06-24-2021, 08:01 PM
(06-24-2021, 02:54 AM)Captain Genet Wrote:(06-22-2021, 06:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Those who combine other sectors with nationalism, are primarily interested in those other sectors and should be placed there. So the French Jacobins are just reddish inclusivists, and the North Vietnamese in the 1960s were deeper-red socialists.
Agreed, with some exceptions like White Power types who extol Christianity only because this is "the white man's religion", but accept Norse Paganism and Satanism as long as they are suitably racist. The wife of American National Socialist Movement's founder is a high priestess in a cult called Joy of Satan.
Ba'athism morphed into fascism. Fascists can say all that they want about being true democrats and true socialists... maybe the culture loves the word "socialist" or "democratic", and the fascists cannot resist using the term. Typically a "Socialist Workers' Party" is far left as is so of the extremist Socialist Workers' Party in the USA. Note well that there was an older Czech National Socialist Party that was neither dictatorial, expansionist, nor anti-Jewish. It was a liberal party with only a slight socialist streak. It was open to non-Czechs, including Germans and Czech Jews (Czech Jews were culturally German).
Party names mean little unless they are connected to some international cause such as Communism or Ba'athism.
If you want a taste of Ba'ath ideology under Saddam Hussein, just listen to the national anthem of Iraq under the totalitarian fascist regime:
Holy Horst-Wessel-Lied! No, this is not some anthem from a popular revolution as is the Marseillaise. This is not a question of whether a nation survives a mortal peril, as the Star-Spangled Banner. This is not the longing for the restoration of a nation in national independence, as is so with the Greek, Czech, Polish, or Israeli national anthems. This is not the benign attachment of a nation to a monarch as one associates with God Save the King, the Wilhelmus (Netherlands) or Kimigayo (Japan)... or in the past Gott Erhalte Franz den Kaiser (Austria). If there was any problem with the Russian Imperial Anthem, it was with the Empire itself. Patriotism is fine so long as it extols national virtues or sentiment or vitality without a call to impose a way of life somewhere in which it is not welcome.
A fatherland spreads its wings over the horizon... burns the sands of the Arab Nation with fire (not that the Saudis want that sort of revolution!)... speaks of the glory of conquest. It's clear from the context and the timing that Saddam Hussein chose this anthem... and the Coalition authority had good cause to outlaw it. As for tolerance... about the only good thing that I can say is that Saddam left the Christian minority alone... perhaps because most of the NATO powers are majority-Christian.
If Iraq under Saddam Hussein was 'socialist' , then the socialism was 'barracks socialism'.
Quote:Quote:By the way, Ocasio-Cortez, being a democratic socialist, is closer to red. Virtually identical to Bernie Sanders. No doubt that sector might get a little crowded.
The same psychology which makes people oppose cultural hierarchy often makes them oppose economic hierarchy as well. Still, some people oppose economic hierarchy without opposing cultural hierarchy (Lukashenko) or vice versa (Rajneesh).
The only valid hierarchy is of talent or achievement. The top-quality cardiac surgeon isn't oppressing anyone.
Quote:Quote:You can't have religion without what you call the supernatural, because this transmits the moral codes into the personality and enables people to follow them. Just memorizing commandments, as I said, does not work. Real transformation of the individual must take place. In traditional monotheistic western and middle-eastern religion, this happens through revelation and by the adherent giving yourself over to the savior or prophet by faith. In the New Age, and usually in the Orient, this is done through the human potential techniques. To understand religion at all, anyone must understand that "the supernatural is natural." And vice-versa! And today, that means increasingly scientific as well.
Philosophy can transform people without including the supernatural. Many people believe in supernatural powers and are not transformed. What matters is the emotional experience.
Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?
Of course founders of traditional religions like Abraham, Zoroaster, Laozi and above all Jesus had immense emotional experience and were able to induce it in a group of disciples. Others like Mohammed or Confucius were more interested in political power.
Quote:(06-22-2021, 07:32 PM)PBrower2a -- my material in dark blue Wrote: yellow -- plutocratic. People in this sector trust economic power more than any other power and see class interests of economic elites as the best guide to achieving human happiness. Results may be grossly unequal, but the world clearly divides between "winners" and "losers" even if the distinction has more cause in inheritance and connections than in any discernible virtues. "Winners" have the right to expect "losers" to toil for minimal rewards (bare survival), and the "losers" must earn survival, for which there is no inherent right, at the cost of their humanity. This sector is amoral except for recognizing that waste and inefficiency are vices and that toil is a necessity no matter who gets most of the fruit.
Libertarians closer to the Blue sector recognize morality and often understand poverty as a divine punishment for vice. Purer libertarians often treat morality as a matter of personal taste (like Mises) or declare the only morality is self-interest (Rand).
Vice, depravity, improvidence (including laziness and waste of talent) -- I will go along with that as having poverty as a consequence. Of course much poverty is sheer ill-fortune or a consequence of attachment to something that can hurt one without helping one -- or rejection of something good through callow rebellion. That does not need Divine connection. Poverty can also result from the choice of economic elites to impose poverty. The rationale I suppose is that those who do not own the assets must be sweated to create wealth that allows them the privilege of working at terms that an employer sets.
None of the sectors is perfect.
Quote:Quote:The purple sector suggests the less clumsy "humanist" to me. It has rarely had extreme figures in charge of any society.
Humanist is too narrow since many Inclusivists support animal rights and even ascribe some sort of personhood to ecosystems.
https://www.definitions.net/definition/inclusivism
"The practice of incorporating disparate or unreconciled elements in a single, inclusive system or theory" - in this case the system is a society
"The view that all religions have a partial truth." - maybe not only religions, but cultures and lifestyles.
I didn't contemplate where environmentalist or animal-rights groups go. I can see all ideologies having some legitimate concern for the environment. It is possible to be a racist nationalist and be an environmentalist, to be both a religious fundamentalist and an environmentalist, or a socialist and an environmentalist. It is also possible to place economic gain, military power, and the elite indulgence above constraints on environmental ruin. Most of the American political scene is clearly in the plutocratic sector, and extreme positions supporting economic gain and indulgence above all else for economic elites are more widely accepted than extreme positions in any other sector.
Quote:Quote:I would call the "red" sector "socialist".
Surely this is most recognizable term for this kind of views, but there are some Purples and Browns who call themselves socialists as well, from Maslow to Saddam.
Some fascist organizations co-opted much from the Left, including rhetoric. Example: the NSDAP was a merger between the German Workers' Party and the German Socialist Party, both claiming to be "national" alternatives to "socialist" parties under the corrupt influence of Jews. Many fascists had drifted from the Far Left (Mussolini, Quisling, Goebbels, Laval, Doriot). Doriot's collaborationist Party had a Commie-style structure and even a Politburo modeled after that of the Communist Party of the USSR.
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.