Criticism of political spectrums

Currently in nearly every single political conversation political spectrums are brought up. People talk about views being defined by some metric of theirs and think that after placing an ideology on a line or some kind of a coordinate system they’ll know everything about it. It is clear though that in most cases this ends up becoming misleading, has very little relation to reality and is regularly used in harmful propaganda.
A political spectrum is a measure usually represented by one or more geometrical axes, its purpose is to classify different political positions in relation to each other. Usually it is used to tell what ideologies are the most likely to agree or disagree with each other and how they could work in practice. These are some basic requirements for a political spectrum to be practical:
-Ends of each of the axes have to be polar opposites and therefore they can’t be compatible in any way.
-The spectrum has to relate to the way we talk about politics, meaning that if a position is considered to have a certain characteristic that’s related to the metric, the spectrum can’t contradict it.
-Ideologies that come out close to each other need to have similar interests.
-It has to be universal, meaning that all ideologies come out at the same place no matter the place and time at which they’re measured.

The most popular political spectrum is the left-right spectrum. It is also the most obscure, as the ends of it aren’t clearly and universally defined. I’ll look at various definitions to see if they make sense. First of all it’s necessary to define where certain ideologies are generally placed on which side of it. Anarchism, Marxism, social democracy and progressivism are considered “left-wing”. Liberalism is considered “centrist”. Conservatism, American libertarianism and monarchism are considered “right-wing”. I didn’t mention fascism in here, because its position on this spectrum is very ambiguous. There’s no agreement on whether it’s right or left. Mussolini himself has claimed that it's not important by stating “fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of centre.[…] These words in any case do not have a fixed meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorised by these words”1 , another prominent fascist José Antonio Primo de Rivera has said “Basically the right stands for the maintenance of an economic structure, albeit an unjust one, while left stands for the attempt to subvert that economic structure, even though the subversion thereof would entail the destruction of much that was worthwhile.”2 . The majority of neo-fascists describe themselves as Third Position, meaning they view themselves as neither left, nor right.
The problem that’s immediately visible is that the ideologies on either side of the spectrum are incompatible with or even hostile to each other. Anarchism and marxism have a long history of conflicts, from the conflict between marxists and anarchists that resulted in the break-up of the First Internationale, which aimed at uniting of groups and trade unions focused on class struggle, to the betrayals of anarchists by statist socialists during the Russian and Spanish civil wars. Maybe there are marxists that are friendly towards anarchists, but they’re a minority with next to no popularity. When it comes to other “left-wing” ideas, both anarchists and marxists reject social democracy and progressivism as false alternatives to capitalism. When it comes to the “right” conservatives are opposed to libertarianism, because of its radicalism. Monarchism and libertarianism are obviously incompatible. The only right-wing doctrine compatible with conservatism is monarchism, but only in very specific cases.
The most popular definition of the left-right spectrum is that “the left” is egalitarian and “the right” supports hierarchy. The immediate problem is that hierarchy and equality aren’t opposites, there were and are many hierarchical movements considered egalitarian, like marxism-leninism, fascism and liberalism. Actually equality is commonly used by the ruling class in order to deceive the ruled i.e. pink-washing and white-washing. Another thing is that there are anti-egalitarians that are considered to be a part of the “left”, for example Karl Marx has claimed that equality is a useless and abstract goal that is essentially meaningless and can be used in order to promote dangerous ideas such as class collaboration. Nevertheless some doctrines put on the “right-wing” are opposed to some hierarchies, the best example is libertarianism, which is explicitly anti-statist.
Another noteworthy definition is that the left is progressive, while the right is conservative. The two biggest problems with it are that, first the definition of “progress” is not concrete and varies between ideologies, meaning that “the left” would encompass conflicting ideologies, second what is considered right-wing would change depending on what is the current system, for example in a monarchy, monarchism is “right-wing”, but when it’s abolished then it’s “left-wing”, because monarchists in such situation want change, this problem can be fixed by saying that every ideology that has been put to practice in the past is “right-wing”, but it causes even more problems, because now the standard for what’s “left” or “right” are different everywhere. This definition also in no way relates to the way that politics are talked about, for example in the post-communist countries socialism would be right-wing.
The last definition that I want to write about is that the “left” is collectivist and the “right” is individualist, but these two doctrines aren’t opposite at all, philosophies that combine these two, do exist, i.e. communitarianism3 and personalism. Another thing is that the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” which is considered “far-left” is strongly individualistic, as it shows that each person has different abilities and needs that have to be accommodated accordingly.

