Nostr Web Client

Left-Right political spectrum is useless for proper political analysis.

Why?

First: It is utterly subjective. Politics is always going to be subjective, but at the very least try to tie it to some objective, measurable fact so that we can make inter-temporal and international comparisons.

Second: It is constantly shifting. The definitions of "left" and "right" have already changed multiple times in history, even completely switching sides on issues and ideological content. Since it was invented during the French Revolution the definition of "left" has completely changed at least 8 times. This makes historical comparisons and measurements useless.

The answer to this is to stop using this meaningless, subjective, absurd political categorisation and replace it with something better.

The Nolan chart, invented in 1969 improves by adding a second axis. X is left-right, Y is liberal-authoritarian.

However this still remains highly subjective and using badly defined terms.

An improvement is a political compass with numbers that measure something real that can be compared between now and 10 years into the future. You will be able to ask the same question now and in 100 years and compare how voter ideology has changed.

X axis replaces left-right (meaningless) with socialist-private property 1-10 score in answer to the question: how much property should the govt. control? With 1 being everything (max socialist) and 10 being nothing (max private property).

Y axis is authoritarian-liberal 1-10 score in answer to the question: how much control should the govt. have over your life? With 10 being none (max liberty) and 1 being all (max authority).

Flix 1y ago

The 1-10 score is not perfectly objective, it is after all measuring ideological concepts which are highly abstract, but it is subject to objective measurement to some extent. You can measure and compare what percentage of the economy is controlled by a centralised govt. and what percentage is in the hand of individuals. There are statistics that can be used to compare one country to another, eg: public spending as % of GDP.

The measurement of personal freedom is even more difficult, but not impossible. This scale attempts to standardise it, based on historical examples.

I'm sure somebody else can do better, but my point remains: political spectrums and labels that change meaning every 30 years are only useful as tribal siginifiers, just like football teams. They are not useful for political science and should be rejected.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Flix 1y ago

A point on definitions.

I use "socialist" as originally defined - social, communal or public ownership of the means of production, with the total abolition of private property as its maximum expression (Communist Manifesto).

Socialist- Private Property make sense in opposite ends of a spectrum precisely because of this original meaning.

I use "liberal" as originally defined - defending liberty or freedom of individuals.

Authoritarian-Liberal make sense as a spectrum for this reason.

I purposely ignore any modern redefinitions, such as the american use of "liberal" to mean "leftist" in the past 30 years. It is precisely this retarded changing of definitions that make it impossible to have a historical perspective and measure progress in any direction.

How can you advance towards or retreat from an objective if it changes location and meaning every 30 years?

Flix 1y ago

In other words I want to be able to measure if the Roman Republic was more socialist than the French absolutist monarchy under Louis XVI.

In want to be able to measure if the Aztec Empire was more authoritarian than Communist China under Mao.

We should be able to measure how the US or EU have moved along any of these axis in the past 20 years.

Just as we cantry to measure objective data on population, industrial production, etc... we should do our best to have a meaningful yardstick in political science.