Discuss

Discuss.

>fascism
>nazi flag
>from an Italian

For fuck's sake, anarchism isn't inherently left or right wing

It's more like this.

I like the two dimensional model better.

Or at the very least this.

duce would be pissed using that swastika

Triggered af op you got me.

Operation Blackmirror

Test

Test do not respond

...

What's this even based on? Amount of government control?

Ya except classical liberals are conservatives not the other way around. Ludwig von mises is a classical liberal and he was basically the same as rothbard.

Yes, it says right there on the picture on the left side.

Anarchists are almost always leftists though.

Fuck. Didn't see it. Sorry about that.

you can't just shitpost and say "discuss" like that makes it ok

just fucking read, it's clearly stated: "total freedom"

>social democratism
>democratic socialism
that entire chart is bullshit

Identifying as something =/= you are that

>people still trying desperately to define politics into the left-right dichotomy
Can we just get past this?

this

Left or right has nothing to do with government control. You can have totalitarianism on both extremes. The spectrum has to do with equality. The further left you go the further you aspire for equality (hence communism trying to abolish class) and the further right you go the more you believe equality is inevitable or even preferable.

Social democracy is Bernie. Democratic socialism is basically "The States holds councils on how things are distributed."

There is a lot more wiggle room in the Libertarian and Right wing section, you don't go straight from libertarian to anarchy, and what the fuck is ultra anarchism? Anarchism is binary, it is lack of government entirely. If you mean minarchy, then write minarchy.

Ultra-anarchism is anarcho-primitivism. Both terms are interchangeable.

yeah except bernie specifically used the term democratic socialism repeatedly, not social democracy, and if you equate social democracy to democratic socialism using bernie sanders as an example, that means they're the same thing

>no labeled axis

into the trash it goes

Do you even remotely know what you are talking about? That chart jumps around to such extremes so rapidly, and part of them aren't even real stances. It does not go: 1. I like Freedom 2. No government 3. No government+

Bernie is retarded, though. Think of democratic socialism as having voting machines to decide what is important for the workers to build or whatever. Social democracy is democracy with a focus on the social aspect, like "poor people deserve free school so they can have jerbs!!11".

It is, though.

How? Anarcho-primitivism is a thing. And sure there is a lot of space for more specific terms, it just happens that whoever made it decided to make it the most symmetrical possible.

In a way. This is the reason the Libertarian party is more left than right now, though. You may think of Libertarian in terms of mostly a right wing type of ideology (small government ideology with a focus on being independent), but, since the party got cucked because of the rise of Trump, I'd say Libertarians are more leftist than anything today. The right wingers who were Libertarian are the Alt-Right now.

The left-right scale has its limits but I think you did good.

Then why did you fucking use it?

Because it's better than OP's.

I completely agree. You can't be a no guns Cuck like Gary Johnson and be a true Libertarian.

I got this off Sup Forums. Are you more satisfied?

Trash is not better than a burning bag of shit when there are as many options as long as your stolen service in the favela holds.

...

From the top clockwise
>Hitler
>Margaret Thatcher
>Stefan Molyneux
>Ghandi
>Richard Wagner
>Boinie Sandehs

Left and right do not fit comfortably into political spectrum. In its most general, "right" is synonymous with "what the working class wants" and "left" is synonymous with "what the sheltered bourgeois want."

i like this because it makes right wing seem cool

>Do you want more or less government?

Agree OP. It is simple argument made complicated by people with too much time on their hands. Placing Hitler and Stalin at different ends of a political spectrum when they are Russian and German manifestations of the same ideology.

The britbong got it

I thought Sanders was left libertarian or just left centrist?

He wants to enforce social equality to an extent which would put him more in the Left Authoritarian area.

You've got your left and right completely around the wrong way.

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

Basically:

>RIGHT = Authoritarian
>LEFT = Libertarian

Conservative/progressive as terms were applied to changing the political system. Conservatives wanted to preserve the status quo - they were sympathetic to a King which is inherently Authoritarian, and the progressives wanted change - in this case to a more libertarian/democratic society.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one, but it requires Authoritarianism to work.

So this raises the issue of Economic spectrum vs. the Political Spectrum.

>TL;DR trying to label things along one spectrum/axis is retarded.

you got it all wrong.
>This

>Political Spectrum = X
>% of Force Advocated = Y

I guess you don't use many graphs in Germany. If you had some actual visuals of what was happening to your country it probably wouldn't be so fucked.

So if I understand you correctly in reality we only have right-wing parties today no matter what they call themselves? And the left is more right-wing (more control aka. nanny state) than the so called right-wing parties?

That political spectrum is for retards.

Communists are fighting for a Stateless society, same as anarchists. That makes them far right on your retarded spectrum.

kek

That's the way it was born but you know... 300 years have passed now, things have slightly changed their meaning and words found another use.

More accurately they're fighting for an Authoritarian to give them a stateless society because he totally would for some reason.

Hm?

Communists are fighting for totalitarianism. Its what they support above all.

They do believe that in the distant future, their all powerful government will relinquish control and the state will wither away.

Classical Marxism fights for a stateless society but communism almost always devolves into Totalitarianism

>More accurately they're fighting for an Authoritarian to give them a stateless society

Which demonstrates the retardation of the simplified Libertarian/Authoritarian political spectrum.

To understand the position of the Communists would require a new axis, to account for teleological differences (the "end justifies the means"), but, that still places Communists on the right wing of the retarded political spectrum.

Communism and National Socialism are diametrically opposed on the issue of the Nation state where as libertarians have more in common with Communist no-borders ideology albeit from a fiscally conservative position.