The political compass is another extremely popular way of measuring world-views. It tries to solve the problems of the left-right spectrum by claiming that it relates only to economics(socialism vs. capitalism) and adding a social axis(libertarianism vs. authoritarianism)4 . The first problem is that there are more economic systems than just socialism and capitalism, i.e. feudalism, or corporatism. It’s important to note that socialism itself is a very varied ideology, its adherents have conflicting views like worker’s self-management, Soviet-type economic planning and market socialism, meaning that the left-right axis is still poorly defined. The social axis also has issues, most notably there’s no coherent definition of what is libertarian, as both anarchism and American libertarianism are considered libertarian, even though they strongly differ in their visions of a stateless society. Anarchists think that capitalism is inherent to the state and the two have to be abolished simultaneously, criticising anarcho-capitalists for supporting an authoritarian structure - the control of the means of production by the few. On the other hand American libertarians view property rights as essential for freedom and accuse anti-capitalist anarchists of authoritarianism, because they advocate the limitation, or abolishment of these rights. This also proves that economic and social issues are strongly interconnected and cannot be separated.

The horseshoe theory claims that extremist views are more similar than different from each other. The most common justification of this view is that all of their followers are critical of liberalism, meaning that they adopt similar positions. The problem is that said ideologies propose different and commonly mutually exclusive alternatives to the current system, for example adherents of horseshoe theory talk about how both socialists and nationalists oppose globalisation and therefore they’re supposedly isolationist. In reality those movements not only oppose globalisation for different reasons, but also have different counter-proposals. The nationalists are anti-globalist, because they view globalisation as harmful to the sovereignty and unity of the nation-state and support either isolationism or policies such as anti-immigration laws and lowering the influence of international organisations, while socialists consider it to benefit only the ruling classes of the richest countries and harm the oppressed, instead they support some form of alter-globalisation. Another argument is that all extreme views are authoritarian or totalitarian, the problem is that - not all radical ideologies are authoritarian, i.e. anarchism, council communism, democratic socialism and libertarianism. It’s important to note that liberalism is a totalitarian ideology, as its fundamental principle is that the people are so stupid that they don’t know what they want and therefore an intellectual aristocracy has to make all the decisions that impact the broader society without any participation of the affected people. Another argument in favour of the horseshoe theory is that both far-left and the far-right are populist, while Liberalism is elitist, but radical views aren’t always populist, for example monarchism most certainly can’t be described as populist, while other extreme doctrines may or may not be populist depending on the rhetoric used in order to justify them and the methods used to achieve their desired results. Nevertheless most modern Liberals are populist, as they’re constantly talking about how the concentration of power in their hands benefits the people and about how much they’re supposedly opposed to hierarchy and support democracy(whatever they mean by it). The last argument that I’ll debunk is the comparison between Stalinism and Nazism, proponents of the horseshoe theory commonly put strong emphasis on the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, which is commonly interpreted as an alliance between Nazi Germany and the USSR. Let’s first focus on the comparison of the political systems brought upon by both ideologies. I already have debunked the argument from totalitarianism(liberalism is also totalitarian), the second most common argument is that they both are utopian, even though the notion that Stalinism is utopian is understandable, I can’t say the same about fascism, its adherents never had described any ideal society and said that organisation has to be figured out on the go, actually fascism is rather based on the fear of the emergence of a dystopian society, than hope for the creation of a utopia. Now let’s look at history. Apparently the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the idea of a German-Soviet axis are proof of a unity between the fascism and socialism. First of all, the actions made by the USSR can be better explained through pragmatic rather than ideological factors. At the start of World War II the Soviet military and economy were strongly weakened by the preceding civil war and therefore the Soviet government wanted to prevent the nazi invasion for as long as possible as they were aware of the Lebensraum, which included areas belonging to the USSR. This caused the signing of a non-aggression pact between the two states together with a secret protocol dividing Europe between their spheres of influence. It’s clear though that this protocol wasn’t respected by Hitler, as he had invaded Poland immediately after signing the pact in order to get more of it than was agreed. It's largely unconfirmed whether there was sincerity from the Soviet side about the German-Soviet axis, but even if there was, that doesn’t mean that they had the same ideology, Stalin basically wanted to avoid going to war, because he wasn’t sure that he’d win. Also the alliance never happened and the Soviet Union joined the allies after Operation Barbarossa, meaning that the USSR had better relations with liberal democracies than with fascist dictatorships, which by the logic of horseshoe theorists means that Stalinism is closer to liberalism than to fascism.
The horseshoe theory also has influenced the open-closed spectrum, which focuses on open views that are culturally liberal and globalist, as contrasted with closed views that are culturally conservative and protectionist. The first problem is that various open views vary in their definition of openness, for example Liberals and democratic socialists define it as a republic, while anarchists prefer a stateless society. The next issue is that closed views have different reasons for their closeness, while nationalists support the interests of their nation over others, Marxist-Leninists think that socialism in one country needs isolationism in order to protect itself from capitalistic imperialism. The biggest problem with this spectrum is that many ideologies that seem “open” are in reality closed, for example the European Union at first glance seems open, mostly because of the Schengen area that permits free movement of European citizens between EU countries, but travel from outside of EU is really hard and also many politicians and activists supportive of EU are opposed to immigration from outside Europe, meaning that in reality EU policy and European integration is closed in many aspects.

