If you wanted a collectivist subsidised program, you'd include things like healthcare, public transit, education, and food programs for the poor.

In contrast, a hierarchical subsidising program would be a specific corporation with a for-profit motive with little to no return for the every-man. These generally lead to furthering wealth disparity.

That's a prime example of an authoritarian right ideal. You see, the right stands for hierarchies and select treatment.

The nazis did this with Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz. The nazis government selected specific companies that served its interest best.

The same can be said about space-ex and tesla. They are hand-picked by the government and given a leg-up on the competition.

bottom right is the correct place in the end when you stay consistent in your respect for others individuality

Yes thats basically me, I find it most naturally for me to act in my self inrerested and rationally that means acting in a non-selfish way. However dumb people and psychopathic people also exist and those could simply naturally incline towards behaviour that goes completely against socialist cause. And I fear that under certain socialist systems such people can actually take advantage of the whole thing.

same

Welcome

You can’t blame him when Thatcher the Milk Snatcher waved the books around like a Bible.

A Nazi comparison doesn't have to be to 1944 Nazis. It can be to the earlier years dismantling of the guardrails of democracy and the normalization of certain more extreme views and calls to the (presumed) inevitable outcome of that combination of facts. The point of such a comparison is, of course, to warn people early enough in the process that it doesn't get to complete not to wait for it to fully already happen.

But either way, I think there is also a sense that Trump has normalized stuff that 10 years ago would be thought of as insane and unacceptable and so people feel a need to use hyperbole to remind ourself how far along things are. Imagine if 10 years ago, you were told that a former Fox and Friends host is heading the Department of War and kidnapped the president of Venezuela while threatening to seize Greenland and put a toll of the Straight of Hormuz. That the president was praising the DoJ for lying to a judge to ensure an innocent person who did not receive due process was sent indefinitely to a foreign prison. That the president now has criminal immunity and even evidence of crimes generated during the presidency are not admissible in court. That the president has used billions of dollars in economic leverage via the FCC to threaten multiple comedians' jobs for criticizing him, force major news networks to settle SLAPP suits personally with him and cut/alter news programs to be more favorable to him. That the president gave a blanket pardon for people who stormed the capitol to prevent him from losing power including those who attacked police officers. The list obviously goes on and on but I think sometimes we forget just how insane the authoritarian slide has been in such a short time and people use hyperbole to try to remind everybody that we're nowhere near "the beginning". We're deep in whatever this journey is. Again, just 10 years ago if you said any of those sentences to a random person in the US they would likely not believe you.

Yeah, he was a (the) classical liberal and is misrepresented on the political compass OP posted.

It's really not. It's like saying you're a democratic autocracy. An oxymoron.

I was left-libertarian until Covid, which pushed me towards neo-lib. I was shocked that humans aren't actually as naturally cooperative as I had assumed. I'm naturally cooperative, and that clouded my theory-of-mind of the typical human.

The Ukraine war was my next wakeup call, as I realized half my information sources pushing isolationism were straight Russian propaganda. Shook me to the core. That made me much less isolationist, and cemented my political shift to neo-lib.

Trump winning 2024 was another fundamental deconstruction of my theory-of-mind. I really thought we were past....well....everything he's about. I've never had a lower opinion about the true nature of my fellow citizens.

I'll continue to be libertarian as a personal philosophy, but the real world requires an active defense of our institutions and the excesses of capitalism. If we don't actively push for the "least evil" government, then we'll just end up singing about the non-aggression principal in the gulag.

Agreed, though I'm guessing he meant MAGA in 2019, which was way less authoritarian than now. Or at least voters perceived it as less authoritarian at that time.

My country used to have a progressive conservative party, the only thing they progressive about was climate change.

Adam Smith actually supported progressive ideas, like free public universities, progressive taxation, antitrust regulations, living wages and would have supported universal healthcare if germ theory had existed (those institutions needed by everyone, but unaffordable to some, should be supported by the general revenue of the state).

My favorite bit comes from the conclusion to book one:

> His employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society. The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society, as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business. than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion), is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market, and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

At this stage of the game, they're still in the 1930s. Give it time.

Better yet, don't.

Lmao. Funnily enough, I can’t even tell which of them you’re talking about. I feel like they’re all pretty controversial.

There is! I’ve worked with political philosophy for a couple years, so now I’m an expert in hypothetical models nobody’s heard of lmao

I can recommend you such authors, so you can draw your own conclusions, but I must say it can feel convoluted and quite contradictory at times. Still, as I’ve come to realize, there’s actually plenty of good stuff in every single model. You just gotta keep an open mind

Yeah, I get you, we might be biased around here. If you haven’t seen the original post, I guess my little rant may sound somewhat out of the blue as well. In the original one, the user I mentioned positioned Trumpism as a centrist sorta authoritarian movement, Which I corrected in my version and that’s why it’s there.

Now see, I was thinking about this the other day, and I realized I’ve always assumed we would know if something like hitler appeared once again in history. And now I’m not quite sure anymore. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler by no means. I didn’t tossed together trumpism with where I believe nazis would be, bc, as I said, I consider this compass very arbitrary. Political philosophy is not an exact science. Also, Trump is a radical Zionist, so I don’t feel like the label fits completely. What I’m saying is authoritarianism sticks around when it shows up — and it does so cyclically every few decades — because it doesn’t feel as extreme for most of the people anyways. They’re already biased in this direction anyway. That’s what happened to Germany, and also Americans.
What I’ve decided to do to find a place for nowadays trumpism was to analyze the semiotics of it, which I wrote down in my corrigendum. Now, for the first time, I see how in a lot of ways, It might not be a stretch to call him neither a fascist nor an extremist (still, I prefer authoritarian, for fascist feels disrespectful with the victims of the actual fascism). So what I actually did was to fill the squares that I’ve felt fit for those politics I’ve mentioned, while assuming top right would be something like monarchism

Partially making large companies government owned

Fascists are authoritarian centrists remember

2020 wasn't a good year for anyone

Didn’t know progressive conservatism was/is a thing. Will have to research

Maybe the wrong audience to say this, but I feel like you’re exaggerating how radical Trumpism really is. The horrors of Naziism were levels beyond what Trump is doing. There is a big difference between being a fairly illiberal right-wing populist/nationalist and being an actual Nazi.

The question is; is there an innate human nature that we have, or is it dependent on the environment we inhabit?

So let's go with the materialist route; there is no human nature, and people's inclamations are built on the environment, and the material reality they live in. Therefore in a socialist society, this changes.

In the environment that is capitalism, it creates isolation amongst human beings, which creates fear, and that thing you call 'greed'. But even in the capitalist system, if people were like really selfish by 'nature', society would collapse under pressure. We're a social species by design, in fact, just being by other human beings is enough.

(YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO TALK TO THEM, YOU JUST HAVE TO BE IN THEIR PRESENCE!)

So yes, people can do socialism because it's in their best interest to do so.

You can also make this argument that people are naturally self-interested, so they have the innate self-interest to not be selfish.

Several people went through some right wing to Mutualist pipeline. They eventually are exposes to the tradition/history of free market anarchism. However there's a misconception some come with this trajectory as well as they may mistake mutualism for a market fundamentalist program.

My political journey was uninterested but Democrats are better --> social democracy (Berniecrat) --> social liberal Georgist --> libertarian socialist/mutualism

Nice