Let me start by acknowledging my own political sympathies. My beliefs are rooted in classical conservatism and classical liberalism but if I had to choose a label I'd go with constitutionalist. I start off with that because I wanted to attempt a discussion without bias, if possible on a political forum. We're routinely told that political ideologies fall on a left-right spectrum with Communism on the left, Fascism on the right, and everyone else in between. I think that's irrational. Total government is total government isn't it? Regardless, there are other paradigms such as the authoritarian-libertarian punnet squares measuring beliefs on economic freedom vs social freedom. Isn't economic freedom a social freedom? Aren't social and fiscal issues related often? Is homelessness a social issue, a fiscal issue, or both? And if two people agree that the state has a role in something but just disagree on how to implement its involvement, are they really polar opposites when they both acknowledge a desire for state influence in said situation?
I'm asking these questions because I don't think the political spectrum makes any sense. It's based off of semantic arguments and false categories. Such as socialism and nationalism being opposites. When you socialize an industry you're nationalizing it. When you nationalize an industry you're socializing it. These are distinctions without differences. Is a country that subsidizes chattel slavery less mercantile than a nation that subsidizes railroads and steam boats?
I submit that if a political spectrum should exist, it should be based on the role of the state, or rather the power of the state. It's a common trend in history that a new ideology criticizes those of the past while in reality building upon it or at the very least presuming the continuation of state organs but for new ideological purposes. In my spectrum one side represents oligarchies of a variety of forms though totalitarian, and the other side represents the lack of a state for governance. And again, I'm only human but I tried to ignore my own doctrines for the sake of accuracy. While I personally prefer a republic I can't pretend a republic has less state control than a stateless society like anarcho-capitalism. And again, my beliefs were kept out of this to the best of my ability. So while I despise Marxism, I acknowledge that the socialist dictatorship is a means to an ends, and that final stage Communism is meant to be stateless. I try to make distinctions when possible or needed.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Anarchy is the absence of a state authority. My understanding is that anarchy is Greek for one rule or self rule. Now I'll admit I spend very little time studying anarchism. So if I'm off base please feel free to correct me.
Anarcho-primitivism preaches a return to pre-agriculturalism which would mean less social organization than the other anarchist concepts so I put it at the end of the anarchist spectrum but really stateless is stateless. All anarchist systems could be called voluntarism.
Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism without the state, free interaction and free markets and essentially individualist. Even courts and policing would be done with private planning rather than central planning.
Anarcho-syndicalism combines anarchism and syndicalism, creating what I suppose could be called stateless collectivism. People freely unite into a syndicate without relying on the coercion of the state to achieve objectives.
As I acknowledge, Communism represents what Marx and the Communist Manifesto claim Socialism would become or lead to - a stateless and classless society; the dictatorship of the proletariat is transitioning to this final stage. I stuck it between syndicalism and democracy because of the notion that a true Communist society would be a worker's collective but also democratic.
Now we get to small states to total government...
Classical-Enlightenment
Democracy represented by Athenian lawmaker Solon. Democracy is often called mob rule and unstable. However Athens was quite stable according to my understanding of ancient Greece, and it was in fact because mob rule wasn't how things were and in fact the people were jealous guardians of their freedom and this was represented in the closest thing Athens had to mob rule - ostracism (the process in which citizens banished the most destructive politicians for 10 years). And as a city-state, direct democracy was rather small and while suffrage wasn't universal, power rested directly with the voters and thus the people were the state, not its subjects.
Minarchism represented by Objectivist Ayn Rand. Anarchists believe any state violates non-aggression, however many libertarians, Objectivists and others support a minimal state responsible only for courts, police and national defense to protect property and deter aggression/fraud. Often called a night-watchman state. I put this after democracy because Athens never really had a developed justice system like most true states do. Justice was often sanctioned for the individual to execute. Minarchism conceivably has more power and control than democracy.
Republic represented by Roman lawmaker Cato. There are *many* definitions of a republic, some similar, many different. Usually a republic is defined by not having a monarch. But that doesn't really tell us how much power the state had. Republic comes from Latin. Res publica. A public affair. Laws may not be decided by the people directly but they are decided by varying levels of representation. Ultimately the state gets its authority from the people, in theory, but the fact is that the state makes the laws and yields more power than a democracy. My definition for a republic here is a typical sovereign state in which policy decisions are a public matter/affair rather than bureaucratic or oligarchic. Usually limited with a fixed body of law (constitution).
