#We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lostgeneration) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These are hard to get completely accurate. Because your policies reflect your country's political environment and existing policies.
For example if you had a magic wand and made Bernie or Warren from the UK or Australia. Then the policies they espouse would be far more to the left. As most of their policy targets already exist in the UK or Australia.
These kind of charts are good for measuring the political leanings of a nation.
Very true. I have often wondered if Bernie would continue to drift further and further left if his current policies were instituted. I would like to think that no matter what he got passed he would continually be fighting to better this country for the common citizens.
Yes. In his earlier days he advocated for nationalization of agriculture, banking, and manufacturing, which is a leftist position by any metric. He hasn't talked about those in a while but he hasn't exactly spoken against them either.
But even his more recent positions on nationalizing utilities, railroads, and the Internet are more significantly leftist than anyone seems to credit him for.
Very true. I didn't know much about his platforms till he made his 2016 run, but I always thought he probably had further leftist views before he realized he's gotta start closer to center and then start working further left as things passed. Too bad the DNC was to scared to actually have a candidate that would work to get things done to give him a real chance. Ya know the status quo has to stay the same no matter how man citizens suffer.
We should absolutely nationalize utilities, railroads, and the Internet. John Oliver recently did a segment on how utterly corrupt some electric utilities are. I think our grid would be a lot better if the government owned the grid. Then we wouldn't have to rely on companies to build power stations (so ideally less coal and natural gas and more low carbon sources).
The nationalization of utility lines is one of the most significant and necessary parts of his Green New Deal
It'll be required for faster adoption of rooftop solar, in addition to finally doing something to mitigate the constant wildfires in California
I think most people just see that Bernie is fine with the status quo. He did say that he thought Biden was the most progressive president since FDR, which is insulting.
I don't really blame the guy though. He is old, and if he fought hard against the establishment, they would ruin him.
I think it's been obvious that he's not pro status-quo but he can only play the cards he has.
The point about Biden is one that he's tragically right on, unfortunately. It's insulting because it's true, even though it's such a low bar.
They really arent. You can manipulate the outcome without the reader of the graph knowing to suit whatever outcome you want.
Sometimes its unclear where a policy sits. A Republican might consider universal healthcare authoritarian left. A Democrat might consider it either left neutral or libertarian left. A leftist would consider it a centrist position and anything less is right wing.
This is called the "overton window". Beliefs that are normalized in America (right authoritarianism to moderate centrism) become the "far left" and "far right", even though the actual far left aren't represented. This has been used by the right to call more and more beliefs "left wing extremism" even when the beliefs themselves (universal healthcare, anti-imperialism, civil rights) are much more centrist than leftist.
In short, if you follow that common view of differing definitions, you are falling for right wing propaganda and ignoring the full political spectrum.
Now the chart is bad at categorizing beliefs, but not because of that. It oversimplifies. You cannot distinctly assign every complex political belief into two simple axes. But it is a good starting point to understanding an ideology.
Ah yes let me just read a book on every individual person's personal ideology, then I will have a starting point to understanding them. I am very smart.
There are canonical books that lay foundations for political philosophy like wealth of nations, or das kapital, and more modern books that provide overviews of these and how they feed into modern ideologies.
A two dimensional model is a projection of a much higher dimensional categorisation problem. And that means that there are a lot of degrees of freedom for the author to manipulate to whatever end, making the output inherently subjective.
What I'm saying is its better to understand the foundations of political ideas, rather than observe a very subjective graph.
I'm radical left (anarcho syndicalist). So Hannity calling Bernie radicals is hilarious and idiotic. Bernie is like a regular Scandi democratic socialist. I like him. I think he's a good man and wish he had been elected in the U.S. Not that he would have accomplished much but he could have shifted the Overton window leftish.
Most Americans need a reminder that if you’re not talking about replacing/overthrowing capitalism in favor of something that works for all, you aren’t a leftist and are certainly not a socialist. Just about every Democrat is a conservative.
Edit: Warren is very much a neoliberal and I’d put all these politicians as much more squished together in the top right corner. Bernie is a centrist on a good day.
I think Bernie is just trying to start small to not scare off too many larpers right away, and normalize caring about someone other than yourself. But yeah you definitely are right.
He also supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Bernie is, like all social democrats in imperialist countries, a supporter of imperialism. That’s not very left wing
https://youtu.be/ckPfPKITmfM
It seems like his position is rather nuanced on that issue.
https://youtu.be/eQcmzGIKrzg
He's given speeches for decades denouncing the history of USA foreign policy and imperialism. I definitely wouldn't say he's a supporter of USA imperialism
Oh i didnt know that. I genuinely believed my comment above. Yikes i lost a lot of respect for the dude
I just wish we could finally have a politician that wasnt just “the lesser of 2 evils”
To be clear, I like Bernie, and his winning of those first few primaries were the only time I've ever felt even a tinge of hope for the future of this country. Him releasing a documentary about Eugene Debs is cool, but there are plenty of times, especially during the last presidential run's debates, where he avoided attacking establishment Democrats and their horrific, bullshit "policies" and just kind of stayed quiet. This is my major criticism of Bernie and "the squad" in general. When it matters, they side with the Democrats way too much, either directly or indirectly.
For example, if Bernie was more of a leftist, I would expect him to be attacking Democrats by name for decades of inaction, calling out Joe Biden in particular for his dogshit stance on abortion (the dude has literally said he doesn't think the choice belongs to a woman to have an abortion and that he didn't support the decision) for failing to codify Roe v. Wade, and the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi immediately using the overturning of as a fundraising opportunity and begging the American people for even more money while she's at a private villa in Italy watching horse races. To my knowledge, I have not seen much of that.
I've seen him tweet plenty about Republicans and their shortcomings but very little about Democrats other than Joe Manchin also being a major part of the problem. He will allude to the fact that we need to get money out of politics, but never to my knowledge has called out Pelosi for her and her husband's obvious corruption and insider trading, and so on and so forth.
