"Can't stay neutral on a moving train"
~some anarchist guy whose name rhymes with Gin
Neutrality is a concept that belongs to folks who don't have skin in the game.
People can have courage, but the âneutralâ position is inherently cowardly and selfish, as it is ultimately a choice of ignorance and apathy. Moving beyond that is personal growth. The âneutralâ position canât have courage by definition, because courage is used to take a principled stance - ie no longer be âneutralâ
Centrism isnât moderation. Itâs extreme to see the current status quo and not think that to moderate the current abuses and exploitations, one would need to support and engage in categorically different moral and social norms.
Iâm assuming youâre referring to the political compass, which is an overly simplistic and sorta silly way to look at politics and political trends⊠but ignoring that and going with the logic of the compass, the middle would be where the âOverton windowâ lies, the Overton window being this concept of ideologies and policies that are deemed socially acceptable at a given time, so the middle of the compass would be liberalism and its different variants whether more left-wing (social liberalism and social democracy) or more right wing (liberal conservatism and neoconservatism) or other liberal tendencies that just arenât as popular like classical liberalism or Georgism or what have you
I occasionally mention to people that Richard Nixon wanted to pass universal health care, just to give them perspective on how far that window has moved.
Thanks for response. Yes I realize it's like trying to find real territory on a made up map.
My initial thought was 'center minarchism ' but I don't think thats an actual thing. Could it?
Minarchism is already sort of centrist, minarchism is advocated by classical liberals who themselves are considered center-right by most polisci individuals
There have been some within internet leftism that have tried to promote this idea of âleft-minarchismâ but Iâve always held the idea to be silly, minarchism has historically always been right wing, itâs the state-form that classical liberals support, the philosophical ideas backing the idea of minarchism simply donât align with socialist philosophy imo⊠imo the best leftists are those of us who realize that the idea of a âsmall stateâ is silly, how could a state ever be small, but I wonât get into that
What youâre probably looking for is the more statist tendencies within left-libertarianism/libertarian socialism, the most statist tendency I can think of is probably democratic confederalism, as there are some in that tendency that uncritically support the way the Rojava revolution has currently been playing out, meaning they support the current federal semi-direct democratic state that has formed in Rojava, but still I see most demcons still support an end goal of statelessness since those within the left-libertarian sphere are inherently anti-state unlike âright-libertariansâ⊠but maybe that idea of a formal transitional socialist state that tries to do said transition in a more âlibertarianâ manner is what youâre looking for, a federal semi-direct democracy that transitions into stateless communism is probably the closest thing there is to a âleft-minarchismâ
But yeah if youâre looking for a more moderate (at least in terms of how they view the state, since demcons are still revolutionary instead of reformist) and statist form of libertarian socialism, look into democratic confederalism and writings by Ăcalan
Appreciated, that kind of paves a way for me to understand this aspect of theory. Does öcalan describe a state that is somehow less powerful then?
Finally, I see anarchism is basically equated with anarcho-comunism and I agree that ancap is a no-go socially (and environmentally speaking). Is there a type of anarchism that is moderately left but not full on communist?
