Proposing a New Political Map - Part 2

This post is the second part in a series of three posts. If you haven’t already done so, check out the first part here.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2: An Alternative Political Map

In place of the political map used by the Political Compass site, I would like to propose an alternative method of sorting people into ideological groups, one which recognises that there are three main approaches that people can take with regard to political issues, not two, and thus three types of political ideologies. I believe that equality between human beings is a worthwhile end and have based my alternative political map on this notion, thus classifying different political viewpoints according to where they stand in relation to the struggle for human equality.

The three political ideology types, or “paths” as I will henceforth call them, are the egalitarian path, the anti-egalitarian path and the individualist (a.k.a. liberal) path. Each of these paths includes a number of ideologies, some of which are more radical and others more moderate. An ideology’s path is determined by the philosophical principles upon which the ideology is based. It is possible for two ideologies to belong to the same path, while being in conflict with one another.

Some political positions (e.g. supporting the right to abortion) are held by ideological movements from different paths. This is to be expected since many political issues only allow people to take one of two stances (for or against.) However the political map that I am proposing takes into account one’s reasons for having the position they do and not just the position itself. Hence if two political movements take the same stance on a given issue, one can examine the main reasons given by the movements for taking that position in order to determine which “paths” they belong to. I will henceforth explore these paths in more detail.

This diagram shows the three ideological paths, which I have discussed

The Egalitarian Path

Radical Movements: Communism, Left-wing anarchism, Radical Feminism

Moderate Movements: Non-revolutionary socialism (reformism), Moderate Feminism

Egalitarians value equality and seek to lower the amount of inequality in the world. In particular they are opposed to inequalities of power and wealth, which exist as a result of political, economic and social systems. Thus the most radical egalitarians (described on my diagram as radical leftists) seek to create a communist or anarchist society, devoid of economic and social hierarchies. When I use the word “communist” here I am not referring to dictatorial regimes, like that which existed in the Soviet Union, but to the original communist ideal of a world free from class divisions, in which everyone contributed as much as they could to society and got back what they needed.

Communists, revolutionary socialists, utopian socialists and anarchists share this radical egalitarian vision, but disagree over how the ideal should be achieved. Utopian socialists, who were prominent during the nineteenth century, aimed to create model societies that the rest of the world could then copy, while communists and anarchists call for oppressed classes to bring about a revolution which will reorganise society on a more egalitarian, non-capitalist basis. The precise details of the system which should replace capitalism are a matter of dispute among revolutionary leftists.  

Radical leftist movements seek to abolish capitalism, for they view it as a class-divided and therefore anti-egalitarian system. They believe that capitalism should be replaced with an economic system in which the economy is under the democratic control of ordinary people rather than capitalists (owners of corporations) and production occurs with the intent of meeting human need rather than generating profits for a small group of people. The ultimate aim of radical leftists is to put an end to the existence of economic classes and thus abolish the power inequalities which arise from the division of society into such classes.

However, the egalitarianism is not merely an economic project. A consistent radical leftist would also call for an end to the domination of men over women, the domination of whites over other races and the domination of some nations over other nations (what egalitarians sometimes call “imperialism”.) Radical leftists may even wish to, in the wrong run, abolish the division of humanity into nations (Marx and Engels argued for this in the Communist Manifesto.) It is with these ideals in mind that radical leftists approach social issues. Radical feminism is an example of a radical leftist movement which focuses on social issues (specifically those pertaining to gender and biological sex.) Radical feminists wish to abolish male domination (a.k.a. patriarchy) as well as the gender roles which reinforce it. The ultimate aim of radical feminism is to create a world in which masculinity and femininity no longer exist and people see themselves mainly as human beings rather than men or women. They believe that the struggle for women’s liberation is tied in with struggles against other hierarchical systems such as capitalism and white supremacy.

Egalitarians who are less radical (and who are described on the diagram as moderate progressives) seek to create more equality by working within the systems of capitalism, electoral democracy (often called “bourgeois democracy” by radical leftists) and gender. In the economic realm, moderate egalitarians argue in favour of creating and maintaining a welfare state which aims to meet the needs of the poor, thus lowering the degree to which wealthy corporations can dominate and exploit members of the lower classes. Moderate egalitarians also advocate taxing and regulating large corporations, further lowering the gap between rich and poor, not just in terms of wealth, but also in terms of power. Since moderate progressives promote modifications to the capitalism system as ends in themselves (rather than as means to more radical ends) they are derogatorily referred to as “reformists” by radical leftists.

In the social realm, moderate progressives also endorse racial equality and feel compassion for those who suffer from poverty, oppression, war, dictatorial rule and harmful working conditions in what is often called the third world or the global south. They also claim that they wish to end male domination, but their approach to gender resembles their reformist approach to capitalism. Moderate egalitarian don’t view the abolition of gender as necessary or possible and hence advocate in favour of what they deem to be healthier forms of masculinity and femininity.

Both radical and moderate egalitarians are often referred to as liberals. This is due in part to the fact that egalitarians and liberals take common stances on controversial issues such as gay rights and abortion. They are both opposed to conservatives (who belong on the anti-egalitarian path.) However, as we will see later on in this article, egalitarianism and liberalism are in fact very much opposed to each other.

The Anti-Egalitarian Path

Radical Movements: Fascism, Nazism, Dictatorial “Communism”, Islamic Extremism

Moderate Movements: Conservatism, Traditional Christianity

Anti-egalitarians are opposed to equality and consciously seek to either maintain or increase the amount of political, economic and social inequality in society. They believe that society works best when everybody knows their place within a strict hierarchical structure, in which those who belong to the higher levels of the hierarchy give orders and those who belong to the lower levels obey them. Those who promote the most extreme form of this ideology are the authoritarians (also labelled as dictatorial on the diagram.) Authoritarians aim to replace democratic rule by the people, with rule by an unelected entity (usually a political party), which enforces strict ideological conformity among its members and within society generally. These parties are highly hierarchical and often headed by a single leader who demands strict obedience.

While all authoritarians endorse a hierarchy of some kind, they disagree over which entity should be at the top of this hierarchy. Every patriotic imperialist wants their specific nation to rule the world, while religious theocrats want people to obey their god and no other. Anti-egalitarian movements may also differ from each other in terms of which hierarchical system they choose to focus on the most. For example, Hitler’s anti-egalitarian vision placed a great deal of emphasis on ensuring that the Aryan race and the German nation would dominate the world, while Franco (the leader of fascist Spain) sought to maintain the influence of traditional religious ideals (specifically those of the Catholic Church.)

Throughout history, a variety of economic systems have been endorsed by anti-egalitarian radicals. Fascists (such as Hitler and Franco) sought to maintain capitalism and its class structure. To this end they banned trade unions, suppressed leftist parties and denounced class struggle. Under fascism, the state and the corporations worked closely with one another and a belief in the need for national unity encouraged workers to view their capitalist rulers as allies. Dictatorial “communist” governments also sought to maintain rigid class divisions. Though the economies of these “communist” societies were planned rather than market driven, the economic system in place was highly hierarchical due to the undemocratic nature of the governments doing the planning. Other examples of hierarchical economic systems, which authoritarians may endorse, include caste systems (in which individuals are assigned to economic classes at birth), feudalism and slavery.  

In the social realm, authoritarians typically place a strong emphasis on religion (in its more traditional form) and the nuclear family structure. Traditional religions, which include Christianity and Islam, are favoured by anti-egalitarians because they promote a strict hierarchical order in which God is at the top, religious leaders are just below him, followed by adult male adherents of the faith, then by women adherents and finally by children. Women are required to submit to their husbands and take on the traditional role of being a housewife and a devoted mother, while children obey their parents, so long as said parents show the proper level of commitment to the hierarchy being endorsed. There are, of course, less strict, less traditional versions of Christianity and Islam, but these are typically not favoured by authoritarians. Authoritarians may also oppose traditional religion and insert their charismatic leader into the position of god.

Unlike authoritarians, less extreme anti-egalitarians (those labelled on the diagram as “conservative”) are satisfied with the anti-egalitarian order under which they live and do not see the need to remove it and replace it with a new, stricter system. Though conservatives believe that everyone should “know their place” and obey authority figures (assuming that they are the “right” authority figures), they do not seek to replace democratic regimes with dictatorial ones, but instead vote for or form political parties which create policies aimed at encouraging people to conform to religious, economic and gender hierarchies.  They endorse the economic system under which they live (nowadays this usually means endorsing capitalism) and oppose attempts to reform the system in ways that make it more egalitarian.

