The Current Left Needs Not One, Not Two, But A Minimum Of Three Big Tent Parties To Represent It

The political compass map is divided from left to right, with communal/social economic ideologies on the left and private/social-darwinist economic ideologies on the right. The second axis is the social axis, with one end emphasizing rules, order, and requirements, and the other end prioritizing freedom, spontaneity, and volunteerism.

Irreconcilable differences should be obvious, but some believe core beliefs don't matter and that we're all the same, sharing the same definition of what makes a good person and how society should function. However, humanity's numerous wars contradict this notion.

Some on the left, for example the libertarian left, view politics through the lens of the horseshoe or fish hook theory. They divide the right into two groups, with each group at opposite ends of the economic axis and the left in between. According to this view, the left prioritizes individual autonomy and individual well-being while advocating for social or communal ownership of economic property.

They identify five key principles for the left: (A) complete individualism, (B) complete voluntarism, (C) social or communal ownership of economic property, (D) no governing body, and (E) complete unanimous decision-making, to which they allow principles: A, B, and D to overide and make obsolete. 

Essentially, they argue that you're either a social egoist or right-wing. However, this perspective is not unique to the left, as some on the right hold similar views in reverse. In fact, every quadrant of the political compass has those that share similar views on horseshoe or fish hook theory, with their own ideology being centeral.

In the US, the establishment is divided between two parties: an authoritarian far-right party that acknowledges its right-wing stance, and a pscentral. Authoritarian far-right party that fails to recognize its true alignment. Similar dynamics likely exist in other countries.

Some on the left argue that despite ideological differences, everyone shares the same goals. However, attempts to unite the non-establishment left under a single big tent have repeatedly failed in the US and elsewhere because priorities and principles matter.

The proposed solution is often to continue trying to unite the left under a single banner, consolidating votes and influence to challenge the establishment. While this approach offers a stronger challenge, it also dilutes the movement's effectiveness due to ideological differences.

As seen in past attempts, infighting and compromise lead to voter disillusionment. The push for a big tent often results in calls to "stop the infighting" and "ignore ideologies." However, this approach prioritizes power over principle, leading to situations like the Democratic Party's big tent; which is just one of many examples, the British Labour Party would be another. 

An alternative proposal is to split the left into two big tent parties: one authoritarian left and one libertarian left. However, this approach also has drawbacks, as it forces socialists to choose between extremes on the social axis, escalating combative politics and pressuring neutral socialists to lean one way.

A more effective solution would be to divide the left into three or as many as eight parties. A three-party solution, although imperfect, is currently the best option. This would involve creating three big tent parties: one for the authoritarian left (primarily communists), one for the libertarian left (primarily anarchists), and one for those neutral or balanced on the social axis (primarily socialists).

This approach would foster broader representation, increased voter engagement, and coalition-building. A fourth party could and probably should be added for pseudo-left individuals who prioritize human rights but are willing to compromise then on economic issues to maintain a mixed capitalist society, where they can benefit from others exploitation. 

By acknowledging ideological diversity within the left, this multi-party system would provide clear options for voters and increase turnout among left-leaning citizens. Each party would have a distinct voice, enabling strategic alliances and cooperation on shared goals. With the ever growing push for ranked choice voting, which is currently being passed across various states.

This structure ultimately benefits the people by offering a more unified yet diverse leftist front. The three parties could form temporary alliances on issues they all support, without being forced to compromise their principles, something those calling for a single left big tent party don't understand and call infighting.

A multi-party system without diverse representation has dominated the political landscape for too long. For leftist unity, multiple big tent party representations will bring innovative coalition-building opportunities. Adding three parties: authoritarian left, libertarian left, and neutral socialist, to the existing two right-wing big tent parties would allow distinct groups to cooperate on shared goals while maintaining autonomy.

Whereas adding only one or two big-tent left parties will continue to alienate people, three new parties will enable strategic foresight on key issues, allowing for success without sacrificing principles. Temporary alliances would provide added flexibility, and a fourth party for pseudo-left opportunistic individuals would acknowledge their divergence from true leftist principles, while giving then a voice; enabling early progress through temporary alliances as we work towards revolutionary change.

As I stated in the title of this piece, The current left needs not one, not two, but a minimum of three big tent parties to represent it; with countries like Vietnam being exceptions due to being advanced in their political movements.