how we think about the political spectrum versus how we should think about the political spectrum

i think we should abandon the political spectrum from a "left" perspective because it does not accurately model ideologies based on class conflict, we should move towards a pyramid model that better depicts different ideologies and if they benefit the working, or capitalist class

again, this is just a model, it is highly simplified, no model accurately represents reality, that's why it's called a model.

the problem with the left-right spectrum is that it suggests that you "pick sides", it makes politics a team sport.

it suggests that neither side is correct, it's just representative of your opinions, whereas the pyramid makes it clear which class your politics is benefiting.

the spectrum also suggests that "centrism" is a valid compromise, i.e., centrists take some stuff which they think is good from both sides (eg, left cultural aspects & right economic aspects ). but from a class analysis this is bogus, because centrism benefits capital interests

of course we won't get rid of the spectrum in the near future, we have to communicate our ideas based on established concepts. the "left" is still a useful category to refer to working class politics.this is just a suggestion of how we can adapt our models based on class conflict

the various attempts to think differently about the political spectrum have been helpful in some respects. eg, the political compass has been incredibly effective in changing the discourse. aside from other problems with these new ones, i think some of them are way too complex

the compass emphasizes authoritarian vs libertarian, which is helpful in some ways, but it gets incredibly confusing in others. 1) it suggests (right) libertarianism is somehow opposed to authoritarianism, which is ridiculous bc the logical conclusion of it is authoritarianism,

because as we know, the proponents of that ideology don't want any/very little government involvement, which just leads to corporations taking the role of an authoritarian state (and worse),

2) it confuses the ideas about "the state". this might be controversial for libertarian socialists (which i consider myself part of), but i don't think "the state" automatically refers to an "authoritarian" structure:

for instance, the state IS authoritarian today because it does not work in the interest of the people and mostly works in the interests of corporations. but if the state were to work for the people, it would definitely have a different character/function:

it would still be "hierarchical" in some sense, but it would be a centralized structure dedicated to ensure interests of working people are upheld.

now, some anarchists might disagree with me here, however, it's still skewed with the political compass because it confuses centralized organizing for authoritarianism. that's NOT to say that those things can be / have been the same, but

whatever you think about the socialist state, it's fundamentally different in nature from the capitalist state. again, i don't want to have a discussion of how it has been implemented in the 20th century here. main point is, socialist state =/= capitalist state

models are always a simplification & are often confusing. but to say all models are equally crap is just as ridiculous. we think in concepts/models, everything is a simplification. anyway, this is just an idea i had, don't hate on me for it constructive feedback is welcome

i'm not too interested in keeping the pyramid as such as an essential feature of this. am more interested to see a shift from the "spectrum" of left/right towards categories based on "working class politics" & "capitalist class politics",the pyr\\ just models the idea of hierarchy

https://twitter.com/besf0rt/status/1329102032708493314

also, marxism is NOT closer to the capitalist class, this can also be confusing. red and blue are supposed to refer to a qualitative difference, not a gradual one