A fruitful discussion of the state is impossible to achieve without knowing where one stands politically. This may seem blatantly obvious, but if it were so, we would not have a great many tossing around the terms "fascism", "socialism", or "communism" as if they were synonymous. Thus, I provide a brief introduction from which one can probe his or her true beliefs, free from the inevitable bias we experience from our nurtured respect for our own nation (or lack thereof).
We are all familiar with the so-called "political spectrum". We have understood even its most basic elements since middle school and have been taught to use it as the go-to visual when discussing political beliefs. It's astonishing, however, that its shortcomings have only been made clear in the past decade, foremost among them being that its one-dimensional representation is incompatible with historical data.
Consider, for example, a brief comparison of Hitler and Stalin. Both ruled with brutal authoritarianism, but the similarities become increasingly hard to come by beyond that. In general, Nazi ideology despised Communism. Nazism adhered to a staunch vision of class society whose hierarchy was largely determined by racial status; by contrast, Communism sought to abolish class society entirely. Stalin's economic policies, especially collectivism, sought to eliminate the owning of private property, where as such enterprise could still continue in Nazi Germany (though property owned for the purposes of going against state ideology could be quickly seized). Hitler enforced the traditional idea of women serving as obedient housewives, where as Stalin encouraged equal participation in the labor force from all members of the family. Ad nauseam.
Examples such as above illustrate the difficulty of placing these two men on a "line" of political thought. Are they both right-wingers? We are tempted to agree, due to the similarly terrifying aspects of their dictatorships. Yet, the leftist policies of Stalin are highly incompatible with the ultra-conservative attitudes of Hitler. These complications undoubtedly lead to confusion, breeding ignorance to be used for political debate.
Fortunately, there are models that have sought to overcome these shortcomings. The most notable examples would be the "political compass" (Pace News Limited) and the Nolan chart (known by its Libertarian namesake). These have effectively added a second dimension, considering both social and economic positions (with variation), such that we are given a type of Cartesian plane upon which to project our political positions. The axes of these charts are worth mentioning.
The horizontal axis is the economic dimension, whose extremities represent strictly planned economies (communism, modern North Korea) or strictly market economies (laissez-faire, modern Hong Kong). In essence, one either believes that the government should completely determine the investment, production, and distribution of the state or that these matters should be solely determined by a free market, where supply and demand is sacrosanct. Examples of "left" economic beliefs would be Keynesian policies, welfare, and a general suspicion of private property, where as "right" beliefs emphasize deregulation, private enterprise, and corporatism. I speak generally, of course, and most people will naturally find themselves in between the extremes, usually supporting "mixed" economies.
In addition, we have the vertical axis, usually understood to represent a combination of beliefs that involve social matters and the general structure of government. The extremities of the vertical axis represent purely authoritarian states (totalitarianism) or "extreme liberalism" (anarchy). The most authoritarian governments involve some form of dictatorship whose government has knowledge of, and involvement in, every aspect of citizen life. Art and media are highly censored, moral beliefs tightly controlled, and private life virtually non-existent. By contrast, highly liberal governments represent almost no government at all, where individual freedom is most important and expression, regardless of its content, is to be completely tolerated. Law and order is secondary to the interests of the individual. Again, most may find themselves somewhere in the middle.
The ability to divorce one's self from the simplistic notion of "left or right" will prove to be increasingly useful in a time where modern political structures have become highly diverse. When the language of political theory can be properly understood, the process of self-discovery can begin. Readers should be encouraged to visit the websites of these two-dimensional models (political compass or Nolan chart) and take the self-quizzes in order to gain a beginning perspective of their beliefs. One should not be tempted, however, to believe that political terminology has any serious, inherent meaning. When considering political theory alone and in the comforts of solitude, emphasis should be placed on considering the effectiveness and moral nature of different governments. Terminology only becomes useful in the realm of debate and discussion with others.
Considering what has been said thus far, I shall narrow in on some forms of government in my next post for the purpose of properly placing them in the political plane. Having done so, readers may be less inclined to blend them together for the purposes of mudslinging. Knowledge must triumph over rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment