Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(05-18-2020, 04:31 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(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.

That's why I like Spiral Dynamics. It's evolutionary, although the theory says that each stage continues to have its place in the yellow meme as "nested hierarchies." Your addition of a Nationalism sector does seem to add a "different direction" for modern times that I would consider a regression, not an advance, in the way it historically developed; and thus on the right wing. But it does fit in Planetary Dynamics (if not in Spiral Dynamics per se) as right-wing mass-society collectivism under Neptune. World War II turned out to be a battle to the death between totalitarian versions of Neptune on the right and the left. Left-wing totalitarianism won out, and still exists in North Korea at least, although that society is more like a throwback to a decadent version of Saturn/dynastic royality as well, in either case fitting well into the securitarian sector.

Norway fits high in the socialist quadrant. What makes it successful is its blend of socialism and capitalism, a truly mixed economy where taxes actually provide what people need. An advanced model that Bernie Sanders recommends, although the USA is too backward ever to copy it. Norway indeed is a socialist society that is an advance on the laissez faire, robber baron capitalism that prevailed before socialism came along to challenge and reform it.

The Soviets are left wing, but only in the statist/securitarian sector as the signature example of totalitarianism. It is not the best example of socialism for that reason. But it is a handy hatchet to throw by free marketeers against their opponents, who usually are far more in touch with the peoples' needs than pro-market oligarchy-apologists like Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Mike Pence and George W. Bush.

You've probably seen my Planetary Dynamics page by now, but if not it's well worth checking out.
http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

[Eric the Green]

Spiral Dynamics proposes that the stages alternate between assertiveness and bonding, but this is not entirely correct. In Planetary Dynamics, each stage also involves its particular way of bonding, generally in ever-larger groups:

Beige/Moon: extended families
Purple/Mercury: tribes
Pink/Venus: cities, towns, villages
Red/Mars: empires
Blue/Jupiter: church, religions (Theological)
Brown/Saturn: dynastic states (Securitarian)
Orange/Uranus: nations of free citizens, la patrie (distorted version: the oligarchy = Pro-Market)
Lemon/Neptune: economic class, workers collectives (Socialism; distorted version: races = Nationalism)
Green/Pluto, Kuiper Belt: all one people in one earth ecology (Inclusivist; earlier distorted version: totalitarianism = extreme Security)
Yellow/Chiron, Centaurs and Sun: all the stages together in one integral whole (seeing the political circle and the moving spiral)
Turquoise/Eris: contact with the galaxy

Principle American Ideologies, circa 2000:
Mars/Red = militarism, imperialism (Republican Party) Jupiter/Blue = religious right (Republican Party) Saturn/Brown = scientism, materialism, secular humanism (Democratic Party) Uranus/Orange = "free" market economics (Republican Party, Libertarian Party) Neptune/Lemon = social programs (Democratic Party) Pluto/Green = greenpeace/diversity (Green Party, post-60s Democratic Party)

[Blazkovitz]

(05-18-2020, 10:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Norway fits high in the socialist quadrant. What makes it successful is its blend of socialism and capitalism, a truly mixed economy where taxes actually provide what people need. An advanced model that Bernie Sanders recommends, although the USA is too backward ever to copy it. Norway indeed is a socialist society that is an advance on the laissez faire, robber baron capitalism that prevailed before socialism came along to challenge and reform it.

Norway scored 9 in ease of doing business ranking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_do...ex#Ranking

Hardly a socialist state!

Quote:You've probably seen my Planetary Dynamics page by now, but if not it's well worth checking out.
http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

This is beyond the scope of this thread, but if Pluto is a planet then Eris and Sedna are planets too.


I like the basic idea of spiral dynamics, but there is no guarantee the new era will be higher or more evolved than the previous one. After the Fall of Rome, Western Civilization retreated and progress resumed only in 12th century or so. The Renaissance looked back at Roman achievements, and rejected the Middle Ages. So can a future era look down at our saeculum.

Spiral dynamics and my system don't need to contradict each other, we can have more evolved variants of each sector. Xi Jinping's securitarianism is definitely more evolved than Louis XIV's securitarianism. Warrior consciousness of an Industrial Age neoreactionary like the blogger Sargon of Accad is more evolved than the ancient Sargon's one.

I agree that not all sectors appeared at the same time, there was no pro-market ideology before the Enlightenment and no inclusivism before WW2. I also agree that some eras one sector becomes more prominent than the others. In the Middle Ages, this was the theocracy sector. In the Age of Discovery (16th-18th century) it was the securitarian sector and dynastic power. Today mainstream politics is mostly about market and inclusivity sectors, at least in English-speaking nations.

So, maybe we can add the third dimension to make the 6-sector circle a tube, moving along the third dimension representing moving towards a more evolved form of a particular style of sociopolitical consciousness?

[Eric the Green]

(05-19-2020, 04:39 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-18-2020, 10:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Norway fits high in the socialist quadrant. What makes it successful is its blend of socialism and capitalism, a truly mixed economy where taxes actually provide what people need. An advanced model that Bernie Sanders recommends, although the USA is too backward ever to copy it. Norway indeed is a socialist society that is an advance on the laissez faire, robber baron capitalism that prevailed before socialism came along to challenge and reform it.

Norway scored 9 in ease of doing business ranking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_do...ex#Ranking

Hardly a socialist state!

Quote:You've probably seen my Planetary Dynamics page by now, but if not it's well worth checking out.
http://philosopherswheel.com/planetarydynamics.html

This is beyond the scope of this thread, but if Pluto is a planet then Eris and Sedna are planets too.


I like the basic idea of spiral dynamics, but there is no guarantee the new era will be higher or more evolved than the previous one. After the Fall of Rome, Western Civilization retreated and progress resumed only in 12th century or so. The Renaissance looked back at Roman achievements, and rejected the Middle Ages. So can a future era look down at our saeculum.

Spiral dynamics and my system don't need to contradict each other, we can have more evolved variants of each sector. Xi Jinping's securitarianism is definitely more evolved than Louis XIV's securitarianism. Warrior consciousness of an Industrial Age neoreactionary like the blogger Sargon of Accad is more evolved than the ancient Sargon's one.

I agree that not all sectors appeared at the same time, there was no pro-market ideology before the Enlightenment and no inclusivism before WW2. I also agree that some eras one sector becomes more prominent than the others. In the Middle Ages, this was the theocracy sector. In the Age of Discovery (16th-18th century) it was the securitarian sector and dynastic power. Today mainstream politics is mostly about market and inclusivity sectors, at least in English-speaking nations.

So, maybe we can add the third dimension to make the 6-sector circle a tube, moving along the third dimension representing moving towards a more evolved form of a particular style of sociopolitical consciousness?

Thanks for checking out my article. Planetary and Spiral Dynamics are dynamic fields with much potential to yield insights now and in the future.

Norway is a mixed economy with strong elements of socialism as well as capitalism. It is more socialist than Bernie Sanders.

Pluto is a planet, and Sedna and Eris maybe not, but Eris and Pluto are included by astronomers in a small category of dwarf planets, of which Pluto is the most significant. Astrologers must refer to Pluto, and historians notice its cycles, because by historical correlation and correct prediction, it has proven to be super-significant in the affairs of civilization and group power. It may not be so important in personal charts, unless other indicators align with it.

Pluto as I mentioned in the article has far more significance than the other smaller bodies. Not only is it the largest of them, but its dual nature is unique in the solar system, and this nature of Pluto is immensely relevant to the current issues of interdependence, polarization, ecology, war and peace, the consciousness revolution of the sixties, human potential movements, depth psychology, identity and diversity politics, etc. All very related to Pluto, the 20th century planet. And the reasons given for demoting it are false; no other planet has "cleared its orbit" any better than Pluto, and Pluto's orbit (and all the orbits of its small Plutino companions) is the only one among drawf and minor planets (except Ceres and the asteroids) which fit in a resonant pattern with the other planets. The outer 3 have a 1-2-3 relationship that coincides with the modern saeculum and illuminate it. And now, the USA is undergoing its first Pluto return! That is enormously important as we face the debacle of Trump and this cold civil war fourth turning.

Dismiss Pluto if you prefer, but those who study cycles cannot, whether they know it or not. In a way, we can say that Pluto is potent beyond measure. That's because of the unique total concentration of its dual nature, and it's very long cycle that is intimately related to and connected to the other cycles which it supercedes and dominates. And its archetypal meaning of death and rebirth is powerfully represented by its return from the depths to move inside Neptune's orbit, rising from the oceans as it were like Atlantis every 248 years.

As above, so below!

Well, that's enough for one post.....

[Eric the Green]

(05-19-2020, 04:39 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:
I like the basic idea of spiral dynamics, but there is no guarantee the new era will be higher or more evolved than the previous one. After the Fall of Rome, Western Civilization retreated and progress resumed only in 12th century or so. The Renaissance looked back at Roman achievements, and rejected the Middle Ages. So can a future era look down at our saeculum.

Spiral dynamics and my system don't need to contradict each other, we can have more evolved variants of each sector. Xi Jinping's securitarianism is definitely more evolved than Louis XIV's securitarianism. Warrior consciousness of an Industrial Age neo-reactionary like the blogger Sargon of Accad is more evolved than the ancient Sargon's one.

I agree that not all sectors appeared at the same time, there was no pro-market ideology before the Enlightenment and no inclusivism before WW2. I also agree that some eras one sector becomes more prominent than the others. In the Middle Ages, this was the theocracy sector. In the Age of Discovery (16th-18th century) it was the securitarian sector and dynastic power. Today mainstream politics is mostly about market and inclusivity sectors, at least in English-speaking nations.

So, maybe we can add the third dimension to make the 6-sector circle a tube, moving along the third dimension representing moving towards a more evolved form of a particular style of sociopolitical consciousness?

Again, thanks for the discussion. Always illuminating.

I would again put out the Theodore Parker/Martin Luther King Jr. saying: "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice."

It is certainly true that history goes through periods of decay and destruction. That's what Pluto and Shiva are all about. Sometimes something must be killed or destroyed so that new life can come. That's what happened when Rome fell. That happened because the empire was no longer viable. It was exhausted and had decayed into a tyranny. The foundations of feudalism and the middle ages were laid in the late 3rd and 4th century. Not only was Christianity taking over, along with many other cults, but the Romans just didn't have the curiosity and inventive skill to keep their people safe and prosperous with new technology. And the barbarians could not be kept at bay indefinitely.

So they swarmed in and created a new civilization, and the foundations of the 12th century were already being laid during the Dark Ages. The revival of knowledge came through from Islamic Spain. Islam and Byzantium were powerful and influential civilizations in their own right. The Northumbrian renaissance helped spark the new civilization in the early 9th century. Charlesmagne sponsored a mini-renaissance, and after the Viking raids ended the Dark Ages, the Abbey of Cluny was founded in circa 910, and from there grew the style of the cathedrals and the power of the Church. History is cyclical and spiral, so periods of death are followed by new birth, and progress continues through the process. The Medieval society turned out to be much more inventive and even scientific than the Roman. The Renaissance then emerged out of another death and rebirth process. They rejected the dying medieval society of the 14th century, and maybe their plague is being repeated for us, I don't know. I am more optimistic, and I think there's a new age renaissance today that is under the wraps of conventional paradigms. But today, cultural historians do not reject the Middle Ages the way Renaissance humanists did. It was the major source of our society today.

The process is laid out here: http://philosopherswheel.com/fortunes.htm

"Spiral dynamics and my system don't need to contradict each other." I seem to agree, and that seemed implied in my post. Yes, the "tube" idea brings in the spiral dynamic to the circle.

But I don't care much about bloggers and video games. Maybe because I'm a boomer and not a millennial/Gen Z youth.

One thing you should notice. What makes your political compass different is your separation of the Theological into one quadrant. The usual political compass lumps this together with social conservatism in general including nationalism and racism, and Spiral Dynamics lumps Brown into Blue and early Orange and ignores not only socialism (Neptune) but also the distorted version of socialism (nationalism, national socialism/racism) which you include as a separate quadrant. Only Planetary Dynamics that I have invented includes Theological as a separate meme called Jupiter, coinciding with Spiral Dynamics Blue in its medieval phase. In astrology, Jupiter has always stood for the church, the priesthood, the pope, and moral guidance-- the 1st estate.

The 4 giant planets represent the 4 quarters and estates of traditional society. Jupiter the priesthood, Saturn the nobility, Uranus the merchants, and Neptune the peasants. Pluto, of course, is the outcast class, the untouchables, and also the saints and spiritual seekers; today's hippies, and "minorities" and outcast groups demanding inclusion. The Fifth Estate! And these are the 5 elements too: fire, earth, air, water and ether/spirit. AND: prophets, civics, nomads, and artists, in the same order. And some say, a fifth generational archetype exists.

In this age of social distancing, we are all Pluto. We are all untouchable! PLuto has returned!

Symbolic speculation is fun!

[Blazkovitz]

To enlarge the tube idea, I imagined ideas as forming layers:

Theocracy seems to have three layers:
-ancient theocracy (Biblical Israel, some elements of the Egyptian civilization)
-medieval theocracy (Catholic Europe, Islam). Today represented by fossilized old style Catholics like Marcel Lefebvre, or by al-Qaeda style Islamism.
-Industrial and Information Age theocracy (Iranian Islamism, American dominion theologists like Falwell)

Nationalism has two layers:
-ancient and early medieval warrior cultures (Assyria, the Turanian nomads, the Viking). This was suppressed by medieval theocracy.
-Industrial Age nationalism proper, culminating in fascism. Trump belongs here as well.

Securitarianism, two layers again:
-ancient and medieval dynastic states, "just father" type of king rather than a warrior king.
-modern securitarianism represented by Xi and Bashar. Typically post-communists or post-nationalists who abandoned their original ideology to put emphasis on stable power.

Proletarianist red sector, two layers:
-Industrial Age workers' movements: Marxism and its spawn, as well as national liberation movements in the Third World which viewed the class conflict as happening between "proletarian nations" and "bourgeois nations".
-Information Age proletarianism: Occupy movement, Internet groups like the Venus Project (futurist communism)

Pro-market, two layers:
-Industrial Age classical liberalism
-Information Age libertarianism

Inclusivism, the youngest kid on the block, has only one layer

The newer layers usually include more "progressive" concepts. Aquinas had no problem with Aristotle's natural science, something Ancient Israelites would avoid as godless. Falwell could accept some forms of democratic governance, unthinkable for Aquinas. Similarly, the Venus Project doesn't rely on class egoism the way Marx did. It's too evolved morally to do that. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - yes, but the basic concepts stay the same unless we attain a transhuman level, in which case we'll be dealing with concepts unfathomable today. A future theocratic system could believe genetic enhancements are ordained by God as a path to perfection, maybe Christianity wouldn't cope with this concept but something like revived Pythagoreanism could.

[Blazkovitz]

Eric the Green Wrote:Pluto is a planet, and Sedna and Eris maybe not, but Eris and Pluto are included by astronomers in a small category of dwarf planets, of which Pluto is the most significant.

Pluto has bigger diameter, but Eris is more massive. Couldn't astrologers include Eris as well?

[Eric the Green]

(05-20-2020, 03:33 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:Pluto is a planet, and Sedna and Eris maybe not, but Eris and Pluto are included by astronomers in a small category of dwarf planets, of which Pluto is the most significant.

Pluto has bigger diameter, but Eris is more massive. Couldn't astrologers include Eris as well?

Some do include Eris. I don't, particularly. I refer to it and all the minor and dwarf planets in my discussion of Planetary Dynamics, however.

I don't think we know that Eris is more massive. And what many forget is that Pluto is a dual planet; Charon must be included in the mass. They are connected to each other as a virtual single body. The uniqueness of this duality also makes Pluto stand out from other planets, dwarf or otherwise.

And size is not the only factor, as I said. There is also the resonance of Pluto's orbit with the other two outer planets. And the fact that Pluto is used successfully to make predictions, and is a major factor in world events and historically-known cycles, according to astrologers.

I can myself find no significant cyclic correspondence with Eris. It is also stuck in one place most of the time. Some astrologers I know, though, see the current 90-degree angle between these two dwarf planets as significant.

[Eric the Green]

(05-20-2020, 03:31 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote: To enlarge the tube idea, I imagined ideas as forming layers:

Theocracy seems to have three layers:
-ancient theocracy (Biblical Israel, some elements of the Egyptian civilization)
-medieval theocracy (Catholic Europe, Islam). Today represented by fossilized old style Catholics like Marcel Lefebvre, or by al-Qaeda style Islamism.
-Industrial and Information Age theocracy (Iranian Islamism, American dominion theologists like Falwell)

Nationalism has two layers:
-ancient and early medieval warrior cultures (Assyria, the Turanian nomads, the Viking). This was suppressed by medieval theocracy.
-Industrial Age nationalism proper, culminating in fascism. Trump belongs here as well.

Securitarianism, two layers again:
-ancient and medieval dynastic states, "just father" type of king rather than a warrior king.
-modern securitarianism represented by Xi and Bashar. Typically post-communists or post-nationalists who abandoned their original ideology to put emphasis on stable power.

Proletarianist red sector, two layers:
-Industrial Age workers' movements: Marxism and its spawn, as well as national liberation movements in the Third World which viewed the class conflict as happening between "proletarian nations" and "bourgeois nations".
-Information Age proletarianism: Occupy movement, Internet groups like the Venus Project (futurist communism)

Pro-market, two layers:
-Industrial Age classical liberalism
-Information Age libertarianism

Inclusivism, the youngest kid on the block, has only one layer

The newer layers usually include more "progressive" concepts. Aquinas had no problem with Aristotle's natural science, something Ancient Israelites would avoid as godless. Falwell could accept some forms of democratic governance, unthinkable for Aquinas. Similarly, the Venus Project doesn't rely on class egoism the way Marx did. It's too evolved morally to do that. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" - yes, but the basic concepts stay the same unless we attain a transhuman level, in which case we'll be dealing with concepts unfathomable today. A future theocratic system could believe genetic enhancements are ordained by God as a path to perfection, maybe Christianity wouldn't cope with this concept but something like revived Pythagoreanism could.

Yes, perhaps.

Transhumanism itself seems related to the Orange meme of Spiral Dynamics, which is listed here as Industrial Age classical liberalism. The Orange meme is described as the valuation of using knowledge to master conditions (usually physical conditions). So it's another layer of the Industrial Age and the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and the 19th century. A "new ager" friend of mine (I think he's still a friend), who also describes and follows transhumanism, calls this "technos," or the power of technology as an over-arching phenomenon with its own autonomous momentum.

Info-Age Pro market can also be described as neo-liberalism, since this emphasizes the "free" market, as opposed to the liberal values of human rights and democracy.

Information age proletarian or socialist also includes democratic socialist movements like that of Bernie Sanders and the Scandinavian countries. Bernie borrowed a lot of the Occupy rhetoric, or else Occupy borrowed from Bernie who had been saying the same things for 40 years or more prior to Occupy. These are less strictly socialist movements that don't advocate an entirely socialist economy, but a mixed one. Bernie's movement is a lot more significant than the "Venus Project," which I have never heard of.

It's a good list. The "tube" layers could be an example of what the Spiral Dynamics authors describe as the "nested hierarchy" value of the Yellow meme; or people developing from their own traditional memes and values. Our various circles represent the Yellow meme aspiration toward a comprehensive, integral philosophy or "theory of everything" like Ken Wilber aspires to, or modern physics is attempting.

It's hard to see these tube layers as necessarily "bending toward justice" though. I think the basic Spiral or Planetary Dynamic does this, but some of these layers seem to represent a regression. But I also covered this tendency as part of Planetary Dynamics. In Spiral Dynamics terms, in the Yellow meme the energy or development runs both ways, up and down the spiral, just like the spiral channels of the chakras. Regression seems especially to be an aspect of current world society. I symbolized this by the 1977 discovery of Chiron and then the Centaurs in the 1990s, which are slowly falling from the Kuiper Belt toward the Sun.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-20-2020, 05:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Information age proletarian or socialist also includes democratic socialist movements like that of Bernie Sanders and the Scandinavian countries. Bernie borrowed a lot of the Occupy rhetoric, or else Occupy borrowed from Bernie who had been saying the same things for 40 years or more prior to Occupy. These are less strictly socialist movements that don't advocate an entirely socialist economy, but a mixed one. Bernie's movement is a lot more significant than the "Venus Project," which I have never heard of.

Bernie started his political career in the 1960s, so he would be somewhere between the two layers of Red. Same for Corbyn.

[Eric the Green]

(05-21-2020, 04:54 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-20-2020, 05:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Information age proletarian or socialist also includes democratic socialist movements like that of Bernie Sanders and the Scandinavian countries. Bernie borrowed a lot of the Occupy rhetoric, or else Occupy borrowed from Bernie who had been saying the same things for 40 years or more prior to Occupy. These are less strictly socialist movements that don't advocate an entirely socialist economy, but a mixed one. Bernie's movement is a lot more significant than the "Venus Project," which I have never heard of.

Bernie started his political career in the 1960s, so he would be somewhere between the two layers of Red. Same for Corbyn.

Maybe, but I don't think "Occupy" and an internet group are sufficient definitions of the top layer of red. Occupy was apolitical and thus had little lasting influence, and internet groups are not meaningful IMO. So the top layer must in fact be socialism as implemented in the sixties and 70s and since then in Europe (socialist parties and governments in Scandinavia and Western Europe) and in left movements in the USA then; the New Left and folks like Bernie Sanders.

[Blazkovitz]

(05-21-2020, 02:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-21-2020, 04:54 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-20-2020, 05:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Information age proletarian or socialist also includes democratic socialist movements like that of Bernie Sanders and the Scandinavian countries. Bernie borrowed a lot of the Occupy rhetoric, or else Occupy borrowed from Bernie who had been saying the same things for 40 years or more prior to Occupy. These are less strictly socialist movements that don't advocate an entirely socialist economy, but a mixed one. Bernie's movement is a lot more significant than the "Venus Project," which I have never heard of.

Bernie started his political career in the 1960s, so he would be somewhere between the two layers of Red. Same for Corbyn.

Maybe, but I don't think "Occupy" and an internet group are sufficient definitions of the top layer of red. Occupy was apolitical and thus had little lasting influence, and internet groups are not meaningful IMO. So the top layer must in fact be socialism as implemented in the sixties and 70s and since then in Europe (socialist parties and governments in Scandinavia and Western Europe) and in left movements in the USA then; the New Left and folks like Bernie Sanders.

Everybody who focuses on economic equality above all is Red.

In 1960s-70s European groups are the top layer, then national liberation movements of the same decades are the top layer as well. People like Mandela, Wałęsa (pronounced Vavensa, if you trust Forvo) and Chavez are the Information Age layer of Red.

[Blazkovitz]

Based on moral foundations theory:

Inclusivism = ethics of care
Pro-market = ethics of liberty
Theocracy = ethics of sanctity
Nationalism = ethics of loyalty
Securitarianism = ethics of authority (order would be more exact)
Proletarianism = ethics of equality, which was there in 2011 version of the moral foundations theory, but was later removed

[Eric the Green]

This test has four scales but does not put them on a circle. It seems to be one economic axis, and three social axes. The tradition vs. progressive axis seems to incorporate the theological issue.

https://8values.github.io/quiz.html

"socialism" seems to be mostly what we call liberal keynesian or social democracy, but which Classic Xer would call Marxist Left.

[Eric the Green]

The first time I did this I was a bit more liberal on the axes than this time, but I'm usually more liberal/left on questionnaires than most people.

https://8values.github.io/results.html?e...0.6&s=80.7

My first go-round; I was able to post the image on my facebook page, and then copied it from there.

[David Horn]

(06-27-2020, 05:39 AM)ric the Green Wrote: This test has four scales but does not put them on a circle. It seems to be one economic axis, and three social axes. The tradition vs. progressive axis seems to incorporate the theological issue.

https://8values.github.io/quiz.html

"socialism" seems to be mostly what we call liberal keynesian or social democracy, but which Classic Xer would call Marxist Left.

Here are my scores.  I tried to post the graphic, but the site won't allow it.   

In summary:

1. Economic Axis: Socialist (85.3%)
   
2. Diplomatic Axis: Peaceful (70.65)
   
3. Civil Axis: Liberal (67.9%)
   
4. Societal Axis: Very Progressive (76.7%)
   

[User3451]

(05-22-2020, 05:34 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-21-2020, 02:16 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-21-2020, 04:54 AM)Blazkovitz Wrote:

(05-20-2020, 05:37 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Information age proletarian or socialist also includes democratic socialist movements like that of Bernie Sanders and the Scandinavian countries. Bernie borrowed a lot of the Occupy rhetoric, or else Occupy borrowed from Bernie who had been saying the same things for 40 years or more prior to Occupy. These are less strictly socialist movements that don't advocate an entirely socialist economy, but a mixed one. Bernie's movement is a lot more significant than the "Venus Project," which I have never heard of.

Bernie started his political career in the 1960s, so he would be somewhere between the two layers of Red. Same for Corbyn.

Maybe, but I don't think "Occupy" and an internet group are sufficient definitions of the top layer of red. Occupy was apolitical and thus had little lasting influence, and internet groups are not meaningful IMO. So the top layer must in fact be socialism as implemented in the sixties and 70s and since then in Europe (socialist parties and governments in Scandinavia and Western Europe) and in left movements in the USA then; the New Left and folks like Bernie Sanders.

Everybody who focuses on economic equality above all is Red.

In 1960s-70s European groups are the top layer, then national liberation movements of the same decades are the top layer as well. People like Mandela, Wałęsa (pronounced Vavensa, if you trust Forvo) and Chavez are the Information Age layer of Red.

Don't trust forvo. It's V

Bernie is a social democrat and far, far from a socialist. He's about as radical as roads and public scools

[Captain Genet]

So yes, this is me again. I'm ashamed of losing access to the old account and promise this is the final one.

This is how I revised the diagram. I hope this is the final version:


I decided to eliminate the securitarian sector as all people inside it can be classified as either theocrats (like King Louis XIV, a divine right monarch) or nationalist (Xi Jinping, Assad, etc.). Lukashenko is a proletarianist though, I'd put him in the same place as Castro. His slogan is sotzial'naya Belarus', he oppresses Belarussian nationalists and uses Soviet symbols.

I also tilted the diagram to show the pro-market sector as entirely right-wing, like Eric the Green suggested, and allow for left-wing nationalists.

The inclusion of Roddenberry shows Mr Butler where his axis of progress is directed.

[pbrower2a]

(02-26-2021, 03:20 AM)Captain Genet Wrote: So yes, this is me again. I'm ashamed of losing access to the old account and promise this is the final one.

This is how I revised the diagram. I hope this is the final version:


I decided to eliminate the securitarian sector as all people inside it can be classified as either theocrats (like King Louis XIV, a divine right monarch) or nationalist (Xi Jinping, Assad, etc.). Lukashenko is a proletarianist though, I'd put him in the same place as Castro. His slogan is sotzial'naya Belarus', he oppresses Belarussian nationalists and uses Soviet symbols.

I also tilted the diagram to show the pro-market sector as entirely right-wing, like Eric the Green suggested, and allow for left-wing nationalists.

The inclusion of Roddenberry shows Mr Butler where his axis of progress is directed.

A critique, and that does not mean hostile criticism:

1. Which Roosevelt? Is it Franklin, Theodore, or Eleanor? Which Bush? '41` or '43'?

2. Except for the Inclusivist region, those closest to the edges of the disk seem involved either in mass murder or  support ideologies that can result in mass murder. I see Ayn Rand standing for an ideology potentially as murderous as Marxism-Leninism due to the potential lethality of its contempt for the poor who are at the complete mercy of an economic elite devoid of any responsibility to any but themselves individually. 

In contrast to the fringes the people closest to the center are most like each other, and most likely to make compromises that offer good for good. Someone like MLK or Gandhi may be as devout as any theocrat but is likely to see the devoutness of people from another religious tradition as equally legitimate in devotion.     

