Mapping the Political Landscape

A communist running for Mayor of New York, Antifa trying to block ICE and other federal agents, Leftists calling MAGA people Nazis and Fascists, Marxists to the Left of us, Proud boys to the Right, who's in the middle with us?

With all the labels being thrown about, it's hard to tell the players even with a program. After enduring years of name calling and confusion, I decided to put together my own map of where various parties stand. Here is the result.

Admittedly, this is a simplified chart, since it is impossible to put such a diverse group of organizations and countries on a single red/blue, Left/Right graph, but oftentimes simple is useful. Accurate, but complex illustrations can obscure basic insight.

There may be a few surprises here. The Left consistently calls Nazis and Fascists far-right wing, suggesting that they are conservative organizations. Yes, they are firmly embedded in the far right ... of the socialist spectrum. Lenin put them there because they were tainted by elements of Capitalism - the Nazis by German industrialists, and the Fascists by allowing private ownership of businesses. Both, however, were Socialist in ideology. Both were nationalist in that they believed that socialism should start at home in their own country. This distinguished them from Communists who held that Socialism should be international in scope. Antifa was created to oppose the nationalist faction of socialists, a faction that labels anything to the right of Marx as "far right".

Capitalism, while not an ideology, is on the chart because it depends on, and supports individual freedom and initiative. In this way it is in opposition to Socialism that says the State is all, and the individual exists to serve the State. While the idea of socialism existed well before Marx, he, along with Engles, was responsible for providing a comprehensive foundation for modern Socialism.

From an economic perspective, Capitalism and Socialism are polar opposites. In Capitalism, the value of something is whatever a voluntary purchaser is willing to pay for it. In contrast, under Socialism, the price of something is whatever the State says it is. Marx, a father of modern Socialism, proposed that the price of something should be determined by the value of the labor that went into making it.

As a child, I and my friends spent lots of time making mud pies out of genuine mud. The labor content of those pies was large, so according to Marx, those pies should have high value. On the other hand, my mother spent time making peach pies, a personal favorite. She applied the capital available to her - a stove, bowls, spoons, a rolling pin - to transform the basic raw materials of flour, sugar, peaches and spices into a delectable pastry. A Marxist would value the two pies equally, but a Capitalist would rate the peach pie of far greater value. I would agree.

In the following years, Marxists spent much time and effort trying to come up with alternative formulas to determine how the State should establish the value of various goods and services. So far, they have devised no scheme superior to the invisible hand of Capitalism with value determined by what the purchaser is willing to offer in exchange. That is one of the reasons Socialists hate Capitalism. There was a saying in the time of the Communist revolution in Russia that "there is no enemy to the Left", affirming that Capitalism with its support of individual freedom and liberty was their terrible enemy.

A second aspect is the inescapable authoritarian nature of Socialism. Capitalism is very democratic in that value is determined by a sort of bidding process by individuals and entities each offering what they individually feel the value of the good or service is to them. The seller has the option of accepting a bid, rejecting it, or making some counter. In this way, everyone goes away from the transaction with a measure of satisfaction. Socialism, conversely, requires a State agent to set a price. The seller and buyer have little say in that price. The authority may claim some mysterious process of dialectic materialism that guides them, or may simply declare the value to be whatever they say it is, but it is the authority who retains the final power, not the buyer or seller. Socialists are all about centralized power, regardless of what stories they may tell their victims.

Marxists and various flavors of Communists claim that the ultimate state of society is where the State fades away and production will arise spontaneously to meet the needs of the consumers. Each will contribute according to their ability, and each will only take as much as they need. No version yet of these ideologies have managed to solve the free rider problem without some authority to coerce production and control consumption. It would seem that trying to get as much as possible while putting in the least effort is a basic human drive. Like the old fellow, who when asked if Socialism was invented by idealists or by scientists, replied: "It must have been invented by idealists. Scientists would have tried it on ducks first."

Although one does not hear much of it lately, Fabian Socialism, originating in the UK, has long advocated a gradual implementation of Socialism where various Socialist policies are implemented a bit at a time. Such things as the progressive income tax, public education, and a broad welfare state are examples of policies introduced by Fabians and adopted by otherwise sensible people.

I listed a few countries as national examples of the Left / Right division. China began, under Mao, as fully Communist, but has had to adopt, reluctantly, certain aspects of Capitalism in order to have a functional economy. Germany has had many flirtations with Socialism over the years, and keeps trying the same things while hoping for a different result. Hungary, under the leadership of Viktor Orban, stands as a beacon of freedom and good sense in the morass of the European Union. Brussels hates them for the bad example they set for other members. Argentina, under Milei, is enjoying a fantastic resurgence in its economy, greatly reducing poverty and public debt. It is accomplishing this by adopting many conservative principles of smaller government, eliminating public debt, and several other policies, making them a truly bad example for those with Globalist aspirations.

The table below lists some of the considerations I used in constructing the graphic. Although there are great differences in details, I tried to extract the values most in common with each group. There are many others that could be applied, but a long list does not contribute to understanding.

Socialists have spent decades squabbling over who should be in charge, how an economy should be run, what is the best way to control the population, and many other aspects centered around centralized power and control. It is seductive in that it promises "equitable" distribution of wealth, support for various causes such as stopping climate change, creating a society where all are equal and particular groups such as gays and PoCs are more equal. The debate over fine points has often become violent, and groups in ascendance have often sought to eliminate competition through permanent means - see for example Communism, Fascism, Antifa, and various purges.

In the end, the promises can never be fulfilled because they are antithetical to human nature. We are a competitive species - we would not have survived were we not. We seek to accumulate and control resources for ourselves and for kin. Socialist societies end up with everyone trying to control everyone else to ensure no-one has particular advantage. All the problems are magnified in inevitable times of scarcity. Ultimately, Socialist societies collapse under their own weight. They last only as long as other people's resources are available.

Conservatism is based on learning what works to establish and maintain a stable society, protecting and conserving what history has taught us works, and being cautious about innovations. History shows us that most ideas that sound good at the time have some fatal flaw, so only a few new ideas will stand the test of time. Conservatism accepts that humans are not perfect and builds a society where such imperfections can be tolerated without destructive result. That usually means that society functions best when everyone minds their own business and allows others to do likewise. Only a few basic rules around harm to others - theft, murder, assault - are commonly accepted. Individuals are free to succeed or fail on their own abilities.

New wealth is created through enterprise of individuals seeking to improve their own lives and fortunes. That wealth ultimately benefits the whole of society through Capitalist exchange of value. Such societies are robust in the face of adversity, and provide the greatest good for the greatest number. They fail if they succumb to the allure of ideologies that seek to accumulate wealth without earning it, and seek to redistribute wealth to gain power and control

Support Canada Free Press