Political compass for the21st century

[pbrower2a]

(03-18-2019, 08:03 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Now it occurred to me that collapsing it to three basic types (individualists, leftists and traditionalists) plus centre is a better idea.

Counterculture is not a valid political orientation, because it comprises 3 different types:
-non-Abrahamic traditionalists, whose ideal society is something like Avatar. Most New Age types perhaps like our own Eric the Green.
-individualists who aren't obsessed with money. Like Jefferson and most anarchists.
-communists who don't have a thing for class struggle. Like Marcuse and Rousseau.

Non-Abrahamic traditionalists (Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and Shinto followers) would seem fully conformist within their cultures, and even conservative. Fusions -- lt us say a Jewish-Buddhist fusion or a Christian-Confucian fusion -- would definitely be counter-cultural. Neopagans, anyone?

Individualists not obsessed with money? That is simply healthy.

Quote:Nationalism is also not a valid sector, by itself. It should be split into 2 areas:
-leftists for whom national liberation is also more important than class struggle. From Saddam to Che on the extreme side, while Mandela and Polish Solidarity leaders would be the gentlemen of this subsector.
-traditionalists who care for identity and martial values more than for religion. Like Franco and Gaddafi.

Like Mussolini, Quisling, and Laval, Satan Hussein moved from being a socialist to being a fascist. Franco is clearly a clerico-fascist. Qaddafi was quite unorthodox in his treatment of Islam. Putting extremists on the periphery still makes sense.

Quote:So, there should be 3 basic sectors with some subsectors
*Individualists
-libertarians
-anarchists

*Traditionalists
-religious right
-identitarian right

*Leftists
-New Leftists
-Marxists
-progressive nationalists

There's always room for more and new interpretations.