Political compass for the21st century

[Blazkovitz]

Statist quadrant could well be called securitarian:
http://www.holtz.org/Thoughts/Thoughts.h...velopments

[pbrower2a]

The "communist" sector could well be renamed "socialist". All Communists consider themselves Socialist, but most socialists want nothing to do with the totalitarian socialists. Besides, the Communism that Marx envisioned in which property is no longer relevant, scarcity is no longer extant, and the State is no longer necessary for enforcing the dominion of property is in his view a consequence of technological change and advancement of productive capacity. Ironically the capitalist countries with the greatest capacities of production and levels of economic development may be more advanced toward Marx' ideal of Communism than the 'socialist' states past and present.

Marxism-Leninist doctrine generally holds that capitalist ownership and management of the economic resources retard the development of an advanced economy by transforming much of the productivity into elite indulgence as capitalists and executives increasingly act like aristocrats in getting sybaritic excess for themselves while imposing grinding poverty on others. (Obviously such fits any plutocracy, regrettably including the USA).

[Blazkovitz]

What about ancient philosophers?

Aristotle - nationalist/statist boundary
Pythagoras - theocratic
Plato - statist
Confucius - statist
Laozi - inclusivist

[Blazkovitz]

A humorous explanation on the diagram. The question asked was, who do you hate the most?

[Eric the Green]

Of course, the pro-market section right next to the theocratic just LOVES Darwin!

[Bob Butler 54]

I've got to throw out my arrow of progress, the Enlightenment ideals of human rights, equality and democracy. It's far older than the 21st century, but still a good one.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-08-2020, 11:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I've got to throw out my arrow of progress, the Enlightenment ideals of human rights, equality and democracy.  It's far older than the 21st century, but still a good one.

These ideas have been mainstreamed, and moreover mean different things to different people.

Human rights? Ayn Rand advocated human rights, but she defined them as "freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men". This was the original 18th century idea of human rights. The advocates of inclusivity and so-called Millennial social justice believe in this concept in theory, but they believe it might be overridden by somebody's right not to hear nasty words, or to be recognized as female despite having a penis, or not to hear scientific arguments against teachings of a 7th century nomad shaman. Yet others might say the greatest of human rights is the right to economic security, something like universal basic income. I don't want to debate which concept of human right is the best, all of them have some validity. But today there cannot be one political orientation based on human rights.

Economic equality is Red, the Populist/Proletarianist/Socialist sector. Inclusivists also believe in equality of sorts, they say that all religions or all sexualities are equal. But I think that economic equality is more important. Extreme inequalities of wealth could eventually result in human splitting into two different species, something like Eloy and Morlocks.

The idea of progress is deeper than any of these orientations. If we define progress as growth of social complexity (extropy), different political orientations have different ideas on how to keep progress going. Yellows think the market is biggest engine of progress, Reds think it's the working class. Nationalists could point out that different cultures aren't equally likely to contribute to progress, so they prefer not to let people from backward cultures in.

(05-08-2020, 11:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Of course, the pro-market section right next to the theocratic just LOVES Darwin!

A hardcore libertarian would probably say it's your business if you teach your child Darwin, Blavatsky or Genesis. Just government out of the classroom!

My personal idea: to allow a child to grow up without hearing of the wonders of Evolution is a form of abuse.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-09-2020, 05:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-08-2020, 11:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I've got to throw out my arrow of progress, the Enlightenment ideals of human rights, equality and democracy.  It's far older than the 21st century, but still a good one.

These ideas have been mainstreamed, and moreover mean different things to different people.

Human rights? Ayn Rand advocated human rights, but she defined them as "freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men". This was the original 18th century idea of human rights. The advocates of inclusivity and so-called Millennial social justice believe in this concept in theory, but they believe it might be overridden by somebody's right not to hear nasty words, or to be recognized as female despite having a penis, or not to hear scientific arguments against teachings of a 7th century nomad shaman. Yet others might say the greatest of human rights is the right to economic security, something like universal basic income. I don't want to debate which concept of human right is the best, all of them have some validity. But today there cannot be one political orientation based on human rights.

Economic equality is Red, the Populist/Proletarianist/Socialist sector. Inclusivists also believe in equality of sorts, they say that all religions or all sexualities are equal. But I think that economic equality is more important. Extreme inequalities of wealth could eventually result in human splitting into two different species, something like Eloy and Morlocks.

The idea of progress is deeper than any of these orientations. If we define progress as growth of social complexity (extropy), different political orientations have different ideas on how to keep progress going. Yellows think the market is biggest engine of progress, Reds think it's the working class. Nationalists could point out that different cultures aren't equally likely to contribute to progress, so they prefer not to let people from backward cultures in.

There could be an added concept. Human rights guarantee a person can live as he wishes, but does not guarantee a right to harm others. Thus you can have a right to keep and bear arms at the same time as laws against murder. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated this as far back as he denied a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Thus on economic rights, you could have a right to a piece of the pie. The UN Declaration of Human Rights included it. Everyone is supposedly granted a right to shelter, sustenance, medical care, a retirement plan, etc… You could add a prohibition against taking too large a piece of the pie. If too many take too much, they harm the rest. The floor and the ceiling need not be particularly close early on, but they might happen.

You have the guy who enjoys cross dressing and the guy who believes in social norms and that ordinary people should not be shocked by people who enjoy violating them. Either person could harm the other’s enjoyment. Both could seek to avoid that harm, but it would likely have to be members of both groups who figured out how to not harm other and assume that no harm should take place.

Similarly a scientist should avoid a shaman’s convention.

I would say that there are many supposed political systems that promote one group’s rights that are trying not to recognize that they are harming others. They should familiarize themselves with Holmes.

[pbrower2a]

(05-09-2020, 05:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-08-2020, 11:42 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I've got to throw out my arrow of progress, the Enlightenment ideals of human rights, equality and democracy.  It's far older than the 21st century, but still a good one.

These ideas have been mainstreamed, and moreover mean different things to different people.

Human rights? Ayn Rand advocated human rights, but she defined them as "freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men". This was the original 18th century idea of human rights. The advocates of inclusivity and so-called Millennial social justice believe in this concept in theory, but they believe it might be overridden by somebody's right not to hear nasty words, or to be recognized as female despite having a penis, or not to hear scientific arguments against teachings of a 7th century nomad shaman. Yet others might say the greatest of human rights is the right to economic security, something like universal basic income. I don't want to debate which concept of human right is the best, all of them have some validity. But today there cannot be one political orientation based on human rights.

The 18th-century idea of human rights fell short of what everyone assumes now: the abolition of slavery and the right of women to participate fully in the political process. I have heard people speaking of themselves as "Tenth Amendment citizens of the United States". Notice the choice of ordinal numbers. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth somehow are missed. 

I think we have a reasonable assumption that people not use filthy words around children. OK, there is Tourette's syndrome. One has the right to be ignorant and wrong.  The gender-identity stuff remains creepy. 

As for economic insecurity... any severe deprivation is a compromise of freedom. Economic elites can easily see themselves entitled to the toil of people incapable of saying no to whatever terms are offered. Hopelessness, helplessness, and desperation are not freedom.   

Quote:Economic equality is Red, the Populist/Proletarianist/Socialist sector. Inclusivists also believe in equality of sorts, they say that all religions or all sexualities are equal. But I think that economic equality is more important. Extreme inequalities of wealth could eventually result in human splitting into two different species, something like Eloy and Morlocks.

Or aristocrats and peons, bourgeois and proletarians. H.G. Wells knew about that divide, one still being worked out in his time. It still exists, and it seems to intensify in a 3T. 

Quote:The idea of progress is deeper than any of these orientations. If we define progress as growth of social complexity (extropy), different political orientations have different ideas on how to keep progress going. Yellows think the market is biggest engine of progress, Reds think it's the working class. Nationalists could point out that different cultures aren't equally likely to contribute to progress, so they prefer not to let people from backward cultures in.

(05-08-2020, 11:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Of course, the pro-market section right next to the theocratic just LOVES Darwin!

A hardcore libertarian would probably say it's your business if you teach your child Darwin, Blavatsky or Genesis. Just government out of the classroom!

My personal idea: to allow a child to grow up without hearing of the wonders of Evolution is a form of abuse.

Technically, entropy is the exhaustion of energy and the deconcentration of resources. Progress is anything but natural. It may begin with the random luck of noticing some phenomenon that one can exploit once for good effect and keep exploiting it. But all in all, anything worth achieving requires some effort... and even maintaining things require effort -- energy and natural resources. Everything tends to rot or dissipate over time.

I say this as I contemplate the pessimistic view that Arnold Toynbee has for all civilizations over time. Entropy ultimately overpowers effort. Such may take a long time or a short time, depending on how well the civilization does things. Once entropy overpowers effort for an extended time it is over for that civilization. 

OK, entropy in our world with respect to the Sun consuming its hydrogen in fusion will take billion years, and all human life will be in deep trouble should it be around in a billion. The sun seems to radiate more heat each billion years, and it won't take much more solar radiation to make human life first unpleasant (a summer like that of Dallas about where Edmonton is), then difficult (summer in Riyadh), then impossible (about 55 C, or 131 F, when proteins start to gelatinize). At 70 C the moist greenhouse effect becomes a runaway situation and temperatures over a few million years become like those of Venus. But even that is far off, and we have another Ice Age on the way as Africa slams into Europe and drives the Mediterranean Basin high and dry like the Himalayas and Australia slams into southeast Asia or into Siberia and Alaska -- also raising a mountain range similar to the Himalayas. An ice age wouldn't be so great either; at the last glacial maximum there wasn't enough food to support the current canine population, let alone the human population. 

But even without those long-term horrors, Humanity has shown eminent capacity to much things up. Toynbee's final stage of life for a civilization is the Universal State, the political entity that absorbs a whole civilization and becomes hierarchical, corrupt, unimaginative, and repressive. Civilizations thrive when they are able to innovate their way out of trouble, give a stake in the system to the proles, do the unglamorous but necessary maintenance, constrain cults of personality, and recruit talented people to solve problems. The Universal State  -- think of the Roman Empire as the prime example for being best known  -- became increasingly hierarchical over time. It tried to solve all its problems with brute force, which proves as destructive as it is temporarily effective. Its slave system ensured that there would be no middle class capable of entrepreneurial or technological solutions to social distress. Government got bigger, but no more effective except at devouring and wasting resources. The government failed to promote human investment in education, so even the Latin language underwent changes that created linguistic chaos that mas literacy might have prevented. I can think of innovations that would have pushed classical civilization into something much like the modern world: steam power and a printing press. (A Greek tinkerer had invented a primitive steam engine around the time of Christ, and that tinkerer bragged that it would do the work of fifty slaves. "So what would we do with the slaves?"

Gutenberg's first printing press was in fact a grape press for pressing the juice out of wine -- the Romans had plenty of those. Anyone who can carve can make wooden type, and the Romans had plenty of wood. The Romans had a sophisticated mass society; they just did not know how to use it.The Venetians, Florentines, and Dutch had mass societies and allowed those to promote progress. That made all the difference in the world.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-09-2020, 06:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Technically, entropy is the exhaustion of energy and the deconcentration of resources. Progress is anything but natural. It may begin with the random luck of noticing some phenomenon that one can exploit once for good effect and keep exploiting it. But all in all, anything worth achieving requires some effort... and even maintaining things require effort -- energy and natural resources. Everything tends to rot or dissipate over time.

I say this as I contemplate the pessimistic view that Arnold Toynbee has for all civilizations over time. Entropy ultimately overpowers effort. Such may take a long time or a short time, depending on how well the civilization does things. Once entropy overpowers effort for an extended time it is over for that civilization. 

OK, entropy in our world with respect to the Sun consuming its hydrogen in fusion will take billion years, and all human life will be in deep trouble should it be around in a billion. The sun seems to radiate more heat each billion years, and it won't take much more solar radiation to make human life first unpleasant (a summer like that of Dallas about where Edmonton is), then difficult (summer in Riyadh), then impossible (about 55 C, or 131 F, when proteins start to gelatinize). At 70 C the moist greenhouse effect becomes a runaway situation and temperatures over a few million years become like those of Venus. But even that is far off, and we have another Ice Age on the way as Africa slams into Europe and drives the Mediterranean Basin high and dry like the Himalayas and Australia slams into southeast Asia or into Siberia and Alaska -- also raising a mountain range similar to the Himalayas. An ice age wouldn't be so great either; at the last glacial maximum there wasn't enough food to support the current canine population, let alone the human population. 

But even without those long-term horrors, Humanity has shown eminent capacity to much things up. Toynbee's final stage of life for a civilization is the Universal State, the political entity that absorbs a whole civilization and becomes hierarchical, corrupt, unimaginative, and repressive. Civilizations thrive when they are able to innovate their way out of trouble, give a stake in the system to the proles, do the unglamorous but necessary maintenance, constrain cults of personality, and recruit talented people to solve problems. The Universal State  -- think of the Roman Empire as the prime example for being best known  -- became increasingly hierarchical over time. It tried to solve all its problems with brute force, which proves as destructive as it is temporarily effective. Its slave system ensured that there would be no middle class capable of entrepreneurial or technological solutions to social distress. Government got bigger, but no more effective except at devouring and wasting resources. The government failed to promote human investment in education, so even the Latin language underwent changes that created linguistic chaos that mas literacy might have prevented. I can think of innovations that would have pushed classical civilization into something much like the modern world: steam power and a printing press. (A Greek tinkerer had invented a primitive steam engine around the time of Christ, and that tinkerer bragged that it would do the work of fifty slaves. "So what would we do with the slaves?"

Gutenberg's first printing press was in fact a grape press for pressing the juice out of wine -- the Romans had plenty of those. Anyone who can carve can make wooden type, and the Romans had plenty of wood. The Romans had a sophisticated mass society; they just did not know how to use it.The Venetians, Florentines, and Dutch had mass societies and allowed those to promote progress. That made all the difference in the world.

Think of the concept of extropy not as reverse entropy, but as a measure of complexity. Life always led to growing complexity, from bacteria to worms to fishes to mice to humans. But it requires some sort of equilibrium in terms of entropy, very low entropy, rigid order like a crystal is not conducive to life, and so is very high entropy, like the chaos of plasma. Progress is natural, but not guaranteed. The horseshoe crab has existed for 10^8 years and it did not develop consciousness or social organisation. Tapeworms lost complexity and became more primitive because they found an environment that is too comfortable inside mammals' bellies. This might be the end of developed interstellar society if they go post-scarcity and lose the sense of challenge in life, they do nothing but uselessly wallow in pleasures.

[pbrower2a]

Toynbee suggests that in the earlier days of a situation, the common man does extraordinary things. As the civilization goes decadent it takes extraordinary people to do middling things. Like businesses, societies and civilizations do not grow out of their problems; unless they take drastic measures to solve those problems the problems grow with the business, society, or civilization. When the business, society, or civilization quits growing, the problem keeps growing.

Rigidity may look impressive, but it is not as stable as flexibility. It is easy to chop wood with a hand because wood is rigid enough to not bend. Even a gold bar (and gold is one of the softest of metals is flexible enough to rebound instead of breaking.

People seek improvement in their lives -- progress -- if such is available. If not they may turn to nostalgia or to the hereafter, neither of which solves any problem in the here-and-now.

The big crisis for capitalism may well be the end of scarcity. Command structures of capitalism depend heavily upon the threat of firing with the risk of destitution or at least loss of much that one has as one draws down on resources. But what happens if people can get what they need easily?

We have found a terribly-flawed solution -- to commit people to paying a high price to private interests as economic rents just to survive in a plutocratic society. Figure that even allowing for inflation a studio apartment isn't any better in 2020 than when it was built in the 1970's, but that the slumlord (and a 40-year-old apartment is typically a slum unless it has been significantly renovated) is charging ten times as much now for the same tiny apartment now as in the 1970's. Sure, taxes and utilities may be higher -- but not that much higher, especially in California, where Proposition 13 basically sealed property taxes. The trick of plutocrats is to get people to work longer and harder for less so that those plutocrats can get more.

But a higher level of economic rent (and this means an abnormally-high return on assets due to contrived scarcity and institutional corruption) as opposed to rental costs (although the two are related) creates its own economic distress while fostering great gain, indulgence, and power to slumlords. Slumlords are nobody's favorite capitalists unless those capitalists are in the same general business. They are not innovators. Maybe one admires the great innovators in electronics, media creativity, or consumer marketing... but not someone who simply milks a scarcity that will never go away.

I have noticed that as a general rule, people are most likely to be political liberals if they are renters, no matter how well off they are in other aspects of life. It could be that renters fail to see the costs (most obviously taxes and utilities) that landlords pay. So go ahead and vote for the millage that promises to add funding for the public schools, and go ahead and vote for an increase in the income tax to fund highway improvements, public parks, and public health and other things that make life tolerable. Except -- the slumlord profits most if people get minimal public services, which means lower taxes on property and income.

Economic elites increasingly treat the common man as a cash cow who has duties to those elites but can expect little in return other than the privilege of survival. We are far from there yet, but I contemplate the end of the Roman Empire, when the "barbarian" invaders took over. The barbarian bands were able to offer the common man, typically an abject serf, the easiest deal possible to accept: lead me to your masters' loot and we will free you from your masters and even let you farm without paying them. The barbarians killed the masters, took the loot, and left.

The Right offered tax revolts as the model of freedom -- except that now we are the subjects of the narrow interests that profited most.

[Blazkovitz]

How does anarchy fit in the diagram?

Quite nicely, actually. There are no anarcho-securitarians or anarcho-nationalists because securitarianism and nationalism are statist ideologies by definition.

Other sectors have their anarchist counterparts:
-anarcho-capitalists, like Murray Rothbard
-anarcho-communists, working class anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin
-anarcho-inclusivists, like the hippies
-anarcho-theocrats like the Amish. Israel under the Judges was a good example of an anarcho-theocratic society. The poet William Blake would fit in this sector as well.

(05-11-2020, 04:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Right offered tax revolts as the model of freedom -- except that now we are the subjects of the narrow interests that profited most.

That's why anarcho-capitalism would lead to feudalism in practice. And other types of anarchy would lead to plain chaos. Anarcho-theocracy might be most practicable, but only when everybody is pious and agrees on the same faith.

[Eric the Green]

(05-09-2020, 05:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-08-2020, 11:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Of course, the pro-market section right next to the theocratic just LOVES Darwin!

A hardcore libertarian would probably say it's your business if you teach your child Darwin, Blavatsky or Genesis. Just government out of the classroom!

My personal idea: to allow a child to grow up without hearing of the wonders of Evolution is a form of abuse.

You know what I mean. Darwin in the political circle is Social Darwinism; survival of the fittest in society. That's the pro-free market ideology.

Not so wonderful.

And remember, Pro-Market is only libertarian when it concerns the market and economics. There is no necessary connection between the two. Free market economics is oppressive, as you know.

My essay on Free Market Ideology:
http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

Carry on, I enjoy your ideas, and your interest in circular maps of ideas. It's an interesting field

[pbrower2a]

(05-14-2020, 03:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: How does anarchy fit in the diagram?

Quite nicely, actually. There are no anarcho-securitarians or anarcho-nationalists because securitarianism and nationalism are statist ideologies by definition.

Other sectors have their anarchist counterparts:
-anarcho-capitalists, like Murray Rothbard
-anarcho-communists, working class anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin
-anarcho-inclusivists, like the hippies
-anarcho-theocrats like the Amish. Israel under the Judges was a good example of an anarcho-theocratic society. The poet William Blake would fit in this sector as well.

(05-11-2020, 04:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Right offered tax revolts as the model of freedom -- except that now we are the subjects of the narrow interests that profited most.

That's why anarcho-capitalism would lead to feudalism in practice. And other types of anarchy would lead to plain chaos. Anarcho-theocracy might be most practicable, but only when everybody is pious and agrees on the same faith.

Anarcho-syndicalists distrust the State and Big Business, Big Business eventually suppressing competition in favor of monopolization and bureaucratic power and the State often becoming a captured entity on behalf of monopolists, quasi-feudal elites, and warmongers. 
 
Anarcho-syndicalists depend upon voluntary organizations (which could be religious organizations) and small-scale co-operatives or family businesses to get things done. But how well such works depends upon how good people are and how competent they are at their tasks.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-14-2020, 02:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-14-2020, 03:50 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: How does anarchy fit in the diagram?

