Political compass for the21st century

[Eric the Green]

(11-10-2019, 06:47 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-09-2019, 06:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's good. Maybe I do not have you pegged. It does seem your reliance on Enlightenment-era rationality and space/AI tech is pretty strong though.

Enlightenment rationality yes, but I don't like their praise of selfishness.

I'd also say I'm more into biotech than AI.

But I'd also prefer to live in a society with less tech but correct attitudes, than one with super advanced tech but based on evil philosophy like Libertarianism or Neoreaction.

I agree

Quote:

Quote:I wonder though, and I may be wrong, but is inserting a nationalist sector a result of the temporary overemphasis today on the nationalism and America First promoted by an idiot demagogue who has taken over the big house, and whose silly and destructive ideas should never be given a moment's consideration?

Without a nationalist sector, how do you conceptualize Middle Eastern politics? The Sauds and Al-Qaeda is theocratic and folks like Saddam and Assad are nationalists. So it's not just Trump.

I explained before, that as I conceive it, loyalty and power reserved for your social group of whatever kind, and limits or repression imposed on other groups, just because they belong to that group and not to achieve greater liberty and prosperity, is what is called social conservatism on political compasses with two axes. I don't think it matters what kind of group it is. And fascism is a typical extreme version of social conservatism. Most fascist regimes are both nationalist and use religion to boost, prop up and enforce loyalty to the regime. Hitler's regime certainly was an example in his use of Germanic mythology.

Political theocracy has very little to do with religion. It doesn't matter what the specific beliefs of the religion are; they have little to do with the political movement. Religions do not preach political repression, generally speaking. Making religion an excuse for it is social conservatism, and that is politics and not religion. Religions at the core are much the same, while imposing one religion over another is using it for political power and repression of another social group.

I think Saddam was less of a social conservative because he allowed such things as women's rights. He was some kind of socialist statist, but he was also an imperialist, which is more nationalist and thus socially conservative, and also quite anachronistic. The goal of conquest of other nations is quite similar to fascism. The Soviet Union also combined those two goals. So, Saddam was quite similar to Stalin, then; maybe slightly left, but very close to the statist pole per se. I don't think Assad is a nationalist; just a statist. He is just about imposing his rule in his own realm, and it's a family dynastic rather than a national concern; but he does use religious sectarianism to gain loyalty. So, low on the scale, but shading toward social conservative. The Saudis are a slightly different mix. That is also a family dynasty, and more theocratic than Assad, but less imperialist than Saddam.

That's how I see it. Nationalism and theocracy are just two versions of social conservatism. But in the early 19th century and in anti-colonial movements, nationalism was liberal and their adherents would have been placed elsewhere depending on their overall philosophy. The nation, as originally conceived in the French Revolution, was a tool to achieve human rights and greater democracy. It was not a tool to oppress other nations and groups. That latter is nationalism as social conservatism. The French Revolution in fact sought to extend their own liberty to other nations-- which has its own difficulties that were demonstrated once Napoleon carried this out in his authoritarian way. But it did change the world.

Basically, as your circle is now, I would combine the theocratic and nationalist sectors, and then the rest would fit the political compass, except "communism" is too strong a word for economic liberalism generally.

That's just my view, which you asked for

Quote:

Quote:the Galactic Federation will intercept our generations-long voyages and turn us back because we are not yet qualified to live in peace with our fellows and our greater self

Why didn't your omnipotent galactic cops intervene when Hitler was gassing Jews?

That's a fair question, but I don't think they are allowed to interfere in the internal development of intelligent civilizations. The Hitler episode was just one in hundreds of horrific episodes in our history. But if we try to interfere in the affairs of another planet by settling on it when we are not qualified, they might not allow this. I'm just guessing, of course! Maybe they will allow it.

But I doubt they are going to help us learn to break the light barrier until we are ready for membership in good standing in the federation. We simply don't measure up now, and at the rate we're going, it may be centuries before we do. I think our behavior in our modern times, including the Hitler episode, and many more incidents even since then (including the Assad horror and our unwillingness to deal with it and our worldwide xenophobic reactions to it, not to mention even our unwillingness to live sustainably on our own planet), proves the point.