Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Arjen]

The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism. When I was young, I did often argue in favour of anarchism, because the more force against freedom, the less people can solve their own problems and this limits for example the self correcting market principle of capitalism.
Is this a true thought? Is national socialism extreme left, but misunderstood as extreme right?

Previously, I think with Greta I argued for a different division, with moderate governments (left and right) on 1 side and extremism (all sorts of fascism) on the other side. It would make the political discussions completely different, I thought. Is anarchy an extreme? Could the above fit my idea for a different division, which I was hoping to accomplish?

Please, amaze me with all of your insights

[Sy Borg]

If the left or right swing too far towards laissez faire or authoritarianism, they cease to become left or right, but simply preside over anarchy or a dictatorship respectively.

[Jack D Ripper]

The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism.

You are listening to propaganda from the right, that they want small government. The reality is, the right wants lots of laws forbidding all sorts of things, but just pretends that they are giving freedom. Think, for example, of gay marriage. If you are not gay, why the **** do you care if gay people get married or not? What does it have to do with you? But the extreme right wants to have laws banning gay marriage. How is that "small government" or letting people do what they want? It isn't. The right wing people lie about what they are all about. Which is the same as with countries that are often regarded as extreme "left", like countries like China, which pretend to be about communism, but are really about the leaders screwing the regular people. Which makes them pretty much like extreme right wing dictatorships, with the leaders screwing the regular people.

When I was young, I did often argue in favour of anarchism, because the more force against freedom, the less people can solve their own problems and this limits for example the self correcting market principle of capitalism.

Yet more evidence that you have been listening to right wing propaganda. The natural result of unrestrained capitalism is monopolies, which then can screw over everyone. The idea that capitalism magically self-corrects is magical thinking.

Is this a true thought? Is national socialism extreme left, but misunderstood as extreme right?

Fascism can pretend to be extreme right or left or any other thing that the leaders believe will be most effective in keeping the people in their place.

Previously, I think with @Greta I argued for a different division, with moderate governments (left and right) on 1 side and extremism (all sorts of fascism) on the other side.

One can divide things that way, as there are similarities that make such a division reasonable.

It would make the political discussions completely different, I thought. Is anarchy an extreme? Could the above fit my idea for a different division, which I was hoping to accomplish?

Please, amaze me with all of your insights

Regarding anarchy, I recommend that you read up on what Thomas Hobbes had to say in Leviathan. If there were no laws, then anyone could do anything to you (or "your property") that they wanted. It is only with laws that you have any protection at all from what anyone else wishes to do to you. Even so, the protection is obviously not absolute, but it is better than nothing, which is what you would have with anarchy.

[Arjen]

I think that it is probably true that fascism hide under whatever pretence they can find. Therefore, is the division between left and right a proper one? Or does it force to extremism?

Jack D Ripper I do not think I am listening to extreme right propaganda. I do think that I am looking for sanity in insane main stream news. I see so much extreme left propaganda, it is ridiculous. I am certain that everyone has read it, actually. Also: I am quite well versed in Anarchistic theories. One thing that I know is that, in pure anarchy, it is impossible to become totalitarian. Without rules, when people figure out what is wrong, they end it. That must be extreme left propaganda!

I actually have great confidence in the self correcting principle of he market. I don't see how this can be different. It is exactly the rules that keep big companies in place. For example Starbucks. It is more expensive than a local coffee shop and pays less taxes. There were some scandals in the past for giving tax benefits to it in the UK and The Netherlands, because of generating jobs (and not that many). I think it is the opposite of what you suggested above. Only by law can this sustain itself. It would collapse in a completely free market and local companies would retake their turf, making the economy bloom.

I do agree that some laws are needed, but those are to protect from violence and attempts of exploitation, I would say.

[Jack D Ripper]

Current western countries have restrictions on monopolies that did not exist in the past. If you want to learn about this, study the history of old monopolies, like Standard Oil and U.S. Steel. That sort of thing is the natural result of unrestricted capitalism. Starbucks is not operating with the same rules (because they exist now and not in the past before antimonopoly laws were enacted), and, consequently, if they are run by intelligent people, they are not trying to become a monopoly, as they would run into legal issues if they did, with legislators getting involved in their business. So, if they are run by intelligent people, they want a large market share, but to leave some of the market to others, to keep from being broken apart or otherwise restricted by additional government action.

There are sometimes monopolies created on purpose, like utility companies, so that one company is putting up power lines in a city instead of a bunch of different companies doing this, which would be highly undesirable. So in such cases, the government strictly regulates them, with controls on pricing and on the things they are allowed to do.

Unrestricted capitalism would be disastrous for regular people wanting utilities.

Believing that unrestricted capitalism will regulate itself is just magical thinking.

[Steve3007]

You are listening to propaganda from the right, that they want small government. The reality is, the right wants lots of laws forbidding all sorts of things, but just pretends that they are giving freedom. Think, for example, of gay marriage. If you are not gay, why the **** do you care if gay people get married or not? What does it have to do with you? But the extreme right wants to have laws banning gay marriage. How is that "small government" or letting people do what they want? It isn't. The right wing people lie about what they are all about.

On this particular point, I don't think "the right" necessarily lie. It's just that there are two distinct political philosophies that are both generally thought of as being on the right. One is libertarian and one is conservative. A challenge for leaders of the right has always been to keep those two distinct factions on side. They can achieve the feat of meeting, ideologically, if they agree that when the conservative advocates various moral strictures they are not actually advocating that those strictures be enforced legally, by the government, but voluntarily, by individuals. If they can't do that then the two sides will always have their differences.

[Steve3007]

If you are not gay, why the **** do you care if gay people get married or not? What does it have to do with you?

The libertarian would agree that it has nothing to do with anyone else and is entirely their own business what consenting adults get up to if it doesn't infringe on the liberty of anyone else.

The conservative would say that is does infringe on the liberty of others by damaging the health of society. What they see as the encouragement of homosexuality they see as bad for the health of society because they see the core unit of society as the traditional family, consisting of mother, father and children, with mother and father adopting distinct, traditional roles. There have been a fair few conservatives on this site over the years who have forcefully argued this point.

A famous example of a conservative politician trying to simultaneously advocate for libertarian-style individualism and the family as the core of society:

They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours

It's often incorrectly abridged so that she seems to simply say "there's no such thing as society".

[Arjen]

Jack D Ripper I think that capitalism and the self regulating aspect of the market are not the same thing. But, as you say, SOME regulation is needed. Just for practical purposes. Like city management, or teaming up for grande orojects.

Steve3007 I think neither the "right"or "left" lies. Both perspectives have merit. It seems to me that by taking both angles, a middle ground that excludes extrene measures AND extreme consequences of both positions can be found. This is actually healthiest for society. I still think we shoukd redefine that field.

[Man With Beard]

this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing.

Are nazis and communists the same? On one hand, they both have a very bad record. If you country is getting invaded by either, its pretty bad news.

On the other hand, if someone says "I like the ideas of communism, I just think the way they were implemented sucks" we would understand what they are talking about. Some might argue that the sucking is an inevitable consequence of the ideas, but the statement nevertheless is understandable.

But if someone says "I like the ideas of Nazis, its just that they they were implemented sucks" it would be less clear what they are even going on about.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the same".

[Man With Beard]

I actually have great confidence in the self correcting principle of he market.

Whether the market corrects itself or not strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous argument.

So what if it corrects itself?

Lets say we live in a utopia as envisioned by Ayn Rand.

I go into medicine business. I grab some random herbs and spice from my space shelf, get some gelatin capsules, fill them with the random herbs and spices, turn on my best charm and sell them as a cure for cancer.

Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business.

In the meantime, if my best charm was good enough, I sold worthless goods to people with cancer, some of whom have died as a result. That the market corrected itself did them no good at all.

[Arjen]

Hello man with beard,

This is normally remedied by the factor time. People don't fall for the same con twice and when they figure this out, there will be retribution.

Also: communism and nazism are bith fascism. They both have similar policies and if you exchange Jews with elite, the match is perfect. Look it up, there are good artickes about it.
I looked one up for you. I did not read it very carefully.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fee.org/ar ... -a-pod/amp
There are more sources, look around. I am sure that you will catch on.

[Terrapin Station]

Following principles to logical extremes shouldn't be conflated with actual political views considered "left," "right" or whatever. Actual political views are far more complex and nuanced--or less charitably, they're far more messy and at least seemingly contradictory in some respects. They also tend to differ from country to country, and even region to region, social milieu to social milieu within the same country, where they're shaped by the unique histor, practical issues and social interactions of the area/milieu in question.

[Jack D Ripper]

I actually have great confidence in the self correcting principle of he market.

Whether the market corrects itself or not strikes me as a somewhat ludicrous argument.

So what if it corrects itself?

Lets say we live in a utopia as envisioned by Ayn Rand.

I go into medicine business. I grab some random herbs and spice from my space shelf, get some gelatin capsules, fill them with the random herbs and spices, turn on my best charm and sell them as a cure for cancer.

Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business.

In the meantime, if my best charm was good enough, I sold worthless goods to people with cancer, some of whom have died as a result. That the market corrected itself did them no good at all.

First of all, your main point here is absolutely correct. I should probably say that again for emphasis, as otherwise some careless readers might miss that. Your main point here is absolutely correct. You going out of business later does not help the people you basically killed by selling them worthless pills instead of them seeking real treatment. There is, however, a small detail that is not correct in what you say. It is this:

"Eventually, someone is going to figure out that I am selling things of no medicine value, make that public, and the market will correct itself. I will go out of business."

