The attempt to analyse political differences through a linear lens running from left to right has irritated me for some years. I'm not a Conservative, but refuse to accept that any form of it logically leads to Fascism or Nazism if it is taken too far - in fact I'd suggest that Conservatism, for all its faults, is about as far from anything 'dangerously revolutionary' as you are likely to find. Similarly, is absolutely everybody who advocates some form of State intervention in the economy heading down a 'slippery slope' towards full-on Communism? Clearly, you have to acknowledge the existence of a segue between some form of welfare liberalism and the excesses of Cuba or Cambodia.
The Nolan Chart, with its small state-big state and libertarian-authoritarian axes, does a slightly better job although again the scope is somewhat limited. A healthy suspicion of the State does not make one a 'rugged individualist' by definition, which is what the Nolan Chart's four very crude boxes would imply (you could perhaps stick a fifth box around the middle of the grid and argue that this represents Centrist/Moderate viewpoints). When all is said and done you take on one of these five spaces and that's pretty much it - so is that really much better than saying Left, Centre-Left, Centre, Centre-Right or Right? I can't say it's a great deal more satisfactory.
With the focus being on the Individual vs State battle (one which us individualists are currently losing emphatically) the third dimension, namely one of 'people power', democracy, 'community empowerment' etc is the one being missed out. A populist or direct democrat will regard both the Individual and the State as roadblocks on the way to whatever it is they wish to achieve (although the State may well become a useful tool to enforce the will of the majority once it has been seized, a nuance I'll touch upon later). With the Brexit referendum having fuelled a sort of 'democratic bloodlust' amongst many, this dimension appears to be making a comeback, for good or ill.
Bearing all of this in mind, the right shape to break down where power resides cannot be a straight line or even a 2D grid, but a triangle or pyramid. This enables us to weigh up the pushes and pulls between Individual, State and Community, analyse the potential for extremism in any of these directions over the other two and attach the requisite labels to various positions. Some of them you may disagree with, or suggest alternative names for, so please feel free to offer feedback or constructive criticism accordingly. This is a work in progress, but in my view explores the nuances more deeply than most of the alternatives that have gone before.
So...here we are. Let's go through these 15 'schools of thought' individually...
Breaking it down we have the first tier, solely comprising of Anarcho Capitalism. Then we have the 'Individual Empowerment' tier, the Mixed/Mainstream ideologies below that, any that empower groups in Tier 4 (be they based on State power or Community empowerment) and, at the bottom of the pile, those that could be considered seriously Authoritarian in nature (and usually in outcome). Of course it is possible (and quite likely) that you might be predominantly one and then have a secondary or tertiary label which is fairly close to your primary set of ideas. Any quiz or test would need to reflect this and produce a list of top three results as opposed to one in isolation.
I have left out generic concepts such as Absolute Monarchy, Theocracy and 'Anarchy' in and of itself as they are too vague and could not be described as having unique characteristics which clearly define them from other forms of government. Some Absolute Monarchies or Theocracies afford certain degrees of individual freedom while others are brutal and repressive. Meanwhile two forms of Anarchy are covered separately here via the inclusion of Anarcho Capitalism and Ocholocracy, while worker's Anarchy (Anarcho-Syndicalism) was of course the 'unicorns and Rainbows' stuff that invariably descended into Communism. In short, Anarcho-Syndicalism has never happened.
*note that I am focussing at least to some extent on how the examples cited here package/market themselves - you may argue that they are something else in reality and are probably right.
Tier 1 - Ultra-Individualist
Anarcho Capitalism
Examples: can't think of one
Size of State: there basically isn't one
Social Policy: leave people alone
Rights: individual
Dissent: there is 'nothing' to speak out against, nobody to complain to
Characteristics: 'free market anarchism', virtually no regulation of business or enterprise, no social protection.
Tier 2 - Individual Empowerment
Classical Liberalism
Examples: liberal governments of Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century
Size of State: small
Social Policy: leave people alone
Rights: individual
Dissent: tolerated
Characteristics: small state (slightly bigger than AnCaps or Minarchists), low taxation, balance very much in favour of the individual.
Minarchism (Libertarianism)
Examples: founding fathers of the United States
Size of State: minimalist
Social Policy: leave people alone
Rights: individual
Dissent: tolerated
Characteristics: high emphasis on individual freedom in all spheres. State is there for the purposes of defence, law and order and very little else.
Tier 3 - Mainstream
Social Democracy
Examples: Democratic Party in the United States, British Labour Party for most of its existence, many SDP-type parties dominating in mainland Europe
Size of State: medium-high
Social Policy: passively progressive
Rights: mixed
Dissent: tolerated
Characteristics: socialism-lite in many ways, less hostility towards market forces, pursuit of a mixed economy and liberal values in social policy.
