world around them so they're not bothered while pursuing degeneracy. It's no authority External to them and which they must follow like it or not, it's whatever they decide it's good

square political compass makes the most sense to me, diamond compass looks fucking stupid

It's impossible to be 100% authoritarian and 100% laissez-faire or 100% interventionist and 100% libertarian tho.
The axis are not independent

Most people dont understant political history and are confused by left and right. The original left wing were liberals and right wing were monarchists. After socialism became popular socialist took the left position and liberals ended up in the center.

> ad quadratum

Yes.

>using one axis to encompass the complexity of political ideologies is retarded
>hey I know, let's make it two axis

>what is moral authoritarianism
>what is economic authoritarianism
They're independent, m8.

>The original left wing were liberals and right wing were monarchists.
Actually there were right and leftwing liberals and liberals weren't necessarily anti-monarchist, tho they were usually
against the king's personal power, and country to country as some weren't monarchies.
In France for ex the Monarchiens would originally be on the left since they supported the revolution, but being for kingly power they soon were on the right of the revolutionaries.
Liberals saw themselves as following he juste milieu between absolutists and Jacobins/Republicans, and some were leftist but some more conservative and rightist. The Bonapartists, being pro-revolutionary and believing in popular sovereignty started as leftists, but after getting in power had to be more conservative to rule the country, and even the radicals split between the leftist radicals (who literally call themselves radicals of the left IIRC) and other radicals who increasingly worked with and shifted to the right, where they still are today
So is banning prostitution moral or economic?

Here be the best definition of left and right againstred.blogspot.com.br/2007/09/revolutionary-mentality-by-olavo-de.html?m=1

And here what makes the left the Left, the 3 inversions: perception of time, morality and subject-object
aoiusa.org/leite-the-revolutionary-mentality-is-the-confusion-of-our-time/