On the pathological need to divide politics into "right" and

[Greater-London]

The left/right authoritarian/libertarian axis has its merits. I think broadly speaking

Right = Various forms of lassies faire capitalism
Left = Various forms of socialism and social democracy
Authoritarian = increased role of the state and limitation of personal freedom
Libertarian = minimal state interference increase in personal freedom and choice

Now these will not help you have a nuanced understanding of any political ideology, or in depth knowledge of someones belief. However they do exist as "framework" from which you can have interesting and more refined debates.

Personally I would described myself as an unreconstructed Gladostonian Liberal which makes me both right wing and a libertarian. However I have some left or authoritarian opinions on certain issues; its important to remember that the whole left/right debate can only go so far as so few of us have entirely coherant world views.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

So you are unaware one can be a firmly-planted, hard left-wing socialist while still being in favor of a completely free market.

I don't think thats possible.

If you are in favour of large-scale redistribution of wealth, then I think you want too much modification to the allocation of wealth under the market for it to qualify as being in favour of a completely free market.

...you really need to read up on political theory, then, because you seem pretty ignorant of it.

Not an insult. It's just that... it's, like, totally possible.

[Infected Mushroom]

that kind of sounds like a classical liberal... so centre?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing ... _anarchism
What about those?

They would be on the left. They are supporting something that sounds communistic/socialistic in at least one sense of the word... and they support very liberal social policies (individual freedoms etc).

[Prussia-Steinbach]

They would be on the left. They are supporting something that sounds communistic/socialistic in at least one sense of the word... and they support very liberal social policies (individual freedoms etc).

They are (I am) totally in support of radically and completely free markets.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't think thats possible.

If you are in favour of large-scale redistribution of wealth, then I think you want too much modification to the allocation of wealth under the market for it to qualify as being in favour of a completely free market.

...you really need to read up on political theory, then, because you seem pretty ignorant of it.

Not an insult. It's just that... it's, like, totally possible.

if you call yourself ''socialist'' but you want the market to completely run without regulations (or on balance without regulations), I'm not sure the title is appropriately applied

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...you really need to read up on political theory, then, because you seem pretty ignorant of it.

Not an insult. It's just that... it's, like, totally possible.

if you call yourself ''socialist'' but you want the market to completely run without regulations (or on balance without regulations), I'm not sure the title is appropriately applied

Then you have no idea what socialism is.

[Infected Mushroom]

They would be on the left. They are supporting something that sounds communistic/socialistic in at least one sense of the word... and they support very liberal social policies (individual freedoms etc).

They are (I am) totally in support of radically and completely free markets.

so then they are classical liberals using the title of socialist except a variant without a central government?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

They are (I am) totally in support of radically and completely free markets.

so then they are classical liberals using the title of socialist except a variant without a central government?

...no? Not at all?

[Infected Mushroom]

if you call yourself ''socialist'' but you want the market to completely run without regulations (or on balance without regulations), I'm not sure the title is appropriately applied

Then you have no idea what socialism is.

if you end goal is to get to a place without regulation, but the methods to get there require regulation (and that regulation is positive), then I would still count the movement for all intents and practical purpose as a movement that militates towards being left

[Infected Mushroom]

so then they are classical liberals using the title of socialist except a variant without a central government?

...no? Not at all?

you want completely free markets

you want completely free individual freedoms

(so far, its sounding like classical liberalism except for the anarchy part)

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...no? Not at all?

you want completely free markets

you want completely free individual freedoms

(so far, its sounding like classical liberalism except for the anarchy part)

Classical liberals aren't rabidly anti-capitalist.

[Infected Mushroom]

you want completely free markets

you want completely free individual freedoms

(so far, its sounding like classical liberalism except for the anarchy part)

Classical liberals aren't rabidly anti-capitalist.

if you are anti-capitalist, then you need to dismantle or change capitalism... and to do you would need regulation... that would seem to make the movement on the whole left wing on the economic axis (even if your end goal might be to get a place without regulations under freely operating system with new assumptions... you can't get there without enacting large scale changes from the top down)

so then I would still say left

[Prussia-Steinbach]

if you are anti-capitalist, then you need to dismantle or change capitalism... and to do you would need regulation... that would seem to make the movement on the whole left wing on the economic axis (even if your end goal might be to get a place without regulations under freely operating system with new assumptions... you can't get there without enacting large scale changes from the top down)

so then I would still say left

...you have legitimately confused me.

Are you still denying the existence of left-wing market ideologies? Mutualism, market socialism, etc? What do you think they are?

[Infected Mushroom]

if you are anti-capitalist, then you need to dismantle or change capitalism... and to do you would need regulation... that would seem to make the movement on the whole left wing on the economic axis (even if your end goal might be to get a place without regulations under freely operating system with new assumptions... you can't get there without enacting large scale changes from the top down)

so then I would still say left

...you have legitimately confused me.

Are you still denying the existence of left-wing market ideologies? Mutualism, market socialism, etc? What do you think they are?

if you are in favour of changing capitalism in a way that requires massive redistribution, expropriation, increased regulations (in safety, hiring policies etc), or increased taxation and this requirement is either the end goal OR a necessary step in the implementation of an end goal (even if that end goal is to get to a place ultimately without such regulations)... then I would say for THAT dimension (economic), it scores with me as being on balance Left and not Right.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...you have legitimately confused me.

