Political compass for the21st century

[Bill the Piper]

(12-26-2018, 04:20 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The article uses the word "abrogated" all the time without defining it. I suppose it means changing it?

They decided that newer verses revoke the older ones. In general, the violent verses revoke peaceful verses.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-15-2018, 10:22 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-15-2018, 06:42 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-14-2018, 03:54 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Christian democracy is definitely toward the center That is no muddle; it is picking between the best of tendencies. That is not to say that there cannot be Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic democracy; indeed all that prevents a Zoroastrian democracy is the small number of Zoroastrians. (Zoroastrianism was a major world religion until the Islamic conquest of Persia. Neo-pagan democracy? The Vikings had a pagan democracy before they went Christian.

Islamic democracy would have to abrogate hadith which proscribe the caliphate as the best regime for the Islamic community. There are several Muslim democracies, I think Iraqi Kurdistan looks best, but they have progressed so far because of neglecting their god's mandates.

As for Judaism, wasn't Ancient Israel a democracy before King David?

Although the King James Bible calls the rulers of Israel "kings", those rulers of ancient Israel were elected in basically free elections for terms. The KJV could have called such leaders "Presidents", although the title would be invented for George Washington some centuries later.

A caliph as a constitutional, figurehead monarch could be the titular head of Islamic democracy. Elizabeth II may have a link to the tyrant Henry VIII as one of her predecessors, but that would not discredit her role.  

The hadith themselves make Islam unattractive as a personal faith. Too bad. The Koran is arguably the most beautiful of all religious texts, which would itself be evidence of divinity. Contrast the Book of Mormon, which I find unreadable.

All in all, I think Muslims would be wise to heed the call of Mohamed to seek wisdom, no matter what its source (as he put it, "even China")... the more pathology that I see in Donald Trump and his political stooges, the greater admiration that I have for Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and our Founding Fathers.

Dude, King David wasn't democratically elected to be the ruler of the Kingdom of Israel. He was anointed as ruler of the Kingdom of Judah and was anointed the ruler of the entire Kingdom of Israel after a civil war ensued following the death of King Sol and his number one son in battle and the assassination of Sol's remaining son. I assume you haven't read the old version of the Bible or Old Testament.

[David Horn]

(12-29-2018, 03:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, King David wasn't democratically elected to be the ruler of the Kingdom of Israel. He was anointed as ruler of the Kingdom of Judah and was anointed the ruler of the entire Kingdom of Israel after a civil war ensued following the death of King Sol and his number one son in battle and the assassination of Sol's remaining son. I assume you haven't read the old version of the Bible or Old Testament.

All this presupposes that the Bible, in any of its forms, contains accurate history.  The stories that we now call the Biblical books were not written down in anywhere near real time (assume centuries for the earlier works), what transpired and what legend has been created most likely have little in common.  For instance, Jericho has never been located as a city, though a campsite near an oasis was found that seems to be the right place.  Needless to say, there were never any walls. Likewise, Jerusalem at the time of King David was hardly a town -- certainly not a city.

Oral history is good at transferring ideas and poetry, but the rest gets pretty distorted.

[pbrower2a]

(12-29-2018, 08:46 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-29-2018, 03:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Dude, King David wasn't democratically elected to be the ruler of the Kingdom of Israel. He was anointed as ruler of the Kingdom of Judah and was anointed the ruler of the entire Kingdom of Israel after a civil war ensued following the death of King Sol and his number one son in battle and the assassination of Sol's remaining son. I assume you haven't read the old version of the Bible or Old Testament.

All this presupposes that the Bible, in any of its forms, contains accurate history.  The stories that we now call the Biblical books were not written down in anywhere near real time (assume centuries for the earlier works), what transpired and what legend has been created most likely have little in common.  For instance, Jericho has never been located as a city, though a campsite near an oasis was found that seems to be the right place.  Needless to say, there were never any walls. Likewise, Jerusalem at the time of King David was hardly a town -- certainly not a city.

Oral history is good at transferring ideas and poetry, but the rest gets pretty distorted.

The Kings of Israel were elected monarchs. The translators of the King James Version assumed that practically any leader was some sort of hereditary monarch as was their King James.

[Bill the Piper]

I was thinking about introducing two new sectors: Green for scientistic progressives, and Orange for christian democrats. Do you think they are necessary, PBrower?

[pbrower2a]

Christian Democrats would be close to the center, so accommodating them would requite a bulls-eye zone that would have to accommodate Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews who have their own democratic tendencies. Generally eschewing militancy except in war (they may hate war, but that does not precluding them from waging it well, as did FDR) and especially terrorism on behalf of or in opposition to the State, so if you want an orange zone for them, then that is your choice. Scientific progressives? They are obviously not traditionalists, as science has frequently refuted tradition. Nationalists? It depends upon the person. Free enterprise libertarians? Not likely. Socialists? not especially, unless they labor under a 'Socialist' regime. I would clearly put Darwin, Einstein, and Freud into the counter-culture zone. But Planck? Hawking? Euler? Gauss? Leibniz? Copernicus? Euclid? Archimedes? Fermi? Sakharov? Chandrasekhar? Galileo? Mendel? Faraday? Lavoisier? Curie? Bohr?

One might as well discuss creative people.The traditionalist Fyodor Dostoevsky is almost a polar opposite to the ultra-Left Bertolt Brecht. I doubt that Richard Wagner and Frederic Chopin would have gotten along. Picasso is socialist to an extent and counter-cultural on the other.

[Bill the Piper]

(01-10-2019, 11:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Christian Democrats would be close to the center, so accommodating them would requite a bulls-eye zone that would have to accommodate Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews who have their own democratic tendencies. Generally eschewing militancy except in war (they may hate war, but that does not precluding them from waging it well, as did FDR) and especially terrorism on behalf of or in opposition to the State, so if you want an orange zone for them, then that is your choice.

So I'll probably opt for a centrist zone. And I'll colour it WHITE, since in white the wisdom of all colours is united, according to Gandalf the Grey.

Quote:Scientific progressives? They are  obviously not traditionalists, as science has frequently refuted tradition. Nationalists? It depends upon the person. Free enterprise libertarians? Not likely. Socialists? not especially, unless they labor under a 'Socialist' regime. I would clearly put Darwin, Einstein, and Freud into the counter-culture zone. But Planck? Hawking? Euler? Gauss? Leibniz? Copernicus? Euclid? Archimedes?  Fermi? Sakharov? Chandrasekhar? Galileo? Mendel? Faraday? Lavoisier? Curie? Bohr?

One might as well discuss creative people.The traditionalist Fyodor Dostoevsky is almost a polar opposite to the ultra-Left Bertolt Brecht. I doubt that Richard Wagner and Frederic Chopin would have gotten along. Picasso is socialist to an extent and counter-cultural on the other.

I was thinking about people like Dawkins and the Rational Wiki staff, since they are the embodiment of SCIENTISM, rather than being SCIENTISTS by profession. Are they countercultural? Maybe on things like homosexuality and weed, but they are no fans of alternative medicine or back-to-nature lifestyles. Socialists? Possibly, but not of the class struggle variety. It may be they are on the red-purple-white cusp.

Wagner was certainly a nationalist, possibly a fascist. As for other scientists and artists, IDK anything. Fermi claimed that humanity is the only civilisation in the galaxy, based on the fact that aliens haven't colonised the Solar System. Such an idea could result from viewing imperial expansion as natural for any intelligent species. Is this a result of nationalistic views? Maybe, but I feel my conclusion is too far-reaching.

The thinker who shaped my thinking most, Olaf Stapledon. Militant anti-nationalist, strong supporter of democracy, probably a socialist though opposed to class struggle. Staunch pacifist in the 1920s, then became a supporter of military intervention against Hitler. I imagine he would probably approve of toppling Saddam, had he been alive in 2003 (he would be 120 or so). I'm inclined to classify him as a centrist (like Roosevelt). He sounded very radical when he dreamt of a world without nations and money, but never endorsed any hardline political movement. IIRC he said something good about the Fabians.

[pbrower2a]

I can't imagine a good scientist being a traditionalist. Traditionalism avidly defends superstition, something that scientists despise. Nationalists?  They will sacrifice nationalism for intellectual freedom, although they might be patriots if they see their country and its intellectual freedom at risk. They might have socialist or libertarian tendencies, but in between those on the pentagon is the zone of counterculture.