Now here's where my bias comes in. I wanted to make things related to as many people as possible, and to me that means other Americans. So. The next few are American-centric statesmen or documents to get a point across about the growth of state power.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union represented by fierce anti-federalist Patrick Henry. Confederation, a loose union of sovereign states with a weak central government. So take a democracy or republic and join them with a bunch more under a compact for the sake of common defense. The central government has little power or control over its constituents.
Republican Party of Jefferson. Fiercely state's rights and against federalism though accepted the Constitution with a Bill of Rights. I included a few political parties based on their original premises and foundations to demonstrate where I think American politics was and has gone.
The United States Constitution and its architect James Madison. Like the Federalists Madison supported a new Federation system, however he also supported limiting centralized government like his dear friend and ally Jefferson and thus helped draft a Bill of Rights. A federation is more powerful in scope than a confederation. War powers, greater commerce coordination, official fiscal/monetary policy, revision of trading system and a greater emphasis on organized government branches. Federalism includes duel sovereignty, where sovereign states retain their freedom but loan powers to a strong central authority for fundamental needs. This is not a unitary, top-down system, but a balance of power for common interests.
Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Party was originally founded on individualism and free markets, state's rights (kind of), and strict constructionist obedience to the Constitution. Jackson opposed federalist efforts to support a central bank and other programs he viewed as unconstitutional, while he also threatened to hang opposition in South Carolina threatening to secede because of tariffs even if he disagreed with the tariffs. Strict construction, no bullcrap. Again, this is just an attempt to place historical political parties. Clearly the Democratic Party of the common man from Jackson's time is not the same as today, and the same can be said of the GOP. Democrats didn't just support free markets, but laissez faire capitalism.
Capitalism with Wealth of Nations author Adam Smith. I placed Smith between Hamilton and Jackson because while he opposed the protectionism of mercantilist economics, he also wasn't laissez faire like Jacksonians. In fact other than the issue of trade barriers, Adam Smith saw a place for state innovation. Public works were acceptable to him just as they were to the Federalists.
Federalist Party with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Party supported deviations from the Constitution. A central banking system, internal improvements such as roads, bridges and canals, national debt and tariffs to support young industry.
Whig Party and Henry Clay. The Federalists and anti-Jacksonian Republicans joined to form the Whig Party. Like the Federalists they supported central banks, internal improvements and tariffs. However, during this period Prussian-educated Americans started bringing over concepts from the statist and mandatory Prussian school system. Many Whigs started championing government education.
Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. I'm not going to talk crap about Lincoln and the Civil War and how he's a bigger tyrant than Hitler or whatever's fashionable to say now. Anyway, in Lincoln's own words he was an old Henry Clay-style Whig. When the Whigs collapsed many became Republicans. Republicans also supported a central bank, internal improvements and high tariffs for industry. However two things of note- During this time the Congress started supporting quasi-mercantilist policies beyond trade barriers. Railroads and steamships were being contracted, chartered and subsidized by Congress. The second thing was the creation of the Department of Agriculture which Lincoln called "the people's department". The is the first time I'm aware that the federal government made agriculture a federal policy.
Mercantilism/Imperial Monarchism with King George III. If you're British, it's nothing personal against George. He was our king too, right? Honestly I just didn't know who else to put so I played it safe. Originally I was going to have a separate place for monarchism and Mercantilism as I was going to have with Capitalism. However, Monarchism is more of a constitution than a description of power. Traditionally, monarchs claim the divine right of kings to rule, however that rarely meant anything substantive. Well, that's not entirely true. Regardless, monarchism at its strongest was absolutism or absolute monarchy and the very concept of such a system ever existing is debated. The Czar would be an example of an absolute monarch. However, compared to today, monarchs had little control. They had internal conflicts to struggle with, often couldn't control wealth, and needless to say they didn't have control over the sheer amount of resources or government constructs that exist today. Monarchs at their most controlled war, diplomacy, the treasury, trade, taxes, and land management and a few other things perhaps. Absolute monarchism was only absolute by the standards of those times. Compared to today absolutists look like amateurs at control. Regardless, I define mercantilism as the system used to expand an empire's wealth through imperialism and colonial acquisitions, internal improvements, state-backed monopolies (East India Company anyone?) and elimination of competition, trade barriers beyond protectionism (trade prohibition), and usually tariffs against competing empires though free trade tended to catch on after Adam Smith came around. I'd also say the GOP under McKinley could fit around here, perhaps between the protectionist Lincolnian Republican Party and mercantilism.
And now for Socialism. Well, not really. Or maybe so. Socialism can mean anything. It doesn't have to be Marxist to be socialist. Anyway.
Soft socialism-
Social Democracy/Progressivism with Otto von Bismarck. Admittedly Bismarck was not an ally of the socialist revolutionaries of the 1800's. However, to cement his power and prevent socialists from making advances, Bismarck essentially found a way to give the socialists everything they wanted except power - the welfare state. Bismarck created the first modern welfare state and other countries would follow. Senior pensions, accident, unemployment and health insurance. Otto von Bismark is quite possibly the most influential person you've never heard of. And as I've said, systems carry over. This welfare state still retained the economic, military and political control of a powerful imperialist nation and now gained control over social programs and insurance schemes. And again, to be intellectually honest, Bismarck does not represent the Social Democrat community, I'm sure. He was the Realpolitik man after all, and he did what he needed to win the support of the nation. Regardless, he found a way to give his opponents the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. I would posit that men like Theodore Roosevelt and *early* Progressives would fit here.
.............. ....... ....
I didn't have the patience to list every socialist country or model or learn every tiny difference. So I left a gap between Social Democracy and the totalitarian systems of the 20th century. This is where most modern states seem to be either by design or by incrementalism.
Totalitarianism ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.")-
Corporatist socialism. National Socialism, Fascism/Corporativism, Falangism, National Integralism where the state controls the means of production in some way or form and property exists but must serve the government's interests either openly or behind the scenes. The state decides what to make, when to make it, how much to make, who to sell it to, how much to charge, et cetera. You live to serve the state because you are part of an organic whole.
State Socialism and not even the illusion of property. Soviet socialism, Maoism, North Korean Juche (maybe?), National Bolshevism?
The point in which the State has total control over affairs as opposed to a public affair state (republic) or stateless society. More powerful than any king or tyrant of the past. Essentially human farming.
As for the Goldman Sachs thing, I was half joking and half not. It could be said the US is an oligarchy but that's not the argument, rather the scope of the state vs the individual. I will defend the placement on the chart though. Federal departments for war, foreign affairs, the treasury, justice, education, labor, agriculture, commerce, land management, energy, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, and numerous independent agencies and state corporations for mail, communications, intelligence, banking, the environment, business and oversight, science and technology, et cetera. A military-industrial complex, a prison-industrial complex, welfare statism. Taxes, regulations and subsidies, corporatism and bailouts. A lack of duel federalism and perpetual strengthening of each branch of government rather than checks on power. I'm making the observation that the government in the US controls more in America than even the British did. But I'm getting ideological.
Anyway, I'm just some dickhead with too much time to think about things like this. Let me know what you think and if you have any corrections you'd like to make. Again, this isn't me trying to be ideological. This is purely about evaluating the level of government control over the people for better or worse. If you feel I misrepresented your ideology or philosophy or system by all means have at it, because I can edit the model no problem. Or maybe you have a better model.
I'm asking these questions because I don't think the political spectrum makes any sense. It's based off of semantic arguments and false categories. Such as socialism and nationalism being opposites. When you socialize an industry you're nationalizing it. When you nationalize an industry you're socializing it. These are distinctions without differences. Is a country that subsidizes chattel slavery less mercantile than a nation that subsidizes railroads and steam boats?
I submit that if a political spectrum should exist, it should be based on the role of the state, or rather the power of the state. It's a common trend in history that a new ideology criticizes those of the past while in reality building upon it or at the very least presuming the continuation of state organs but for new ideological purposes. In my spectrum one side represents oligarchies of a variety of forms though totalitarian, and the other side represents the lack of a state for governance. And again, I'm only human but I tried to ignore my own doctrines for the sake of accuracy. While I personally prefer a republic I can't pretend a republic has less state control than a stateless society like anarcho-capitalism. And again, my beliefs were kept out of this to the best of my ability. So while I despise Marxism, I acknowledge that the socialist dictatorship is a means to an ends, and that final stage Communism is meant to be stateless. I try to make distinctions when possible or needed.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Anarchy is the absence of a state authority. My understanding is that anarchy is Greek for one rule or self rule. Now I'll admit I spend very little time studying anarchism. So if I'm off base please feel free to correct me.
Anarcho-primitivism preaches a return to pre-agriculturalism which would mean less social organization than the other anarchist concepts so I put it at the end of the anarchist spectrum but really stateless is stateless. All anarchist systems could be called voluntarism.
Anarcho-capitalism is capitalism without the state, free interaction and free markets and essentially individualist. Even courts and policing would be done with private planning rather than central planning.
Anarcho-syndicalism combines anarchism and syndicalism, creating what I suppose could be called stateless collectivism. People freely unite into a syndicate without relying on the coercion of the state to achieve objectives.