Centrism
Examples: Centre and Christian Democrat Parties in Europe, New Labour
Size of State: medium
Social Policy: passively progressive
Rights: mixed
Dissent: tolerated
Characteristics: does what it says on the tin, can be reached by 'third way' modes of thought or lifting bits and pieces from around the board.
Conservatism
Examples: US Republican and British Conservative Party for most of their existence
Size of State: medium
Social Policy: passively conservative
Rights: mixed
Dissent: tolerated
Characteristics: mildly socially conservative, trust in individuals and communities to solve problems better than the State can.
Tier 4 - Group Empowerment
Socialism
Examples: Socialist Parties all over Europe, Bernie Sanders' run at the Presidency
Size of State: high
Social Policy: aggressively progressive
Rights: group
Dissent: officially tolerated
Characteristics: high taxation, massive welfare state, lots of State control over the economy which may or may not include some nationalisation.
Nationalism
Examples: Sinn Fein, Scottish National Party, latter-day BNP
Size of State: high
Social Policy: aggressively nationalistic
Rights: group
Dissent: officially tolerated
Characteristics: nationalists are often socialists on economic matters - they are basically the same thing based on grievance/grudge over class/wealth (Socialism) or nation/race (Nationalism).
Populism
Examples: UKIP, the Presidency of Donald Trump
Size of State: medium-high
Social Policy: typically conservative and/or nationalistic
Rights: group
Dissent: officially tolerated
Characteristics: rabble-rousing 'charismatic' leaders such as Farage or Trump, some minority-bashing but stopping short of outright and/or deliberate persecution by the State.
Localism
Examples: governance of Switzerland by regions (cantons)
Size of State: whatever the locality wants
Social Policy: see above
Rights: see above
Dissent: see above
Characteristics: the nature of localism depends rather heavily on the self-governing population and whether or not protections exist for lawful minorities. Something of a lottery.
Tier 5 - Authoritarian
Communism
Examples: Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Soviet Union
Size of State: huge
Social Policy: brutal
Rights: you don't have any
Dissent: crushed
Characteristics: an all-powerful state which nationalises the economy, massive human rights abuses, the removal of all possible opposition, usually through violence and/or murder.
National Socialism (also known as Fascism)
Examples: Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy
Size of State: huge
Social Policy: brutal, often with a racist element
Rights: you don't have any
Dissent: crushed
Characteristics: I remember being taught at school that Communism was 'far left' and National Socialism 'far right' - this occurred to me as absurd even at 13. The two are basically identical save for an emphasis on race and a preference for 'State Capitalism' over outright nationalisation.
Authoritarian Populism
Examples: Marine la Pen
Size of State: high
Social Policy: ultra-conservative and/or nationalistic
Rights: group for the 51 per cent, none for the other 49
Dissent: officially tolerated
Characteristics: populism on steroids, this is probably the maddest you can get while still at least claiming to operate in a democracy. Overt persecution of minorities is the key difference.
Direct Democracy
Examples: no pure instances, although many nations have elements of it
Size of State: whatever the 51 per cent vote for
Social Policy: see above
Rights: see above
Dissent: see above
Characteristics: rule by referenda - although a State exists it is merely to serve the will of the majority unless a written constitution is in place to override it. Potentially very dangerous.
Ochlocracy (Mob Rule)
Examples: no pure instances (thankfully)
Size of State: whatever the mob wants
Social Policy: see above
Rights: total freedom for the mob (including lawlessness), none for anyone else
Dissent: see Rights
Characteristics: probably best manifests itself in the form of vigilantism and the meeting out of 'justice' against criminals (proven or otherwise) by self-appointed street juries. Lawless, backward and the most frightening form of 'governance' there is.
One of the key points that comes out of this is that if we don't attempt to strike some sort of balance between the individual, the legitimate functions of the State and community concerns (i.e head off to an extreme degree in any direction) we run the risk of becoming authoritarian or oppressive by one mechanism or the other. The saying "if everybody is free then nobody is free" holds some weight in the instance of Anarcho Capitalism, while the State appropriating excessive amounts of power over people's lives can lead to disastrous consequences as we've seen throughout history. Ochlocracy is their equivalent when the will of the majority (or simply the loudest) holds far too much weight.
I hope you've enjoyed this, that it has provoked some thought and perhaps some new ideas of your own. Constructive criticism and disagreement is always welcome on these pages so please feel free to comment if you have anything to add.
In the meantime I'll leave you with some Pete Shelley - thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment