The Political Spectrum As It REALLY Is

I figured I’d post this to “educate” one of our readers (you know who you are ;-)  ), and while I admit I enjoy the jab inherent in who it is explaining the real political spectrum, I’d have it known that this is one of many areas where Beck has had to catch up to where I have been for years.  I made this case to my philosophy professors in college, and no less than the dean of our department conceded that I was correct.  However, he then explained that “This just isn’t the way we teach it in America.”

From Anarchy to Totalitarianism: Do You Know the Real Political Spectrum?

(click the link, watch the video)

The logic here cannot be defeated.  The most accepted definition of the political spectrum would have you accept that communism and socialism are on the far left and fascism on the far right, but that definition is self-defeating.  After all, if you put fascism on the opposite end of socialism, then NAZI Germany would be opposite socialism.  Yet NAZI is an abbreviation for National SOCIALIST Workers’ Party.  Therefore, either NAZI Germany was not fascist (which it clearly was), or the political spectrum so many of us have been taught and accepted is flawed.  The question then becomes how did it come to be that a flawed definition is actually taught by our colleges.

Well, as with most historical revisionism, this can be traced to the Progressives and their allies in Europe – in this case, the Communists.  If you do the research, you’ll find the explanation is simple: the Communists wanted to differentiate themselves from the Fascists, so they launched a PR campaign to paint the Fascists as being to the Right: but they meant to the right of the LEFT end of the political spectrum.  You see, this version of Left/Right only applies to Europe, and then, only to the battle between Communism and Fascism.  In truth, it would be better to view Communism and Fascism as being Up/Down with BOTH being on the Left end of the spectrum:

Political Spectrum

[Note: before you object to where I placed Communism, remember, the way Marx described it, Communism has NO leadership: everyone just acts the exact same way "voluntarily."  Still, Communism -- as Marx defined it -- has no government.  hence, my placement of it with the Anarchists -- and the reason the two groups are so often found working together.]

About these ads

31 thoughts on “The Political Spectrum As It REALLY Is

      • The only thing I would add to this is a “Dictatorship” to the Communist side ( which it ALWAYS devoves into historically).

        And Communism and Socialism ARE NOT Polar opposites ….. The Kremlin for instance was the headoffice of the Largest Insurance Co in Russia ( and One of the Largest inthe world at the Time) … what’s not as well known is that many of the same staff stayed on as Communist Party apparatchiks AFTER the Revolution…..because they already had detailed info on many influential people which the Commies used seamlessly.

        • Don,

          I was careful to distinguish between Marxism as MARX defined it and as it is practiced. As it is practiced, it gets stuck in the “socialism” phase Marx said had to be used to get to Marxism. This is Marx’s fatal flaw: utter ignorance/rejection of objective reality and human nature.

          • Yes … You are right.

            BUT … the fact is, Historically there is almost NO distinction between the ULTIMATE Gaols of the States claiming to be Socialist NOR in the Practice…..what I mean by that is …in Socialist countries if a Policy or Dept was found wanting as to Social Justice….the remedy has ALWAYS been to Strengthen the Control and lessen the Ability to Criticize the policy or Gov’t Dept……thus taking Control AWAY from people…..ie; Communist / Fascist Control is evidenced and NOT the supposed goals and structure of a Socialist system in service of “The People”.

            As Bongino said…”We must not engage in their Language” … that is KEY. Because there is a Huge effort to make this intellectual (and largely ARTICIFIAL ) divide between Socialism and Communism. In fact the Official Progressive stance , as evidenced by Hillary and Juhn Kerry and V Jarrett and many others RECENTLY….is that Socialism just hasn’t been done “Right”…and that’s why it fails……the implication being that the “NEW” Generation of Progressives Today will gives us “User Freindly Socialism”. Understanding….and saying CLEARLY…that the Goals of Socialism ARE Communism actually gives people a better understanding of ultimate Gooals as they are related to current Political Dialogue.

            DO NOT use the Progressive word / mind game…..I know YOU are capable of seeing the connection …. but many don’t have the backround and rely on peops like us to give CLEAR distinctions between the Goal set of a Constitutional Republic and the goal set of Elite Control..using the Mechanism of “Fairness” embodied within the Socialist / Communist Frame-work.

