Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

If libertarian socialists are on the left and anarcho-capitalists are on the right what ideology is in the middle?

⁨30⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨AfterNova@lemmy.world [bot]⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • MuttMutt@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The leave me alone, live and let live, enough with the politics because every politician lies (we can tell because their lips are moving) middle.

    source
  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The Judean People’s Front

    source
    • determinist@kbin.earth ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      excuse me. the People's Front of Judea.

      source
      • Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Splitter!

        source
  • sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Anarcho-primitivism?

    source
  • Aequitas@feddit.org ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Left and right are misleading terms that originate from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly. Roughly speaking, left and right can be distinguished by the fact that those on the right approve of social hierarchies and want to maintain them, while those on the left want to abolish them. A supposed middle position would be “only some hierarchies are good.” But that is also just a right-wing position.

    That is why there is no “middle ground” in anarchism. Either you want a system in which everyone benefits equally, or one with a clear capitalist hierarchy. Either everyone has one vote, or the weight of the vote depends on wealth. Either we consider the freedom of all to be important, or only that of those who have enough capital. Either no one is dominated, or only those who have to sell their labor.

    There is only either/or here. Those who do not consider all people to be of equal value consider some to be more valuable. This is not a spectrum; rather, the difference lies in very fundamental normative decisions.

    source
    • AfterNova@lemmy.world [bot] ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Are human social groups inherantly heirarchial?

      source
      • Nemo@slrpnk.net ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        There’s a natural tendency towards heirarchies, but “natural” doesn’t mean “necessary” and it definitely doesn’t mean “desirable”. To create and maintain a better world takes work, and part of that is dismantling “natural”, but harmful, heirarchies (eg. the physically strong dominating the physically weak).

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Aequitas@feddit.org ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Some groups are hierarchical and others are not. My group of friends, for example, is not hierarchical. My partnership is not hierarchical either. So human social groups cannot be described as inherently hierarchical. Perhaps it is necessary to entrust people with tasks. But temporary, democratic delegation of responsibility is something different from social hierarchy.

        This applies to economic hierarchies such as those between the working class and the owner class, but also to social hierarchies, for example through patriarchy, racism, and other forms of discrimination. If you believe that hierarchy between people is natural and therefore worth stabilizing, for example, that men should call the shots in relationships and in society, or that it is right for the majority of society to work, while a small minority does not work but becomes rich from the labor of the majority, you are advocating a right-wing view of society.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • Nemo@slrpnk.net ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Of those two? Christian Democrats, I guess. But there are ideologies far to the right of anarchocapitalists (eg. neomonarchists) and far to the left of libertarian socialists (eg. communists), and anyway political ideologies don’t map well to a single- or even dual-axis graph. You need axes for economic model, rights vs. authority, and stability vs. innovation at a minimum.

    source
    • AfterNova@lemmy.world [bot] ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      what makes anarchocapitalists neomonarchists?

      source
  • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    There’s no such thing as the middle. It’s not a spectrum.

    Sometimes things are actually just distinct beliefs.

    You can’t be in between Christianity and Hindu for example. They aren’t attached to each other, they are distinct.

    source
    • LongLive@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Did you mean “gradient” instead of “spectrum”?

      source
    • AfterNova@lemmy.world [bot] ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Why is not a spectrum?

      source
      • dusty_raven@discuss.online ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Why would it be?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Because you can’t really have parts of both.

        Either you have wealth redistribution, or you don’t. A lower amount is still wealth redistribution.

        You can have a government, or you don’t. A smaller government is still a government.

        So if someone wants some wealth redistribution, and some government. They are just arguing how much of a Libertarian Socialist they are, not how much of a anarcho-capitalist they are.

        I personally am a Social Democrat. Capitalism is good most of the time, just make sure you’re holding the reigns tight so it goes in the right direction. Skip capitalism altogether for specific industries where it just doesn’t do very well and have the government run those ones directly.

        I’m neither a libertarian socialist, nor an anarcho-capitalist. Not even close to either of them, because again, it isn’t a spectrum.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        What would it be a spectrum of? Either you think society needs to be ruled by elites (right wing) or you think society should run itself based on universal rights (left wing).

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Because it’s an axis

        source
  • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    anarcho capitalists dont know what they believe in. They are in a transitionary phase from liberalism to fascism or socialism.

    source
    • AfterNova@lemmy.world [bot] ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Would the capitalism we currently have be the same in anarcho-capitalism? Corporations wouldn’t exist without government. Legal tender laws would not exist.

      source
      • fl1p@piefed.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Capitalism is inherently incompatible with statelessness. You need some kind of police or military force to enforce private property and contracts. In anarcho-capitalism, that force doesn’t disappear. Those with more money would be able to buy more protection, better courts, and stronger enforcement, they would increasingly turn wealth directly into power.

        What we understand as a corporation today wouldn’t vanish without the state; it would reappear as large, hierarchical firms held together by contracts, private security, and internal command structures. In practice, these would look less like free associations and more like dictatorial private governments, exercising control over workers and communities without even minimal public accountability.

        Removing legal tender laws or corporate charters doesn’t eliminate capitalism’s core dynamics: private ownership of productive resources, wage labor, and profit extraction. Anarcho-capitalism keeps those intact while stripping away any collective checks on them. From an anarchist anti-capitalist perspective, that’s not anarchism, thats straight up the replacement of public authority with unaccountable private power.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        depends on which anarcho capitalist you are talking to. I know many former ancaps were free marketeers before going more socialist routes like market anarchism and mutualism. Think like Kevin Carson, a former bleeding heart libertarian, now probably a mutualist.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • AmidFuror@fedia.io ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I've read enough political posts on Lemmy to know that the correct term for the people in the middle is "Nazi sympathizers."

    Does that tell you where the strongest voices on Lemmy fall?

    The other answer is "the left / right spectrum is false." The actual spectrum is "right / wrong," and the writer's beliefs are always on the former side.

    source
    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Amen. Any political post I make, even like citing basic facts of government and law… often results in multiple screams of nazi and maybe one reply that is legit.

      source
      • AmidFuror@fedia.io ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Oh, definitely. The far left never did anything wrong. They only want unicorns and rainbows. All the states that turned authoritarian to preserve their revolution of the workers are actually just far right fascists. If you want to make a dollar or increase your home's appeal and attraction, you're a stooge of Big Somebody.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • matte@feddit.nu ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Ideologies such as social liberalism and democratic socialism are often regarded as in between extreme left and extreme right positions. There are many other positions of course such as centre-right and various “green” and religiously motivated positions. They could also often fit somewhere in between on a conventional right-left spectrum. This of course varies a lot between countries and political systems.

    source
  • Rhoeri@piefed.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Rationality.

    source