I totally agree, but they could have added anarchy on the far far right too... real anarchy not that fake radical left kind
I've always put fascism and communism together on the far left, with anarchy on the extreme right.
Anarchy has no place on the political spectrum, because it is the total absence of the political spectrum. Under anarchy, there is no external authority, and therefore no politics for that authority to be defined by.
I disagree with this author, because he falls into the same trap that the conventional political spectrum does: defining the spectrum by the ideologies, rather than defining the spectrum by the actions.
IMO, the truly accurate political spectrum would have total centralized government on the far left, with total decentralized government on the far right. This way, communism defines the left end of the chart, with fascism slightly to its right. Federalism becomes the center, because it maintains strict authority while decentralizing it. On the far right, you have totally decentralized authority, such as autonomous city-states.
Just how I see it.
[I totally agree, but they could have added anarchy on the far far right too... real anarchy not that fake radical left kind]
Except there is decentralist and centralist anarchy. I’m too sleepy to explain.
The call real anarchy “anarcho-capitalism”. When you hear about anarchists on TV it’s always the misnamed leftists who protest at the WTO.
Ditto that. Even the dope smoking Libertarians believe in some laws and government to protect individuals from predators. Pure anarchy is the law of the jungle.. perfect freedom to do whatever you have the power to accomplish with no government to interfere at all. The hell hole of Somalia or the tribal territories of Pakistan are examples of places with no government and no law. The guy with the most guns can do whatever he wants.
On the far left extreme, I would say places like North Korea and Cuba have transcended mere Communism, and instead become totalitarian, dictatorial monarchies. Marx and Lenin are just ideological fig leafs.
“The most important effect of the new, accurate political spectrum is the clarity it brings to political analysis and discourse.”
I think this look at the political spectrum is very useful—especially if you add anarchy at the right, as you suggest.
However, I object to the author suggesting this is somehow new or novel. I read almost identical analyses of the political spectrum in 1968.