If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it’s fine, as faras it goes.We can show, for example, Stalin,Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlledeconomy, on the hard left. Socialistslike Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupya less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over tothe right, but further right still would besomeone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important inpolitics. That’s the one that the mere left-rightscale doesn’t adequately address.So we’ve added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian toextreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the oppositeof fascism is not communismbut anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not takeinto account the neo-liberal”anarchism” championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman andAmerica’s Libertarian Party,which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positionson most social issues.Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law andorder positions, and are moreeconomic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremelylibertarian as they are extremely right wing.On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism ofanarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism)belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily”right wing”, with the examples ofRobert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale,was not an extreme right-winger.His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some oftoday’s Labour parties.If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics,the two diehardauthoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

A brilliant conversation piece for your office or study …

CLICK HERE TO PURCHASE YOUR OWN PERSONALISED POLITICAL COMPASS™ CERTIFICATE

A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions ofinternationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of howthey relate to each other on the political compass.