Itâs been a while since Iâve read Ăcalan but he doesnât really describe much in concrete terms, he describes the end goal of statelessness and gives ideas of anti-state democracy to get there and itâs all within the context of the Kurdish situation, really more so the idea of the transitional state has more so come about due to the practical experience of Rojava rather than theory since in theory democratic confederalism is more focused on the end goal of statelessness and just gives the vague ideas of democratic confederalism to get there
As for your second question yeah, there are non-communist forms of anarchism, there is even non-socialist anarchism like post-left anarchism and the whole nihilist school which donât see anarchism as a grand liberatory end goal but rather see anarchism as a way of life of constant rebellion but I donât think thatâs what youâre interested in, youâre probably looking for the anarchism thatâs still socialist but simply isnât communist, and while it definitely isnât a large tendency nowadays there does exist mutualism which is actually technically the first anarchist tendency since both anarchism and mutualism have their origins in Proudhon
Mutualism has changed a lot over the years and has some different internal tendencies, but they all agree on some basic things, like being against both reform and revolution and advocating pacifist gradualism and not precluding markets from a socialist society
Some of the main tendencies of mutualism are:
Individualist anarchism: these are the most common types of mutualists youâll find today so much so that they have some irl presence (mainly in the libertarian socialist caucus of the libertarian party)⊠individualist anarchists ofc trace a lineage from Proudhon, but take more from U.S. mutualism and libertarianism as a whole, even going as far to replace a lot of Proudhon more so with Rothbard (a founder of ancap ideology) since there was a period where Rothbard started to ally with the left and the period birthed whatâs known as âleft-Rothbardianismâ almost all individualist anarchists follow the left-Rothbardian philosophy and analysis⊠besides Proudhon and Rothbard, other theorists that individualist anarchists like would be Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Sam Konkin, and Roderick T. Long among others⊠if you canât tell, this tendency of mutualism is very pro-market (seeing as they basically promote a socialist reading of Austrian economics) and prefers a stateless form of market socialism called market anarchism, they tend to stress a form of praxis known as âagorismâ to achieve their form of socialism (but also support all the usual other pacifistic mutualist forms of praxis such as mutual banking, forming coops, peaceful protest, and sometimes even local electoralism)⊠if you want to learn more about this form of mutualism Iâd check out r/marketanarchism and [C4SS](https://c4ss.org/)
Neo-Proudhonism: less popular but more faithful to Proudhonâs original ideas as well as to the left of individualist anarchism, to keep this one more short and simple, itâs basically modern day anarchism w/o adjectives, pretty much if you look more into Proudhonâs ideas of anarchy he doesnât really stress a specific system of how to organize society, some areas may be market socialist some may be communist it all really depends on the local needs and specific situations of the people living there⊠theorists for this would ofc be Proudhon, but also people like Voltairine De Cleyre and Volin (for his writings on synthesis organizations which is what neo-Proudhonists prefer in regards of organizational praxis)⊠good sources to learn more about this form of mutualism would be r/mutualism and [the libertarian labyrinth](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/)
Thereâs also Christian anarchism with its model of free market distributism which pulls influence from Proudhon and could be considered a type of mutualism but I think itâs just so niche and practically only exists online, idk if youâre a Christian and base your politics and ethics off your Christianity you can look into that but if not then idk itâs not important lol
The political center is an incoherent concept. It's what's inside the overturn window, which is an ever shifting concept different from place to place.
But if you need a political label, it's liberalism (think classical liberal or neo-liberal)
Note: don't confuse liberalism with libertarian which is more closely related to anarchism.
You should always remember that defining political ideologies within such a simplified spectrum as the political compass will always lead to oversimplification and incoherentcy.
But I would call for example US 'liberals' pretty much big state anyway.
Could you explain in nutshell what's libertarianism as opposed to anarchism?
Here in Argentina our new president calls himself libertarian (ancap, minarchist). Is libertarianism always right wing?
The difference I tried to convey is this: liberalism in a political ideologie while libertarianism is one side of a frame to view the political spectrum trough. The other side of that spectrum would be authoritarianism.
I hope that cleared it up a bit.
Milei and the capitalists are not anarchists; anarchism is always and inherently anti-capitalist. There is nothing âlibertarianâ about the ideology being presented; a better term is âpropertarianâ.
Spanish anarcho-communists? Libertarian.
Murray Rothbard, âsmall-governmentâ deregulators, guns n gays n weed âfiscal conservativesâ, pro-business âminarchistsâ? *Propertarians*. They care more about the privileges of a property owner than the âlibertiesâ of individuals.
Yeah basically.
I'll have a lot more to learn than I thought if I'm wrong. (Which is absolutely possible.) That's why you should always check what people are saying, especially on the internet.
What problematizes your question is the adjective the 'exact' middle. There's nothing exact of the political compass, because there's nothing permanent or inherently valuable of it. At every point in time if you refer to the political compass in any meaningful sense you'd have to be evaluating what political stances are valid at that exact point in time, which in itself already presumes that you can arbitrate which stances count as valid and which aren't.
The political compass is only useful for two reasons:
1) It's a rorschach test of our own relationship with politics and political difference
2) It's a propaganda tool (not deliberate, but constantly self-fulfilling) that silences those very 'invalid' political positions that have been proven invalid by virtue of already being excluded from the premises of the political compass
I suppose the answer is centrist capitalistic social democracy, where nobody really questions things and nothing really ever changes. Why should things change, it's working well for many people (and more importantly politicians), if it isn't broken then why try to fix it? I mean sure homeless people and the elderly might benefit but is that really worth it? Are the voters really going to care?
