The Political Compass

[edina]

A few weeks ago I came across a series of poll questions on a media site. One of the questions caught my attention.

What's worse - socialist country or authoritarian state?

43858

I typically ignore poll questions because I consider them to be mostly data farming, and a means to train machine intelligence (AI). (And I have very mixed feeling/thoughts about humans unwittingly being used to train machine intelligence.)

The reason this question caught my attention is because of the assumptions behind the question itself, and also my own self-examination of those assumptions and my assumption on the topic.

The assumption in the question seems to be that a socialist county is not an authoritarian state, that they are opposed to each other. However, in my experience, I associate socialist countries as being authoritarian states.

I thought about it a bit and I tried to think of any country that would be an example of a socialist country that is not also an authoritarian state, I couldn't think of one. If anyone knows of one, let me know.

Some people consider the Nordic model as socialist, but the Nordic countries themselves do not, they still utilize a capitalist economic structure. I remember a prominent Swedish politician describing how Sweden is a welfare state, that is able to provide the high benefits of welfare to it's people based on the income generated by capitalist companies.

Many people I know who are opposed to socialism associate it with "welfare". They often refer to it as the "nanny" state. And/or see it as a means to set up authoritarian control of a people.

I consider the Nordic model a bit of a hybrid, or a blending of the two economic models of socialism/capitalism. However, that is only looking at the economic aspect of socialism.

I felt there is also a "social construct" aspect of socialism, too.

I tucked the question aside to ponder it a bit.

A few days ago, I stumbled onto a video that adds some clarity to the topic for me. And the more I think about it, the more I think it may help people build bridges of understanding in the tense political discussions of the day.

Karlyn Borysenko is an organizational psychologist and she brings her experience in that field into her discussion of this model called "The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2)" and how she uses it in her own thinking.

Osx5hpucACo

I've often wondered about where I fit in all the various boxes/labels that are put out there about politics. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum)
I don't self-identify as Republican, or Democrat. I consider myself Independent. In my state I am registered as Unaffiliated. I walked away from party politics back in the 90's.

Until last year, this meant that I couldn't participate in any of the party primaries. There's been a change in state law and unaffiliated people can now choose to vote in the primaries of a party. But they can only vote in one party primary, not both. (I've yet to be offered an option for a third party primary.) I sometimes wonder if the biggest political party in our state is "unaffiliated".

I also don't identify with any of the left/right wing labeling. When taking in information, I tend to tune out the labels and try to focus on the content of the information with the intent to expand/deepen my understanding of a topic.

I've mentioned elsewhere that I noticed a pattern, especially within media, but it also happens in the "battles of activists" to play the extremes against the middle. So, perhaps I fit in the middle, closer to the centerpointe of the political axis?

After watching Karen's video, I did a bit of a deeper dive on the tool she talked about, the Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2). What was unique and interesting to me about this model is that it adds another axis into mix; authoritarian/libertarian.

43859

The people who developed this tool refer to it as a two axis model. (As opposed to a single axis of right/left.) (It's premise aligns with the model that Bill shared here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?111137-Antifa&p=1359660&viewfull=1#post1359660), except that the images are mirrors of each other, which is kinda curious, too.)


Do political conversations break down because people are thinking in terms of a singular axis?
And do political conversations break down because people are identifying with one line of axis versus another.
Do we limit our expression of our humanity by investing our sense of Identity into a one particular axis of political thought, or another?
What are some other lines of axis that may inform our political thinking?

Oftentimes, it seems to me that people get stuck talking in circles with each other, and talking in what often appears to me to be people talking apples and oranges. Maybe the idea that there are multiple axis of dynamic political thought happening at once explains the breakdowns in communication?

I remember Paul expressing a deep concern that the political environment has become so polarized that there may not be a way for people to bridge their political thought differences. Would a tool like The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2) help people understand themselves and each other better?

I'm intrigued with the idea.

And wonder what other people may think about it?

[Frank V]

A few weeks ago I came across a series of poll questions on a media site. One of the questions caught my attention.

What's worse - socialist country or authoritarian state?

43858

I typically ignore poll questions because I consider them to be mostly data farming, and a means to train machine intelligence (AI). (And I have very mixed feeling/thoughts about humans unwittingly being used to train machine intelligence.)

Machine learning and artificial intelligence have been the scapegoats of this so-called "alternative community" for ages already, and I've seen the most ridiculous predictions and opinions being posted about them. But I'm an IT guy ─ albeit not involved with machine learning or artificial intelligence ─ and I can put a few things into perspective.

Yes, artificial intelligence and machine learning can be abused, as well as that there is a risk that artificial intelligence, when programmed by fallible human beings, could come to disastrous decisions, and should therefore also be closely monitored, and kept away from things that could make a difference between war and peace.

But that said, at the same time, there is such great potential in artificial intelligence and machine learning ─ the two are distinct from one another, but I guess you already understood that. Any kind of artificial intelligence can only be at its best if people cooperate with its learning. How else is it going to be able to interpret the values that we as humans hold dear? It is not consciousness, so it has no moral judgment, other than what we program into them. It is therefore important that we do program them with the correct information, so that they won't jump to the wrong conclusions.

But onto the subject at hand. :)


The reason this question caught my attention is because of the assumptions behind the question itself, and also my own self-examination of those assumptions and my assumption on the topic.

The assumption in the question seems to be that a socialist county is not an authoritarian state, that they are opposed to each other. However, in my experience, I associate socialist countries as being authoritarian states.

I thought about it a bit and I tried to think of any country that would be an example of a socialist country that is not also an authoritarian state, I couldn't think of one. If anyone knows of one, let me know.

The difficulty here is to find one, but not for the reasons you (or other readers) might suspect. The thing is that we are living in a globalized capitalist world, and by consequence, any and all socialist regimes within it are only enclaves. Given that no country or region can be economically self-sufficient ─ there is always a need for trade with other countries ─ there are no absolutely socialist regimes in the world. They all have to use the concept of money, and they all have to play by the rules of capitalism at the international scale.

That said, India was quite socialist under Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela was also a non-authoritarian socialist. I consider myself one too, and in fact, I have once taken the test that goes with the political compass you describe below, and it put me next to Mandela and Gandhi on the compass, in the bottom left corner.


Some people consider the Nordic model as socialist, but the Nordic countries themselves do not, they still utilize a capitalist economic structure. I remember a prominent Swedish politician describing how Sweden is a welfare state, that is able to provide the high benefits of welfare to it's people based on the income generated by capitalist companies.

Yes, I've even heard the whole of the European Union described as "communist-wannabe" ─ by a hard-right US American ─ but nothing is farther from the truth. The European Union is a regulated Keynesian-capitalist confederation.


[ - Snippy was here - ]

Do political conversations break down because people are thinking in terms of a singular axis?

Yes, inevitably, and ─ I'm sorry to have to say this ─ especially in a discussion in which US Americans are involved. And that's because US Americans have been indoctrinated for over 70 years now with the belief that socialism is bad, that it is a dictatorial, authoritarian philosophy, and that the United States of America represents freedom and democracy. And that same narrative is still being played out by the (corporately controlled) US mainstream media today as we speak.

What this does, is create a knee-jerk reaction toward the word "socialism". Those who respond to the word "socialism" in said manner don't understand socialism, nor do they understand fascism. Because fascism isn't Nazism. Nazism was one form of fascism, and specifically, one that was centered around ethnic purification. But when you look at the checklist for what constitutes fascism, then the United States of America is itself a de facto fascist nation. The USA ticks all of the boxes, except for two, but only so because those two are the ones that have been kept in disguise, i.e.:



A fascist regime has a single-party system. The USA has two officially recognized parties, but both parties are integrally controlled by the same private corporations, and they are so corrupted that anyone who would present a breach with the status quo ─ e.g. Marianne Williamson or Bernie Sanders ─ will be legally shoved aside through the internal corruption. Not financial corruption but moral corruption.


A fascist regime has a dictator. The USA has an elected president, but said elected president does have the power of executive to override the constitution, suspend elections, and therefore remain in office indefinitely.


Socialism on the other hand has nothing to do with authoritarianism, but unfortunately, most countries that knew a socialist revolution have all become authoritarian. And there are two reasons for that.

The first reason is that power corrupts. The second reason is that most socialist revolutionaries never managed to think beyond the stage of the revolution, and once the revolution was a done deal, they didn't know how to proceed from there. So they got stuck, and they tightened the noose around the people's necks out of fear of losing what they had started the revolution for in the first place, even though the revolution had never advanced beyond a coup d'état. That's like a doctor cutting you open for removing a tumor and then leaving you there on the operating table mid-surgery because he doesn't know how to proceed after having opened up your abdomen.


And do political conversations break down because people are identifying with one line of axis versus another.

Yes and no. There's something deeper going on there. On the one hand, there are people's opinions, and they are bound to be in opposition of one another at some point. But in addition to that, there's also the social unrest factor. I'm not talking of the recent anti-racism manifestations or the anti-lockdown manifestations in and of themselves, but of what's behind them.

And what's behind them is dissatisfaction and fear. The political right is afraid of the political left because of the Cold War indoctrination against socialism, and because of the neuroticism from the alleged left.