As I acknowledge, Communism represents what Marx and the Communist Manifesto claim Socialism would become or lead to - a stateless and classless society; the dictatorship of the proletariat is transitioning to this final stage. I stuck it between syndicalism and democracy because of the notion that a true Communist society would be a worker's collective but also democratic.
Now we get to small states to total government...
Classical-Enlightenment
Democracy represented by Athenian lawmaker Solon. Democracy is often called mob rule and unstable. However Athens was quite stable according to my understanding of ancient Greece, and it was in fact because mob rule wasn't how things were and in fact the people were jealous guardians of their freedom and this was represented in the closest thing Athens had to mob rule - ostracism (the process in which citizens banished the most destructive politicians for 10 years). And as a city-state, direct democracy was rather small and while suffrage wasn't universal, power rested directly with the voters and thus the people were the state, not its subjects.
Minarchism represented by Objectivist Ayn Rand. Anarchists believe any state violates non-aggression, however many libertarians, Objectivists and others support a minimal state responsible only for courts, police and national defense to protect property and deter aggression/fraud. Often called a night-watchman state. I put this after democracy because Athens never really had a developed justice system like most true states do. Justice was often sanctioned for the individual to execute. Minarchism conceivably has more power and control than democracy.
Republic represented by Roman lawmaker Cato. There are *many* definitions of a republic, some similar, many different. Usually a republic is defined by not having a monarch. But that doesn't really tell us how much power the state had. Republic comes from Latin. Res publica. A public affair. Laws may not be decided by the people directly but they are decided by varying levels of representation. Ultimately the state gets its authority from the people, in theory, but the fact is that the state makes the laws and yields more power than a democracy. My definition for a republic here is a typical sovereign state in which policy decisions are a public matter/affair rather than bureaucratic or oligarchic. Usually limited with a fixed body of law (constitution).
Now here's where my bias comes in. I wanted to make things related to as many people as possible, and to me that means other Americans. So. The next few are American-centric statesmen or documents to get a point across about the growth of state power.
The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union represented by fierce anti-federalist Patrick Henry. Confederation, a loose union of sovereign states with a weak central government. So take a democracy or republic and join them with a bunch more under a compact for the sake of common defense. The central government has little power or control over its constituents.
Republican Party of Jefferson. Fiercely state's rights and against federalism though accepted the Constitution with a Bill of Rights. I included a few political parties based on their original premises and foundations to demonstrate where I think American politics was and has gone.
The United States Constitution and its architect James Madison. Like the Federalists Madison supported a new Federation system, however he also supported limiting centralized government like his dear friend and ally Jefferson and thus helped draft a Bill of Rights. A federation is more powerful in scope than a confederation. War powers, greater commerce coordination, official fiscal/monetary policy, revision of trading system and a greater emphasis on organized government branches. Federalism includes duel sovereignty, where sovereign states retain their freedom but loan powers to a strong central authority for fundamental needs. This is not a unitary, top-down system, but a balance of power for common interests.
Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Party was originally founded on individualism and free markets, state's rights (kind of), and strict constructionist obedience to the Constitution. Jackson opposed federalist efforts to support a central bank and other programs he viewed as unconstitutional, while he also threatened to hang opposition in South Carolina threatening to secede because of tariffs even if he disagreed with the tariffs. Strict construction, no bullcrap. Again, this is just an attempt to place historical political parties. Clearly the Democratic Party of the common man from Jackson's time is not the same as today, and the same can be said of the GOP. Democrats didn't just support free markets, but laissez faire capitalism.
Capitalism with Wealth of Nations author Adam Smith. I placed Smith between Hamilton and Jackson because while he opposed the protectionism of mercantilist economics, he also wasn't laissez faire like Jacksonians. In fact other than the issue of trade barriers, Adam Smith saw a place for state innovation. Public works were acceptable to him just as they were to the Federalists.
Federalist Party with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Party supported deviations from the Constitution. A central banking system, internal improvements such as roads, bridges and canals, national debt and tariffs to support young industry.
Whig Party and Henry Clay. The Federalists and anti-Jacksonian Republicans joined to form the Whig Party. Like the Federalists they supported central banks, internal improvements and tariffs. However, during this period Prussian-educated Americans started bringing over concepts from the statist and mandatory Prussian school system. Many Whigs started championing government education.
Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln. I'm not going to talk crap about Lincoln and the Civil War and how he's a bigger tyrant than Hitler or whatever's fashionable to say now. Anyway, in Lincoln's own words he was an old Henry Clay-style Whig. When the Whigs collapsed many became Republicans. Republicans also supported a central bank, internal improvements and high tariffs for industry. However two things of note- During this time the Congress started supporting quasi-mercantilist policies beyond trade barriers. Railroads and steamships were being contracted, chartered and subsidized by Congress. The second thing was the creation of the Department of Agriculture which Lincoln called "the people's department". The is the first time I'm aware that the federal government made agriculture a federal policy.