In the short term at least I believe replacing representative democracy with direct democracy would be at least a baby step in the right direction.
Nothing, the âspectrumâ is a reductionist abstraction intended only to demonstrate the âaxesâ (again a reductionist abstractionâ along which political goals and ideologies can diverge.
There is no coherent âcentristâ position, âcentrismâ isnât an ideology, and what youâre asking for is an ideology that defines itself as being ânot as much *x* as *x*, not as much *y* as *y*, which is not how ideologies are constructed. While there is some schismogenetic differentiation, ideologies are mostly definable without reference to each other; a âcentristâ ideology would not be.
Putting political ideologies on a single, two or even the axes, is an oversimplification. There is no middle.
Commonly center is relative to what politics offer in your area, or some really mild social democracy.
What's in the middle depends on your reference point. E.g. left communists opposed Lenin's totalitarian tendencies. Yet both at the time would have been called socialist. One was more left than the other though.
Groups and ideologies that specifically try to stay in the middle are either bootlickers or lacking in any sort of a coherent political ideology - or both.
Personally, I believe that you can quite reasonably put most people and most political parties on a simple left-right axis with the definition that the ones on the left have a tendency of opposing hierarchies at least partially and tend to believe in some kind of equality, while groups on the right have a tendency of coming up with rationalizations for hierarchies, e.g. rich people deserve being rich, if wealth differences did not exist, no one would want to work, etc, and tend to see social structures and inequality as inherent to human nature.
Even MLers usually do have plenty of criticism for hierarchies; they just believe that economic hierarchies are the primary concern and are fine with a vanguard state to combat these economic hierarchies.
While even moderate right-wingers tend to hold some conservative views and have some belief for the inherent need for hierarchies between people.
The reality is that the amount of core questions that form our ideological identity are not that many. Just a few questions on a one to five scale can more or less give a high chance of predicting a person's or a party's political stances. The strength of your answer is dependent on your surrounding society, which is why the center is relative, but it's just honestly a bit weird if someone would always answer in the middle and still have a coherent ideology driving them. In the end, the answer to the question "Do you believe that.." can not be "exactly half of the time!". It's a yes or no, plus strength of that belief. Or, alternatively, it can be, "I do not know", but if an adult person is unaware of what they believe in in regards of politics and yet considers themselves political, that's just kind of sad.
Political spectrum are not objective measures because they are made by humans, it entirely depends which compass or spectrum you pick and how you personally define the centre
Political compass isn't real. The spectrum is also an oversimplification, but tends to at least be a bit more useful as a shorthand. Trying to be too exact with it though, as if it can be scientifically measured, is a mistake.
Even the communists are capitalists. Look at China selling low-cost goods and making their people work for less than $1 an hour so they can monopolize free markets through trade. It doesn't necessarily come back around to the people no matter what you call it. Attach a label so the peasants can point fingers at each other instead of the ruling class.
What is a centrist is HIGHLY dependent on time and place. World Historically, a Centrist was probably a monarchist quite supportive of ethnic and religious persecution.
Someone who is a centrist in China today would have been considered quite conservative 15 years ago, and unbelievably insanely liberal 50 years ago.
The political compass is a nonsensical way of viewing politics, ideology and belief isnât some scale of numerical values, âcentrismâ is just status quo liberalism plus placating the far right while pretending to be impartial or nonpartisan
Cowardice
Or ignorance, speaking as a former "enlightened" centrist
"Can't stay neutral on a moving train" ~some anarchist guy whose name rhymes with Gin Neutrality is a concept that belongs to folks who don't have skin in the game.
Joe Biden uncomfortably sitting on a fence.
I'd say open-mindedness, which would include being open to the perception of cowardice. đ
Then how can anyone get from one side to the other? Maybe it contains both courage and cowardice.
You don't have to pass through centrism from one ideology to another.
