The model of the political spectrum I favor in a previous post here makes a prediction that can be tested that could strengthen it as a more logically consistent and better model than the horseshoes, circles and pretzels favored by others. It predicts that the extreme far right and the extreme far left would hold similar positions but for diametrically opposite reasons. They would be mirror twins.
For those who only look at the subject superficially, it would be understandable how they make the error of bending the spectrum to make the two ends meet. If A = C and B = C then A must equal B and they would still be wrong if the comparison were between libertarian anarchism of the right endpoint with communist anarchism of the left endpoint. One needs to look just beneath the surface to understand the differences in motivation and ideals involved. But as I have said, their endpoints are only similar as anarchism itself means different things to the right and the left.
For the left, anarchism is the end product of Marxist dialectic materialism, the synthesis after the communist anarchist antithesis destroys the current "capitalist" thesis. In Marxism, this synthesis is undefined as to what exactly it will be other than the state (the dictatorship of the proletariat interim phase) withering away under communism. As it is in the future, it is as unknowable today as capitalism and the industrial revolution would have been during the earlier patriarchy and feudal phases. This new synthesis is not only inevitable but the final stage of human history.
For the far right anarchists, there would simply be a stateless society as Man, in their view, is a naturally rational economic actor, a fundamental property of human nature as they see it, where all people would keep and dispose of the products of their labor as they see fit. No courts, no military, no police, no national borders, no basic services as each individual will see to these matters themselves or at worst, a minimal form of government for at most basic services like water, sanitation and sewage. It would be a society, if you could call it that, where each person is a country unto himself and his national boundaries don't extend beyond the tip of his own nose. Courts would only exist to protect individual property rights. Overall in the libertarian society, everybody does as he pleases and the whole of the law shall be do as thou wilt as long as it does not violate the non-aggression principle- another fundamental property of human nature in libertarianism.
So both believe in a stateless or nearly stateless society but the critical difference is the communist will have the fruits of individual labor equally distributed throughout the community whereas the in the libertarian anarchist society it's every man for himself, getting by or not based only on one's individual talent, ability and drive.
One interesting side note is in the dissident right there is an interesting similarity to Marxist material dialectics where some believe in either withdrawing from participation in the political process and allowing the political and economic system to collapse on its own or voting for the most extreme leftist to speed up the collapse. It is as if they are the antithesis in a sort of passive-aggressive conflict with the present thesis and as with the communists, the future synthesis cannot be described in either how it will come to be or what exactly it will look like. It will just happen and it will work out in favor of the dissident righters in a sort of libertarianish (although DR'ers seem to hate libertarians as apostates are wont to do) society and this is inevitable because they have the best ideas. Again the right mirrors the left with opposite expectations and opposite outcomes. Even with tactics employed in the antithesis-thesis conflict itself, the right is passive where the left is active.
However, it is disturbing how this sect of the right seems quite comfortable with Marxists concepts like material dialectics and their acceptance of blurring the definitions of words and phrases such as their refusing to define the 'right' as anything more than the 'not-left'. As well as their distrust of corporations and big banks and seeing them as a greater evil than big managerial government. But as I've previously noted, the dissident right appears to consist of libertarian and objectivist apostates and heretics with some disgruntled blue-collar, big pro-union, old-school New Dealer Democrats thrown in. So it should not be too surprising to find them using New Deal rhetoric and ideas. Just as it should not be surprising that many DR'ers being from the blue-collar and suburban middle-class strivers set would think that having a lot of money translates into power- If I were a rich man, with my gold alone I'd rule over the men with the guns. Completely absurd. No understanding whatsoever of the difference between influence and power.
When you use the right model, understanding the present and predicting the future becomes much easier.
Been slacking off here, with an excellent excuse, of course, but I'm back. I wouldn't just abandon my duties at the mausoleum witho...
I had previously written about the fallacy of civic nationalism and the propositional nation of immigrants here . In short there is no such ...
Ever have a debate with a liberal progressive and notice that whatever argument you present, no matter how well reasoned or proofs provided,...
Pictured above is the inestimable Mitch Waxman, the learned Humble Narrator of the Newtown Pentacle blog at Nier's Tavern . It is i...