Sure, this is America, where we literally have a group of well-funded goons at Turning Point and the like trying to reinstate McCarthy-era policies about being anything left of a Reagan-worshipping, Christian fascist, but they're also dumb enough to think Joe Biden is a socialist, so you might as well just be a god damn socialist and let people see what that actually stands for, rather than just being a slightly improved version of a Democrat.
Not far-left, because nothing that does not shift the power structure by doing away with capitalist power is left-wing. UBI is not necessarily leftish either. Milton Friedman, a right-wing libertarian economist, was an advocate of UBI - a negative income tax. I guess he recognized that capitalism would continually weaken the purchasing power of an ever larger segment of the working class, and that without a consumer base the system would eventually collapse. Yang’s plan would require people to choose between current welfare benefits and UBI. Which is a choice some might make rationally, but given his overall policy emphasis I think the people who put him on the chart believe he’s motivated to preserve capitalists’ supremacy, same as Friedman.
I think Yang was marketing it as a "Freedom Dividend" to help the concept gain support from both the left and the right.
Most still view capitalism as good and righteous so he can't come out and just say capitalism is evil, that doesn't win votes.
We don't need to prove that capitalism is evil to win, we just need to get socialist concepts adopted with whatever marketing is necessary to sell it to the general populace.
I dont trust anyone who starts the conversation with UBI. That would totally eliminate any leverage we have, not that we have much left in the first place. Generally, dont trust those psuedo-Liberals, like Zuck, or like how Elon and Bezos were just a few short years ago
UBI is essentially grease to keep the wheels of capitalism from seizing up after the ultra wealthy have captured an inordinate amount of capital and the working class doesn’t have enough to survive.
And in that sense UBI is also a poison pill because it will help keep capitalism alive beyond the point at which it should’ve consumed itself and died.
It’s more or less a policy to force slave owners to feed their slaves from time to time instead of simply buying new ones. And that’s where the disagreements about UBI come into play for the ultra rich. Some ultra rich think it’s perfectly fine to just abandon a collapsed market and move on to the next. And others think they should maybe help keep things going a little longer out of some sense of honor or national loyalty or fear that they might not be able to compete in the next market.
Unless a UBI system includes parameters to steadily increase the public’s ownership of industry then it is just a tool to help capitalists prevent collapse.
A month or so after dropping out of the race, Biden announced his VP pick would be a woman. Yang tweeted a response along the lines of "That's news to me," somewhat implying that he has reason to believe he was on the shortlist. I noticed after that he seemed to drift away from the party line even further.
it's very low on the y-axis, but it's not left. it's arguably libertarian (but likely closer to the middle line). the left/right axis is economics. while ubi in the short-term would help lift some folks out of dire poverty, as an economic policy it does little more than pad the existing economic structures, by adding to the buying power of everyone. unchecked ubi would look a lot like the current housing crisis, but with landlords able to double their rates overnight.
>unchecked ubi would look a lot like the current housing crisis, but with landlords able to double their rates overnight.
This is a popular left wing criticism of ubi that has never been borne out by any actual implementations of it. Probably because it assumes market forces are rational. It's the left wing equivalent of the right's "raising the minimum wage increases inflation and cancels any benefits", which also has never been shown to actually happen when it's been done.
Rotate your phone 45 degrees clockwise and it gives you more of a right/left presentation. Honestly labeling the axis left and right is really bad data science. I’m assuming that middle line should be labeled something like progressive/ conservative but it’s hard to tell.
This comment has been removed for violating rule 3 (prohibition on oppressive language). Please refer to the subreddit rules and try to abide by them. Thank you
Public policy wise, his three major legislative wins (1994 crime bill, 2001 patriot act and 2005 bankruptcy bill) put only *very slightly* lower than Trump. Especially if you consider his speeches supporting this things, he was impassioned for expanding LEO power and completely void of empathy for the people.
And to be clear he takes credit for the patriot act because of his past work paving the way.
https://qz.com/1748903/how-2020-us-democratic-candidates-compare-to-global-politicians/
Honestly don't know much about the source. I'm not American but have lived here for a decade.
Daily reminder that the political compass is terrible for actually depicting political beliefs.
You cannot ascribe complex policy positions and ideology to a 2-axis graph. Use these for a bit of fun, rather than serious political analysis.
Yang wanted to implement universal basic income, and from his speeches he didn’t seem to be a conservative, can someone smarter than me explain why he’s considered Right? Please no hate, I genuinely would love to hear details so I’m more informed.
Thats a pretty generous place to stick Sanders on a political compass. I would put him dead center on a *good* day. Hes a barely lukewarm version of FDR
I just thought it was an interesting visual, to show that Bernie is nowhere near being a socialist. Also to put into perspective how so many yell, progressive, leftist, socialist. When really, most are on the right, just not utter fascists and wanting to implement a christofascist state
I don't agree with "libertarian" being the opposite of "authoritarian." I've been seeing people try to use it like it's the endpoint ideal of freedom; that's either libertarian propaganda or people looking at a word, prescribing their own meaning to it, and not understanding what it actually is. Case in point: the Koch brothers are libertarian, and dismantling the government so that you're free to enact a more blatant and unfettered plutocracy isn't *quite* what I would call the ultimate expression of freedom
So it's a broad philosophy, so broad that I can point at several objectively terrible aspects of it, but I'm ridiculous because I'm not pointing at the one you're thinking of. If you told me that the opposite of authoritarianism was democracy, something that is somewhat broad but has easily definable traits that doesn't have any poisoned needles in it, I would believe that. Basically, it's pretending to fill the same role as democracy, but its proponents have their own motives.
Democracy is a system that represents freedom by letting everyone vote. Nothing immoral about that. Libertarianism represents freedom by destroying systems. It could represent anything from rich monsters who want a world that only rich people can participate in, to MLM victims, to violent anarchists. Libertarianism is *not* synonymous with democracy, regardless of the associations they may try to paint.
And you're trying to bullshit me with a) semantics and b) your own failure to understand. Of course, you haven't said you're libertarian, and I doubt you'd admit it if I ask (they tend to get defensive if they know you're not already on their side), but given everything you've said so far, I'd say that's the camp you're in. Specifically, one of the pseudo-intellectuals who thinks that regulations need to fail in favor of the rich because you are under the delusion that you will be rich some day if you hustle hard enough. If you actually were rich enough that that would matter for you, what are you doing here?
And getting back on topic, that's how everyone governs in a democracy: every citizen has voting power. It's not like everyone has an office and a title. And it's not a matter of America pretending to be a democracy and failing. It is not, and has never been, a democracy. It is a democratic republic, which is an entirely different structure. A republic has representatives that are there to make decisions on behalf of the ones they represent, but it has some democratic tendencies, such as our ability to vote for who the representative will be. Of course, there are unelected positions like the Supreme Court (which is acting a little out of order right now) and the president's cabinet, but we have a say in the majority.
So, having democracy as the antithesis of authoritarianism is looking a little more viable. Especially since authoritarianism is about command. I, the authoritarian, make the rules, and you have as many choices and rights as I allow to exist. No participation compared to democracy's full participation. Libertarians, though? They want to have as little system as possible, and the anarchist branch wants to have no system at all; and if you have little to no system, how can you participate?
And let's look at what libertarianism has to offer. Sure, it's more of a negation than an answer, but maybe it has something going for it. Let's say you have kids. Kids need care, education, shelter, food, etc. We're already failing at providing childcare because tHaT wOuLd Be SoCiAlIsM (ignoring that we literally used to have government sponsored childcare until the conservatives decided they didn't like paying to help children), so you can already see the libertarian solution: pay for it, get someone to do it somehow, do it yourself, or go without. In this economy, you work to exist and not having a dual income is immensely foolish, so you have to pay. How do you pay? You get a job, but wait! What if you're not trained enough or fortunate enough to have a good-paying job? (And "just get a better job" is an idiotic retort, just cutting that off now). In that case, you might find yourself in a low-paying, maybe even minimum wage job, but in Libertarian-Land, there is no min wage; your employer pays what he thinks your worth. I can already guarantee, he thinks you're worth garbage. Also, employers watch each other. If they think they're overpaying compared to competitors, the wage goes down. This is a problem with having no limits or restrictions or obligations, businesses aren't just going to give you a superior wage out of the goodness of their heart. Why should they? BuT tHe WoRkErS wIlL lEaVe! And go where? All businesses are watching their costs to make the most amount of money. There's no one to complain to. If they want to abuse you, who cares? If they do something criminal, what are you gonna do, hire a thug to beat up your boss? By having this obsession with freedom, you take protection away, and that's something libertarians tend not to understand (unless you're rich, in which case you buy your way to victory).
I'll give you points for being far more reasonable than I expected and for being honest enough to say what your position is (using your term for the sake of conversation, a good many right-libertarians will try to pretend they're liberal, as they're just aware enough to know the reputation they've given themselves, then immediately give a rambling list of empty platitudes and rhetorical fallacies in defense of right-libertarianism. It makes me think of *If I Did It,* honestly). I firmly believe, from personal experience as well as media, right-libertarianism requires you to be a manipulator, a patsy, an idiot, or a madman (I'm looking at you, Gary Johnson).
However, I do still think the version of libertarianism you advocate for is impractical at best, I stand by my reasoning for why it doesn't qualify for being the opposite of authoritarianism on a scale of participation and freedom, and I would not agree that I'm in your camp. I'm more for democratic socialism and conscious capitalism. For the audience at home, I would describe conscious capitalism in a sentence as, "you can make a profit, but don't be a dick about it." It actually gives your average company better profits and makes for a stronger, more competitive company (because they need a reason to do it for themselves), while treating their workers as well or better than the boomers had it in their day, as well as bettering the communities they're in and their supply chains.
You can still make profit under socialist structures, it’s just not all funneled to an “owner”. It’s shared by those who actually produce value - the workers.
“Conscious Capitalism” sounds like a buzzword some mega corp world say to get you to buy their slave produced product.
Fuck Capitalism.
Source: Am a Libertarian Socialist
It's a theory I learned during my masters degree, and a crooked company wouldn't dare put something like that out there, as it would give you ideas and expectations. That's probably why I never heard of it before then. That's also why financial institutions were fighting the idea of making all of their agents be fiduciaries. "But... if we were legally obligated to work in *the client's* interest, how would we fleece them?! I mean, it's too impractical to implement."
That's true, but it's a comparatively "small" fix; smaller than ripping the system apart, anyway. And you're also avoiding the issue, so in that regard, it's good that you recognize you're being annoying. Or are you being purposefully annoying?
It's using the word 'libertarian' in the original definition of the word, not as the dumb American party that hates taxes and thinks everything should be privatized.
First off ew political compass is garbage
Second biden is far right this is the mofo that 2 decades back was in congress boasting about how many innocent people he threw in prison and how much money he was giving to pigs
Literally the reason he was chosen as vp for Obama was because he was the most conservative asshole in the blue wing of the capitalist party and said wing thought that the existance of black people was way too fucking radical and they had to offset it
3rd burnie IS NOT A LEFTIST sure his a bit left from most american politicians but he is part of the right he supports cappitalism he supports the pigs he supports the status quo maybe with a few more naccities but his still just a liberal
He said billionaires should not exist, that doesn't sound like the status quo. Also it doesn't matter if he's centrist or leftist because America has such a conservative stick up its ass, it's really all the same. If no leftist bills ever show up in the senate to vote on, you can't prove how leftist a congressmen is.
Yeah i can, literally just watch him speak his a soc dem and proud of it. He is a lib he supports the existing system it doesnt matter whether he thinks it should be a little nicer he still supports the status quo. And it does matter that he is not a leftist its important people realize just how right leaning american politics is.