So these facts render this spectrum useless to demonstrate this, you can't just simplify political ideology to how 'tyranical' or 'liberal' it is. Left and Right is a flawed model anyway but it does describe more than just the extent of totalitarianism.

Everybody stop and check these trips please. Just this one time, I wanna have my moment.

Checked

xD

whom did thiS!

>Communists are fighting for totalitarianism. Its what they support above all.

No.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is only a step on the road to Communism.

The aim of Communists is a Stateless society.

Marxism 101.

Your moment sucks.

Just like free market capitalism always devolves into Corporatist authoritarianism.

Most anarchists are communists, also, communism advocates no state, it's just everyone is really fucking terrible at it except the anarchists, who get killed by the marxists.

To add, once the dictatorship of the Proletariat is established like in any dictatorship power is delegated to the group who established it in this case the vanguard party. Why would the leaders of the vanguard party abolish the state, abolishing the state abolishes their newly found power. Using the excuse of protection of the Dictatorship of the proletariat, the vanguard party begins throwing around accusations against Anarchists, Liberals, Conservatives, Monarchists, dissedent communist etc. claiming that they are "counter revotlitionaries" they will then use the newly established secret police to assassinate them, exile them or use them for forced labour. Without any opposition and any new opposition being swiftly eliminated, the state then transitions into totalitarianism.

...

Corporatism is not bad, your definition of corporatism may be different then mine but in theory corporatism is a good thing.

Check them again for kek.

This is entirely accurate and indisputable.

Ok. This shows that I need to start having a list of faggots.

#1) OP
#2) fD6tVr3K
#3) Milo Kikepolis

You didn't contradict me at all.

>They do believe that in the distant future, their all powerful government will relinquish control and the state will wither away.

>Classical Marxism fights for a stateless society but communism almost always devolves into Totalitarianism
they dont.
i mean they say they do, but they dont.

their #1 goal is equality, a classless society.
and their method of obtaining it is force, authority, government.
if there ever is a classless stateless society then it's plain and simple anarcho-indiviualism, cause there is nothing stopping anyone from non-confirming.

According to the chart the means by which Communists hope to achieve their goals is far left but their final goal itself is far right. As retarded as that sounds, they believe If they give one man all the power he will create a stateless society.

Not at all. Communists want an all powerful totalitarian government which will make things better.

Evangelical Christians likewise believe that eventually Jesus will come to Earth and the old laws of man won't apply either.

Communists always believe the "stateless" part will come true in the magical, distant future.

...

Liberalism is a right of center politic. You aren't American and you still use their retarded and broken "definitions" of basic politics. You should be ashamed.

The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is plural. It does not mean investing powers in a "dictator", singlular.

When the USSR first emerged it was a Union of "Soviets", or workers councils, it was not a centralized State. Centralization was prompted by war, not by internal machinations.

A region the size of Europe remained free of dictatorship, or Capitalist exploitation, until it was attacked by the White and Red armies.

Dictatorship is not inevitable.

>Fascism is left wing
Conservative intellectuals

Well, you better check again.

Communists do not "support totalitarianism above all". Quite the opposite.

You're mistaking Bolshevism with Communism.

...

Shut the fuck up, Bolshevik.

> hurr durr communism is not communism because I say so

>I am only pretending to not know who Strasser is and why Rohm founded the Nazi party!

Rohm didn't found the nazi party.

>hey believe If they give one man all the power

Er... wat?

Marx never said anything about creating a "dictator". The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is plural. Workers councils are to organize production and distribution. Not a dictator.

wrong.
States using the vestiges of capitalism/FREE market devolve into mercantilism.

where there is no state there is no legitmate force, and therefor no authority.

>You can't be a no guns Cuck like Gary Johnson and be a true Libertarian.

In all fairness I'm pretty sure Gary Johnson is an actual retarded person.

>Shut the fuck up, Bolshevik.

heh

This is pointless.
Thinking that complex political ideologies can be accurately represented by a two-dimensional spreadsheet is fucking retarded.

>founding member of the Nazi party
Drexler founded the German Worker's party.

>Sup Forums
>has no clue about politics

Fucking Joke

Needs a lateral axis: Love - Hate

Love+Anarchy being the definition of Utopia
Hate+Tyranny being the other place

>According to the chart the means by which Communists hope to achieve their goals is far left but their final goal itself is far right.

Their final goal takes place in the magical future. Its not relevant.

I think it's fair to let the communists define communism. Unless deciding what the people you disagree with believe for them is completely fair in which case I can't be wrong when I say naziism is a cult of the black penis.

That's the way it was planned but it always delvolves into a dictator - Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Pol Pot, Allende, Mugabe, etc. The main idea being authoritarianism will lead to a Classless society though.

WEEW
>§1: this list is exclusively dedicated to fD6Vr3K, as no bigger faggot exists.
> §1.1: if it becomes apparent that an equally big of a faggot as fD6Vr3K exists, that person will take the second place.
>§2: The list of unimaginable faggots is as follows:
> #1: fD6Vr3K

Communism when established will always be threatened by anti-communists, and civil war will ensue.

Communism forgets about one thing the fact that most people are greedy, they will strive for what benefits them individually.

>not relevant

Yes it is relevant.

The ideological aims of Communism is a Stateless society, this is the basis of their entire ideology.

The fact their teleological approach means they will utilize authoritarian tools to achieves their aims doesn't deminish their aims. They are utilitarians, after all.

>That's the way it was planned but it always delvolves into a dictator

No.

Dictators seize power and use the rhetoric of Marxism to justify their rule. A good example is North Korea. They're not Marxists, nor do they even pretend to be Communists anymore... They never were.

Hilarious.