Conservatives support traditional religion (though not necessarily Christianity) and believe in what they term “family values”. To believe in “family values” usually means favouring a hierarchical nuclear families and traditional gender roles. They agree with the authoritarian belief that men should rule over women and oppose family structures in which this principle is not adhered to (e.g. families which include gay or lesbian couples.) Conservatives fear the chaos that comes with social upheaval and therefore dislike those who might cause such upheaval such as revolutionaries, progressives, adherents of other religions (including moderate or liberal adherents of their own religion), secularists and social liberals. Due to their desire to keep society stable, conservatives are particular frightened of crime and advocate a “tough” approach to dealing with criminals.

The Individualist Path

Radical Movements: Libertarianism, Anarcho-capitalism, Voluntarism

Moderate Movements: Social liberalism, Liberal feminism

Individualists believe in removing restrictions on behaviours engaged in by individuals, regardless of the consequences of these behaviours. They aim for neither equality nor inequality (though they may speak of the “equal” right of everyone to do what they want without interference) but instead support deregulation for the sake of deregulation. The more extreme individualists (labelled as “libertarians” on the diagrams) see government of any kind as an automatic enemy of freedom and either believe that governments should either be abolished altogether or limit themselves to the role of defending private property and protecting people against murder, rape, foreign invasion and theft.

Like the other paths, the individualist path contains variations. I have classified both libertarians and social liberals as individualists, because while they may not always agree with each other, their arguments come from the same basic assumptions and values. The disagreements emerge when individualists try to implement these values.

Libertarians believe that both individuals and corporations have the right to do what they wish with their property and oppose any government laws which interfere with this supposed right. They are strong supports of capitalism and believe that unregulated competition between businesses will maximise economic efficiency and that such efficiency is the key to human well-being. They also wish to minimise or abolish both taxes and social spending (which requires taxation.) Libertarians who wish to abolish government (sometimes called anarcho-capitalists) differ from egalitarian (or leftist) anarchists, in that the former has no objection to the existence of corporate hierarchies, given that anarcho-capitalists are of the opinion that people freely choose to be part of such hierarchies.

When it comes to social issues, libertarians believe that the government should not do anything to interfere with people’s personal choices and behaviours. Such “interference” includes not only laws which ban certain behaviours, but also government policies and programs aimed at discouraging behaviours which are deemed to be harmful to one’s health or safety. Such policies include the plain-packaging legislation introduced in Australia in 2012, which aimed to discourage people from smoking. Libertarians argue that policies of this nature deprive people of essential liberties and contribute to a repressive “Nanny State”. However, as defenders of free speech, they support the right of individuals to have moral opinions (regarding sexual and health related behaviours) and to express them. They also support the free speech rights of those with highly controversial opinions (e.g. people who are blatantly racist or hateful in some other way) though they do not necessarily endorse such opinions.

In the economic realm, moderate individualists (whom I have termed “social liberals”) advocate policies that appear to be similar to those promoted by moderate egalitarians. This contributes to moderate egalitarians being called “liberals”. While both social liberals and moderate egalitarians (e.g. social democrats) promote government spending (particularly with regard to health care) they do so for different reasons. As discussed earlier, egalitarians are committed to reducing wealth inequalities. Social liberals on the other hand believe in enabling people to do whatever they want to their body (regardless of the impact of such choices on their health) and want those who lack wealth to have access to the same “choices” that those who are rich have access to (e.g. abortion, sex change surgery, etc.) Social liberals even view the decision to work a low paying, non-intellectually fulfilling job as yet another “empowering choice” that people should be allowed to make. Thus their views are very much opposed to those of genuine egalitarians.

Social liberals have an “anything goes” attitude with regard to people’s personal decisions. Social liberals argue in favour of abolishing of laws which are said to “interfere” with the private lives of adults, but they differ from libertarians in that they not only seek to make the government adhere to the principle that “anything goes”, they want everyone to endorse these principles. Anyone who critiques or argues against a particular behaviour is accused of “shaming” those who practise it. According to social liberals, people not only have the right to use censorship against expressions of opinion deemed to be “hateful”, “intolerant” or “shaming” (whether they are genuine expressions of hatred or not.) engage in whatever behaviours they please, they have the right to do so without criticism. Thus social liberals often have little regard for the free speech rights of those who challenge their ideology and will on occasion

Individualists do not explicitly favour the creation of inequality, but in a world which is already highly unequal and in which those with power have mechanisms for maintaining such power (e.g. money, private property, control over the media, social norms, etc.) the individualist approach is likely to ensure that society remains unequal and may even create more inequality.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The upcoming post is the last in this series. The post will discuss the application of my “three path” approach to current political issues and some of the potential problems one might run into when trying to apply it.