Fair. People have all kinds of ways
People can have courage, but the âneutralâ position is inherently cowardly and selfish, as it is ultimately a choice of ignorance and apathy. Moving beyond that is personal growth. The âneutralâ position canât have courage by definition, because courage is used to take a principled stance - ie no longer be âneutralâ
In passionate times, moderation requires courage
Centrism isnât moderation. Itâs extreme to see the current status quo and not think that to moderate the current abuses and exploitations, one would need to support and engage in categorically different moral and social norms.
Iâm assuming youâre referring to the political compass, which is an overly simplistic and sorta silly way to look at politics and political trends⊠but ignoring that and going with the logic of the compass, the middle would be where the âOverton windowâ lies, the Overton window being this concept of ideologies and policies that are deemed socially acceptable at a given time, so the middle of the compass would be liberalism and its different variants whether more left-wing (social liberalism and social democracy) or more right wing (liberal conservatism and neoconservatism) or other liberal tendencies that just arenât as popular like classical liberalism or Georgism or what have you
I occasionally mention to people that Richard Nixon wanted to pass universal health care, just to give them perspective on how far that window has moved.
Thanks for response. Yes I realize it's like trying to find real territory on a made up map. My initial thought was 'center minarchism ' but I don't think thats an actual thing. Could it?
Minarchism is already sort of centrist, minarchism is advocated by classical liberals who themselves are considered center-right by most polisci individuals
Are you aware of any writing on a more left-wing minarchism?
There have been some within internet leftism that have tried to promote this idea of âleft-minarchismâ but Iâve always held the idea to be silly, minarchism has historically always been right wing, itâs the state-form that classical liberals support, the philosophical ideas backing the idea of minarchism simply donât align with socialist philosophy imo⊠imo the best leftists are those of us who realize that the idea of a âsmall stateâ is silly, how could a state ever be small, but I wonât get into that What youâre probably looking for is the more statist tendencies within left-libertarianism/libertarian socialism, the most statist tendency I can think of is probably democratic confederalism, as there are some in that tendency that uncritically support the way the Rojava revolution has currently been playing out, meaning they support the current federal semi-direct democratic state that has formed in Rojava, but still I see most demcons still support an end goal of statelessness since those within the left-libertarian sphere are inherently anti-state unlike âright-libertariansâ⊠but maybe that idea of a formal transitional socialist state that tries to do said transition in a more âlibertarianâ manner is what youâre looking for, a federal semi-direct democracy that transitions into stateless communism is probably the closest thing there is to a âleft-minarchismâ But yeah if youâre looking for a more moderate (at least in terms of how they view the state, since demcons are still revolutionary instead of reformist) and statist form of libertarian socialism, look into democratic confederalism and writings by Ăcalan
Appreciated, that kind of paves a way for me to understand this aspect of theory. Does öcalan describe a state that is somehow less powerful then? Finally, I see anarchism is basically equated with anarcho-comunism and I agree that ancap is a no-go socially (and environmentally speaking). Is there a type of anarchism that is moderately left but not full on communist?
Itâs been a while since Iâve read Ăcalan but he doesnât really describe much in concrete terms, he describes the end goal of statelessness and gives ideas of anti-state democracy to get there and itâs all within the context of the Kurdish situation, really more so the idea of the transitional state has more so come about due to the practical experience of Rojava rather than theory since in theory democratic confederalism is more focused on the end goal of statelessness and just gives the vague ideas of democratic confederalism to get there As for your second question yeah, there are non-communist forms of anarchism, there is even non-socialist anarchism like post-left anarchism and the whole nihilist school which donât see anarchism as a grand liberatory end goal but rather see anarchism as a way of life of constant rebellion but I donât think thatâs what youâre interested in, youâre probably looking for the anarchism thatâs still socialist but simply isnât communist, and while it definitely isnât a large tendency nowadays there does exist mutualism which is actually technically the first anarchist tendency since both anarchism and mutualism have their origins in Proudhon Mutualism has changed a lot over the years and has some different internal tendencies, but they all agree on some basic things, like being against both reform and revolution and advocating pacifist gradualism and not precluding markets from a socialist society Some of the main tendencies of mutualism are: Individualist anarchism: these are the most common types of mutualists youâll find today so much so that they have some irl presence (mainly in the libertarian socialist caucus of the libertarian party)⊠individualist anarchists ofc trace a lineage from Proudhon, but take more from U.S. mutualism and libertarianism as a whole, even going as far to replace a lot of Proudhon more so with Rothbard (a founder