the actual political spectrum.
(media.scored.co)
Comments (124)
sorted by:
This chart is flat out wrong. Socialism is not a "lesser form of communism" as we are taught growing up in school, fascism is not an "extreme right-wing ideology" as we are told on TV, capitalism doesn't belong anywhere along a spectrum of government control, the term "classical liberalism" refers to the original meaning if liberal as coming from "liberty" and doesn't belong on the leftward slope.
I agree. Whoever came up with the points on the slopes leading to anarchy / enlightenment has a poor understanding of the terms he used. I do agree with one thing, though... It would take a truly enlightened society to live in anarchy (ie. Self-rule).
This is horseshoe theory, inverted, so it looks like something unique, but it's the same idea.
if you spend time to make sense of it , after you read(ed) the whole text, you can notice that there is more to it. There are lower consciousness and higher consciousness ideologies.
Taking that into consideration, it's even lamer.
There is nothing enlightened about anarchy. Nature itself is hierarchal. In operational practice, actual human anarchists are low rationality humans who live in the "now" and who have limited empathy.
Allow me to introduce you to Michael Malice. Your critique of Anarchism is uninformed, recycled fear of something you clearly do not understand. The majority of human interactions you will and have had in your life have been anarchistic in nature.
Allow me to introduce you to Edmund Burke, who predicted what would happen in the French Revolution and its rejection of authority long before the reign of terror.
https://revolution.chnm.org/items/show/321
Nature itself laughs at you.
Articulate concisely what Edmund Burke has to do with this topic. You do understand there's a difference between say dogs and humans? Or ants and idiots? Who told you to get dressed this morning? What is the name of the cop that follows you around making sure you don't rape or kill anyone? It's a higher form of thinking you may not understand.
Humans are part of nature. Dogs have different hierarchies than humans. All of the universe is a hierarchy of various sorts. Lucky for us there are multiple hierarchies. The janitor at work is a Judo black belt and kicks ass when training at the dojo.
[edit to add] Burke predicted what would happen with the breakdown of legitimate authority in France, in effect, it was the mob, or anarchy. A lot of people died. You are very unknowledgeable about history.
The state of humans in an anarchy is a war of all against all. Read your Hobbes, he's right on that at least.
So you live in a forest? Do you have squirrels on treadmills powering your devices? Who are you to say the "mob" wasn't a legitimate authority if the "mob" consisted of the majority of the people of France?
Oh please, tell me how anarchy should be "enlightened".
To stand on your own two feet ideologically without coercion by illegitimate authority takes a higher form of thinking than many are capable of. Throw out the rules you've been taught to live by other than those you've decided for yourself and see for yourself.
And that's a really good thing. But its called critical thinking, not anarchy.
Ironically the opposite of what you did in that sentence. Gatekeeping what an anarchistic thought process consists of 🤣😂🤣
Retarded. Hierarchies are inevitable.
Regurgitate! Regurgitate! Vomit all the ignorance you hear!
Is what you do.
How very uncreative 🤣😂
I'm not here to be creative.
You could've gone your entire life without uttering those words and absolutely no one would've ever accused you otherwise.
Dude, I get you have no life beside writing bs here. I'm a professional musician and composer so I get a lot of time to be creative irl. Cut the ad homs and empty rhetoric and engage with the arguments.
I don't care what you do but when you discuss something I know about in an ignorant manner I feel inclined to form a rebuttal.
Agreed. Nature itself is a hierarchy. Anarchism as peak anything is an egoist's masturbation fantasy.
What do you mean nature is a hierarchy? Are you referring to the food chain? What kind of government do you think cats have? 🤣
Isn't natural selection hierarchical? How do you envision anarchist society? Law of the jungle enacted?
The people decide the legitimacy of the authority the government governs with. If a group of people decide by their own volition to live by a set of rules that's an anarchistic society. Anarchism is the rejection of illegitimate authority such as the authority our government exerts over us. I do not decide where my tax dollars go neither do you because we were born into a society governed with illegitimate authority
So anarchism is a group of people democratically voting for an authority (government)? Genius.
No democracy in theory is a group of people allowing the voice of many to make decisions for them. Anarchism is individual choice.
Cool. What happens when you get a bunch of anarchists together? How do they reconcile their different yet equally valid opinions and choices? How are disputes settled?
Hmmm, perhaps that masturbation fantasy joke was taken a little to personally.
This conversation is anarchistic in nature but that clearly eludes you.
Is it? Are you not following any set of rules writing your idiocy down? Like the laws of logic and grammar? You're the one wanting to go meta - here we go.
There's no "laws of logic and grammar" there's agreed upon beliefs but English is a living language if what you are saying can be understood by another 7h3n 17s n0t w20n9.
So the three laws of logic are social convention and not universal and objective? Can we suspend them or maybe change them a bit? Everything you say is based on those laws. You can't form a sentence or a coherent thought without appealing to them.
Define "nature" chump.
Wrong spot. Still works.