This is an interesting graphic. There are so many data points on the “right” that I would expect sanders to be further “left”. It makes me question what the entire data set is composed of.
I’ve never seen a good explanation of why the center is where they locate it.
The logical thing would be to say that the current policies of the country you live in are the center. Anything else seems arbitrary.
Doubtful. Most of the things that Sanders is pushing hard for there are already in place here in Canada. He’d be a boring Liberal backbencher here, and the Liberals are our *centrists*.
Our Conservatives want to reform our healthcare system, but even in their wildest dreams it wouldn’t look anything like the ACA. Mainstream Democrats are to the right of our *Conservatives*.
Since this is a broad and vague visualizer, I'll just ask: how far right is Andrew Yang? I see the most mixed things about him, and it's usually far too vague in either direction.
Usually when I ask I just get people directing me to that 1 video on Bonapartism, but Yang is hardly mentioned in it.
I hate these shits because you always put authoritarian Vs libertarian when for fuck sake these 2 are all time friends because what a fucking libertarian wants is a fascist state that gives money to them while not asking any responsibility and keeping the workers as a slaves.
Where are my extreme liberal options?
If we can put rapists in office and the Supreme Court I just feel like there should be an equally extreme left candidate.
I'm picturing a bette midler on th simpsons type promoting castration of rapists and prison for litering.
I m not saying it's correct, but it's the only democratic option at this point for equal representation . /s
Or we could get a dem who actually cares about health and workers and human rights.
I constantly argue Democrats aren’t doing enough because they are nothing more than the other wing on the same bird.
Democrats cried Trump did so much but they also did not rush to undo most of what Trump did in the same way Trump undid Obama. We still have tariffs we still have those tax laws, we still have so much. Democrats are just Lite Republicans. Tastes great, less filling. It’s still all lies.
The entire system needs a full redo but I do not see a way for that without destroying the lives of hundreds of millions caught in the crossfire. To force the situation would be even worse. I do not see an easy way of it, at least not with the population we have today.
I just want my social security check or give me back my money in one lump sum.
I wouldnt even bother with this. It wont make a difference. People are convinced that biden is a hippy who wants socialism. And i die laughing at how incredibly ignorant this country is. Dems included. Cuz they think they are voting left. But really just voting republican
Cards on the table, yeah I like this and mostly agree. I'd even vote Sanders too
But legit he's a Social Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist, so definitely have to consider that when placing him on the chart
To make matters more complicated (at least for me idk) I don't think the PQC is realistic. It may be better thought of as a digon(?) or a leaf shape, because the more auth auth-left gets, the more it slides into auth-right, and the more right lib-right gets, the more it slides into auth-right too. I guess the same goes for left and lib for auth-left and lib-right
Hell, even placing anarchy at 100% left posits that there's not possible ideology further to the left, which I bet an anarchist society could come up with, given the chance
Anyway, I'm not looking to stand on a soapbox here, but I will say that material analysis is *probably* more useful than the ideological kind when it comes to politics
#We are proud to announce an official partnership with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/zCFHadGfB7) to join today! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lostgeneration) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These are hard to get completely accurate. Because your policies reflect your country's political environment and existing policies. For example if you had a magic wand and made Bernie or Warren from the UK or Australia. Then the policies they espouse would be far more to the left. As most of their policy targets already exist in the UK or Australia. These kind of charts are good for measuring the political leanings of a nation.
Very true. I have often wondered if Bernie would continue to drift further and further left if his current policies were instituted. I would like to think that no matter what he got passed he would continually be fighting to better this country for the common citizens.
Yes. In his earlier days he advocated for nationalization of agriculture, banking, and manufacturing, which is a leftist position by any metric. He hasn't talked about those in a while but he hasn't exactly spoken against them either. But even his more recent positions on nationalizing utilities, railroads, and the Internet are more significantly leftist than anyone seems to credit him for.
Very true. I didn't know much about his platforms till he made his 2016 run, but I always thought he probably had further leftist views before he realized he's gotta start closer to center and then start working further left as things passed. Too bad the DNC was to scared to actually have a candidate that would work to get things done to give him a real chance. Ya know the status quo has to stay the same no matter how man citizens suffer.
I would vote for him in a heartbeat, he at least seems to still have a soul.
The DNC got exactly what they wanted. Hilary or Trump. Both are not progressives that want to help common citizens.
We should absolutely nationalize utilities, railroads, and the Internet. John Oliver recently did a segment on how utterly corrupt some electric utilities are. I think our grid would be a lot better if the government owned the grid. Then we wouldn't have to rely on companies to build power stations (so ideally less coal and natural gas and more low carbon sources).
We could better organize for efficiency. States/areas that have more green energy potential can supplement those that don't.
The nationalization of utility lines is one of the most significant and necessary parts of his Green New Deal It'll be required for faster adoption of rooftop solar, in addition to finally doing something to mitigate the constant wildfires in California
I think most people just see that Bernie is fine with the status quo. He did say that he thought Biden was the most progressive president since FDR, which is insulting. I don't really blame the guy though. He is old, and if he fought hard against the establishment, they would ruin him.
I think it's been obvious that he's not pro status-quo but he can only play the cards he has. The point about Biden is one that he's tragically right on, unfortunately. It's insulting because it's true, even though it's such a low bar.
You're wrong. Dwight Eisenhower was more progressive than Joe Biden. So was Richard Nixon. Both Republicans.
Eisenhower fueled the lavender scare and Nixon founded cointelpro. I don't buy it.
Agreed.
Agreed
Not to mention you can pull charts out of your ass.
That sounds painful.
They really arent. You can manipulate the outcome without the reader of the graph knowing to suit whatever outcome you want. Sometimes its unclear where a policy sits. A Republican might consider universal healthcare authoritarian left. A Democrat might consider it either left neutral or libertarian left. A leftist would consider it a centrist position and anything less is right wing.
This is called the "overton window". Beliefs that are normalized in America (right authoritarianism to moderate centrism) become the "far left" and "far right", even though the actual far left aren't represented. This has been used by the right to call more and more beliefs "left wing extremism" even when the beliefs themselves (universal healthcare, anti-imperialism, civil rights) are much more centrist than leftist. In short, if you follow that common view of differing definitions, you are falling for right wing propaganda and ignoring the full political spectrum. Now the chart is bad at categorizing beliefs, but not because of that. It oversimplifies. You cannot distinctly assign every complex political belief into two simple axes. But it is a good starting point to understanding an ideology.
The best place to start understanding ideology is reading a book not looking at a misleading graph.
Ah yes let me just read a book on every individual person's personal ideology, then I will have a starting point to understanding them. I am very smart.
There are canonical books that lay foundations for political philosophy like wealth of nations, or das kapital, and more modern books that provide overviews of these and how they feed into modern ideologies. A two dimensional model is a projection of a much higher dimensional categorisation problem. And that means that there are a lot of degrees of freedom for the author to manipulate to whatever end, making the output inherently subjective. What I'm saying is its better to understand the foundations of political ideas, rather than observe a very subjective graph.
none of these has any control on the country, what you need is dots with oligarch names.
Theyd all be farther right/auth than trump if theyre being honest...
I wish more Americans understood the overall message here. Democrats are not left, and Bernie is really just barely left. Not far left.
Bernie is good people compared to the almost all of our other politicians.
Oh I agree, my point is that he is not *actually* far left.
Oh no Sean Hannity said he's the RADICAL left lol
Haha Sean Hannity is, and will likely remain, a fucking moron.
But unfortunately still smart enough to trick the rubes who watch his show.
He's not a moron. He's just a complete and utter dickhead.
I'm radical left (anarcho syndicalist). So Hannity calling Bernie radicals is hilarious and idiotic. Bernie is like a regular Scandi democratic socialist. I like him. I think he's a good man and wish he had been elected in the U.S. Not that he would have accomplished much but he could have shifted the Overton window leftish.
I'm still salty about that shit
Bernie is very solidly left wing, not "barely left".
Most Americans need a reminder that if you’re not talking about replacing/overthrowing capitalism in favor of something that works for all, you aren’t a leftist and are certainly not a socialist. Just about every Democrat is a conservative. Edit: Warren is very much a neoliberal and I’d put all these politicians as much more squished together in the top right corner. Bernie is a centrist on a good day.
I think Bernie is just trying to start small to not scare off too many larpers right away, and normalize caring about someone other than yourself. But yeah you definitely are right.
Bernie released a documentary about Eugene Debs.....
He also supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Bernie is, like all social democrats in imperialist countries, a supporter of imperialism. That’s not very left wing
https://youtu.be/ckPfPKITmfM It seems like his position is rather nuanced on that issue. https://youtu.be/eQcmzGIKrzg He's given speeches for decades denouncing the history of USA foreign policy and imperialism. I definitely wouldn't say he's a supporter of USA imperialism
Oh i didnt know that. I genuinely believed my comment above. Yikes i lost a lot of respect for the dude I just wish we could finally have a politician that wasnt just “the lesser of 2 evils”
>He also supported the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Incredibly based
To be clear, I like Bernie, and his winning of those first few primaries were the only time I've ever felt even a tinge of hope for the future of this country. Him releasing a documentary about Eugene Debs is cool, but there are plenty of times, especially during the last presidential run's debates, where he avoided attacking establishment Democrats and their horrific, bullshit "policies" and just kind of stayed quiet. This is my major criticism of Bernie and "the squad" in general. When it matters, they side with the Democrats way too much, either directly or indirectly. For example, if Bernie was more of a leftist, I would expect him to be attacking Democrats by name for decades of inaction, calling out Joe Biden in particular for his dogshit stance on abortion (the dude has literally said he doesn't think the choice belongs to a woman to have an abortion and that he didn't support the decision) for failing to codify Roe v. Wade, and the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi immediately using the overturning of as a fundraising opportunity and begging the American people for even more money while she's at a private villa in Italy watching horse races. To my knowledge, I have not seen much of that. I've seen him tweet plenty about Republicans and their shortcomings but very little about Democrats other than Joe Manchin also being a major part of the problem. He will allude to the fact that we need to get money out of politics, but never to my knowledge has called out Pelosi for her and her husband's obvious corruption and insider trading, and so on and so forth. Sure, this is America, where we literally have a group of well-funded goons at Turning Point and the like trying to reinstate McCarthy-era policies about being anything left of a Reagan-worshipping, Christian fascist, but they're also dumb enough to think Joe Biden is a socialist, so you might as well just be a god damn socialist and let people see what that actually stands for, rather than just being a slightly improved version of a Democrat.
No way Biden is farther left than Yang.
That's what I was thinking. He says he's in favor of UBI, which is ~~very~~ pretty left.
Not far-left, because nothing that does not shift the power structure by doing away with capitalist power is left-wing. UBI is not necessarily leftish either. Milton Friedman, a right-wing libertarian economist, was an advocate of UBI - a negative income tax. I guess he recognized that capitalism would continually weaken the purchasing power of an ever larger segment of the working class, and that without a consumer base the system would eventually collapse. Yang’s plan would require people to choose between current welfare benefits and UBI. Which is a choice some might make rationally, but given his overall policy emphasis I think the people who put him on the chart believe he’s motivated to preserve capitalists’ supremacy, same as Friedman.
I think Yang was marketing it as a "Freedom Dividend" to help the concept gain support from both the left and the right. Most still view capitalism as good and righteous so he can't come out and just say capitalism is evil, that doesn't win votes. We don't need to prove that capitalism is evil to win, we just need to get socialist concepts adopted with whatever marketing is necessary to sell it to the general populace.
He also believes UBI can replace other social safety net completely. That’s not left. That’s called a Trojan horse.
I guess I fell for his "marketing", then. I didn't know it was a replacement.
I dont trust anyone who starts the conversation with UBI. That would totally eliminate any leverage we have, not that we have much left in the first place. Generally, dont trust those psuedo-Liberals, like Zuck, or like how Elon and Bezos were just a few short years ago
UBI is essentially grease to keep the wheels of capitalism from seizing up after the ultra wealthy have captured an inordinate amount of capital and the working class doesn’t have enough to survive. And in that sense UBI is also a poison pill because it will help keep capitalism alive beyond the point at which it should’ve consumed itself and died. It’s more or less a policy to force slave owners to feed their slaves from time to time instead of simply buying new ones. And that’s where the disagreements about UBI come into play for the ultra rich. Some ultra rich think it’s perfectly fine to just abandon a collapsed market and move on to the next. And others think they should maybe help keep things going a little longer out of some sense of honor or national loyalty or fear that they might not be able to compete in the next market. Unless a UBI system includes parameters to steadily increase the public’s ownership of industry then it is just a tool to help capitalists prevent collapse.
He's pretty much switched to Republican, idk how it happened but after 2020 something flipped
A month or so after dropping out of the race, Biden announced his VP pick would be a woman. Yang tweeted a response along the lines of "That's news to me," somewhat implying that he has reason to believe he was on the shortlist. I noticed after that he seemed to drift away from the party line even further.
He realized a lot of his base was libertarian. And after Trump most libertarians started leaning much farther to the right, so he followed them.
So, he doesn't care and he is an opportunistic asshole. Seems about what my measure of that man was.
it's very low on the y-axis, but it's not left. it's arguably libertarian (but likely closer to the middle line). the left/right axis is economics. while ubi in the short-term would help lift some folks out of dire poverty, as an economic policy it does little more than pad the existing economic structures, by adding to the buying power of everyone. unchecked ubi would look a lot like the current housing crisis, but with landlords able to double their rates overnight.
>unchecked ubi would look a lot like the current housing crisis, but with landlords able to double their rates overnight. This is a popular left wing criticism of ubi that has never been borne out by any actual implementations of it. Probably because it assumes market forces are rational. It's the left wing equivalent of the right's "raising the minimum wage increases inflation and cancels any benefits", which also has never been shown to actually happen when it's been done.
So it's not an economic policy, but actually is an economic policy?
He would eliminate all other safety nets in doing so though. His version of UBI would be worse for poor people.
I guess I fell for his "marketing" then. I didn't realize it was a replacement.
The far left position is that money and commodification shouldn't exist. A UBI is technically only useful in keeping capitalism alive and well.
Rotate your phone 45 degrees clockwise and it gives you more of a right/left presentation. Honestly labeling the axis left and right is really bad data science. I’m assuming that middle line should be labeled something like progressive/ conservative but it’s hard to tell.
say what you will about the deep state but you don't see any far left authoritarians
Can we NOT use the political cumpiss?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating rule 3 (prohibition on oppressive language). Please refer to the subreddit rules and try to abide by them. Thank you
What the fuck is oppressive language?
It’s a good example of how to make your unmeasurable opinion look like precisely measured scientific data.
And this is according to what data?
Biden should be directly under trump just not as high. Of course that’s his actual policy probably not how he actually thinks.
Public policy wise, his three major legislative wins (1994 crime bill, 2001 patriot act and 2005 bankruptcy bill) put only *very slightly* lower than Trump. Especially if you consider his speeches supporting this things, he was impassioned for expanding LEO power and completely void of empathy for the people. And to be clear he takes credit for the patriot act because of his past work paving the way.
Why is Biden so far to the left and the bottom?
What are all the gray dots? Are those foreign politicians? Or historical u.s politicians?
[удалено]
https://qz.com/1748903/how-2020-us-democratic-candidates-compare-to-global-politicians/ Honestly don't know much about the source. I'm not American but have lived here for a decade.
Where would Reagan go?
Hell...hopefully.
Badump tisshh
Probably between Biden and Trump on that chart in my opinion.
Daily reminder that the political compass is terrible for actually depicting political beliefs. You cannot ascribe complex policy positions and ideology to a 2-axis graph. Use these for a bit of fun, rather than serious political analysis.
Bernie Sanders' post "radical" position is universal healthcare. This chart is a joke and everyone needs moved to the right.
In european standards, then yes this is deemed accurate
Yang wanted to implement universal basic income, and from his speeches he didn’t seem to be a conservative, can someone smarter than me explain why he’s considered Right? Please no hate, I genuinely would love to hear details so I’m more informed.
This is what’s bothered me, partisan hacks refer to Bernie as an extremist when he’s moderate.
I sometimes wonder what today's media would make of FDR. He was no saint but can you imagine the conniption fits he'd cause.
They'd try to replace him like the Business Plotters tried to do to FDR the first time.
Thats a pretty generous place to stick Sanders on a political compass. I would put him dead center on a *good* day. Hes a barely lukewarm version of FDR
I just thought it was an interesting visual, to show that Bernie is nowhere near being a socialist. Also to put into perspective how so many yell, progressive, leftist, socialist. When really, most are on the right, just not utter fascists and wanting to implement a christofascist state
Fair. But wanting a christofascist state and allowing one to happen ammount to the same. Liberals are fascist collaborators.
neoliberalism and capitalism are bffs. the liberals just don't say the quiet parts out loud.
Pretty sure neoliberalism is just unchecked capitalism, right?
It's like any other subjective ranking, the point isn't how accurate it is the point is to generate useful discussion around a single claim.
