Literature for each political quadrant?

First proof to me that the quadrant exist, why would it be more dimensional?

>libertarian right
>Stirner
REAL AMERICAN HOURS WHO UP WHO UP WHO UP SMASH DAT MUHFUGGIN INABILITY TO DISCONNECT THE CONCEPT OF SELF INTEREST FROM CAPITALISM BUTTON

Does anyone know the graph I'm talking about? It takes the political compass and numbers it, with a key on the side listing the various viewpoints. I'm trying to find it but if someone else could post it that would be great.

>>9751905
I can't prove that, in fact I'm certain this is a vast simplification of political views. But it works as a general rule, if you look at the bare bones of certain political beliefs and narrow it down to two axes.

Libertarian Right: anything by Milton Friedman in particular "Free to Choose"

>>9751891
Just stopping by to strongly recommend Murray Bookchin in the bottom left quadrant.

Also Hitler is not a useful or deep thinker. Like, even in a non-ideological sense, he is not a good representative of thinkers in that quadrant compared to your Schmitts or Marinettis or Voegelins.

Well smell ya later you fuckin dumbass fuckers

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1493698718816.jpg (135KB, 512x411px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 512x411px

>>9751891
>le hitler was right wing meme
He was authoritarian center.
National SOCIALISM. He also supported cultural revisionism and nurtured a deep hatret for both liberals and conservatives.

>>9751917
I fucked up my sentence anyway, I wanted to ask why it wouldn't have more dimensions
I personally prefer to just read comments by the people who follow certain figures and books

File: 1485024223940.jpg (48KB, 397x378px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 397x378px

>>9751942
>National SOCIALISM

>>9751891
Authoritarian Right:
Confucius Analects
Aquinas Summa Theologica (Part II)
Hobbes Leviathan
Burke Reflections on the Revolution in France
Schmitt The Concept of the Political
Oakeshott On Being Conservative, On Human Conduct

Libertarian Right:
Locke Two Treatises of Government
Montesquieu The Spirit of the Laws (abridged)
Kant Theory and Practise, Perpetual Peace
Hayek The Constitution of Liberty
Nozick Anarchy, State, and Utopia

Libertarian Left:
Bentham An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
Paine The Rights of Man
Wollstonecraft A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
Mill On Liberty, Utilitarianism
Bernstein Evolutionary Socialism
Rawls A Theory of Justice
Fanon The Wretched of the Earth
Foucault Discipline and Punish
Marcuse One-Dimensional Man
Habermas The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

Authoritarian Left:
Rousseau Second Discourse, The Social Contract
Marx The Communist Manifesto, The Marx-Engels Reader (abridged)
Lenin The State and Revolution
Trotsky Their Morals and Ours

Hard to classify, but essential!:
Plato The Republic
Aristotle Politics
Machiavelli The Prince
Hegel Philosophy of Right
Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morality
Arendt The Origins of Totalitarianism, The Human Condition

File: 160518-trump-portrait-jsw-145p_1c226e6636be4572928409c157f0d50a.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000[2].jpg (89KB, 1572x1000px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1572x1000px

>>9751942
he disliked communists and marxists a bit too

>>9751942
>there's only one way to be right wing

>>9751891
>Stirner
>right wing
>Marx
>authoritarian

americans shouldn't have access to internet

File: laughing_kurds.jpg (53KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 480x480px

>>9751927
Bookchin is god tier. Reminds me of Edward Abbey.

File: 1462693280522.png (847KB, 1935x773px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 1935x773px

>>9752231
>tfw no cute brown anarchist gf

>>9751891
>libertarian right
>stirner
L O L

>>9752313
Egoism is anarchist philosophy critical of the Marxist anarchist utopia. If that isn't right-wing anarchism I don't know what is.
I wish Stirnerfags would realize that he isn't above being classified or summarized.

>>9751891
>Burgers

>>9752409
It was just an example of the kind of thread I wanted, if I already had greats reccs I wouldn't have made this thread asking for better ones.
I couldn't think of Stalinist or Marxist-Leninist literature off the top of my head so I just threw Marx on there and figured "good enough." You are right, though, in that he envisioned a classless, lawless utopia as the final stage of communism, but it's also worth mentioning that his idea of an "proletarian dictator" is pretty authoritarian and is a lot more concrete of an idea than "one day everyone will be in agreement and nobody will violate anybody else's rights."

>>9752447
There is definitely a clear philosophical divide between the authoritarian and libertarian right, while the division on the left tends to be more a more a matter of execution.

>>9752477
Fair enough, but as far as putting people on this particular (flawed) compass, I don't think putting Marx on the top is completely unjustified, due to his "execution" being pretty strict (the proletarian dictator, as I said).

>>9752477
Seems to me like the only thing leftists aren't divided on is execution ;^)

>>9752480
Agreed, I think your placements are accurate even if they aren't the best literary examples

File: 1486124304507.jpg (151KB, 1375x729px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1375x729px

Jfc this took me ages to find

>>9752193
Doesn't make him right. Pretty much everyone despised commies.

>libertarian left

Literally not possible. There is nothing libertarian about denying people right to their property.

>>9753106
There is nothing libertarian about denying people right to use other people's property, either.

>>9753404

There absolutely is. What right do you have to use something that is mine?

>>9751942
Found the lolbertarian

>>9752373
It's apolitical you spastic
Please read this guy's post >>9751916

>>9753106
Left libertarians typically envision something like a nation of self-governing communes that people voluntarily choose between and join. Most early communists were left libertarians.

File: me.jpg (34KB, 326x280px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 326x280px

>>9751942
>National SOCIALISM
yeah and the DPRK is a Democratic People's Republic too right

>>9753493

Voluntary collectivism is possible in a right-libertarian society though.

>>9753415
what right do you have to claim stuff as your exclusive property? Ironically right libertarians tend to invoke a normative labor theory of value,ie. I mixed my labor with that property! as if we still lived in the age of independent homesteaders. Burger 'libertarianism' is pure jeffersonian yeoman farmer fantasy 200 years too late.

File: hqdefault.jpg (38KB, 336x188px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 336x188px

get stirner out of that box now you american pig you clearly know nothing

File: compass-authors.jpg (821KB, 2880x2177px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 2880x2177px

hey guys just made this what do you think

File: compass-authors-resized.jpg (72KB, 700x529px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 700x529px

>>9753601
smaller version

>>9753546

I don't have a great philosophical case for this but I would argue that property rights are a very natural and intuitive concept to us. For instance we immediately know when our body, which is our property, is being violated or being used without our permission. Our body is for us and us only, I believe this concept extends to items we find and stuff we build.

IMO denying people any property at all, can never be more libertarian than allowing private property, because the former requires ridiculously more force and coercion. Private property is without question more libertarian the public property, i.e. government property

>>9753617
YIKES
i am not good with computer

File: compass-authors-resize2.jpg (486KB, 960x726px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 960x726px

>>9753629
FUCK

File: compass-authors FINAL.jpg (549KB, 960x726px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 960x726px

>>9753634
wait a sec its all fucked up
there we go

File: v4wstVF.png (179KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 641x530px

>>9753618
Private property is not personal property.

Hitler wasn't "right wing". He did the smart thing and abandoned silly political dichotomy of right-wing, anarchism-authoritarian.

>>9753618
>items we find

What does this mean?

>>9753618
It's not natural, it's deeply-ingrained ideology.

>>9753769
Private property is whatever the party or the collective deems it to be.

>>9751891
Your examples are pure cringe because you misapply ideologies on a reductionist two dimensional model.

Blue square is some Thatcherite/Reaganite bullshit (free market social conservatism)

Red square is classical soviet nationalism (state controlled economics and social conservatism)

Green is contemporary libshit ideology (state controlled economics plus social libertarianism)

Purple is lmao do whatever you want senpai I don't care

>>9751942
/lit/ may hate on you but you are correct. Hitler was an economic dirigist and put big industries under indirect state control. He was a pragmatic socialist at least.

>>9752373
That categorising seems pretty spooky to me if I'm quite honest

>>9751942
>national socialism can fit in any of the 100% retarded modern definitions of right or left
~

>>9754772
>big industries under state control
>socialist
please do a cursory reading of the wiki at the very least before you out yourself as a complete idiot

>>9754821
You sir are the one who needs to please do a cursory reading of the wiki. The idiot has been found, so to speak.

>>9752184
>essential
lmao

>>9754821
seriously consider to kys

How are these ideology-filled threads making it here for more than twenty minutes? The faggot janitors should do theit job and remove this disgusting shit from here.

>>9751891
Get Stirner out of there and replace it with Murray Rothbard. Stirner doesn't belong there

>>9752373
The most extreme ideology of libertarian right is anarcho-capitalism, which is propertarian anarchism. I don't think Stirner was a proponent of property rights

>>9752184
Chances are good this will be the best answer of the thread. Nice one anon.

Also, OP, Stirner's Egoism can't be described as libertarian right, as he rejected private property. His philosophy is more apolitical than anything.

>>9753601
Pretty good desu

>>9752184
Good post. The list for libertarian right seems a little empty though; throw in Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises

>>9751891
looks like what some fucking retard who got all his politics from lit would come up with

>>9753601
Schmitt does not fit into right. He even denied Hobbes' as "liberalism". Frankly I don't know what to call him other than Schmittian.

>>9753601
>>9755712
I agree. Schmitt doesn't really fit here. I'm more inclined towards Leo Strauss for the authoritarian right. I'd think of Schmitt more as centrist when it comes to economics.

>>9751891
>Marx
>authoritarian left
That would be Lenin. Marx wasn't authoritarian.

>>9754479
>be caveman
>hunting for meat
>some other fucker tries to eat your meat
>kill him

I think private property is an intrinsic nature of human society. When an individual only has the bare essentials to survive, I can't see sharing beyond a small familial group; to improve genetic survival.

>>9755756
Cavemen have ideology you fucking retard. Holy shit, you are absolutely delusional. You're reading too much liberal political philosophy m8. There is no 'natural state'.

>>9752223
Marx's ideology only makes sense if you assume that it was a trick to create an autocracy. Bakunin BTFO'd him repeatedly on this point and it was borne out in fact.

File: e2b6618d47a82ed6dca58684f55a49c3f2563bff04bb14f1e19fc044cf2c832f.jpg (89KB, 877x409px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 877x409px

>>9755729
Even Lenin considered the dictatorship of the proletariat a temporary measure to make the state wither away. You'd really want Stalin/Mao for that slot.

>>9755656
Well said my property.

File: chart.png (17KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x400px

>>9757005
I always knew Pope Benny was my man.

>>9757005
>Romney, Obama, Merkel anywhere near that right wing.
baka tf you are doin

>>9758492
Blue square is the cuck corner. What did you expect? All the based politicians are in the red square.

>>9752184
Aristotle's politics, the republic and the prince are all authoritarian centrist I'd say. Also in increasing levels of authoritarianism.

>>9755756
>the human nature argument in 2017

>>9752184
how is kant right winged?

>>9752611
this chart is retarded

>>9753415
personal property != private property

>>9751927
>>9752231
Thanks. Didn't know the guy, looks interesting.

>>9758865
Kant is definitely a liberal, therefore exerting an influence over both the libertarian left and right. His system includes the respect of "human freedom and dignity" which is "possible only within a constitutional state governed by law, which protects the civil rights of individuals," including the right of property. This would therefore put him closer to our contemporary right than to our left.

Where does Sam Harris fall on this politigraph?

>>9759471
I would say that he would be firmly in the libertarian half of the chart, and he would probably straddle the border between the left and right on economics, although close to the centre overall.

File: Compass.png (187KB, 475x473px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 475x473px

>>9759471

File: grichka and igor.jpg (35KB, 475x473px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 475x473px

>>9759485

>>9759095
I gave you this reply out of generosity please make yourself better.

>>9758495
As Politics and The Prince are largely about the mechanisms of government rather than the form of policy, I would think that they are both impossible to classify (well, at least). As for the Republic, that is probably a decent place to put it but I wouldn't put it there because I am of the Strauss school of thought that it is an intellectual exercise rather than an actual ideological blueprint, so putting it there would be like classifying Nineteen Eighty-Four as authoritarian.

>>9755674
>>9755689
Thank you.

>>9759574
not an argument

>>9753769

Why do you even have to make a distinction? The fact that Marxists have to say "oh, you'll still have personal property!" seems to suggest they understand that ownership is important to people; people want to have things they can actually own.

If people can have personal property, why can't that extend to a piece of land, or a house, or anything like that? Will you only allow people to own toothbrushes and combs?

Someone please explain to me how left wing ideology can be libertarian. The main idea of left wing thought is that the means of production should not be used for profit, but rather to fit a public need. In order for this to happen there needs to be authoritative control over the means of production, and they also control what people receive. If the means of production can only be used to fit the public need then you are not allowing people to indulge in what they want.

>>9753618
Marx' materialism is frequently misunderstood.

>"A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties"
-Das Kapital

The commodity form is so ingrained in our thinking we forget how utterly strange it is. Marx talked about commodity fetishism, comparing capitalism to the fetish worship of african tribes. The assumptions of commodity production permeate every aspect of our society.

>>9760360
Communism is the abolition of the commodity form. In capitalism, men relate to each other as objects. It is impossible to truly indulge in what one wants when one is forced to sell one's time to earn a living. In a truly socialist society, production is not geared towards profit and exchange, but towards a) the satisfaction of human needs and b) the creative construction of experiences, ie. truly living one's life. The desires produced by capitalist society are artificial desires. Why else would it be necessary to associate blue jeans with sex or automobiles with social status? Advertising imbues the product with an aura of fetishism.

>>9755712
>>9755728
Schmitt is right wing, stop trying to appropriate right wing political figures, for fuck-s sake, you already made a mess out of nietzsche, stop it.

>>9760319
Prince explicitly states it is eschewing discussion of republics to focus on principalities. That's an inherent focus on authoritarianism over liberalism.

Politics likewise identifies monarchies as the ideal form of government, though Aristotle argues himself into accepting polities as better in practice. Not to mention the focus on hierarchies and natural order due to a person's nature. If anything politics is authoritarian right, if only slightly.

>>9758492
>thinking Barack "Bailout" Obama was leftist
The banks should have had their assets seized and redistributed. Fuck Obamaism/Clintonism

>>9761101
The Prince FOCUSES on principalities over republics, it doesn't say they are better - in fact, the Discourses on Livy suggest that Machiavelli in fact preferred Republics. But the important point is that it does not make any normative claim that would endorse authoritarian govt.

As for Politics, Aristotle endorses "power to the people" as the best system exactly because he thinks a virtuous monarchy is impossible. If anything, I would think that he is closer to the lib right, but his views belong in just about every quadrant which makes him difficult to classify.

>>9760337
someone who owns a factory that they themselves don't work at or live in the society the factory is in, don't care for the factory for personal or sentimental value. all they care about is the profit they can make from production.

>>9761290
Macchiavelli's personal views are irrelevant to the actual content of the text. Which is overwhelmingly a treatise on the proper functioning of an authoritarian state.

Aristotle didn't advocate power to the people in any sense. He decried democracy just as his teacher did. Democracy is identified as the worst form of government idealistically and practically. The one he advocates for is a mixed representative government but absolutely not a "power to the people" libertarian bullshit.

>>9751942
thinking in 1 dimension

>>9752373
please read stirner

>>9761240
Not him but Obama actually enforced a lot of social libertarian changes. All that fagmarriage shazam and all... That's basically New Left 101 for you.

Of course it's not economically leftist and I think that's what you are referring to.

>>9762727
I'm sorry but what you are saying is just not true. Nowhere in the Prince does Machiavelli endorse Authoritarian government or Principlaities. He simply states that for a Principality to be governed effectively, certain methods have proven themselves more useful. I mentioned the discourses b/c in them he analyses Republics in a similar way showing that focusing on something doesn't mean endorsing it.

As for the Politics, a central claim is that the polity is the best ideal system (bc it extends the honour of governing to more people), while the democracy is the best corrupted system (b/c if the governing class only governs in their own interest, then the self-interest of the people will benefit more people than the self interest of the tyrant or oligarch). Aristotle, unlike some political philosophers, writes that out clearly and methodically in the text.

>>9752373
Holy fucking shit learn what left and right means you dumb 12 year old.

Hitler was on the right? Wasn't he nationalist """"""""socialist"""""""""

>>9760360
I was talking to my leftist anarchist friend and he said that their whole viewpoint is based around the idea that humans are inherently good, and if you can abolish all oppressive systems then there won't be a need for any sort of transgressions or oppression in a post-scarcity world where everything anyone could ever want is already at their disposal. In terms of a specific structure, he said they usually advocate an anarcho-syndicalist type system where the collective can directly influence politics on a local level.

>>9765661
>Wasn't he nationalist """"""""socialist"""""""""
yeah and the dprk is also a democratic people's republic

File: Do it for Hoppe.jpg (70KB, 960x685px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 960x685px

>>9762727
>"power to the people" libertarian bullshit
Hey just dropping by to remind you that democracy does NOT equate to liberty and is by no means a crucial aspect of libertarianism

>>9763354
There is nothing in the text itself to paint the prince as anything other than a sincere endorsement and prescription for the runnings of an authoritarian government. Mentioning the discourses is a meta analysis of the author and his feelings on the works but in terms of authoritarian works, the prince is a definitive and well established work in the canon.

Aristotle's politics is very easily misinterpreted (see your posts) precisely because he undertakes a comprehensive overview of all the various types of government and constitutions available to him at the time. The devil is in the details which establishes his rigid adherence to authoritarianism (and general opposition to libertarianism or liberality).

>>9760469
Lefty here, this.
You people tend to give Schmitt a pass thanks to Agamben and Benjamin, but that man was probably too radical for the nazi part itself.

>>9766470
Thanks based Hoppe Poster.

>>9751942
Strasser was a socialist.

Hitler not so much.

>>9756387
>>9758599

Same goes for bears, for example. Maybe it wasn't a bunch of evil gentiles who came up with this to oppress women and gays.

>>9761932
So all private property isn't counted out? What ends up being socialized is just businesses without sentimental value?

>>9768836
*ruled out

>>9754821
>Seize the means of production

sound familiar???

>>9769868
>by the people

>>9769890
>not real communism!

In every instance, you will end up centralizing power. We can't keep trying this economically disastrous system hundreds of times just so that it finally meets your dream world criteria; you have already made your mind that if (or rather, when) it fails, it had nothing to do with a lack of markets and started working backwards from there

>>9752373
I really don't understand why people try to categorize Stirner as left or right. Well, I get it's how they analyze philosophies, but I don't get how they think Stirner at all fits on the political-plane.

>>9771493
probably because of his proximity to marx and the association with anarchism
annoying, though

>>9753529
>not an argument
Hitlerintervened a LOT in the economy so you cant really call him right wing but you cant call him left wing either because he was an antiegalitarian nationalist. This "hitler was right wing" meme is literally communist propaganda. He is way closer to Stalin than he is to someone like pinochet but that still doesnt matter because he was neither left or right.

>>9752184
>Rawls
>Libertarian
oh look a black Jewish trans-woman

>>9772027
Look here you fucking spastic retard, The American Empire and conservatives intervene with economy beyond any imagination, there's no free market, never was, never will be.

>>9772027
So you understand politics in an economic reductionist form à la Marx? Have you seriously studied the economies of Germany under Hitler and Chile under Pinochet? Privatization and state terror were common to both.

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
>The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

http://www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany2.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_in_Pinochet%27s_Chile

File: IMG_20170707_131527.jpg (301KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 2048x1536px

Superior political spectrum coming through.

>>9773465
This actually makes a lot of sense. Did you make this yourself?

>>9773465
Chad autist reporting in.

>>9751891
>2017
>being political
neither left nor right know what they are doing, basically every form of government tries to create its ideal man and we know what happens when we strive for ideal

>>9751891
That 'political compass' diagram is utter horseshit propaganda from ______ - you understand that, right?

If you want a 2D political model that actually reflects reality, acknowledge:

a) cultural conservatism versus cultural liberalism
b) capitalism versus socialism

Discard any mental models that insist that you think otherwise.

File: radicalcentrism.png (273KB, 756x560px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 756x560px

>>9776463

>>9776463
>>9776503
I can't believe there are actually people who unironically believe this!

>>9751891
>Stirner
>Right wing

File: c2382d8aa055743521dbc67c8edf0603743e1733e1fd4b285a2e43d019529a6d.jpg (82KB, 614x1499px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 614x1499px

>>9751891
>Striner being a right winger
He was no leftists, but in an arguement between a leftist and a rightist, he would be disargeeing with the latter far more than the former

>>9752373
>it is another being critical means completely rejecting episode
Daily reminder UoE is compatible with communism

>>9776503
>>9777386
>if you don't believe in any form of government you are a centrist
fuck off, i just don't believe in any post-revolutionary form of government

File: images (1).jpg (3KB, 224x224px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 224x224px

introducing: le meme hat

>>9777386
i can't believe you are willing to be shape by an ideology in order to have more security and material goods, nietzsche called you the last man

I cannot pick through the relevant ids to reply to; hopefully you can find yourselves.

>Let's start with the second part first. Some respondents confuse Nazism, a political party platform, with fascism, which is a particular structure of government. Fascism legally sanctions the persecution of a particular group within the country — political, ethnic, religious — whatever. So within Nazism there are elements of fascism, as well as militarism, capitalism, socialism etc. To tar all socialists with the national socialist brush is as absurd as citing Bill Gates and Augusto Pinochet in the same breath as examples of free market capitalism.

>Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda!

>But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners — all of them deeply hostile to socialism — were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.

>Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.

>Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.

is from the P-C site. If you want a more general link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

War economy!; too long ta ta

>>9777891
c. Although i think he is not especially far from the center, and really not a good face for the whole quadrant. I don't think economics was so important to Hitler as the mechanism of the state and ideal society. When analysing one should decide whether they're analysing his legacy during the great depression and at war with major powers or his ideals, which seem to be economically right of center, but less than an American would think normal, and may be shocked at such measures as nationalising a particular industry or providing some welfare, even though the USA does these things too.

>>9773465
What is the black one in the extreme beta-autist corner?

>>9772895
Hey, a visitor from /pol/!

Rawls is one the most important 'liberal' theorists ever, meaning he would be equally despised among anti-liberal groups on the right (fascists, alt-right, social conservatives) and on the left (Communists and extreme SJWs).

Perhaps the terminology isn't perfect, but there is no where else to place Rawls on the political compass except in the libertarian half, and usually the lib left quadrant.

>>9751891
Where would mercantilism fit?

>>9752193
Capitalists, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vekf_2952U

>>9751891
>reading Marx
Why? The Marginal Revolution undermined most of his writings. Absolutely NOBODY who is respected in the field of economics even considers the Labor Theory of Value to be worth thinking about in any other sense than a historical context of Marxian economics.

>>9779257
In the fucking dumpster where it belongs. The modern Mercantilist Resurgence is an affront to Capitalism and to any anyone who has any education in economics at all.

>>9759095
Why 1776?