There's no one in charge. Neither of us have authority over this conversation nor does anyone else in the world. Do you understand what I mean when I say "the nature of"?
That's where you're wrong, and I mean really, really, wrong. Painfully wrong.
There's always someone in charge. If for some reason there is breakdown of the established order, a new one supplants it in short order. Man is a political animal, it's in our nature to organize. If you had no society, in about 10 minutes 6 people will organize to be the strong to take from the weak, who didn't organize with anybody else.
And not just human nature, by that I mean not just animals, but "nature" or reality itself is hierarchical. Planets orbiting the sun and electrons orbiting the nucleus.
So easy to tell by reading the comments who is familiar with Mark Passio's work, and who are still totally ignorant of it. This is a chart he made, by the way. If you're still operating with the culture programming of "anarchy is somehow bad", you are missing critical information for your life: like objective morality for instance. Lots of ill-informed comments on this thread, which is sad to see on this conspiracy forum. Most of you have investigated other psy-ops, but haven't scratched the surface of the anarchy disinfo psyop. Not that fake ass ancom shit but real anarchy. It is the only threat to government power and that's why there is so much disinfo and cultural programming regarding that word in order to discourage ppl from looking into it and understanding it. www.whatonearthishappening.com start at the beginning
No, it’s a cube.
Yep. Four or five dimentional one, if not more. :)
Nah.
There is no such thing as "no imposed rules".
In an Anarchy, the smartest and/or the strongest wins and everyone else is ground meat.
That's what hollywood wants you to think
No joke they got people so scared of a word they won't even look into it themselves!
Can you demonstrate the opposite? I'd love some examples.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania
I know about it.
So the adults had to step in. That's a degenerate drug and crime ridden ghetto, not an anarchy. You can find lots of similar "freetowns" in the third world shitholes.
Not quite.
The gangsters aren't actually part of the community, they've just been taking advantage of the situation for decades. They've been tolerated because they existed in a sort of grey area, and the cannabis trade represented some sort of rebellious attitude towards the establishment, plus it attracted a lot of tourists, and tourist money, to the local businesses.
However in recent years all the immigrant gangsters have been playing shoot-em-up and ruining things for everyone (go figure), and so the community came together and decided - by unanimous vote - to collaborate with the authorities to eliminate the trade altogether.
Who would've taught that having no authority to curb crime and violence would lead to criminally minded people abusing that lack of control? And they had to hold a democratic vote (what would happen if it wasn't unanimous?) to bring in such an authority into their anarchy. That's exactly my point.
If it's not a unanimous decision, then nothing is done. There have been many votes and attempts over the years at reaching consensus to get the trade removed, but they haven't been able to until now.
In absolutely simplistic terms, I do for me and mine, you do for you and yours, and if we can all agree on what and how, then we do it together.
The whole Mad Max thing is a completely bastardized fantasy and has nothing to do with political anarchy.
It does mean you don't get a lot of this modern "progress for the sake of progress," but if you look at where that has got us, maybe it's not such a bad thing.
What happens when we don't agree on something important for both of us?
If I can't convince you it's important, then either it really isn't - i.e. it's selfishly important - or I need to improve my rationale and reason, and find a better argument and more common ground. And then we try again.
I understand you want to steer the argument towards "when do we just pull out our guns and shoot each other?" but we don't, because that's degeneracy, not anarchy.
True anarchy is not a state of being, it's an ideal to strive for. Of course people are going to end up disagreeing, but then the educated and idealistic rationality and reason of the community needs to stand together, and pull towards the ideal, not devolve into factions fighting over right and wrong. Resolve conflicts with debate, and realize we can't ever agree on everything, but so long as we agree on something, we have grounds for working together.
On the contrary. I'm steering the argument towards the most natural thing for a group of people to do - they disagree on things. I'm asking you how do you resolve disputes in an egalitarian system where everyone is his own authority no opinion is more valid than the other? If convincing people worked the way you said it did, we would live in perfect harmony - anarchy or whatever system you pick.
I applaud your pragmaticism but it's naive and things get extremely complicated irl when dealing with people. If I hold one worldview and you hold another there's hardly any convincing that's possible. I'll readily give you an example with believers in God and atheists, I bet you know how this debate goes and how pointless it gets.
Does everyone in the anarchy hold that to be true? Now you're talking of the community exercising its will on the minority who's not on board and thus becoming an authority. As in majority rule, as in a democracy. What happens when you have a black or white issue like say should abortion be allowed? Many people are willing to die on that hill so how would we get a compromise?
The guiding principle is that we each take responsibility for ourselves. With that in mind, who is there to allow or disallow abortion? If you wish to abort, it is for you to decide.
Majority rule can only arise when people stop taking responsibility for themselves, and defer to an outside authority.
If the community begins "exercising it's will" as you say, then it is no longer anarchy. That's what makes it an ideal, not a state. It requires a continued effort on the part of all participants to adhere to the principles.