Are you still denying the existence of left-wing market ideologies? Mutualism, market socialism, etc? What do you think they are?

if you are in favour of changing capitalism in a way that requires massive redistribution, expropriation, increased regulations (in safety, hiring policies etc), or increased taxation and this requirement is either the end goal OR a necessary step in the implementation of an end goal (even if that end goal is to get to a place ultimately without such regulations)... then I would say for THAT dimension (economic), it scores with me as being on balance Left and not Right.

...but what if you are pro-free market and anti-capitalist?

[Fremont Forest]

if you are in favour of changing capitalism in a way that requires massive redistribution, expropriation, increased regulations (in safety, hiring policies etc), or increased taxation and this requirement is either the end goal OR a necessary step in the implementation of an end goal (even if that end goal is to get to a place ultimately without such regulations)... then I would say for THAT dimension (economic), it scores with me as being on balance Left and not Right.

...but what if you are pro-free market and anti-capitalist?

Mutualism would probably fit that definition, not that it's a political philosophy of any major significance.

[Infected Mushroom]

if you are in favour of changing capitalism in a way that requires massive redistribution, expropriation, increased regulations (in safety, hiring policies etc), or increased taxation and this requirement is either the end goal OR a necessary step in the implementation of an end goal (even if that end goal is to get to a place ultimately without such regulations)... then I would say for THAT dimension (economic), it scores with me as being on balance Left and not Right.

...but what if you are pro-free market and anti-capitalist?

that sounds like a contradiction

[Esternial]

if you are in favour of changing capitalism in a way that requires massive redistribution, expropriation, increased regulations (in safety, hiring policies etc), or increased taxation and this requirement is either the end goal OR a necessary step in the implementation of an end goal (even if that end goal is to get to a place ultimately without such regulations)... then I would say for THAT dimension (economic), it scores with me as being on balance Left and not Right.

...but what if you are pro-free market and anti-capitalist?

ERR-OR. ERR-OR. SUBJECT CATEGORY DOES NOT FIT KNOWN VALUES.

ABORT SESSION.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...but what if you are pro-free market and anti-capitalist?

that sounds like a contradiction

oh my dear fucking god

It's already been demonstrated and sourced that it isn't, IM. Are you aware of the existence of market socialism? Mutualism?

[Fanosolia]

...but what if you are pro-free market and anti-capitalist?

that sounds like a contradiction

only if you markets as a purely capitalist economic system instead of just an economic framework. co-ops for instance. Actually just linking you this would be easier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy

[Infected Mushroom]

that sounds like a contradiction

only if you markets as a purely capitalist economic system instead of just an economic framework. co-ops for instance.

the thing is, capitalism is the default condition of the market (so it is the free market, free as in without regulations, people organise into firms, corporations etc).

so if you want another kind of market and you want to change the system, that necessarily makes your methods less in support of a free market regardless of the end goal

in my book, if reaching your desired end goal requires a lot of redistribution, regulation, increased taxation, expropriation (one of several of these, doesn't have to be all), then that makes you lean left

hence, even if you want to insist that the end goal of Mutualism or Market Socialism is a different type of ''free market'', there is no getting there without one or several of redistribution, regulation, increased taxation, expropriation etc...

I'm fixated on the method to get from A to B, not what B purportedly calls itself. If your methods in practice require a left-wing method, then it is left relative to the present framework. This is irrespective of the theoretical Final destination.

[Mushet]

The left right spectrum has it's uses, of course it shouldn't be the only axis to compare ideologies on.

A big problem is people getting confused on what it really represents.

Ever since the coining of the term broadly right = pro-inequality, left = anti-inequality.

Far left would want more and more equality of outcome, inequality may sound like complete evil but not really, if you believe a doctor should be paid more than a Walmart greeter then that is inequality. Although many on the far right will probably deny more equality of opportunity as well, but extremes are extremes. Capitalism with a good level of equality of opportunity would be a more sympathetic right wing society.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

the thing is, capitalism is the default condition of the market

Hahahaha! Source.

Really, really hard to believe when capitalism didn't exist until relatively recently in economic history.

hence, even if you want to insist that the end goal of Mutualism or Market Socialism is a different type of ''free market'', there is no getting there without one or several of redistribution, regulation, increased taxation, expropriation etc...

But it isn't a "different type of free market." Markets have nothing to do with private vs. collective/democratic ownership of the means of production and running of businesses.

[Insaeldor]

While it's not the best way of explaining politics its a pretty simple way to depict politics for people are really not that politically inclined. So while not exactly the best way to explain politics its definetly the easiest way to do it.

[Infected Mushroom]

the thing is, capitalism is the default condition of the market

Hahahaha! Source.

Really, really hard to believe when capitalism didn't exist until relatively recently in economic history.

hence, even if you want to insist that the end goal of Mutualism or Market Socialism is a different type of ''free market'', there is no getting there without one or several of redistribution, regulation, increased taxation, expropriation etc...

But it isn't a "different type of free market." Markets have nothing to do with private vs. collective/democratic ownership of the means of production and running of businesses.

the default is private for profit ownership by firms

we may not have started there but the natural historic social evolution lead the entire world there now, and the only way to change that pattern (no matter the end goal) is to have increased regulation, expropriation, increased taxation, redistribution (one or several) etc

that's why anything that is anti-capitalist is termed left because it requires some form of increased regulation that opposes the current state of the free market