That is overly optimistic about what happens when something is exposed as a fraud. To give a slightly different example, Peter Popoff, who is a phony faith healer (surely a redundant expression), was exposed as a fraud by James Randi on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson back in the 1980's. One might think that that would mean that he could no longer get away with such a scam. But if one thought that, one would be greatly overestimating the intelligence of people. Being exposed as a fraud has not stopped him from continuing to commit fraud, with gullible fools still believing in him.

For anyone interested, you can read a bit about a video of what was used to expose Popoff:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/ ... chics.html

Apparently, that PBS show is on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41hJ6DY8xLI

You can also search online for Peter Popoff to learn more about that con man.


We can also consider the extreme irrationality of the anti-vaccine movement, and countless other instances of gross stupidity. Debunking the anti-vaccine ideas has not stopped people from believing the debunked ideas anyway.

So, there is a very good chance that even if someone exposed your herbs and spices as a big fraud, it would not run you out of business and you may well continue to profit from it greatly. You could try claiming that it was a great conspiracy by the medical establishment to lie about your fine product, due to them wanting to profit off of people's cancer, while you, noble you, are selling them a cure for very little money. That sort of BS lie works all the time.

A free market does not get rid of fraud.

[h_k_s]

The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism. When I was young, I did often argue in favour of anarchism, because the more force against freedom, the less people can solve their own problems and this limits for example the self correcting market principle of capitalism.
Is this a true thought? Is national socialism extreme left, but misunderstood as extreme right?

Previously, I think with @Greta I argued for a different division, with moderate governments (left and right) on 1 side and extremism (all sorts of fascism) on the other side. It would make the political discussions completely different, I thought. Is anarchy an extreme? Could the above fit my idea for a different division, which I was hoping to accomplish?

Please, amaze me with all of your insights :)

Historically speaking, it is appropriate to remember that the Athenians invented politics as a result of the invention of their democracy in 510 BCE.

Philosophically, it is worth recalling that both Plato and Aristotle deal with the philosophy of politics in detail.

We could rehash Plato or Aristotle or both here now, and be thorough. That is what a complete analysis would require.

I think of Plato as a far-left politician, although he switched to a far right one in his writings called The Republic.

And I think of Aristotle as a far-right politician, since he taught Alexander The Great that the might of a king determines the justification for his acts, sort of like Machiavelli, however these views do not appear in his writings called Politics.

At any rate, now onto the current post's entry.

Anarchy is the complete absence of any government.

It is followed by the complete seizure of government by a warlord. We tend to call this fascism today. We label it as far right.

Next in line is a constitutional monarchy.

Next in line is a democratic republic. In a republic, elected or appointed lawmakers make and enforce the laws. The ancient Romans invented this kind of government. But their senators inherited their offices, not elected.

Next in line is a democracy, as in ancient Athens. In a democracy, the people directly vote on all matters, and magistrates are directly elected by the people as well. Note that the USA is not a democracy. The USA is more like a republic but with elected officials.

Next in line is a socialist democracy or a socialist republic, which are forms of government which intervene on social issues. That's why they are called socialist.

Next in line is a communist republic, which are forms of government where party leaders are appointed, and economic impact is highly regulated by the regime.

Next in line is a communist utopia, where all property is shared by the population. Leadership may be by monarchy, dictatorship, republican, or democratic.

What the USA has today is a lightly socialist democratic republic. The Europeans and Asians are much more socialistic. The Africans (in Africa) are much more militarized and warlord like or fascist. The Arab states are mostly dictatorships, with a few republics and a few monarchies. Jordan and Morocco are two of the monarchies.

In the USA I believe in Congress the Republicans sit on the right and the Democrats sit on the left facing the rostrum. That's all that "right and left" really mean. The term comes to us from the French and for them it meant the same thing once upon a time.

Of all the places on Earth that I have lived, Morocco is the most like a paradise. Fresh fruits and vegetables grow everywhere including your own back yard. My house had a banana tree, lemon tree, orange tree, and plum tree. The plums were good for making wine, if you added sugar and brewers yeast. The main meat source there is lamb and goat. The main beverage is mint tea. But it is ruled by a king who inherited his power from his father. Five times a day, from dawn to night, the mullahs sing "Allah Akbar" from their minarets.

So are you impressed yet? Or do I need to throw more verbiage at you?

At any rate, Plato and Aristotle are our primary philosophical sources. Herodotus also summaries the pro's and con's of democracy versus monarchy in comparing the Athenians with the Persians.

[h_k_s]

If the left or right swing too far towards laissez faire or authoritarianism, they cease to become left or right, but simply preside over anarchy or a dictatorship respectively.

But see my further breaking down of these, supra.