Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(09-27-2018, 06:39 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I read you as saying that yellow is all about the market, not democracy. If it's primarily about the market, that's conservative. In fact, it's the heart of conservatism today, and remember, it's placed as the extreme right pole on the Europe-oriented political compass charts. In the Nolan chart it is upper right.

Liberal democracy leans liberal; that is, moderately to the left. The pure yellow that would be the same as libertarian still values civil rights and democracy, personal and social freedoms. If the Nolan circle is divided into the quadrants, then upper left is the libertarian left, and that's where most American liberal democrats would be found. The peace movement is there, shared among liberals and libertarians, and the opposite is militarism located in the social/conservative lower right (group vs. group). The more progressive wing of liberals today would be close to or at the left-wing pole. I don't see much of a place for the heart of liberalism today on your chart.

But the classical liberalism of the 18th century is basically what libertarians aspire to, and would be the same thing except classic liberals were not as extreme in their free market ideology, and more dedicated to human rights and democracy than libertarians today. This ideology is also called neo-liberalism. It hasn't gone anywhere. Allied with various shades of social conservatism, it is currently dominant in the USA government, and has been for 40 years.

Democracy is no longer the goal, at least in the West. It has been achieved and is the starting point for modern politics. I don't know where a "democracy first" person would go. Probably close to the centre, at least if we're talking about the extant form of democracy. Neoconservatives value democracy much, and I place them near the centre. The same for Christian democrats. They are centrist, although of a different flavour than neo-cons. It might be that wanting to preserve the existing form of democracy is a centrist trait. Expanding it, on the other hand, as in "participatory" or "direct" democracy is IMHO a Red trait, since it's closely related to workplace democracy, which is desired by all Reds except the totalitarian Bolsheviks.

I think a political compass, just like my philosophy wheel. is made for all times and places; different views are never really outdated, they are all still in effect in many places in the world today. Democracy is not established in many places in the world, and is under severe threat in the USA today. Issues of civil rights, voting rights, vote suppression, gerrymandering, big money in politics, are still front and center. The Green Party makes democracy a central pillar of its values. So I don't think democracy is an out-of-date goal; it is central to a liberal, and to some libertarians at least.

I would agree that it would apply to many centrists, but democracy is among the central values of those on the left and in the upper left as well. The Democracy Now TV show uses the word in its title, and its view tilts strongly left.

Neo cons are not centrists, as their name applies. They are first of all militarists, which is central to the social conservative lower-right quadrant on the Nolan chart. Libertarians and liberals alike detest neo-cons. They tend to be conservative as well, and although they profess to impose "democracy" on the rest of the world, in reality what they are promoting is the power of wealth, money and business in these places, and in The West as well. Conservatives of all stripes prefer a society in which some groups are superior to others, and that includes economic groups. Conservatives, including the most-extreme statist fascists like Hitler, uphold a class society. Communists advocate a classless society and seek to achieve it, even though their statist approach creates a state elite. Social-darwinist economic libertarians like Ayn Rand advocate freedom, even though their free market creates an elite of wealth.

Quote:A countercultural liberal values democracy as a means of political self-expression. A Purple extremist is however very likely to prefer anarchy.

A libertarian might prefer democracy because it's less likely to interfere with the market than an authoritarian system. Many libertarians don't agree with that and see an enlightened autocracy as more conducive for the market, like Moldbug.
A traditionalist is least likely to support democracy. Divine or natural law cannot be changed by voting. Still, High Toryism was once a thing in Britain, and it brought traditionalism and some form of democracy together. Pashtun tribal system is also a restricted form of democracy within traditionalist, where only clan elders can vote.

According to their own definition, and according to Nolan and those who promote his chart and put themseles at upper-center, democracy and political liberty are central tenets to their ideology, and so if they are in favor of enlightened autocracy, or the 18th-century enlightened despotism as it was called then, then they have fallen further down the scale, perhaps centrist or further to the right. Traditionalists, Tories, Pashtun tribes, and so on, are in varying right-wing and lower-right-wing positions on the chart.

Quote:A moderate nationalist could support democracy as well, as expression of the will of the nation. Many 19th century European nationalists wanted democracy, and fought against the cosmopolitan monarchies. But democracy is not conducive to nationalists' militaristic goals, so most of them choose autocracy.

A working-class Red leftist also wants democracy, because it's an expression of equality. Autocracy is hierarchical by definition. Bolshevism is undemocratic, but this is a result of a nationalist admixture. I've decided to rename this sector as EGALITARIAN, as communism is only an extremist form of it.

The final verdict: democracy is a procedure, a very good one, but my judgement still depends on why one supports it.

Democracy and other forms of government have definite positions on the wheel. Nationalism can be liberal and democratic, as it was in the early and mid 19th century; I agree. But nationalism is not a form of government. Nationalism, religion, racial identity politics and so on are not conservative, unless it meets the criteria I mentioned; if nationalism becomes a matter of one social group against another; nation pitted against nation (including in militarism), race against race, gender against gender, religion against religion, tribe against tribe. If nationalism, religion, identity politics etc. advocates that all groups be treated equally and with full rights, then it is liberal, democratic and upper left.

Working class leftists vary in their degree of support for democracy. but it tends toward the lower left, and is more statist than liberals in general. It wants severe restraint on the big business bosses and regulation of the economy. Bolshevism is more statist, and it does not want more autocracy because of nationalism, but because it is more statist per se. Communism is explicitly international, and anti-nationalist generally speaking; and strongly anti-imperialist, unless it is to impose it's own ideology on the whole world. Communism says "workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains" (Karl Marx, 1848)

I do think "egalitarian" is a much better word for the lower left; although its emphasis is economic egalitarian (the upper left is culturally egalitarian); communism is only the extreme lower-left sector, and leaning strongly toward the low statist pole. When you get to Stalin, although his government was not about nationalism, it was about socialism in one country first, so it is closer to the lower-right sector than Trotsky and Lenin were, and is just about as strongly statist as you can get. Extreme communism wants not only severe regulation of the economy, but central planning and control over all of our economic and personal activities.

As Nolan pointed out on the wikipedia page I posted, the cultural axis is about who one associates with, as well as personal liberties and conformities, etc. The social conservative quarter advocates government and military power to defend, protect, advance, uphold etc. the group you associate and identify with, above and before other groups. The social liberal quarter opposite it advocates equal rights and freedom from government restraints for all groups, and for peace (at least if possible) between them rather than war between them. Especially in the left part of that quadrant, the government is used to protect those rights. That's where liberal democrats belong. The word counter-cultural does not really cover that quadrant's concerns, although those that advocate only cultural means to achieve liberty and non-conformity would fit in that quadrant also, but more toward the top of the chart; the libertarian region IOW.