Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Allegory of the Good Government
The traditional left-right political spectrum, historically rooted in the French Revolution, has undergone significant evolution. Initially, the right embodied monarchist and theocratic principles, while the left championed republican ideals. While the spectrum’s specific positions have shifted over time, it continues to generally associate right-wing ideologies with monarchism, theocracy, and militarism. Conversely, left-wing ideologies are typically associated with liberalism, social democracy and, historically, with socialist states. However, the limitations of this traditional framework are evident in its inability to adequately categorize certain less mainstream political ideologies
Historically, 19th and early 20th-century anarchists, libertarians, and federalists, while advocating for anti-capitalism and a stateless society, diverged from the state-centric communism of the Soviet Union and liberal democratic states of the western world. This positioned them outside the conventional left-right political spectrum, as they rejected both capitalist states and state-controlled socialist regimes. Jerry Pournelle’s “political compass”, developed in the 1960s, offers a more nuanced framework for analysing political ideologies than the traditional left-right spectrum. This model employs two axes: economic and social. Socio-economically, it positions capitalism and cultural conservatism on the right, while anti-capitalism and cultural progressivism are situated on the left. In terms of governmental structure, it differentiates between authoritarian regimes with extensive state control and limited freedoms, and libertarian forms of government that prioritize individual liberty and minimal government intervention. While a newer form of libertarian movement which advocates for free-market capitalism often tries to parrot the historical libertarian or anarchist movements that are anti-capitalist and anti-state, their pro-capitalist views generally place them within the right-wing quadrant. As a result, they’re considered right-wing libertarians. However, their core principles of limited government and individual liberty resonate with the broader concept of left-libertarianism, leaving a room for collaboration between them.
Authoritarian regimes, regardless of their specific ideological orientation, necessitate a powerful and intrusive state. This is evident across the political spectrum. Right-wing authoritarianism, exemplified by religious theocracies and crony capitalist regimes, prioritizes the interests of specific groups, often at the expense of individual freedoms, by suppressing dissent and infringing upon the civil liberties of marginalized groups. Left-wing authoritarianism, including socialist dictatorships and, to a lesser extent, social democracies, also requires a strong state to control the economy and implement social programs. While social democracies aim to enhance social welfare, they inherently involve a degree of state intervention that may impinge upon individual liberties. Furthermore, it’s crucial to acknowledge the similarities between fascism and socialist dictatorship, both of which exhibit authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies, despite their distinct ideological foundations.
Contemporary Western politics is largely dominated by two dominant forces: social democracy on the left and crony capitalism on the right. This has resulted in a “mixed economy” characterized by a blend of capitalist activity and state intervention. While the mixed economy allows for the existence of the capitalist class, it mandates significant taxation to fund social welfare programs aimed at mitigating poverty and income inequality. This system, however, ultimately results in both the capitalist class and the working class being subject to state control. It fosters a system of corporate monopolies, limiting competition and enabling collusion between powerful corporations and corrupt government officials. This results in a system where special interests and lobbies vie for government favor, utilizing state power to extract benefits at the expense of others. As Ayn Rand aptly observed, a mixed economy is essentially a battlefield for competing pressure groups, where the rule of law is subverted by the pursuit of special privileges.
The left-wing alternative to contemporary mainstream politics is authoritarian socialism, where the state abolishes the bourgeoisie, leading to state exploitation of the working class. The historical failures of the Soviet Union and other socialist states that implemented this model underscore its inherent flaws. On the right, the alternative is an authoritarian religious theocracy, characterized by the suppression of Enlightenment values and the rise of conservative revolutionary, neo-fascist elements. While allowing the bourgeoisie to exist, this system prioritizes the interests of the “national” class, including the bourgeoisie, working class, and peasantry, all of whom are expected to serve the state. Similar to socialist dictatorships, surplus value is primarily directed towards the state, which is responsible for the welfare of the “national” population, excluding immigrants and migrants.
Despite the constant ideological clashes between mainstream and alternative left-right political groups, their primary objective remains the acquisition and consolidation of state power. Rather than seeking to dismantle or limit government authority, both sides strive to maximize their influence within the state apparatus. This pursuit of power inevitably leads to the suppression of political opposition through restrictions on civil liberties. Consequently, both left-wing and right-wing factions, particularly those situated within the libertarian quadrant of the political compass, must forge alliances to defend individual freedoms and curtail the expansion of government power.
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the magazine as a whole. SpeakFreely is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions. Support freedom and independent journalism by donating today.