Quite nicely, actually. There are no anarcho-securitarians or anarcho-nationalists because securitarianism and nationalism are statist ideologies by definition.

Other sectors have their anarchist counterparts:
-anarcho-capitalists, like Murray Rothbard
-anarcho-communists, working class anarchists like Mikhail Bakunin
-anarcho-inclusivists, like the hippies
-anarcho-theocrats like the Amish. Israel under the Judges was a good example of an anarcho-theocratic society. The poet William Blake would fit in this sector as well.

(05-11-2020, 04:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Right offered tax revolts as the model of freedom -- except that now we are the subjects of the narrow interests that profited most.

That's why anarcho-capitalism would lead to feudalism in practice. And other types of anarchy would lead to plain chaos. Anarcho-theocracy might be most practicable, but only when everybody is pious and agrees on the same faith.

Anarcho-syndicalists distrust the State and Big Business, Big Business eventually suppressing competition in favor of monopolization and bureaucratic power and the State often becoming a captured entity on behalf of monopolists, quasi-feudal elites, and warmongers. 
 
Anarcho-syndicalists depend upon voluntary organizations (which could be religious organizations) and small-scale co-operatives or family businesses to get things done. But how well such works depends upon how good people are and how competent they are at their tasks.

Anarcho-syndicalism is working class, Syndikat means a trade union in German. So I put it in the Red sector.

Iain M Banks' Culture series is a science fiction exercise in anarcho-inclusivism. Transhuman space hippies.

Just like nationalism and securitarianism have no anarchist counterparts, there is a form of anarchism, anarcho-primitivism or wildism as it's now called, which has no statist counterpart. A wildist state is impossible, because states are a feature of civilization. But it might have a rugged version (Ted Kaczynski), closer to Yellow, and a soft version (John Zerzan) closer to Purple.

[Eric the Green]

As I see it, you have four right-wing sectors, and two left-wing ones. Pro-Market is the essence of the right wing today, the most-commonly-held view among Republicans and other right wingers. The nationalists and theocrats are also generally right-wing today, and since statism is repressive, I would call that generally right-wing too.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-15-2020, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I see it, you have four right-wing sectors, and two left-wing ones. Pro-Market is the essence of the right wing today, the most-commonly-held view among Republicans and other right wingers. The nationalists and theocrats are also generally right-wing today, and since statism is repressive, I would call that generally right-wing too.

Maybe there is more diversity of ideas on the right?

Pro-market liberalism can be left-wing as well, e.g. Thomas Jefferson or Bill Clinton. Mises criticised traditional societies quite readily, and supported capitalism because it's more conducive to progress than socialism.

Securitarians can lean towards the working-class left sectors, as do Kim Jong Un and Xi Jin Ping who have a communist background and still appeal to some communist ideas.

Leftist ethos of care can be as repressive as rightist ethos of justice or sanctity. The only non-repressive systems are anarchist ones.

[Bob Butler 54]

It seems to me you are going crazy with identifying special interest groups.  Each of these groups work for the interest of a certain group of people, and often do harm to another group with competing interests.  For example, a corporation my work for the interests of it’s executive and stockowners, but that interest comes into conflict with their labor union and employees.

The result is not so much a compass as a list of special interest groups.

Holmes directed rights did not extend to harming others.  The Neo Wiccans asked its followers to do no harm.  A Christian is asked to love thy neighbor, where a neighbor is defined by the Good Samaritan parable as anybody.  These similar principles provide a compass, expressed differently, containing the same core.  

These can be applied to each special interest group.  Does their concern for their own group extend as far as harming others, with or without intent?  Now that... that is a moral compass.

[Eric the Green]

(05-16-2020, 08:29 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-15-2020, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I see it, you have four right-wing sectors, and two left-wing ones. Pro-Market is the essence of the right wing today, the most-commonly-held view among Republicans and other right wingers. The nationalists and theocrats are also generally right-wing today, and since statism is repressive, I would call that generally right-wing too.

Maybe there is more diversity of ideas on the right?

Pro-market liberalism can be left-wing as well, e.g. Thomas Jefferson or Bill Clinton. Mises criticised traditional societies quite readily, and supported capitalism because it's more conducive to progress than socialism.

Securitarians can lean towards the working-class left sectors, as do Kim Jong Un and Xi Jin Ping who have a communist background and still appeal to some communist ideas.

Leftist ethos of care can be as repressive as rightist ethos of justice or sanctity. The only non-repressive systems are anarchist ones.

No, there's not. Pro-market is always right wing today. Socialism is an advance on capitalism. In fact, it is more conducive of progress than pro-market ideology is, and is closely aligned with what we call "progressive" today.

I see Pro-Market as the Orange meme on the spiral dynamics curve, which is Uranus in Planetary Dynamics symbolism. So yes, it's more advanced than Blue and Brown, which is the authority in traditional, medieval and early modern societies of the Church (Blue/Jupiter) (your theological sector), and State (Brown/Saturn/statist, your securitarian sector). 

But today, pro-market has become the most basic philosophy of the right-wing. In the European version of the political circle, it is placed at the right-wing per se, and is identified with it. It is social-darwinism applied to economics, whereas fascism is social-darwinism applied to nations and races. Pro-market is the opposite of socialism, which in the European view, is "Left" per se.

Socialism is Neptune/Lemon-colored, and is an advance (=farther out) on Uranus/bourgeois middle-class free-market capitalism. The Inclusivists can be defined as the most-advanced sector, akin to Green/Pluto. Now that all these philosophies are all fully evolved, we can compare them on a circle.

Your circle makes the point of separating out Church from Nationalism (also a more modern ideology), as well as from State, but it is not really a circle, but oblong and exaggerated on the right side. It lacks the ancient metaphysical principle of the axial mundi, the world axis, the up and down pole around which the world turns. In your circle, this axis moves from the bottom to the top left.

Securitarians are only Left when they lean into your next quadrant on the left, the socialist quadrant. They can be left or right, that's right, and that's why they are at the bottom. In the Libertarian circle (Nolan Grid), which is the same as the European circle with the positions switched around, the anarchists are placed at the top, directly opposite the statists. That seems correct to me. 

But pro-market is not anarchism per se. It is libertarian economics, which empowers the corporate state. It is the repression we live under today, post-Reagan. You have put it at the top, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the conservative, right-wing of today, embodied in the "freedom caucus" in the 2010s tea party congress. The pro-market faction is most-noted for using the words "freedom" and "liberty" to deceive the people into supporting their tyranny. But the classical liberal view, as opposed to today's neo-liberalism = pro-market, also emphasized the rights of man and the citizen, the bill of rights, human rights, and that aspect of classical liberalism/Uranus/Orange is found in the upper part of your inclusivist sector, or leaning toward it.

Pro-Market is Orange, but stripped of the Orange traits of classical liberalism. Nationalism is also Neptune/Lemon, because it's collectivist, but stripped of its original liberalism as well, and aligned with fascism. So Orange and Lemon both have their right and left factions. Even Pluto has its left and right factions. It's right-wing expression is extreme statism in its modern form, totalitarianism (which is actually bottom, but more to the right than its left-wing expression), while it's left wing is the Green meme and inclusive.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-16-2020, 01:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, there's not. Pro-market is always right wing today. Socialism is an advance on capitalism. In fact, it is more conducive of progress than pro-market ideology is, and is closely aligned with what we call "progressive" today.

The Soviet lost the space race, remember? And their living standards were far behind America or Britain. Compassionate capitalism, innovative free market with robust welfare sector wins. This is what Norway does, and they are the happiest nation on the planet.

Quote:I see Pro-Market as the Orange meme on the spiral dynamics curve, which is Uranus in Planetary Dynamics symbolism. So yes, it's more advanced than Blue and Brown, which is the authority in traditional, medieval and early modern societies of the Church (Blue/Jupiter) (your theological sector), and State (Brown/Saturn/statist, your securitarian sector). 

If you want to match the sectors with specific institutions, I'd go with:

Blue - the Church
Brown - the Army
Grey - the Police

Spiral Dynamic is a hierarchy, one mindset is more evolved than the other, while my system says you can evolve in different directions.