Addressing the myth of neutrality, centrality, and the so-called “political spectrum”

Most of us have been indoctrinated into politics by use of terms such as ‘left” and “right,” as indicated by the spectrum graph above. We are given two “extremes” and what is normally construed as some sort of moderate or centrist view on politics. On the left, we see the extreme of Communism, such as what we would find in the Soviet Union or China. On the extreme right is Fascism, such as what we might find in Nazi Germany. Liberals and Democrats are positioned just left of the center, tending toward socialism, while Conservatives and Republicans tend toward Capitalism, somewhat right of center. In the middle, we are given some sort of happy medium, one that avoids any sort political leanings whatsoever.

There are some serious problems with this, however. For one thing, the middle is not really defined. In this case, we are given a Canadian flag to fill in the gap. This doesn’t work, though, since Canada is a nation with socialistic leanings, and we’ve already established that to be on the left. So how can it lean to the left and be at the center at the same time?

But as I saying, the center is actually undefined. How can a political party be undefined, having no leanings, but still be a political party? Indeed, what precisely is at the “center” of a spectrum from Nazism to Communism? It simply does not make sense.

The picture indicates a centrist party, having no leanings either for or against the extremes. But does this imaginary party have any political content to it? If so, is everyone else, who falls either to the left or the right, in agreement with it? Is everyone else in disagreement with the alleged “centrist view?”

Where do Anarchists and Libertarians fall on the spectrum? How about a Theocracy? Why aren’t they on there? Do they belong in the center too?

It gets worse….

Fascism IS Socialism. Hitler’s regime was a Socialist, worker-party movement. It was actually called the “National Socialist Party.” Nazi Fascism IS Socialism. So, we have socialism on the left AND the extreme right. And what is socialism? The dictionary defines it thusly:

Definition of SOCIALISM

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

So, here, we have our definition of socialism, which appears on both the left and the right, and is labeled as an “Authoritarian” form of government.

 As one would expect, if Nazi Socialism existed to the far right, then Communism would be its total opposite, right? However, our first indication of a problem with that is that Communism is labeled as a “Totalitarian” form of government—and we all know that totalitarianism is the total opposite of authoritarianism…right? No, they tend to be about the same. They are both ruthless tyrannies, dictatorships…which is also not on the political spectrum.

Perhaps the definition of Communism will help us to make the clear distinction, since these are supposed to be total opposites?

Definition of COMMUNISM

1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property

b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production

c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

Well, that helps clear it up. Communism is a political theory which eliminates private property and gives it to an authoritarian government, while Socialism is a political theory which eliminates private property and gives it to an authoritarian government. They’re total opposites and the centrist is right in the middle of the two.

To be fair, however, there are some differences between Socialism and Marxism, particularly in terms of their anthropology and their sociology. Elaborating these differences is definitely beyond the scope of this paper, but it is sufficient to say that the end results and the tyranny are essentially the same.

So, we have a bit of a problem here. There is no such thing as “neutrality,” since every belief and political conviction actually makes some sort of claim to truth, even if it is bent on denying it. The spectrum fails to explain what a “true middle” is or could ever look like, and is itself not unbiased. It fails to account for a good number of political theories, including the few I mentioned above. Also, the extremes are not at all anywhere close to being true opposites, but have much more in common than they are different. Indeed, both are dictatorships seeking to eliminate the rights of citizens to their own properties and creativities.

…And yet this is the political paradigm that has shaped our understanding and become the basis of our arguments? IT IS IRRATIONAL.

The spectrum seeks to capture you between the horns of a false dilemma in order shape your beliefs about politics. It almost guarantees a two-party system, where one is at odds with the other. It guarantees in-fighting, strife, while distracting us from the real issues. Does it really matter what excuse the government uses to enslave its members, stealing the work of their hands, harvesting their creativity as though the state should be like a farmer is to his crop? Does one actually excuse its tyranny, while the other fails do to so? Of course not! They are both dictatorships. They both murder people.

There really is no such thing as a perfect graph or spectrum that captures the multitude of complexities within governmental forms. Indeed, some things cannot even be quantified, but only qualified. How important are individual freedoms, for example. Could you really put a number on it? Nonetheless, while such graphs or spectrums are woefully insufficient to serve as a normative standard, they can be useful for illustrative purposes.

Consider this one:

It doesn’t matter which side the words appear—swap them if you’d like—because the real issue is about the concentration of law, authority and power and who has it. On the left, nobody has any at all, which would be a state of total anarchy. On the right, the government has all authority over its subjects, and has the power to do all that it pleases with them. So the issue is about the focus of law, authority, and power, where its location is. Does it rest in all men equally, thereby no one having any at all, resulting in anarchy? Or does it rest exclusively in government, while no one else has any?

We have already seen that both Socialists and Communists belong under the totalitarian heading, as do all dictatorships. This would also include oligarchies—rule of a few elites, the most common form of government—monarchies, as well as pure democracies, since the mob rules, and the rest have no power outside the majority.

What’s really in the middle here?

It’s called a Constitutional Republic. The key to this has everything to do with the nature of law, power, and authority; as such things do not arbitrarily derive from the will of the people, as in anarchy, nor from the whims of some, as in totalitarianism. In a Constitutional Republic, the law transcends man, standing over the individual, the group, and those that govern. Only in a Constitutional Republic is law seen as the objective and transcendent thing that it is. So, our spectrum looks something like this: