Today I share my thoughts on the political spectrum, a follow-up to my previous video on Right-Wing Socialism. Links: / mimirs_head_yt gab.ai/mimirs_head / discord
Imperial Leviathan : Egalitarianism is a myth. No one is equal, but equal opportunity provides a chance to prove this. Hierarchy is already resolved by natural merit, and laws only need to be made where they can reinforce this. Any other laws complicate the issue.
I actually think Jonathan Haidt has one of the most useful ways of distinguishing left vs. right thinking. Haidt says people on the right care about 5 categories, with a fairly equal emphasis on each category: care, fairness, loyalty, authority & sanctity, with slightly higher emphasis on the latter 3. In contrast, people on the left only care about the first 2 categories, care & fairness, and are either indifferent to or antagonistic to the latter 3 categories. Are you familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s ideas? edit: I recommend anyone unfamiliar with Haidt’s ideas go watch this video for an introduction: ruclips.net/video/vs41JrnGaxc/видео.html
oppie47 I agree, I just recently read his book, the Righteous Mind. In the book he introduces a sixth category: freedom/oppression, on which libertarians generally place higher on freedom than people on the classic left-right scale.
Slave versus Master, weak vs. Strong. The weak cannot be individualist, they haven't the strength to stand alone nor the courage. The strong only come together to beat back the herd as the mediocre is always outnumbering the exceptional. Self mastership is only capable by the individual, he thinks for himself, and is above all moralisms. Thus is a monarch over himself, not a slave to his Passions nor able to be subjugated by the mob. The number of vices he has the number of Masters he serves. Hence the "Nobleman", man of honor. He can keep a promise to himself. His " I WILL ", is as sure as the rising Sun.
I think there is a continuous scale regarding desire for social justice, you might call it. I would compare this to the collectivist/individual scale or when people use authoritarian/libertarian scales. The other parameters being what constitutes "social justice" in each person mind. I think this is socially influenced to a large degree and the axioms people use are very similar, but probably comes down to differences over what to consider legitimate competition, and what to consider in contrast "cheating". The most staunch leftist is often happy with a market system as long as those they deem to be cheating, the capitalist class who rig the system in their eyes and act as gate-keepers to wealth, are kept from interfering. That is, I think everyone believes in a "free" market, but with different ideas of what they mean by "free".
The point wasn't that the left-right wing doesn't exist, just that it doesn't make sense in our curent democracies. Also, the political compass? Really? It's the worst of all. How do you differentiate between culturally authoritarian positions from authoritarian capitalism? They're both in the top right area but are extremely different. You would need at least two compasses: one for culture and one for economy. You also have a very american view of socialism, which I've noticed a lot when listening to Americans. Your problem is this: Socialism is not a Postmodernist ideology. Socialism can and has almost always been hierarchical, by the very nature that it is a group ideology and thus requires an hierarchy within that group. Americans believe Socialists strive for total equality like they're post modern progressives. Nope. Socialism is about the group, not equality, and everyone understands that the group requires hierarchy. Now this is understandable as (and this was the whole point) the current "Left Wing" is rotten to the core by individualist ideologies such as progressivism, and thus it is safe to say that at this point the Left, especially the american left, is not socialist at all. And it's those ideologies that strive for equality. But you've gotta realize that true socialist movements are not for the weak post modern egalitarians (although to be fair that's what they look like nowadays) but for the strong identitarians. And yes in that regard. Culturally right wing ideologies (traditionalism) goes quite well with Economically left wing ideologies (Socialism). But that's just my thoughts.
I think the main issue is here is (as I pointed out the last video) the political struggle over the concept of "Socialism". From the very beginning, it was a system used to promote the well-being of the nation state. However, I think this idea was corrupted by the Marxists, who after "winning" WWII, completely took over the word and changed its meaning. Thus the "American" perspective of Socialism as you pointed out, is not entirely correct (hence the constant horse-shoe conceptions of National Socialism). I don't think this way, not sure why you are saying I do. I never said it was post-modernist, in fact I support the opposite view. It's fine if you want to break things down into economic left/right and cultural left/right, as I said you will have your own perception and organization of politics. I should sit down this week and organize my political scale as to outline this thought process better.
I like your 2 dimensional, 4 quadrant grid, however, I would add a third dimension... economics. On a scale of no free market (communism) to completely free market (anarcho capitalism), with socialism in the middle. Your grid puts National socialists in the same box as mainstream conservatives, and Communists in the same box as mainstream Liberals, even though they are worlds apart. This is pushing it a bit, but we could also add a (mathematical) 4th dimension, being 'militarism', on a scale from 'conflict opposed', to 'martyrs are literally gods'. This is a much less well defined variable than the others, and can be hard to notice, but some civilizations value peace above everything else, and would never accept a leader that wears a 'green suit', like western Europe, while others regard sacrifice in combat as the highest honour, like Egypt and Syria, whose leaders are ex military leaders.
Glad you are addressing the issue. FYI, libertarianism is evolving. You need to look at Hans Herman Hoppe's recent work. Eg, I am fast becoming a LiberTaryan 😎😎😎
Egalitarianism vs Hierarchy
Imperial Leviathan : Egalitarianism is a myth. No one is equal, but equal opportunity provides a chance to prove this. Hierarchy is already resolved by natural merit, and laws only need to be made where they can reinforce this. Any other laws complicate the issue.
More euuality and progress vs hierarchy and tradition.