Because make no mistake, those who engage in all of the "political correctness" stuff are themselves not necessarily progressive. They are neurotic. They have a chip on their shoulder, and they can only find peace with themselves if they can force other people to see things their way. I consider myself a true progressive, but so-called "social justice warriors" seriously p!ss me off.

Now, on the other hand, you've also got those from the left who've been wronged for a long time. I've stayed out of the Systemic Racism thread, because in order to be able to ascertain whether there is or isn't systemic racism in the USA, one would have to be very familiar with US law. It's all in the details. So whether it's systemic or not systemic is hard to say, but racism is very real.

Was it racism that got George Floyd killed? Maybe, but maybe it was just excessive police brutality that surpassed racial issues. It wouldn't be the first time that a cop turns out to be a sadistic psychopath. And he could even be a racist, but that doesn't make for systemic racism yet.

Then there are also others who've been discriminated against by the system. The poor. The disabled. Immigrants. Those whose sexual orientation differs from the Catholicism-dictated standards. Because believe it or not, regardless of one's creed, those religious standards are still very strong within US society, and especially so in the southern states. And for many people, it is difficult to separate their religion from secular matters.

Now, I'm addressing a lot of issues here, and it may even seem like I'm digressing, but if you're paying close attention, then you can see that I'm actually doing something completely differently here ─ something which I think lies at the core of your post, i.e. a dissection of why people react the way they do, beyond the issue of a linear, one-dimensional polarization.

;)

Either way, to come back to the issue of this particular paragraph, there is a lot of tension going on under the surface. And it is this tension that causes people to react in more polarized ways, to the point where rational and multi-dimensional thinking goes out the window in favor of one-dimensional knee-jerk thinking and reacting.


Do we limit our expression of our humanity by investing our sense of Identity into a one particular axis of political thought, or another?
What are some other lines of axis that may inform our political thinking?

Personal experience. Someone who has been abused all of their life and who didn't end up in a mental hospital or dead by suicide is going to react more violently to injustice, whether it's the continued injustice against themselves as individuals, or whether it's an injustice against any particular population group. Even without that PTSD would be involved, those who've been mistreated will always be vying for their rights, and for the rights of other underdogs.

Now put all of that against the polarizing backdrop of the last twenty years, and what you get is the social unrest we see today. People respond with knee-jerks against the corona lockdowns because they've been seeing government abuse for too long, and they think they're about to lose their freedom. They even bring out the guns, because they know no better than that an authoritarian communist regime the likes of North Korea or China would be coming their way.

Black people take to the streets to protest systemic abuse by law enforcement officers ─ and I'm calling it systemic now because I'm not talking of racism per se, but of gratuitous police brutality that was and still is part of police training. Because there's that hidden fascism again ─ militarism and repressive force. Just ask anyone who's been in the US military what boot camp was like. I myself have served in the Belgian military ─ we had compulsory military service here until 1995, so I didn't really have a choice ─ and although there were indeed a few bullies among the officers, for most part it was nothing like the humiliation and bullying that any US recruit has to endure during boot camp.

But anyway, with the US being a crypto-fascist regime that does discriminate against certain population groups, and that on the other hand also erodes people's personal freedom a little bit more every day, you can see that people on both sides of the political center are getting agitated, and eventually something's got to give. And then you get protests, polarization, and ultimately, blind rage.


Oftentimes, it seems to me that people get stuck talking in circles with each other, and talking in what often appears to me to be people talking apples and oranges. Maybe the idea that there are multiple axis of dynamic political thought happening at once explains the breakdowns in communication?

I remember Paul expressing a deep concern that the political environment has become so polarized that there may not be a way for people to bridge their political thought differences. Would a tool like The Political Compass (https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2) help people understand themselves and each other better?

I'm intrigued with the idea.

And wonder what other people may think about it?

When it comes to discussing politics, I think that it's imperative that the two-dimensional compass is kept in mind. It is the start of looking at the issues from a grander perspective and being able to make better judgment calls. There has been all too much knee-jerking going on over these last couple of years, and especially so with certain agents provocateurs in strategic places ─ whether they are playing that role consciously or not.

In my personal opinion, people are responding to such issues far too much from within their abdomen, and far too little from within their brain. The late Isaac Asimov already wrote about his concern with anti-intellectualism in the USA. Because intellectuals are by definition undesirable to an authoritarian regime ─ even one that disguises itself as a regime of freedom and democracy.

[enigma3]

Re the poll question: as if there were a difference.

[norman]

Is a socialist technocracy with a programmed automation an authoritarian state only when it's fully formed, or was it authoritarian all the way from the moment the people who built the end result got into power and promised the people a fairer society ?