Political compass for the21st century

[Captain Genet]

The newest, tidied up version:

(04-20-2021, 03:33 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Toward the center the political and cultural figures may differ greatly in ideological premises but recognize the need for essential compromises to achieve practical results that meld even opposing trends. This said, Obama is not the sort who would shed any tears about someone like Rajneesh going to prison for poisoning a buffet. We have seen the sparks fly between Merkel and Trump even if both are more on the pro-business axis, and it is safe to assume that although Walesa is a nationalist as was Hitler, Walesa has no problems with what Polish Communists did to Nazi perpetrators of genocide.      

In general, if one truly believes in "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", one is safest to go toward the center, whose ideology is murkier and for whom pragmatism prevails.

Yes, the kind of civilized life normal people value is safest in the centre. Theocracy is potentially the noblest of the sectors but it ultimately fails because spiritual leaders lose their spiritual qualities when they assume political power. 

Moderates of any sector do not hesitate to condemn their extremists. GW Bush spoke against the Capitol attack on January 6. And moderate proletarianists like Rosa Luxemburg were the first to speak against the Soviet atrocities.

Quote:...There are people missing, and I have seen  other circles in which such people as Vladimir Lenin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Sigmund Freud, George Orwell, Donald Trump, Sir Winston Churchill, Simon Bolivar, Gregor and Otto Strasser (Nazis who wanted emphasis on the "socialist" pretensions of Nazism instead of compromises with the tycoons and big landowners), Mao Zedong, Mohandas Gandhi, and Robert Mugabe.  It might be difficult to place such lunatic leaders as Idi Amin or Ivan the Terrible.  Where does one put figures of antiquity such as Tutankhamun, Alexander,  Shi Huang Ti (brutal and repressive Chinese emperor that Mao admired), Moses, Zoroaster, Caesar, Lao-Tse, Gautama Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammad?

We had this discussion before, but:
-Lenin would be in the same place I put Stalin. There were hardly any differences between the two, save matters of tactics.
-George Orwell, a moderate proletarianist?
-Donald Trump is simultaneously a libertarian and a nationalist. A weird combination, but it makes sense as far as both selfishness and tribalism are seen as macho traits. The whole neoreaction and manosphere are this sort of hybrid and I cannot place them properly. 
-The Strasser bros are in the same place I put Saddam. National socialism with the emphasis on socialism.
-Mao probably the same, he was too focused on Chinese nationalism to be a true proletarianist (aka Marxist)
-Lao-Tse, Gautama Buddha and Jesus were not primarily political figures, so they are out of scope
-Mohammed... You know that Osama bin Laden keenly imitated his prophet? We are dealing with pure theocracy there.

Eric once asked about transhumanism and AI. I think AIs are an ultracapitalist concept, they would be economically productive 24/7 without having to sleep or have fun, an indeed most AI enthusiasts like Max Moore are libertarians. Transhumanism is more inclusivist. The counterculture wanted to liberate Self from tradition and social obligations, now transhumanism wants to liberate it from nature's limits. Look at seminal transhumanist works like "Last and First Men" and you see a literally bohemian world, a California on steroids, despite pseudo-Christian rants about "spiritual values". I'm happy to report that I've dumped this book and transhumanism in general.

Quote:I do not know where I would place myself. I respect tradition as a fallback when things go haywire, but I can't quite place which tradition is definitively right. We are far better off with competitive enterprise than with giant entities who buy off smart people with little talent and buy politicians like Ron Johnson. Like the theocrats I see vice as human degradation instead of privilege.  I dissent with people who think that life is all about the money, as the most extreme exemplars of that attitude are gangsters such as one finds in the Sicilian and Neapolitan Mafia, the Russian Mafiya, the Chinese Triads, the Yakuza, and the leaders of Latin-American drug cartels.

Note well: part of the American tradition is the defense of old Constitutional norms.

I really agree with all of that. I would place myself in the place I put Tolstoy, despite not agreeing with his pacifism. Military intervention against tyranny is still a good thing, but I see Tolstoy's point in a world dominated by absolute monarchies fighting to enlarge their territory.