Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Tell me, HISTORICALLY speaking, where were the socialists, fascists and communists before they existed?
I am SPEAKING of the Historical meanings.
Yes, even the chart I found here could be construed as backing your thesis.
BUT, using even YOUR reference, let us take a LOOKY at the historical shall we?
Wiki-historical political spectrum!
On this page it goes over the spectrum of the differing ideas in regards to left right.
I myself and MANY others that speak of the general and historical meaning of left right, ARE talking about the power of government compared to the
power of the people.
Statist vs Individual
Totalitarian vs Anarchist
I see what YOU are saying, do you even understand the contextual nature of the argument or are you being daft?
You're not making much sense, man...
I am absolutely speaking of HISTORICAL meanings. Studying the past is studying history, and when you study the past the conclusions are the same. Now
if you want to cherry pick one little spot here and there that fits your worldview then you're not coming from a sane, scientific, or factual point
of view. If we are to discuss political breakdowns, especially in the modern sense, then what I've illustrated is undeniable.
Of course everything is relative, but again all we must do is zoom out a bit to see the entire picture. When we zoom out maximally and view the full
history/scope of the political spectrum then something like the political compass (i.e. the graphic I posted) makes the most sense. Even the Nolan
chart makes sense. However, both charts more or less reinforce my points and give ZERO credence to notions that Anarchism is ONLY right-wing or
left-wing, nor to notions that authoritarianism is limited to one side of the spectrum.
I think what baffles us left-wing Anarchists about many "newbie" right-wing Libertarians is that they don't understand that collectivism can and
has ABSOLUTELY existed in the absence of a state, hierarchy, and authority figures. Just as individualism has.
A collectivist society DOES NOT exclude the individual, it is merely an amalgamation OF individuals into a collective that serves OPTIONAL means for
each individual. Essentially, a collective is doing as a group what you cannot accomplish easily or at all as an individual, and this is perfectly
natural/intelligent/crucial for humans. You DO NOT have to hand over your thoughts/lives to a collective... a collective can span any level of one's
life. A tribe, for instance, is a very tight-knit and encompassing collective, but still the people retain more/less their own personalities,
decisions, and say in the tribal order. A cooperative (as I linked previously) is merely an economic collective that you leave behind when you go
home. It doesn't extend as a family, per se, or into your religion or anything else, it is merely an economic and/or job structure that's superior
to Capitalism if we want Democratic workplaces with the best deal for the largest number of employees/workers. In a non-hierarchical collective...
there's not an immovable apparatus of coercion which cannot be escaped as there is with large/centralized/hierarchical markets and governments.
Essentially... collectivism and individualism can and does co-exist ALWAYS. There is no possibility of a purity of either, as we both NEED other
people and belonging to a group as well as we NEED our own individual minds/drives/preferences. Though sometimes these things conflict, they can also
(and for the most part) complement each other. The argument with Anarchism is that we can be both individuals and collectives at once and function
just fine WITHOUT the need for a domineering state or market to control us, whether directly/indirectly, whether by coercion/threat (military/police)
or sterilizing any diversity/localization/alternatives (i.e. creating uniform market monopolies/globalization like Wal-Mart, Exxon or McDonalds). This
is what brings us to a breakdown WITHIN Anarchism- there are multiple schools of thought with many overlapping similarities as well as differences,
spanning the right and left of the spectrum. One good thing about most Anarchist thought is that it ALLOWS for DIVERSITY of lifestyles. So you can
have one collective over here living in a socialist free market, one over here living without any markets and instead sharing in an egalitarian
society, and another over there living free market with private property. Of course these are all theoretical and in practice would overlap even more
possibly as well as evolve (as needed/desired).