Defining political ideologies primarily based on their relation to other views very commonly leads to whataboutism that is meant to justify authoritarian policies. Cold war era politics are a great example of that, both the western and eastern blocs were using the left-right spectrum in order to make propaganda which also served as a justification for the repression of several dissident movements. In the United States, because of raging anti-communism, not only actual communists were repressed, but also other people and movements considered “left-wing” most of them were either advocates of basic human rights, people opposing some action of the government, or even the slightest critics of capitalism. In the Soviet Union everything considered “bourgeois” or “right-wing” was repressed, this included artists, scientists and even genuine socialists that were criticising some state policies. For example anarchists were some of the first victims of the red terror after the defeat of the White Army, as they were seen as dangerous, because they proposed a feasible alternative to state socialism. This also is apparent in the system of “militant democracy”5 present in Germany. Here according to the constitution everyone who’s deemed an “extremist” by either the Federal Constitutional Court(BVerfG) or the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution(BfV) can have their basic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and even privacy restricted by the BverfG6 and can be excluded from working in any public institutions7 8 . This system is strongly based on the horseshoe theory, as it views all people opposed to Liberalism as “verfassungsfeindlich”(hostile to the constitution/anti-constitutional)9 and treats all of them in the exact same way. This is dangerous, because this disallows any form of opposition to the government, even if it’s non-violent, for example the German anarcho-pacifist magazine Graswurzelrevolution in April 1999 has published an appeal to boycott and desert the war in Yugoslavia. For this the coordinating editors of it along with the ninety persons who signed this appeal have been subject of a criminal investigation. It already has been investigated multiple times for the invitation to direct action.10
Another consequence of the political spectrums are major tactical mistakes, proven by the tragedies caused by the idea of left unity. During the Russian Civil War the Makhnovshchina allied with the Bolsheviks against the White Army. At the end of the conflict the Red Army has betrayed its “allies” and put an end to the anarchist revolution. An almost identical situation has occurred during the Spanish revolution, where the anarchist revolutionaries have allied with the Republican Front against the nationalists. After about 10 months the Stalinist-dominated Republican Front has attacked the anarchists, because of their criticisms of the Soviet Union, this has led to the downfall of the revolution. These two examples highlight that making alliances based only on a political spectrum is a grave mistake, as doctrines on the same side of it have barely anything in common and in most cases it leads to some form of a betrayal. A very similar case is the Querfront tactic, which proposes an alliance between the “far-left” and “far-right”, because they are both opposed to the current system and therefore they should fight together and figure out how to replace it later. Some notable attempts at putting it in practice are the Workers Party of Germany(PdAD) and the Combat League of German Socialists(KDS), the goal of both organisations was to unite all extremist ideologies, but they failed, because most radicals viewed this groups as attempting them to pull them into the neo-fascist movement and they barely had any coherent ideology. Also, as stated above, extremist ideologies have different goals and values and therefore nationalism and socialism won’t cooperate despite their common opposition to the system.
Up to this day many socialists refuse to support movements promoting the rights of women, peoples of colour, colonised nations and the LGBTQ+. This is mostly for two reasons: 1) they are egalitarian and think that talking about problems of specific social groups is nonsensical, because it makes distinctions between humans instead of just being race- and gender-blind 2) feminism, anti-racism, national liberation and LGBTQ+ rights are unrelated to the class struggle and therefore they don’t matter, because all forms of discrimination will disappear when capitalism is abolished anyway, therefore those ideologies are just distractions from the problems of the working class. Both of those reasons are closely related to common definitions of “the left” and probably became popular because of commitment to “leftist” values. This is dangerous as this reasoning makes that those oppressed peoples are immediately inclined to other movements that are more sympathetic to their causes, such as Liberalism or fascism. Class reductionism and egalitarianism have lead the broader socialist movement to be seen as disconnected from reality and therefore to not only losing popularity, but also supporting, or taking a neutral stance toward, many forms of oppression such as patriarchy, cis-heteronormativity, racism, imperialism and colonialism. A very similar thing is happening with the attitude of many radical movements towards violence. Today it’s commonly seen as a necessity in bringing about change, while pacifism and non-violence are seen as too “moderate” and ineffective. In reality aggression is a domain of the ruling classes and several social movements are inclined to it primarily, because of bourgeois propaganda about the successes of various violent struggles such as the American, French and October Revolutions in their overthrow of the previous ruling class and “building” a “new” order. This makes most people have a firm belief in the efficacy of violent methods. In reality non-violence is a lot more effective, as shown by several historical examples and the ends are shaped by the means that are utilised, therefore violence will only end up creating a violent society. Also capitalism and the state are entirely based upon violence, as without the police and military it’s impossible to keep the political-economic order desired by the of the ruling classes, in this way pacifism is actually very radical, as it requires a fundamental reconstruction of the entire society.11