3. Figures of antiquity (Tutankhamen, Moses, Plato, Confucius, Caesar, Paul (arguably more important in determining what Christianity is than Jesus Himself) Mohammed, and even early modernity (Huss, Luther, Shakespeare, Calvin, Hobbes, Locke) are hard to place. Significantly missing are leaders of the Suffragette movement on your disc.

Democracy, feminism, and environmentalism are themselves are almost strictly modern causes. 

4. There are 'persons of interest' not on this disk, but obviously they might be rather close to others. I see Nicholas II of Russia and Donald Trump near the outer edge of the pro-market (really 'Plutocratic' zone) because their ideologies led to mass death even if such was unintended. Maybe  Nicolas II would be toward the theocratic zone and Trump toward the middle of the plutocratic zone. Both killed more through negligent homicide than through intentional genocide. 

5. Cultural figures may have more lasting relevance than political figures. It is hard to discuss modern literature without discussing Sigmund Freud (seemingly every good writer now 'psychoanalyzes' his characters, which would be as true of Boris Pasternak as of Ernest Hemingway. Earlier versions of this disk might place Beethoven or Wagner, Rockwell or Picasso, Kerouac or Kipling, or Orwell or Limbaugh.

[Captain Genet]

(02-26-2021, 04:28 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: 1. Which Roosevelt? Is it Franklin, Theodore, or Eleanor? Which Bush? '41` or '43'?

Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush.

Quote:2. Except for the Inclusivist region, those closest to the edges of the disk seem involved either in mass murder or  support ideologies that can result in mass murder.

Antifa is also capable of committing mass murder. Rajneesh's followers engaged in terrorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajne...ror_attack

Quote:I see Ayn Rand standing for an ideology potentially as murderous as Marxism-Leninism due to the potential lethality of its contempt for the poor who are at the complete mercy of an economic elite devoid of any responsibility to any but themselves individually. 

In contrast to the fringes the people closest to the center are most like each other, and most likely to make compromises that offer good for good. Someone like MLK or Gandhi may be as devout as any theocrat but is likely to see the devoutness of people from another religious tradition as equally legitimate in devotion.     

3. Figures of antiquity (Tutankhamen, Moses, Plato, Confucius, Caesar, Paul (arguably more important in determining what Christianity is than Jesus Himself) Mohammed, and even early modernity (Huss, Luther, Shakespeare, Calvin, Hobbes, Locke) are hard to place.

I agree with all of that. Mohammed, Moses, Abraham would be in the outer parts of the theocratic sector. Plato and Confucius could be called philosophocrats, and treated as honorary theocrats, since their doctrines also wanted to legislate absolute morality. Contemplative philosophy such as Platonism can be as harmful as religion for the individual, but it doesn't harm society as much because there are no philosophers' militias. Still Platonism influenced Christianity and is responsible for its contempt for sex and the body.

Plutocracy is too loaded to use as a name for the Yellow sector, for the same reason Communism is too loaded to serve as a good name for the Red sector.

Quote:Significantly missing are leaders of the Suffragette movement on your disc.

Where would you put them?

Quote:There are 'persons of interest' not on this disk, but obviously they might be rather close to others. I see Nicholas II of Russia and Donald Trump near the outer edge of the pro-market (really 'Plutocratic' zone) because their ideologies led to mass death even if such was unintended. Maybe  Nicolas II would be toward the theocratic zone and Trump toward the middle of the plutocratic zone. Both killed more through negligent homicide than through intentional genocide. 

Trump and his neoreactionary guru Bannon, along with the founder of neoreaction Mencius Moldbug would be close to Ayn Rand, and simultaneously somewhere near Putin. In a similar vein the "True Leftist" movement would be extreme Inclusivism and simultaneously left-wing Nationalism.

Quote:Cultural figures may have more lasting relevance than political figures. It is hard to discuss modern literature without discussing Sigmund Freud (seemingly every good writer now 'psychoanalyzes' his characters, which would be as true of Boris Pasternak as of Ernest Hemingway. Earlier versions of this disk might place Beethoven or Wagner, Rockwell or Picasso, Kerouac or Kipling, or Orwell or Limbaugh.

I only recall including Wagner. He was in the nationalist zone.