            • Don,

              Might I suggest that I am not the one playing word games here — you are. I’m just not sure you understand it. I would offer your opening line as support for my assertion.

              Let me see if I can explain why I concentrate on using the proper definition for things by using the Marxist as an example. If you talk to a Marxist long enough, eventually, they will tell you that Marxism has never failed (because it has never been tried). If you try to defeat him with your argument, he will listen to you, then smile and say that what you just described is NOT Marxism — and HE WILL BE RIGHT! You just lost the argument, leaving anyone who may have been listening to infer that the Marxist is correct.

              HOWEVER, if the Marxist tells me Marxism has never failed, I would say “True, because it has never been tried — and it never will be, either.” Then I will explain to the Marxist that the only way Marixism — as Marx defined it — can possibly exist is if it is forced on the masses (this incorporates your points), and, as long as there is an element of force involved, it cannot be Marxism. Therefore, Marxism — true Marxism — requires its own negation in order to exist. I will then tell my Marxist friend that this is irrational. Now, not only have I defeated the Marxist, if he really knows Marx, I will have utterly obliterated him because Marx claimed his ideas were based on “science” and reason. But how can Communism be rational if I have just demonstrated that it is self-contradicting? It can’t be. Ergo, the Marxist — IF he is intellectually honest — has just been cast adrift into a world of nothingness from which he cannot rescue himself without doing what you did — change the meaning of Communism.

              Now, I understand you will say that no one will understand this, but they would — IF we all cared about the proper meaning of terms. ;-)

              • Well … you’re perhaps taking it personally.

                I didn’t say YOU were playing word games….but that you seemed to be REPEATING the Left’s word games ( as given to them by Academia).

                The Marxist is wrong ( aside from his / her smug smirk) ….. And that is because they actually don’t KNOW what Marx was getting at…because they are REPEATING what they’ve been told. Marxism DOES IN FACT call for the “scientific” application of Economic principles ( defined by Marx / Engels) by the Intellectual and presumed MORAL elite , in the Supposed “Service” of the people.

                So what we saw in the Soviet Union and in China was in fact an actualization of Marxism in its Classical Form following its steps. The Marxist is just flat out wrong Historically and wrong Philosophically…..on Both accounts.

                Your 3rd paragraph is wonderful. The Marxist is Wrong on this reasoning as well.

                • Don,

                  Brother, if I take something personal, you’ll know. I’ll fire a sabot at you and I promise, it WILL penetrate your frontal armor. ;-)

                  I just want to make sure you know I see and understand what you are saying, but chose to go at it my way because, as I said, if it is done this way, there is NOTHING the other side can say in response. If nothing else, your method provides ample enough wiggle room that they can escape.

                • I live in Texas … It’s TOO hot for Armor. So I would be easily “sabotized”.

                  I don’t see how pointing out that Actual Marxism in Practice followed what Marx said … and thus FAILED miserably gives them ANY wiggle room…..if they are claiming it wasn’t done right….the fact is they (Marxists) followed the play-book.

                  Perhaps it is best to give them the Historical Fact…. then close the deal with your “3rd Paragraph” above.

                • Yes you’re right. But the CLAIM by the Marxist is the subject. It isn’t what Marx PREDICTED, that the Marxist is refering too….but what was DONE. What I’m saying is…what was done WAS what Marx /Engels prescribed as to steps necessary to institute Communism….in other words the Marxists DID what Marx suggested……and failed.

                  They failed because of what You are saying….NOT because they didn’t follow the script correctly ( which is what the Marxist is implying).

    • You are using the Academic ( and current Politically Correct) distinction. As if it were a reality.

      The Fact is the CCCP ( Soyuz Sovietshikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik )….ie; the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics…( Soviet meaning Committe or better Council)…….The Communists saw themselves as SOCIALISTS…which is well documented in dialogues between the Red Army and American GI’s during WWII.

      Further Marx himself said that Communism was a result of PURE Socialism…unpolluted by capitalist error.

      Thus the people using the Terms interchaneably are actually more correct….in Marxist / Socialist theory as well as historical Fact…….It is the ACADEMICS who are wrong.