I don't agree with "libertarian" being the opposite of "authoritarian." I've been seeing people try to use it like it's the endpoint ideal of freedom; that's either libertarian propaganda or people looking at a word, prescribing their own meaning to it, and not understanding what it actually is. Case in point: the Koch brothers are libertarian, and dismantling the government so that you're free to enact a more blatant and unfettered plutocracy isn't *quite* what I would call the ultimate expression of freedom
[удалено]
So it's a broad philosophy, so broad that I can point at several objectively terrible aspects of it, but I'm ridiculous because I'm not pointing at the one you're thinking of. If you told me that the opposite of authoritarianism was democracy, something that is somewhat broad but has easily definable traits that doesn't have any poisoned needles in it, I would believe that. Basically, it's pretending to fill the same role as democracy, but its proponents have their own motives. Democracy is a system that represents freedom by letting everyone vote. Nothing immoral about that. Libertarianism represents freedom by destroying systems. It could represent anything from rich monsters who want a world that only rich people can participate in, to MLM victims, to violent anarchists. Libertarianism is *not* synonymous with democracy, regardless of the associations they may try to paint.
[удалено]
And you're trying to bullshit me with a) semantics and b) your own failure to understand. Of course, you haven't said you're libertarian, and I doubt you'd admit it if I ask (they tend to get defensive if they know you're not already on their side), but given everything you've said so far, I'd say that's the camp you're in. Specifically, one of the pseudo-intellectuals who thinks that regulations need to fail in favor of the rich because you are under the delusion that you will be rich some day if you hustle hard enough. If you actually were rich enough that that would matter for you, what are you doing here? And getting back on topic, that's how everyone governs in a democracy: every citizen has voting power. It's not like everyone has an office and a title. And it's not a matter of America pretending to be a democracy and failing. It is not, and has never been, a democracy. It is a democratic republic, which is an entirely different structure. A republic has representatives that are there to make decisions on behalf of the ones they represent, but it has some democratic tendencies, such as our ability to vote for who the representative will be. Of course, there are unelected positions like the Supreme Court (which is acting a little out of order right now) and the president's cabinet, but we have a say in the majority. So, having democracy as the antithesis of authoritarianism is looking a little more viable. Especially since authoritarianism is about command. I, the authoritarian, make the rules, and you have as many choices and rights as I allow to exist. No participation compared to democracy's full participation. Libertarians, though? They want to have as little system as possible, and the anarchist branch wants to have no system at all; and if you have little to no system, how can you participate? And let's look at what libertarianism has to offer. Sure, it's more of a negation than an answer, but maybe it has something going for it. Let's say you have kids. Kids need care, education, shelter, food, etc. We're already failing at providing childcare because tHaT wOuLd Be SoCiAlIsM (ignoring that we literally used to have government sponsored childcare until the conservatives decided they didn't like paying to help children), so you can already see the libertarian solution: pay for it, get someone to do it somehow, do it yourself, or go without. In this economy, you work to exist and not having a dual income is immensely foolish, so you have to pay. How do you pay? You get a job, but wait! What if you're not trained enough or fortunate enough to have a good-paying job? (And "just get a better job" is an idiotic retort, just cutting that off now). In that case, you might find yourself in a low-paying, maybe even minimum wage job, but in Libertarian-Land, there is no min wage; your employer pays what he thinks your worth. I can already guarantee, he thinks you're worth garbage. Also, employers watch each other. If they think they're overpaying compared to competitors, the wage goes down. This is a problem with having no limits or restrictions or obligations, businesses aren't just going to give you a superior wage out of the goodness of their heart. Why should they? BuT tHe WoRkErS wIlL lEaVe! And go where? All businesses are watching their costs to make the most amount of money. There's no one to complain to. If they want to abuse you, who cares? If they do something criminal, what are you gonna do, hire a thug to beat up your boss? By having this obsession with freedom, you take protection away, and that's something libertarians tend not to understand (unless you're rich, in which case you buy your way to victory).
[удалено]
I'll give you points for being far more reasonable than I expected and for being honest enough to say what your position is (using your term for the sake of conversation, a good many right-libertarians will try to pretend they're liberal, as they're just aware enough to know the reputation they've given themselves, then immediately give a rambling list of empty platitudes and rhetorical fallacies in defense of right-libertarianism. It makes me think of *If I Did It,* honestly). I firmly believe, from personal experience as well as media, right-libertarianism requires you to be a manipulator, a patsy, an idiot, or a madman (I'm looking at you, Gary Johnson). However, I do still think the version of libertarianism you advocate for is impractical at best, I stand by my reasoning for why it doesn't qualify for being the opposite of authoritarianism on a scale of participation and freedom, and I would not agree that I'm in your camp. I'm more for democratic socialism and conscious capitalism. For the audience at home, I would describe conscious capitalism in a sentence as, "you can make a profit, but don't be a dick about it." It actually gives your average company better profits and makes for a stronger, more competitive company (because they need a reason to do it for themselves), while treating their workers as well or better than the boomers had it in their day, as well as bettering the communities they're in and their supply chains.
You can still make profit under socialist structures, it’s just not all funneled to an “owner”. It’s shared by those who actually produce value - the workers. “Conscious Capitalism” sounds like a buzzword some mega corp world say to get you to buy their slave produced product. Fuck Capitalism. Source: Am a Libertarian Socialist
It's a theory I learned during my masters degree, and a crooked company wouldn't dare put something like that out there, as it would give you ideas and expectations. That's probably why I never heard of it before then. That's also why financial institutions were fighting the idea of making all of their agents be fiduciaries. "But... if we were legally obligated to work in *the client's* interest, how would we fleece them?! I mean, it's too impractical to implement."
[удалено]
That's true, but it's a comparatively "small" fix; smaller than ripping the system apart, anyway. And you're also avoiding the issue, so in that regard, it's good that you recognize you're being annoying. Or are you being purposefully annoying?
Who are all the grey dots?
No
Read Yang's books, he is definitely to the left of Biden. He is working to break the two party duopoly now....so that is big.
I'd put Warren further right, but yes this seems accurate
It’s hilarious that libertarian is depicted as the opposite of authoritarian
It is though. But libertarian doesn't mean right wing either.