Political spectrums were first used during the French Revolution and referred to the seating arrangements in the legislative bodies of France at that time. It had a specific purpose, which was to describe a politician’s stance on the ongoing changes. Currently the left-right spectrum is used beyond its original purpose; not only it doesn't belong to the modern era, it also is meant to only include established politics, but now it’s a general measure of political views, as they’re also used in describing extra-parliamentary movements. Not only political spectrums are used in the impossible task of making an objective measure of all political ideologies, but they’re also shaping people’s political inclinations. Doctrines should be viewed as separate entities and not as sets of coordinates.

Postscript on labels and my own position

So far I’ve written on the logical issues of political spectrums and how they can have a negative impact on strategy, organisation and perception of politics. Now I’d like to discuss some labels related to spectrums and clarify what is the purpose of this essay.
Radical centrism is an ideology that “rejects” the left-right division and instead advocates for the combination of doctrines from multiple sides of the spectrum. The major problem of it is the fact that it’s undefined and doesn’t have a coherent platform, but looking at what its adherents advocate and what are the policies of radical centrist parties it could be said that it’s very similar to the Third Way, which, in theory is a combination of social democracy and free market, but in reality it’s just a free market ideology claiming to be “anti-capitalist”. It can be seen that the radical centre isn’t radical at all and instead is just another reformist attempt of restoring people’s faith in the broken system.
Post-left anarchy, or simply the post-left is a rejection of “left-wing” politics from an “anarchist” perspective. Post-leftists in general reject everything they consider to be “leftist”, such as revolution, social movements, intersectionality, class struggle, any form of organisation, morality, gender, work and even more. The immediate issue with this view is that it’s nihilistic and purely based on destruction and therefore nothing positive can result from it. Another thing is that, because of their rejection of everything associated with “the left” they themselves fall into the same kind of dogmatism as people fanatically clinging to it.
I want to state that my political views aren’t based on this or that political spectrum, but rather exist in spite of all of them. The purpose of this essay is not to criticise this any ideologies, but to explain how the use of political spectrums is logically incoherent and shouldn’t be the base of anyone’s views or organisational tactics, but instead people should think about what they believe in and what makes sense for them.

• 1Gentile, Emilio The Origins of Fascist Ideology, 1918–1925: The First Complete Study of the Origins of Italian Fascism. New York: Enigma Books. ISBN 978-1-929631-18-6 p. 205
  
• 2Neocleos, Mark(1997) Fascism Minneapolis MN: Minnesota University Press p. 54
  
• 3Communitarianism is sometimes used to express putting the common good above individual freedom, but in general it means a philosophy that emphasises the connection between the individual and the community.
• 4The Political Compass. https://www.politicalcompass.org/. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.
• 5Militant democracy is an exclusively German term, this kind of system is referred to as defensive democracy on the international scale.
• 6Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany art. 18
• 7Principles on the Issue of Anti-constitutional Forces in Public Service(1972)
• 8It's worth noting that this law is applied unevenly after 1979 and many of the German Lands have cancelled it, but some like Bavaria still apply it. Another thing worth mentioning is that in the Vogt v. Germany case in the European Court of Human Rights found Germany in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, after the dismissal of Dorathea Vogt, who was a teacher and an active member of the German Communist Party.
• 9It's worth noting how similar this word sounds to volksfeind, meaning the enemy of the people/nation that was commonly used by the nazis and currently is used by German neo-fascists and ultra-nationalists
• 10UWZ-archiv. https://www.uwz-archiv.de/Graswurzelrevolution.140.0.html?&L=1. Accesed 31 Aug. 2024
• 11Cf. de Ligt, Bart(1989) The Conquest of Violence: An Essay on War and Revolution. Pluto Pr. ISBN-13 9781853050572