I actually think Jonathan Haidt has one of the most useful ways of distinguishing left vs. right thinking. Haidt says people on the right care about 5 categories, with a fairly equal emphasis on each category: care, fairness, loyalty, authority & sanctity, with slightly higher emphasis on the latter 3. In contrast, people on the left only care about the first 2 categories, care & fairness, and are either indifferent to or antagonistic to the latter 3 categories. Are you familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s ideas?
edit: I recommend anyone unfamiliar with Haidt’s ideas go watch this video for an introduction:
ruclips.net/video/vs41JrnGaxc/видео.html
oppie47 I agree, I just recently read his book, the Righteous Mind. In the book he introduces a sixth category: freedom/oppression, on which libertarians generally place higher on freedom than people on the classic left-right scale.
I'll check it out, thanks.
lol, basically half of his TED talk is saying "degeneracy is real." The poor guy would be called alt-right if he gave that TED talk today.
Slave versus Master, weak vs. Strong.
The weak cannot be individualist, they haven't the strength to stand alone nor the courage. The strong only come together to beat back the herd as the mediocre is always outnumbering the exceptional. Self mastership is only capable by the individual, he thinks for himself, and is above all moralisms. Thus is a monarch over himself, not a slave to his Passions nor able to be subjugated by the mob. The number of vices he has the number of Masters he serves. Hence the "Nobleman", man of honor. He can keep a promise to himself. His " I WILL ", is as sure as the rising Sun.
This is an excellent analysis, my friend.
Personally a Semi-Constitutionalist Monarchist with National Socialist theory sprinkled in. It's like if 2nd and 3rd Reich had a kid, that would be me
I agree, and top right is the natural state
I think there is a continuous scale regarding desire for social justice, you might call it. I would compare this to the collectivist/individual scale or when people use authoritarian/libertarian scales. The other parameters being what constitutes "social justice" in each person mind. I think this is socially influenced to a large degree and the axioms people use are very similar, but probably comes down to differences over what to consider legitimate competition, and what to consider in contrast "cheating". The most staunch leftist is often happy with a market system as long as those they deem to be cheating, the capitalist class who rig the system in their eyes and act as gate-keepers to wealth, are kept from interfering.
That is, I think everyone believes in a "free" market, but with different ideas of what they mean by "free".
The point wasn't that the left-right wing doesn't exist, just that it doesn't make sense in our curent democracies. Also, the political compass? Really? It's the worst of all. How do you differentiate between culturally authoritarian positions from authoritarian capitalism? They're both in the top right area but are extremely different. You would need at least two compasses: one for culture and one for economy. You also have a very american view of socialism, which I've noticed a lot when listening to Americans. Your problem is this: Socialism is not a Postmodernist ideology. Socialism can and has almost always been hierarchical, by the very nature that it is a group ideology and thus requires an hierarchy within that group. Americans believe Socialists strive for total equality like they're post modern progressives. Nope. Socialism is about the group, not equality, and everyone understands that the group requires hierarchy.
Now this is understandable as (and this was the whole point) the current "Left Wing" is rotten to the core by individualist ideologies such as progressivism, and thus it is safe to say that at this point the Left, especially the american left, is not socialist at all. And it's those ideologies that strive for equality. But you've gotta realize that true socialist movements are not for the weak post modern egalitarians (although to be fair that's what they look like nowadays) but for the strong identitarians. And yes in that regard. Culturally right wing ideologies (traditionalism) goes quite well with Economically left wing ideologies (Socialism). But that's just my thoughts.
I think the main issue is here is (as I pointed out the last video) the political struggle over the concept of "Socialism". From the very beginning, it was a system used to promote the well-being of the nation state. However, I think this idea was corrupted by the Marxists, who after "winning" WWII, completely took over the word and changed its meaning. Thus the "American" perspective of Socialism as you pointed out, is not entirely correct (hence the constant horse-shoe conceptions of National Socialism). I don't think this way, not sure why you are saying I do. I never said it was post-modernist, in fact I support the opposite view.
It's fine if you want to break things down into economic left/right and cultural left/right, as I said you will have your own perception and organization of politics. I should sit down this week and organize my political scale as to outline this thought process better.
interesting Mimir. after watching this a slogan/maxim ? lol came into my head " theres no divide in racial pride".
Great video, as always. Sorry you never got to go on Warski. I would have loved to see that.
DS2 Intro is befitting!
Very nice explained.
How would you classify some kind of religious or spiritual conception in the political divide.
I like your 2 dimensional, 4 quadrant grid, however, I would add a third dimension... economics. On a scale of no free market (communism) to completely free market (anarcho capitalism), with socialism in the middle. Your grid puts National socialists in the same box as mainstream conservatives, and Communists in the same box as mainstream Liberals, even though they are worlds apart. This is pushing it a bit, but we could also add a (mathematical) 4th dimension, being 'militarism', on a scale from 'conflict opposed', to 'martyrs are literally gods'. This is a much less well defined variable than the others, and can be hard to notice, but some civilizations value peace above everything else, and would never accept a leader that wears a 'green suit', like western Europe, while others regard sacrifice in combat as the highest honour, like Egypt and Syria, whose leaders are ex military leaders.
Left = egality
Center = liberal capitalism
Right = feodalism, Corporatism
Not so far from true but still not near enough
Glad you are addressing the issue.
FYI, libertarianism is evolving. You need to look at Hans Herman Hoppe's recent work. Eg, I am fast becoming a LiberTaryan 😎😎😎
Isn't this classification just the political compass that everyone already knows? What's the point of this video?