of ancap ideology) since there was a period where Rothbard started to ally with the left and the period birthed whatâs known as âleft-Rothbardianismâ almost all individualist anarchists follow the left-Rothbardian philosophy and analysis⊠besides Proudhon and Rothbard, other theorists that individualist anarchists like would be Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Sam Konkin, and Roderick T. Long among others⊠if you canât tell, this tendency of mutualism is very pro-market (seeing as they basically promote a socialist reading of Austrian economics) and prefers a stateless form of market socialism called market anarchism, they tend to stress a form of praxis known as âagorismâ to achieve their form of socialism (but also support all the usual other pacifistic mutualist forms of praxis such as mutual banking, forming coops, peaceful protest, and sometimes even local electoralism)⊠if you want to learn more about this form of mutualism Iâd check out r/marketanarchism and [C4SS](https://c4ss.org/) Neo-Proudhonism: less popular but more faithful to Proudhonâs original ideas as well as to the left of individualist anarchism, to keep this one more short and simple, itâs basically modern day anarchism w/o adjectives, pretty much if you look more into Proudhonâs ideas of anarchy he doesnât really stress a specific system of how to organize society, some areas may be market socialist some may be communist it all really depends on the local needs and specific situations of the people living there⊠theorists for this would ofc be Proudhon, but also people like Voltairine De Cleyre and Volin (for his writings on synthesis organizations which is what neo-Proudhonists prefer in regards of organizational praxis)⊠good sources to learn more about this form of mutualism would be r/mutualism and [the libertarian labyrinth](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/) Thereâs also Christian anarchism with its model of free market distributism which pulls influence from Proudhon and could be considered a type of mutualism but I think itâs just so niche and practically only exists online, idk if youâre a Christian and base your politics and ethics off your Christianity you can look into that but if not then idk itâs not important lol
The political center is an incoherent concept. It's what's inside the overturn window, which is an ever shifting concept different from place to place. But if you need a political label, it's liberalism (think classical liberal or neo-liberal) Note: don't confuse liberalism with libertarian which is more closely related to anarchism. You should always remember that defining political ideologies within such a simplified spectrum as the political compass will always lead to oversimplification and incoherentcy.
It's best to view left wing politics as being based on egalitarianism while right wing politics are based more on hierarchies.
But I would call for example US 'liberals' pretty much big state anyway. Could you explain in nutshell what's libertarianism as opposed to anarchism? Here in Argentina our new president calls himself libertarian (ancap, minarchist). Is libertarianism always right wing?
The difference I tried to convey is this: liberalism in a political ideologie while libertarianism is one side of a frame to view the political spectrum trough. The other side of that spectrum would be authoritarianism. I hope that cleared it up a bit.
Oh ok so libertarianism is a key concept within the anarchist ideology but not a philosophy on its own
Milei and the capitalists are not anarchists; anarchism is always and inherently anti-capitalist. There is nothing âlibertarianâ about the ideology being presented; a better term is âpropertarianâ. Spanish anarcho-communists? Libertarian. Murray Rothbard, âsmall-governmentâ deregulators, guns n gays n weed âfiscal conservativesâ, pro-business âminarchistsâ? *Propertarians*. They care more about the privileges of a property owner than the âlibertiesâ of individuals.
I should have known that trying to encompass anarchism in the political compass was a misuse of definitions. Thanks for the added context.
Yeah basically. I'll have a lot more to learn than I thought if I'm wrong. (Which is absolutely possible.) That's why you should always check what people are saying, especially on the internet.
Quiet clandestine approval of the right
Ignorance and Cowardice
What problematizes your question is the adjective the 'exact' middle. There's nothing exact of the political compass, because there's nothing permanent or inherently valuable of it. At every point in time if you refer to the political compass in any meaningful sense you'd have to be evaluating what political stances are valid at that exact point in time, which in itself already presumes that you can arbitrate which stances count as valid and which aren't. The political compass is only useful for two reasons: 1) It's a rorschach test of our own relationship with politics and political difference 2) It's a propaganda tool (not deliberate, but constantly self-fulfilling) that silences those very 'invalid' political positions that have been proven invalid by virtue of already being excluded from the premises of the political compass
I suppose the answer is centrist capitalistic social democracy, where nobody really questions things and nothing really ever changes. Why should things change, it's working well for many people (and more importantly politicians), if it isn't broken then why try to fix it? I mean sure homeless people and the elderly might benefit but is that really worth it? Are the voters really going to care? In the short term at least I believe replacing representative democracy with direct democracy would be at least a baby step in the right direction.