      • Don,

        And that is how Republican comes to = “conservative,” which comes to be understood as “Original intent:” yet NONE of that is true, we only act as though it is and wonder why we have similar problems as the Progressives when they distort the meaning of words…

        I’m a philosopher, brother. I will insist on proper definitions because I understand that, once that is done, the rest of this “educating process” everyone claims we need to do falls easily into place ;-)

          • Don,

            Agreed, but you must not change the definitions in the process. You have to explain how people have tried to change the meanings of words to achieve their political goals. After all, that is accurate history, isn’t it? :-)

        • Besides Philosophy is more that just Definitions.

          In the Diagram above. It might be good to have a curved line Drawn from SocialismDictatorship and Liberal/ Progressive to the Communism…..showing that there is a connection (with Dictatorship added to Communism ..remember part of it “Definition” is a Party Elite ).

          This curved line would visually show that The Founding Fathers ( Constitutional Repuiblic ) Libertarians are Diametrically opposed by virtually EVERY competeing Political Philosophy.

          • Don,

            You are making things more difficult than they need to be — especially if Left/Right are defined the way they are. I suspect you may be mixing up methods with goals. This is how the Progressives came to assert that the Constitution will support Communism (they mean socialism). ll one needs to do is accept the modern meaning of “general welfare” in the preamble and they can make their case. then, if you try to object by pointing to the past, they whip out their version of your “That’s not our present reality” argument and where does that leave you?

            Do you see how I am looking at this issue yet, and why?

              • Don,

                I think many of us on the right — myself included — confuse the method that people use to achieve their goals with the ideology that drives them. Take Communism as our example — again. If you read the first chapters of Acts, you’ll find the early church lived a life that many have described as Communist (it wasn’t, but they miss that because they do not read carefully enough). But the method of Communism — everyone sharing with those in need according to their resources — was used to suit what is (if you understand the Gospel) a decidedly individualistic goal. So, when the Left reads Acts, they see affirmation of Communism. But when the Right reads it (providing they actually understand it), they see affirmation of individualism and free will. Same method, two different ideals/goals — mutual misunderstanding as a result.

                Did that help any? :-)

                • Did that Help any ? ….. NO..It’s STILL Hot in Texas….send rain !

                  Well put….”was used to suit what is (if you understand the Gospel) a decidedly individualistic goal. So, when the Left reads Acts, they see affirmation of Communism””……This jibes VERY well with something I studied about early Christianity. I would love to “talk” about that, but better left for another time.

                  What you say about the “affirmation of individualism and free will ” I agree with 100 %.

  1. We can fuss about definitions all day long. These definitions of communism, socialism, and fascism have one thing in common, who collects the money for that type of government. Many people who blog use these words interchangeable, as to recognize the simular ecomonic problems under those types of governments, if that what you want to call these words (governments). The education of people for the benefit of history needs some type of words to know and address the people who run these ugly governments (communism, socialism, and fascism). Those of us who have had better teaching of these words know the difference, but do we know the difference in the social life of the people under each type of government? I would say yes. We might not know the feelings of living under these governments, but we know the hardness of the ecomony. To bad we don’t listen to those who have been tormented by these different types of governments, that now have fancy words to describe them. I’ll bet words don’t have any affect on a hungry stomach? It’s possible we don’t understand the thinking of Marx. What little bit I have read, he might be somewhat confused about the difference in humans. We don’t all think a like, or do we?

    • Redfray,

      I think I understand your concerns here, but I wonder whether or not you realize we are actually living under a fascist government now, here, in the U.S.?

      Also, you might need to keep in mind that, under fascism, the German people lived better than they did under the previous government — for a time. The same applies to the socialist governments of Europe, and now, us. The problem is that these economic systems MUST all collapse and THEN the people suffer, but that suffering opens the door to worse tyranny — unless the people are educated about the very things we are discussing here.
      :-)

  2. The video made an excellent point, but as far as I’m concerned the major parties have painted themselves into their respective corners. I don’t care what we call it, but I believe a third party must emerge in order to break the deadlock.

    • John,

      In Europe — yes. But that is not how the terms would apply in the U.S. and I try hard to make that point clear when I explain it. Which is why fascism and communism tend to be close to each other in my and any other spectrum designed by someone who understands the real issue. Thanks for the link :-)

  3. Pingback: Critiquing the Modern American Libertarian Movement | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s