I can imagine physicians going to extremes, like Zawahiri (an associate of Osama bin Laden), Guevara (Castro), and of course so horrible a person as Fritz "Doctor Death" Klein, Nazi physician at Auschwitz, who said while on trial for atrocities :

My Hippocratic oath tells me to cut a gangrenous appendix out of the human body. The Jews are the gangrenous appendix of mankind. That's why I cut them out."[2]

[Eric the Green]

(01-10-2019, 12:18 PM)Bill the Piper Wrote: He sounded very radical when he dreamt of a world without nations and money

Sounds like a certain former Beatle we all knew, I imagine.

[Bill the Piper]

OK, let's have a look on what it looks like NOW:

[pbrower2a]

Nice design. The only complaint that anyone could have is that somebody they want included isn't included. John Lennon, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther, Mao Zedong, and Napoleon Bonaparte would be interesting. Jesus and Lincoln? Everyone claims Him and him. (Get it?)

Adding more people would create clutter.

I notice that figures from the 18th and 19th century (Jefferson, Wagner, and Victoria) are added. Good choices! I am glad to see major theologians, philosophers, and scientists added. I am aware on Wagner on what Woody Allen says of him: every time I hear him I get an urge to invade Poland".

People who have ranged widely over this circle, including Churchill (free-market maven and defender of Empire and to the nationalist and traditionalist in charge of an economic system arguably as regimented as a Commie state)... and especially Laval (socialist as a young man, fascist while the puppet of Adolf Hitler) do not fit well. People better known for what they did than what they believed (George Washington) would be hard to place. With many creative people one sees a beautiful painting (Cezanne), reads some fine expressions of fantasy (Rowling), or hears majestic music (Schubert) without asking what those creators really mean.

It is best to ignore people who might simply be cranky while brilliant, like Buckminster Fuller or Vincent van Gogh. If I were important, I would be in that category. I would be right-wing in opposition to Castro and left-wing in opposition to Pinochet, which means little.

I'm reasonably satisfied that I would put Freud about on the line between the white bulls-eye and the countercultural zone. But that would be clutter. I would put Picasso about where Einstein is, but melding of characters is itself clutter. Besides, with some creative people like Bach and Shostakovich we have people who lived under repressive societies that largely suppressed any political expression. Shakespeare, another such example, is one of the blandest people to have ever lived. Someone like Kurosawa or Fellini might have been a fascist before 1945 and a democrat of some kind after 1945.

The trickiest people to place would be the 19th-century abolitionists. Are they the sorts of people who support free and unfettered enterprise except for the trading and exploitation of slaves, or are they true proletarians? About everyone except genocidal fascists claim them.

[Bill the Piper]

Mao Zedong would be roughly at the place Stalin is.
Tolstoy - probably close to Gandhi. A non-violent religious visionary, only Christian rather than Gandhi. He was also a great teacher, BTW, he started in Russia something like American chatauqua movement. I would also argue, Jesus fits in the same place.
Bonaparte - I'd colour him Yellow, since the revolution he wanted to spread across Europe was a classic liberal, bourgeois revolution. Closer to Purple than Black, since he was against traditional, Thomistic institutions of old Catholic Europe.
John Lennon - at the border between Red and Purple. His countercultural leanings are obvious, but he also "was sympathetic to the International Marxist Group, a Trotskyist group formed in Britain in 1968" [from Wikipedia]

Confucius - very close to Aquinas.
Stapledon - probably close to Dawkins, which is the place you want to put Freud as well. Best place for great intellectuals?

[pbrower2a]

Now that I think of it there is an important group of people tht we have so far ignored -- entrepreneurs who have done much to change the material reality of the world. Henry Ford. John Davison Rockefeller II. Josiah Wedgwood, James Cash Penney. Bill Gates. Akio Morita ("Mr. Sony").

[Hintergrund]

Jefferson doesn't deserve to sit in the same block as cultural marxist Marcuse, methinks.

[Bill the Piper]

(02-06-2019, 11:34 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Jefferson doesn't deserve to sit in the same block as cultural marxist Marcuse, methinks.

1. Cultural Marxism doesn't exist, because Marxism is a school of economics.
2. Jefferson had some beliefs in common with the hippies. He distrusted cities and large businesses and extolled the virtues of self-reliant farm life. He was also quite sceptical of Christianity.
3. What is the correct place for Jefferson according to you?

[Hintergrund]

I don't even think your compass is such a great thing.

