Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(06-17-2021, 02:19 PM)Captain Genet Wrote:

(06-17-2021, 08:58 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-16-2021, 01:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: On your diagram, Captain, Mandela should be over with the other coolest dudes between purple and red.

Definitely "inclusionist", and not particularly nationalist. A nationalist would be more tribal in any part of sub-Saharan Africa (and under white supremacy in South Africa, Namibia, and Rhodesia, white people aligned with white power were highly tribal).

Thank you for that. I moved Mandela to the Red sector, and put Mobutu as an example of left-leaning African nationalist, along with Peron as a more moderate Latino nationalist. Mandela did not push for any cultural changes typical for the Purple sector, so I can't put him there. Don't forget he was a Commie when young.

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't see nationalism as opposing oppression of the majority by some elite. Nationalists see themselves as the elite that should have power over other nations or races. It's "Make (whatever nation) Great Again." Same slogan that Mussolini used. Putin and Trump have their nationalism in common.

Nationalists often claim that "common people" with their national identity are oppressed by a cosmopolitan elite of businessmen (for left-leaning nationalists) or intellectuals (for right-leaning nationalists). Jacobinism would be another example of left-leaning nationalism, fighting against a cosmopolitan aristocracy.

Thanks for moving Mandela. I would put him higher in the red sector myself, since his main concern was for basic human rights. But that's a good move you made.

Jacobinism seems dated, in that sense. The French Revolution upheld the nation as a vehicle for greater human rights. Their nation was the people of France as a whole, not their ruling classes. They also wanted to help restore and extend human rights to other nations too, not oppress them. So in that sense it is human rights that is the priority, and so "left nationalists" as you call them belong in the inclusivist sector. "Common people" who are brainwashed by demagogues to believe in their "national identity", which "elite intellectuals" want to dissolve, are just social conservatives, in my view, who as I said want to oppress those of other national identities. "Elite intellectuals" are just exercizing their rational abilities that common people can also choose to use. Common people have just as much potential ability to recognize basic human rights and decency as well-educated people, if they so choose to use that ability. If they do so, they won't be nationalists. Granted, they are less likely to make that choice than educated people, but that just underscores the value of education for all.

In my post I meant to say "opposing" not "positing"