200 Euros Pour Un Velo Electrique

There's a uncomplicated-but-constructive "political compass" used past many people I know. "Compass" has always seemed like a misnomer, and I prefer the word "map." This map has two axes: left/right economic science and libertarian/disciplinarian structure. The thought is that individuals, groups, and societies can be placed on the map and then that they tin can be understood in relation to one another.

It's a adept starting point. I'd like to expound upon it by recalibrating it and providing farther subdivisions.

Proposed two-axis political map, with subdivisions.

Cooperative vs. Competitive Economic science

More than useful and exact than "left" vs. "right," this map measures "cooperative" vs. "competitive" economics. At its simplest, 1 might say that the left half of the map represents socialism and the right half represents capitalism. In that location are a lot of competing definitions of both those economic concepts, of course, but here is the i I'm using: the dividing line between cooperative and competitive economics is the concept of wage labor.

The Wage Labor Line

In a society that relies on wage labor, there is the partition betwixt the owning course and the working class. The owning grade makes its coin past owning the means of product (factories, stores, farmland, equipment for rent, etc.) and the working class makes its money by operating those ways of production. Workers are paid a wage, which is traditionally less than the economic value their labor produces. The excess value constitutes the owner's profit. The things that are endemic by the owning course are referred to as "upper-case letter." The power to leverage one's upper-case letter for individual proceeds is a (the?) foundation of capitalism.

It's possible that this line would be better referred to as the "uppercase" line, merely I find that wage labor is a useful and more specific metric by which to judge an economic theory.

The Market Line

The cooperative economic one-half of the map is further subdivided by the market line. A society with markets allows for individual ownership of the means of production and allows for goods to be traded. In that location are numerous economical theories that advocate for both socialism and markets — most notably might be Proudhon's concept of mutualism. Farther left of the market place line are societies that operate without markets, in which the means of product are held cooperatively. Rather than a market determining to where resource are allocated, the community or government does. This tin be chosen communism.

The Inequity Line

The competitive economic half of the map is further divided into societies that promote economic inequity and those that don't. Theories to the correct of the inequity line believe that inequity is either desirable or unavoidable and are likely to have few, if whatsoever, checks and balances in place to prevent capital from accumulating within a few easily. Those to the left of the inequity line abet for diverse means to forestall this centralization. The current left/right economical struggle within mainstream US politics is essentially the struggle over which side of this line order ought to be on.

Authoritarian vs. Libertarian Structure

Authoritarian societies are those in which the individual will is subsumed under the will of those who agree political power. Libertarian societies are those in which the individual is not. Obviously, this is non a binary stardom, in which a society is either authoritarian or libertarian, only instead a slope with many shades of greyness.

The Land Line

The fundamental division between disciplinarian and libertarian societies on this map is whether or non the society is, or desires to be, a land. There are many dissimilar definitions of what constitutes a state, but let's go with: a territory with fixed boundaries that is governed by a single political form. States as well tend to have formal citizenship that distinguishes those who are considered function of the structure from those who are considered exterior of information technology.

The designation of the state as the key line forth the authoritarian/libertarian line is probably the nigh major re-scale I'chiliad making to the traditional political map. It is my conventionalities that the complication, validity, and diversity of anti-state ideologies requires the state every bit a center bespeak.

The Democracy Line

The upper (disciplinarian) half of the political map is further subdivided by the republic line. Democracy, in this context, can exist understood roughly as "rule by the people." Societies in a higher place the democracy line are ruled by those other than the people of the social club. For the sake of beingness able to present a comprehensible map, I am consciously choosing to include as democracies those societies that consider themselves democracies which are probably closer to oligarchies (such every bit the Usa and most "democratic" nations around the world, in which the ultra-wealthy have vastly asymmetric political ability).

The Law Line

The lower (anti-authoritarian) half of the political map is further subdivided by the law line. In a higher place this line are societies that enforce specific and codified laws onto those participating in their society. Societies below the line make use of guidelines — flexible, situational, and informal — instead. There are numerous societies — historical, hypothetical, and existent — that have formal legal structures despite not forming what could be traditionally understood as a state.

Examples of possible locations for various societies and ideologies on this two-axis map. Note that this particular mapping is not meant as authoritative, but merely based on my best guesses. The placement of many of these things is subjective, and the specific location of existent ideologies isn't entirely relevant to the main point of this article. — Examples of possible locations for various societies and ideologies on this two-axis map. Note that this particular mapping is not meant as authoritative, only is instead just based on my best guesses. The placement of many of these things is subjective, and the specific location of real ideologies isn't entirely relevant to the main point of this article.

A Third Axis

As before long every bit my friends and I began to populate this 2-axis map, we ran into complications and began to explore potential third axes. The i that stood out as the most useful immediately was "Identity Tolerance."

While the USSR and Nazi Deutschland are both examples of extreme authoritarianism, the way in which they engaged in ethnic discrimination was notably different. Both governments killed millions of people of specific ethnicities, but the USSR seemed to have focused on killing people for ostensibly political reasons rather than ethnic ones. Nazi Frg killed millions of people for political reasons too as directly for indigenous and sexual identity reasons. Essentially, Nazi Germany was less identity tolerant than the USSR. (The USSR's stance on homosexuality was originally more than lenient than that of Tsarist Russia, but Stalin reintroduced laws against male homosexuality during his reign.)

The axis of identity tolerance is also a useful one to distinguish between anarchists (who are not faultless, historically, just have long included in their ranks some of the about outspoken advocates against racism, sexism, and homophobia) and "nationalist anarchists" who, while anti-land and anti-backer, espouse a level of identity intolerance that clearly distinguishes them from anarchists.

An example of certain ideologies as mapped by a third axis, that of identity tolerance. — An example of certain ideologies every bit mapped past a third axis, that of identity tolerance.

Lower Leftism

I've never been 100% comfortable calling myself a leftist, considering the overwhelming majority of what is presented as leftism in mainstream politics is explicitly disciplinarian and is understandably reviled by many — myself included. Past the same token, I'one thousand nervous to atomic number 82 any conversation about politics with my anti-government beliefs: many people have only been exposed to rightwing, backer libertarianism.

"Leftist" is far too vague of a term to be useful when describing my politics. Agitator is far more exact. Simply there is an appeal to using a broader term, an umbrella that encompasses a wider breadth of potentials. The most advisable term for that umbrella might be "lower leftist."

A lower leftist is anyone whose politics autumn into the anti-authoritarian, cooperative quadrant of the political map. It includes anarchists, Zapatistas, anti-state Marxists, autonomous confederalists, libertarian municipalists, and a large number of traditional societies from beyond the earth… whatsoever society that does not desire a state and does desire economical cooperation. (While we're at information technology, allow's throw in that we're only talking well-nigh identity-tolerant societies, because regardless of how "anti-state" they merits to be, a society that persecutes people for ethnic, sexual, gender, or ability reasons is just equally disciplinarian in practice as any formal governmental society.)

A Quadrant of Solidarity

The lower left quadrant of the political map is unique in its potential for internal solidarity. A lower-leftist society does non demand to necessarily notice itself at odds with any other lower-leftist society, considering there are no borders to law and no economic monopoly to defend. Because of the potential for cooperation between lower-leftist societies, we are natural allies with i another. Our goals, while different, are not in disharmonize with one some other.

A statist society (the upper left and right quadrants) cannot co-exist with some other land in the same territory. Any statist institution, in a revolutionary situation, will eventually find themselves at odds with any other statist institution that is vying for the aforementioned power. Statists tin can only be allies if they are making claim to different territories — unlikely in a revolutionary situation.

I suspect that whatsoever anti-state capitalist society would as well exist at odds with whatsoever another anti-country backer society, because capitalism tends to accumulate resources into a few easily. A society that does not believe in cooperation or solidarity will accumulate resources that are desired past — or necessary to the survival of — another order and will detect itself in conflict. It's possible that I am wrong, and that the lower right has a potential for internal solidarity.

Strategic Allies

When because strategic allies (in contrast to the natural allies to be found in the lower left quadrant), my suggestion is that nosotros ought not prioritize ane axis over another. We ought to only form strategic alliances with those who aim to push society — in relation to the existent gild, rather than in relation to our platonic society — in the same directions that we do. We ought not, presumably, ally ourselves with those who aim to push button society in a direction counter to our interests. This seems obvious, when written out, but is a mistake that lower leftists have made fourth dimension and time once more.

Substantially, anyone pushing for an increase in absolutism, no matter how leftist, and anyone pushing for an increase in capitalism, no thing how antiauthoritarian, is non our marry. The same could be said for the third axis equally well: anyone pushing for a less identity tolerant society is non our ally. Anyone pushing for a more identity tolerant, merely also more capitalist or authoritarian society, is non our ally.

One way of understanding who are a lower-leftist's strategic and natural allies. — One style of understanding who are a lower-leftist's strategic and natural allies.

Further Analysis

These concepts are a work in progress. In further articles, I will explore more about the ways in which the political map can be used to understand challenges and changes to the status quo, whether revolutionary or incremental.

Every time I publish a non-fiction book and go on bout with it, I larn at least as much by presenting my ideas — and being challenged on them — than I did in the procedure of writing the book. Every fourth dimension, I think to myself, I should do the presentations as function of the writing process instead of afterwards completing the volume.

I was bemoaning this in Santa Cruz a few years dorsum, and a friend looked at me seriously and said "that's why us professors write books. They've honed their ideas past teaching their ideas."

I'yard not involved in academia, nor am I probable to be. "Honorary" is probably the merely shot I have at any kind of caste. And so then, the concepts laid out in this essay establish a work in progress. I'thousand working on a non-fiction book called From Hither to Freedom, and I'grand testing my ideas out in forepart of an audience: you.

Updates

Version 1.one, 10/28/2016: altered figures ii and 3 to reflect the fact that the USSR did not accept marketplace societies; altered text describing USSR every bit a step less identity-tolerant than first presented; attempted to clarify the section on strategic allies; altered effigy 2 to expand Marxism to include anti-state Marxism.

Version 1.2, eleven/two/2016: added captions to the figures to endeavour to point out that the specific mapping of ideologies in effigy 2 is not meant as an authoritative argument.