OK -- I get some important inferences. Extremists are toward the periphery of the pentagon, with people in on borders being 'fusions' (example: Marcuse clearly melds egalitarianism with counterculture tendencies, Stalin is about as nationalist as he is Marxist, Qaddafi is both nationalist and traditionalist, and Falwell is a traditionalist who believes firmly in market economics and Thatcher or Reagan are free-market mavens but less markedly traditionalist on morals). People at the apices of the pentagon are pure communists (Marx), nationalists (Putin), traditionalists (bin Laden), free-market advocates (Rand), or exponents of a counterculture (Rajneesh).
Those in power on the extremes of the Communist, Nationalist, and traditionalist zones are consummately brutal: Trotsky (and Pol Pot), Stalin (Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro as well), Hitler (and probably Mussolini, Goering, Goebbels, Quisling, and Pavelic), Qaddafi, and Khomeini left no question of what they were. People toward the free-market extreme have yet to establish a libertarian dystopia in which people who have rough times submit to peonage or serfdom or starve (Some people would like a society based upon the principles of Ayn Rand, and I think that it would be just as nasty as a Communist or fascist regime). Counterculture figures at the extreme have also yet to establish themselves as leaders.
OK, so would I trust someone on the line and at the extreme between Communism and nationalism, like the Gregor or Otto Strasser? Not in the least. The people on the borderline between nationalism and communism are the ones who have set up the extermination and labor camps in which millions die of either being worked to death on starvation rations or being executed. The difference between Hitler and Pol Pot is the choice of victims.
People toward the center are not so extreme; these are the people who have characteristics of three or more of the five tendencies and pick and choose. FDR (and probably Adenauer) are prime examples of Christian Socialists, people capable of picking and choosing between nationalism, tradition, the free market, and egalitarianism. Maybe Gandhi is a "Hindu socialist". They may be nationalists as necessary, but they recognize that the appeal of their countries' nationality ends at well-defined borders. The position of Angela Merkel near the center exemplifies someone open-minded and not at all extreme.
The extremists of three sectors of the pentagon (including those best described as fusions between communists and nationalists or between nationalists and traditionalists) have shown themselves capable of genocide, aggressive war for pushing their ideology into places where such ideology is unwelcome, persecution of dissidents, and terrorism.
But not being at the extreme means that one isn't so fanatical. One might have an agenda, but it isn't conquering an empire or killing off opponents or 'class enemies'. I don't see either Reagan or Thatcher being as brutal or despotic as Putin, Khomeini, or Trotsky even if they could be abrasive. Maybe the Anglo-American tradition endures that their sort of traditionalism and free-market values implies respect for the rule of law and for the marketplace not only of merchandise but also of ideals. I never thought of Jerry Falwell as the sort to call for putting miscreants into concentration camps or mass graves, either. God might damn gays and lesbians to Hell, but that is not in Falwell's pay-grade.
I could suggest a really-nasty fellow for an illustration of someone at the extreme between the free market and traditionalism, someone that I did not mention: Agosto Pinochet. He was a killer.
So being near the borderline of two tendencies (Churchill or Pinochet) makes one a murderous tyrant if one is also an extremist if in power. I can excuse the harsh warfare that Churchill (or Lincoln) waged.
...You could not place Samuel Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Robespierre, Napoleon, Lincoln, Juarez, Garibaldi, or even Wilhelm II, so perhaps this pentagon fits only the last century or so. The earliest figure that you could place was Marx, and probably only because he is so blatant that he defines an ideology as few others can. You would probably also have trouble with anyone from World War I or earlier except perhaps Marx. The only plutocrat in the group is Trump... I don't know where Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, or Bill Gates would go. I'd guess that the most blatant advocates of Gilded Age capitalism would be close to Ayn Rand. The willingness to mow down strikers might demonstrate the potential ruthlessness of free-market mavens.
Would Thomas Paine fit the borderline between counterculture and free-market advocacy?
Those in power on the extremes of the Communist, Nationalist, and traditionalist zones are consummately brutal: Trotsky (and Pol Pot), Stalin (Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Castro as well), Hitler (and probably Mussolini, Goering, Goebbels, Quisling, and Pavelic), Qaddafi, and Khomeini left no question of what they were. People toward the free-market extreme have yet to establish a libertarian dystopia in which people who have rough times submit to peonage or serfdom or starve (Some people would like a society based upon the principles of Ayn Rand, and I think that it would be just as nasty as a Communist or fascist regime). Counterculture figures at the extreme have also yet to establish themselves as leaders.
OK, so would I trust someone on the line and at the extreme between Communism and nationalism, like the Gregor or Otto Strasser? Not in the least. The people on the borderline between nationalism and communism are the ones who have set up the extermination and labor camps in which millions die of either being worked to death on starvation rations or being executed. The difference between Hitler and Pol Pot is the choice of victims.
People toward the center are not so extreme; these are the people who have characteristics of three or more of the five tendencies and pick and choose. FDR (and probably Adenauer) are prime examples of Christian Socialists, people capable of picking and choosing between nationalism, tradition, the free market, and egalitarianism. Maybe Gandhi is a "Hindu socialist". They may be nationalists as necessary, but they recognize that the appeal of their countries' nationality ends at well-defined borders. The position of Angela Merkel near the center exemplifies someone open-minded and not at all extreme.
The extremists of three sectors of the pentagon (including those best described as fusions between communists and nationalists or between nationalists and traditionalists) have shown themselves capable of genocide, aggressive war for pushing their ideology into places where such ideology is unwelcome, persecution of dissidents, and terrorism.
But not being at the extreme means that one isn't so fanatical. One might have an agenda, but it isn't conquering an empire or killing off opponents or 'class enemies'. I don't see either Reagan or Thatcher being as brutal or despotic as Putin, Khomeini, or Trotsky even if they could be abrasive. Maybe the Anglo-American tradition endures that their sort of traditionalism and free-market values implies respect for the rule of law and for the marketplace not only of merchandise but also of ideals. I never thought of Jerry Falwell as the sort to call for putting miscreants into concentration camps or mass graves, either. God might damn gays and lesbians to Hell, but that is not in Falwell's pay-grade.
I could suggest a really-nasty fellow for an illustration of someone at the extreme between the free market and traditionalism, someone that I did not mention: Agosto Pinochet. He was a killer.
So being near the borderline of two tendencies (Churchill or Pinochet) makes one a murderous tyrant if one is also an extremist if in power. I can excuse the harsh warfare that Churchill (or Lincoln) waged.
...You could not place Samuel Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Robespierre, Napoleon, Lincoln, Juarez, Garibaldi, or even Wilhelm II, so perhaps this pentagon fits only the last century or so. The earliest figure that you could place was Marx, and probably only because he is so blatant that he defines an ideology as few others can. You would probably also have trouble with anyone from World War I or earlier except perhaps Marx. The only plutocrat in the group is Trump... I don't know where Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, or Bill Gates would go. I'd guess that the most blatant advocates of Gilded Age capitalism would be close to Ayn Rand. The willingness to mow down strikers might demonstrate the potential ruthlessness of free-market mavens.
Would Thomas Paine fit the borderline between counterculture and free-market advocacy?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.