Mercantilism/Imperial Monarchism with King George III. If you're British, it's nothing personal against George. He was our king too, right? Honestly I just didn't know who else to put so I played it safe. Originally I was going to have a separate place for monarchism and Mercantilism as I was going to have with Capitalism. However, Monarchism is more of a constitution than a description of power. Traditionally, monarchs claim the divine right of kings to rule, however that rarely meant anything substantive. Well, that's not entirely true. Regardless, monarchism at its strongest was absolutism or absolute monarchy and the very concept of such a system ever existing is debated. The Czar would be an example of an absolute monarch. However, compared to today, monarchs had little control. They had internal conflicts to struggle with, often couldn't control wealth, and needless to say they didn't have control over the sheer amount of resources or government constructs that exist today. Monarchs at their most controlled war, diplomacy, the treasury, trade, taxes, and land management and a few other things perhaps. Absolute monarchism was only absolute by the standards of those times. Compared to today absolutists look like amateurs at control. Regardless, I define mercantilism as the system used to expand an empire's wealth through imperialism and colonial acquisitions, internal improvements, state-backed monopolies (East India Company anyone?) and elimination of competition, trade barriers beyond protectionism (trade prohibition), and usually tariffs against competing empires though free trade tended to catch on after Adam Smith came around. I'd also say the GOP under McKinley could fit around here, perhaps between the protectionist Lincolnian Republican Party and mercantilism.
And now for Socialism. Well, not really. Or maybe so. Socialism can mean anything. It doesn't have to be Marxist to be socialist. Anyway.
Soft socialism-
Social Democracy/Progressivism with Otto von Bismarck. Admittedly Bismarck was not an ally of the socialist revolutionaries of the 1800's. However, to cement his power and prevent socialists from making advances, Bismarck essentially found a way to give the socialists everything they wanted except power - the welfare state. Bismarck created the first modern welfare state and other countries would follow. Senior pensions, accident, unemployment and health insurance. Otto von Bismark is quite possibly the most influential person you've never heard of. And as I've said, systems carry over. This welfare state still retained the economic, military and political control of a powerful imperialist nation and now gained control over social programs and insurance schemes. And again, to be intellectually honest, Bismarck does not represent the Social Democrat community, I'm sure. He was the Realpolitik man after all, and he did what he needed to win the support of the nation. Regardless, he found a way to give his opponents the socialism they wanted but without the revolution. I would posit that men like Theodore Roosevelt and *early* Progressives would fit here.
.............. ....... ....
I didn't have the patience to list every socialist country or model or learn every tiny difference. So I left a gap between Social Democracy and the totalitarian systems of the 20th century. This is where most modern states seem to be either by design or by incrementalism.
Totalitarianism ("Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.")-
Corporatist socialism. National Socialism, Fascism/Corporativism, Falangism, National Integralism where the state controls the means of production in some way or form and property exists but must serve the government's interests either openly or behind the scenes. The state decides what to make, when to make it, how much to make, who to sell it to, how much to charge, et cetera. You live to serve the state because you are part of an organic whole.
State Socialism and not even the illusion of property. Soviet socialism, Maoism, North Korean Juche (maybe?), National Bolshevism?
The point in which the State has total control over affairs as opposed to a public affair state (republic) or stateless society. More powerful than any king or tyrant of the past. Essentially human farming.
As for the Goldman Sachs thing, I was half joking and half not. It could be said the US is an oligarchy but that's not the argument, rather the scope of the state vs the individual. I will defend the placement on the chart though. Federal departments for war, foreign affairs, the treasury, justice, education, labor, agriculture, commerce, land management, energy, health and human services, housing and urban development, transportation, and numerous independent agencies and state corporations for mail, communications, intelligence, banking, the environment, business and oversight, science and technology, et cetera. A military-industrial complex, a prison-industrial complex, welfare statism. Taxes, regulations and subsidies, corporatism and bailouts. A lack of duel federalism and perpetual strengthening of each branch of government rather than checks on power. I'm making the observation that the government in the US controls more in America than even the British did. But I'm getting ideological.
Anyway, I'm just some dickhead with too much time to think about things like this. Let me know what you think and if you have any corrections you'd like to make. Again, this isn't me trying to be ideological. This is purely about evaluating the level of government control over the people for better or worse. If you feel I misrepresented your ideology or philosophy or system by all means have at it, because I can edit the model no problem. Or maybe you have a better model.