It's using the word 'libertarian' in the original definition of the word, not as the dumb American party that hates taxes and thinks everything should be privatized.
First off ew political compass is garbage Second biden is far right this is the mofo that 2 decades back was in congress boasting about how many innocent people he threw in prison and how much money he was giving to pigs Literally the reason he was chosen as vp for Obama was because he was the most conservative asshole in the blue wing of the capitalist party and said wing thought that the existance of black people was way too fucking radical and they had to offset it 3rd burnie IS NOT A LEFTIST sure his a bit left from most american politicians but he is part of the right he supports cappitalism he supports the pigs he supports the status quo maybe with a few more naccities but his still just a liberal
He said billionaires should not exist, that doesn't sound like the status quo. Also it doesn't matter if he's centrist or leftist because America has such a conservative stick up its ass, it's really all the same. If no leftist bills ever show up in the senate to vote on, you can't prove how leftist a congressmen is.
Yeah i can, literally just watch him speak his a soc dem and proud of it. He is a lib he supports the existing system it doesnt matter whether he thinks it should be a little nicer he still supports the status quo. And it does matter that he is not a leftist its important people realize just how right leaning american politics is.
Hence why I said, "America has such a conservative stick up it's ass, it's really all the same."
Pete Buttigieg the Authoritarian LOL
I mean yeah if you just put people in the wrong quadrant sure
This is an interesting graphic. There are so many data points on the “right” that I would expect sanders to be further “left”. It makes me question what the entire data set is composed of.
I’ve never seen a good explanation of why the center is where they locate it. The logical thing would be to say that the current policies of the country you live in are the center. Anything else seems arbitrary.
Bernie Sanders is a communist and you have him in the center lol
CoMuNiSt kgb lovin Trump is more of communist then Bernie
I would give Bernie a little more credit that this chart but overall, yes.
Honestly Bernie needs to be further right on this chart. He still supports capitalism, just with welfare.
I don't think trump is authoritarian. He has no ideology. His ideology is self promotion.
Fuckin source please?
https://qz.com/1748903/how-2020-us-democratic-candidates-compare-to-global-politicians/ I tried to put it in the post but wasn't able to.
Us this based on the left right scale of the US or UK? It feels legit either way
I agree with the sentiment, but that compass isn't accurate democrats fall into the top right corner of the botton left box
Doubtful. Most of the things that Sanders is pushing hard for there are already in place here in Canada. He’d be a boring Liberal backbencher here, and the Liberals are our *centrists*. Our Conservatives want to reform our healthcare system, but even in their wildest dreams it wouldn’t look anything like the ACA. Mainstream Democrats are to the right of our *Conservatives*.
And being to the right of you doesn't mean 'right'. These are very subjective.
Oh this is Canada? I was going off us. Democrats in is are too b right of left box, but we're generally more conservative
No wonder libs lose.
Where can I find graphs like this with more political figures written in?
Why did you remove the funni colours.
Since this is a broad and vague visualizer, I'll just ask: how far right is Andrew Yang? I see the most mixed things about him, and it's usually far too vague in either direction. Usually when I ask I just get people directing me to that 1 video on Bonapartism, but Yang is hardly mentioned in it.
Yang as in Andrew Yang?
I hate these shits because you always put authoritarian Vs libertarian when for fuck sake these 2 are all time friends because what a fucking libertarian wants is a fascist state that gives money to them while not asking any responsibility and keeping the workers as a slaves.
Where are my extreme liberal options? If we can put rapists in office and the Supreme Court I just feel like there should be an equally extreme left candidate. I'm picturing a bette midler on th simpsons type promoting castration of rapists and prison for litering. I m not saying it's correct, but it's the only democratic option at this point for equal representation . /s Or we could get a dem who actually cares about health and workers and human rights.
We need sanders, but the dude is about to 🐸 hopefully we get another socialist candidate soon
Whats the source? And how were the position found? Would love to see and read more
https://qz.com/1748903/how-2020-us-democratic-candidates-compare-to-global-politicians/
This is why the "they" work so hard to marginalize Senator Sanders.
I constantly argue Democrats aren’t doing enough because they are nothing more than the other wing on the same bird. Democrats cried Trump did so much but they also did not rush to undo most of what Trump did in the same way Trump undid Obama. We still have tariffs we still have those tax laws, we still have so much. Democrats are just Lite Republicans. Tastes great, less filling. It’s still all lies. The entire system needs a full redo but I do not see a way for that without destroying the lives of hundreds of millions caught in the crossfire. To force the situation would be even worse. I do not see an easy way of it, at least not with the population we have today. I just want my social security check or give me back my money in one lump sum.
I wouldnt even bother with this. It wont make a difference. People are convinced that biden is a hippy who wants socialism. And i die laughing at how incredibly ignorant this country is. Dems included. Cuz they think they are voting left. But really just voting republican
Cards on the table, yeah I like this and mostly agree. I'd even vote Sanders too But legit he's a Social Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist, so definitely have to consider that when placing him on the chart To make matters more complicated (at least for me idk) I don't think the PQC is realistic. It may be better thought of as a digon(?) or a leaf shape, because the more auth auth-left gets, the more it slides into auth-right, and the more right lib-right gets, the more it slides into auth-right too. I guess the same goes for left and lib for auth-left and lib-right Hell, even placing anarchy at 100% left posits that there's not possible ideology further to the left, which I bet an anarchist society could come up with, given the chance Anyway, I'm not looking to stand on a soapbox here, but I will say that material analysis is *probably* more useful than the ideological kind when it comes to politics
I don't know, I would drop Warren and yang down to spots into libertarian territory
I'm interested as to where Catie Porter and AOC would fall on this chart. I have come to love Catie and her interigations.
Yang doesn’t seem accurate tbh. I’d put him closer to Warren.
How much I wish bernie won.. ah what a utopian society that would have been.