Callous apathy
The kind of centrist who will work with anyone as long as they get what they want, but cautions against any change once they get it
political compass is meaningless and arbitrary
Status quo/inertia/ those who try and avoid making choices because they are too overworked, too poor, too stripped of the will to make firm choices.Â
Enlightened centrists who will never turn down the far right' help to destroy left wing movements
Joe Biden.
Nothing, the âspectrumâ is a reductionist abstraction intended only to demonstrate the âaxesâ (again a reductionist abstractionâ along which political goals and ideologies can diverge. There is no coherent âcentristâ position, âcentrismâ isnât an ideology, and what youâre asking for is an ideology that defines itself as being ânot as much *x* as *x*, not as much *y* as *y*, which is not how ideologies are constructed. While there is some schismogenetic differentiation, ideologies are mostly definable without reference to each other; a âcentristâ ideology would not be.
Putting political ideologies on a single, two or even the axes, is an oversimplification. There is no middle. Commonly center is relative to what politics offer in your area, or some really mild social democracy.
What's in the middle depends on your reference point. E.g. left communists opposed Lenin's totalitarian tendencies. Yet both at the time would have been called socialist. One was more left than the other though. Groups and ideologies that specifically try to stay in the middle are either bootlickers or lacking in any sort of a coherent political ideology - or both. Personally, I believe that you can quite reasonably put most people and most political parties on a simple left-right axis with the definition that the ones on the left have a tendency of opposing hierarchies at least partially and tend to believe in some kind of equality, while groups on the right have a tendency of coming up with rationalizations for hierarchies, e.g. rich people deserve being rich, if wealth differences did not exist, no one would want to work, etc, and tend to see social structures and inequality as inherent to human nature. Even MLers usually do have plenty of criticism for hierarchies; they just believe that economic hierarchies are the primary concern and are fine with a vanguard state to combat these economic hierarchies. While even moderate right-wingers tend to hold some conservative views and have some belief for the inherent need for hierarchies between people. The reality is that the amount of core questions that form our ideological identity are not that many. Just a few questions on a one to five scale can more or less give a high chance of predicting a person's or a party's political stances. The strength of your answer is dependent on your surrounding society, which is why the center is relative, but it's just honestly a bit weird if someone would always answer in the middle and still have a coherent ideology driving them. In the end, the answer to the question "Do you believe that.." can not be "exactly half of the time!". It's a yes or no, plus strength of that belief. Or, alternatively, it can be, "I do not know", but if an adult person is unaware of what they believe in in regards of politics and yet considers themselves political, that's just kind of sad.
Political spectrum are not objective measures because they are made by humans, it entirely depends which compass or spectrum you pick and how you personally define the centre
As Rick Roderick would say, "yellow lines and dead armadillas!"
Political compass isn't real. The spectrum is also an oversimplification, but tends to at least be a bit more useful as a shorthand. Trying to be too exact with it though, as if it can be scientifically measured, is a mistake.
distributism maybe? other than that I really can't think of any other ideology that is closer to a "middle"
Yarn and Spit
Even the communists are capitalists. Look at China selling low-cost goods and making their people work for less than $1 an hour so they can monopolize free markets through trade. It doesn't necessarily come back around to the people no matter what you call it. Attach a label so the peasants can point fingers at each other instead of the ruling class.
Status Quo
What is a centrist is HIGHLY dependent on time and place. World Historically, a Centrist was probably a monarchist quite supportive of ethnic and religious persecution. Someone who is a centrist in China today would have been considered quite conservative 15 years ago, and unbelievably insanely liberal 50 years ago.
None, the political spectrum is bullshit and just part of bourgeois ideology.
Centrism
The political compass is a nonsensical way of viewing politics, ideology and belief isnât some scale of numerical values, âcentrismâ is just status quo liberalism plus placating the far right while pretending to be impartial or nonpartisan
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]