CTF Political Compass

Marx is generally agreed upon to be center in auth/lib scale and nearly all the way left. Kropotkin was an Anarcho-Communist and thus makes it bottom left. Max Stirner was the founder of Egoism and is center left/right and nearly all the way down. George Orwell was a Libertarian (see his book "Homage to Catalonia") and is like Kropotkin on the scale just less down. None of whom I have mentioned were top left.

Marx made a distinction between two post-Capitalist stages of society and had attributed different dictums for them. The first stage would be Socialism, which is marked by social (hence the name Socialism) ownership of the means of production (production is collectively and democratically owned by those who work it, not those who simply invest and hire people) and is ruled by the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution." Now, the second stage, Communism, is the stage to which the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" rings true. Communism is the stage of society that supposedly comes after Socialism has created the material conditions necessary for its establishment and is recognized as a classless, stateless, moneyless society that has achieved post-scarcity (post-scarcity refers to the state of society where the majority of wanted goods are made to such an excess that anyone can have whatever reasonable amount of it). There is a reason why different dictums are utilized for the different stages.

Marx developed a method of analyzing called Dialectical Materialism, which, when applied to history, is also called Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism's most important and self-evident lesson is that a society can only start to exist when a certain set of material conditions is made present. In the case of Capitalism, Feudalism had created the material conditions necessary for the establishment for Capitalism. As with Capitalism, Feudalism was established upon the conditions wrought by Slaving Empires. And in the future, Socialism will be established upon the necessary material conditions brought about by Capitalism and Communism shall do the same with Socialism. This demonstrates quite clearly that different time periods call for different sorts of organization so as to proceed further at a reasonable pace. Also, I believe you may have a misunderstanding of what the dictum "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" implies. It does not imply that society will solely toil for the satisfaction of human needs and none further, but rather it implies that society should first toil for the satisfaction of human needs and then toil forward for the satisfaction of human wants to a degree of which not only a select few enjoy their desires fulfilled, but all (post-scarcity, a necessity for the establishment of Communism would ensure this). Hell, I understand that it may be hard to believe in a society where everything is produced to such excess that all may have access to it, but to make it just a tad more believable, just imagine telling the citizens of Ancient Rome of our ongoing conquest of the stars or telling ancient tribes of the great organization and conquests of the vast slaving empires. Communism itself is a long way away (at the bare minimum 250-300 years away from realization), but Socialism, the logical next step and conclusion to Capitalism is not very distant. In Socialism, there is really only one believable difference, the removal of bosses. No more single or few individuals owning a factory making profit off the toil of the workers, but rather all the individuals who toil in the factory shall profit based on their own degree of work put in and make decisions for their organization collectively and democratically. And through this organization of society, people would work towards the establishment of post-scarcity.

 

You never see those anarchist guys in a position of power. Don't you think they would become dictators if they were?


I'm sorry. I can't see a business functioning with everyone working on the same level. There's going to be a power vacuum, and someone's going to climb there way to the top and seize control. Competition. That's how this world works. People are going to strive for more and to do better.

 

Well if Revolutionary Catalonia, the Free Territory of Ukraine, and other established anarchist nations are anything to go by, then no, it is not often that an Anarchist goes against his principles for the privilege of power.

Well, that is arguably not so. This world is only driven by competition in Capitalism. In the beginnings of human society, tribes, there was no competition, individuals worked together for the good of the tribe. This led Marx to call this Primal Communism, being rather similar to what Communism is envisioned to be, albeit without post-scarcity. If that doesn't convince you, look at the next step in societal organization, Barbarism, where large groups of individuals wandered around without culture and few chieftains. Once again, no competition and limited authority. Next is the rise and fall of the Slaving Empires, such as Rome. Once again, competition holds little influence in the land where you are either non-slave and live in mostly luxury or slave and work not for opportunity and competition, but rather for hope of staying alive and getting fed. Here was authority, yes, but meager competition. After the slaving empires, Feudalism took hold. Here, the worker (previously the slave) is treated better, but is still doomed to live a meager life. Here, competition takes hold not in the form of interaction between individuals, but through the actions of nations as a whole. Nations competed against each other for land, influence, and wealth while the majority of individuals took part in little competition, only toiling to sustain oneself. Here we see an expanding of authority and the taking hold of competition. Finally, we have Capitalism, the era where authority began to wain and individuals were set to work against each other to advance in the world. Here authority still exists and competition rules. Through this brief analysis of the various stages of society, we see that competition was not how the world worked for a majority of human history. Rather, we see the way humans interacted with each other shift in dramatic ways in each different organization of society. To say the competition is how the world works and will continue to work is simply ignorant of the course of history. Competition has risen and will fall just how previous ways humans interacted has risen and fallen and just how future ways humans interact will rise and will fall. And hell, if you don't believe history, perhaps you should believe Psychology which demonstrates that the way a human interacts with others and with his environment shifts according to the circumstances surrounding him. A timid man may become an outgoing man in one environment and timid once again in another. Even anthropology agrees that there is little human nature beyond survive and procreate and believes that the way a human acts is largely based on the society he finds himself in. In conclusion, people have, continue to, and will work on the same level without competition, power vacuums don't always exist, people will not always seize control, competition is not the necessary and future state of human interaction, and people will strive for more, but will not always do so in competition, but rather together.

 

It means that everyone is paying for it together.

Taxes? Bud?

'You never see an ANARCHIST in a POSITION of power"

Is an amazing observation lmao.

At any rate if you look at the anarcho-communist reddit after the Berkley incident all you see is anarchists asking for a leader, and it is the single funniest thing this year to date.

@Iosif_Stalin

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the modern liberal is slightly to the right and up'. I would agree that a lot of people are more to the Centre than this graph shows, however you seem to be forgetting that this poll is being held on a forum for people who are, on average, young adults; people who are pretty much always more liberal than their older generation.

What surprises me the most is the sheer number of people who go insanely far down the socio-economic left and become convinced that :
a) people would be willing to pay taxes despite past public out cries at tax hikes, and b) that anything and everything conservative leaning is inherently wrong.

If anything I'd say on average that the modern liberal is just a little too far left for their own good, willing to jump to defend people who don't need defending to appease their own sensibilities.

 

Again, I can't imagine all of humanity working together on the same level, especially when there's billions of people on the Earth. A few hundred, thousand, or even million are going to exploit the system and overthrow it. They're not going to want to live like that. You would have to go back to the stone age with most of the human race wiped out where you can keep a better check on each other to prevent divergents.
Now, you could have billions working on the same level with a massive global totalitarian government keeping watch on everyone, but that goes against anarchism and is just the Soviet Union on steroids.

 

I find people tend to be socially liberal and somewhat financially conservative.

Not sure how that fits in this graph.

 

Bottom right.

 

That's around libertarianism

 

Evil-ism?

 

That's what the socialists would call it, being pro big business and pro Wall Street and all. No, actually, libertarians hate corporatism and Wall Street. They say that's not free market capitalism.

 

And this is the exact sort of post that could start world war 3