[Bill the Piper]

Regarding Jefferson:

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-as-Rel...B003XT60BS

In this book, Paul Vitz discusses the modern "humanistic psychology" and its cult of self-actualisation. He names three sources for this worldview:

• Feuerbach (a German philosopher who inspired Carl Marx)
  
• the American Revolution with its slogan, "don't thread on me".
  
• some varieties of liberal protestantism which did away with the idea of original sin
  

There is no question that the corrosive countercultural ideas of 1960s and 70s were inspired by this radical individualism fashionable among intellectuals, rather than by Marxism which is after all a collectivistic, working-class ideology. Actual Marxist regimes can be very tough on drugs, sexuality, religion, etc.

To be more exact: within the American Revolution, there seems to have been a proto-Democrat current led by Jefferson, and proto-Republican current led by Alexander Hamilton. I argue that the counterculturals are among the heirs of the Jeffersonian current.

[Hintergrund]

(02-06-2019, 11:59 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(02-06-2019, 11:34 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Jefferson doesn't deserve to sit in the same block as cultural marxist Marcuse, methinks.

1. Cultural Marxism doesn't exist, because Marxism is a school of economics.
2. Jefferson had some beliefs in common with the hippies. He distrusted cities and large businesses and extolled the virtues of self-reliant farm life. He was also quite sceptical of Christianity.

1. Standard marxism wanted to destroy the economy, cultural marxism... I think you can see where this leads to. If the shoe fits...
2. Many hippies became "Jesus freaks". Madalyn Murray O'Hair was G.I. - her Boomer son was "reborn".

[David Horn]

(02-07-2019, 09:55 AM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(02-06-2019, 11:59 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(02-06-2019, 11:34 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Jefferson doesn't deserve to sit in the same block as cultural marxist Marcuse, methinks.

1. Cultural Marxism doesn't exist, because Marxism is a school of economics.
2. Jefferson had some beliefs in common with the hippies. He distrusted cities and large businesses and extolled the virtues of self-reliant farm life. He was also quite sceptical of Christianity.

1. Standard marxism wanted to destroy the economy, cultural marxism... I think you can see where this leads to. If the shoe fits...
2. Many hippies became "Jesus freaks". Madalyn Murray O'Hair was G.I. - her Boomer son was "reborn".

Having been there in the hippie era, I can attest to the transformational effect of the catastrophically unexpected.  I knew several people who were present at an overdose by a close friend.  Most simply mourned, asked themselves if they did all they could do, and healed.  A few took it hard, and, miraculously, found Jesus.  I can't say they were wrong. It was their coping mechanism.

[Eric the Green]

I transfer the discussion of this topic that occurred on the wrong thread, to here. Post #2222 on the Let's make fun of Trump thread, in the current events, general political discussion topic.


(02-02-2019, 11:16 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
If you examine the Communist system under Brezhnev, for instance, you'll b hard pressed to see any remnants of the class struggle there either. It was a slightly less capitalistic version of a one-party state than the Chinese have today. They also claim to be communists.

I've always subscribed to a three-axis political compass:
Communal, with pure individualism at one extreme and something akin to a hive at the other,
Economic, with pure laisse faire and Marxism as the extremes, and
Authority, with pure democracy (or even anarchy) and totalitarianism at the extremes.

Feel free to add religion, if you need another axis. I have from time to time myself. All it shows is the complexity of human and societal interaction.


(02-01-2019, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
On the existing two-axis and two-quadrant Nolan grid, that would be the vertical axis for anarchy (or libertarian) at the top vs. totalitarian, (or statist) at the bottom, upper right vs. lower left for economics, and upper left vs. lower right for individual rights vs. social conservatism (group power/hive mentality); normally called the cultural or social axis. I think those are adequate. Religious conservatism in politics is just another hive mentality or group power type. Examples of these conservative groups are nations, races, and religions In many cases they are all fused, as in fascist Italy. Hitler was an extreme example of all three group types as part of their ideology, and the religious aspect was uppermost, consisting of the final solution to the Jewish "problem." Donald Trump is another example of this fusion, although not always explicitly stated; but Trump can lie and obfuscate by changing his statements at a moment's notice.

On the European political compass, the axes are exactly the same, but they are placed at different locations around the wheel. In that chart, the cultural/social axis or individualism/civil rights vs. group power is the vertical axis. Economics is the left vs. right axis, and the anarchy vs. totalitarian axis falls at lower right vs. upper left. No revision is needed to these wheels in my opinion.


(02-02-2019, 09:54 AM)David Horn Wrote:
I highlighted the religion comment as an example of why two axes don't get the job done. Religion is neither conservative nor liberal, communal nor individual. Your beliefs in astrology fall fully within the religious sphere, and you are anything but conservative. I would put you more in the communal than individual class too, but others can feel otherwise. After all, there are monks who go off to live isolated and pure lives, and they are certainly driven by their religious beliefs. On that axis, strength of belief or non-belief is the measure, not affiliation with other beliefs. Other axes can also be assigned, but only if they are uncorrelated with the axes already defined. I've never had much luck with more than 4.


(02-02-2019, 11:16 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:
I started with the classical 4 Nolanist sectors:
leftist individualists (counterculture)
right-wing individualists (libertarians)
leftist collectivists (communists)
right-wing collectivist (nationalists)

But I felt something is missing. I added one for regimes devoted to religious transcendence, and got my 5-sector diagram. Seems to work.

Some people want to have an autocracy-democracy axis. I had another idea. The distance from the centre of the circle measures the readiness to use violence or "extremism". Tyrants and violent anarchist revolutionaries are both on the periphery. Autocratic power is just a tool. Violent revolutionaries dislike it, when it's used by their opponents (the Bolshies hated the tzar), but they have to qualms about seizing autocratic power when it becomes available.


(02-01-2019, 06:59 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
Individual vs. collective is one way to describe the vertical axis on the Nolan chart. I think anarchy vs statist is a more accurate term. As you noted, "communist" is too extreme a term for liberals, and for all the folks in the lower-left quadrant, although it may apply to those near the bottom of the chart. The essential thing about the Nolan chart is the two axes of economics and culture/social issues. These axes run diagonally from the edges of the quadrants. The left side of the chart corresponds to liberals in the USA. They are liberal on both economics and culture. The right side are conservatives; they are conservative on both. At the top, pure libertarians are liberal on culture/social issues, and conservative on economics. They maintain this means that they uphold "freedom" from state control on both subjects. At the bottom, pure statists are liberal on economics and conservative on social and cultural issues. They want state control in both fields.

In all cases, a political chart is only about politics. Politics is your view on what kind of state we want and who will have the power in it. Other charts are for other subjects.

The Islamic State is an extreme contemporary example of social conservatism. They require obedience by all persons to their strict and narrow interpretation of Islam, on pain of execution as infidels. They are also nationalists, because the caliphate is the only true state to uphold and defend and expand against all others. They don't seem to be particularly racist, although Arabs are the main promoters of the IS. Arabic racism often creeps into the Islamic State and other Islamic regimes, however, because Arabs resent the oppression imposed by Western-backed Arab regimes and they want their own state.

In Hitler's case, the Nazis upheld the German indigenous folk religion of the middle ages, as represented in Wagner's operas to which Hitler was devoted. His religious regime required elimination of Jews and gypsies. Deviants like homosexuals were not allowed. His regime was explicitly racist, proclaiming the superiority of Aryans, and nationalist, proclaiming the goal of "liberating" Germans from other regimes, and then conquest of living space for the one superior nation, Germany, to which his regime was devoted and dedicated.

The specifics of the specific social group upheld as superior, and entitled to rule and entitled to blame, jail and/or kill those who don't agree, don't matter too much on a political chart. The principle of social conservatism is the same, whether we are talking about the Christian religious right and moral majority, Muslim fundamentalists, Catholics who advocate a Catholic state, Hindu nationalists, Nazi Arian racists, fascists in general, etc. Most of them uphold aspects of all three kinds of group, religious, national or racial, and they overlap. They may use religious institutions to inspire loyalty and obedience, without having any real interest in the precepts of the religion. It's obedience to group authority that they want. American fundamentalists of the religious right-wing in politics are generally also super-patriots who uphold their idea of America right or wrong or America first, and this means keeping out other races from America in the name of stopping illegal immigration.

As these authoritarian right-wing politicians fall closer to the bottom center of the chart, the degree of economic control increases too; and as it blends with the left side of the authoritarian axis, then economic class can also be one of the groups whose entitlement to rule is upheld. Communist totalitarian regimes also tend to enforce ethnic and national uniformity, so aspects of the quadrant next door creep in. There are gradations and shadings in all the quadrants; that's what makes a circular chart accurate and useful.