Imports

content/bookmarks/a-4d-political-compass.md

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+---
+title: A 4D political compass
+date: "2024-09-18T13:57:33Z"
+emoji: "\U0001F9CA"
+publishDate: "2024-09-12T16:00:00Z"
+bookmarkOf: https://atlaspragmatica.com/the-political-compass-more-than-just-a-meme/
+references:
+  bookmark:
+    url: https://atlaspragmatica.com/the-political-compass-more-than-just-a-meme/
+    type: entry
+    name: The Political Compass
+    summary: Despite its designers’ hopes that it might beckon in a new era of more
+      nuanced political discourse, the political compass has largely been reduced
+      to meme-fodder. This popularised version of …
+---
+A friend explores some changes and additions to their favourite political compass. Changes I _really_ like! I certainly plan on spending some time thinking about a 3D version that popped itself into my head as I was reading. (Because everyone needs their own version of the political compass 😅)
+
+### Highlights
+
+> to describe individuals within a society as being either Atomised from each other, or Obliged to each other. Replacing Coupled-Decoupled with Obliged-Atomised makes no fundamental change to the model, but reduces the need to preface the model with an explanation about what is being meant by societal coupling.
+
+This seems like an excellent choice.
+
+---
+
+> Sadly, the Coupled-Decoupled axis is rather more subtle – they are not the most descriptive words, requiring explanation before their meaning becomes clear.
+
+---
+
+> For the extreme of the bottom quadrant, the only label that makes sense to me is Anarchism.
+
+---
+
+> Socialism works for the left, “Obliged-Thrive” quadrant
+
+---
+
+> I am instead inclined to use the word [Corporatism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) to describe this quadrant.
+
+---
+
+> In this Corporatocratic dystopia, we would end up with a large number of almost serf-like employees, working for a small number of very wealthy executives, able to lord their power over the masses. I have effectively just described the feudal system, with vassal lords commanding serfs, and paying homage to a distant and comparatively weak ultimate ruler. Thus, I am inclined to call the extreme of this quadrant Feudalism
+
+---
+
+> My take on the political compass therefore looks like this:
+
+{{< figure alt=“A square balanced on its border with four quadrants separated again into three rings from centre outwards. Centrist sits at the centre, with Nationalist above, and Fascist at the upward extreme. To the right beyond centrist is Corporatist then Feudalist. Downwards has Liberal then Anarchist. Finally leftward is Socialist then Communist.” caption=“Atlas Pragmatica’s political compass (CC BY-SA 4.0)” src=“./atlas-pragmatica-compass.png” >}}
+
+---
+
+> No model is complete without an attempt to make it cover far more ground that was initially intended.
+
+😂
+
+---
+
+> This Gradual-Radical axis is quite well aligned with another conceptual spectrum – the divide between ideology and empiricism. People that subscribe to an ideology, and see the world through a particular lens, are likely to want to immediately address any issues they perceive. In contrast, those that are less ideological, and prefer to see empirical evidence before proceeding are much more likely to support an incremental approach.
+
+---
+
+> When we look outwards, we can either choose to keep ourselves to ourselves, studiously maintaining neutrality, or we can intervene, aligning ourselves with other societies and against others. There is already an established naming convention for this – Doves vs. Hawks, though to keep it consistent with the other axes, I will go with the more descriptive but less poetic Neutral vs. Interventionist.
+
+I’m less convinced by the need for this axis (it feels quite intertwined with the Obliged-Atomized axis to me, despite the excellent point about internal vs. external focus difference between the two). NATO being Interventionist-Thrive feels very similar to it being Obliged-Thrive to me, just on a different scale of subjectivity.
+
+---
+
+> _Cenobite_ as the extreme of [Gradual and Neutral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenobitic%5Fmonasticism) – cenobitic communities were both isolationist and unchanging. An example of this might be Japan’s Edo period, which is renowned for its commitment to isolationism, and its resistance to change.
+
+---
+
+> _Machiavellian_ as the extreme of [Gradual and Interventionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism%5F%28politics%29) – Machiavellian is used to describe plotting, duplicity and the pursuit of power above all else. The British Empire should definitely be a contender for this, playing opponents off against each other over centuries, and manipulating entire continents for its own gain, without regard for the cost to anyone but itself.
+
+---
+
+> _Zealot_ as the extreme of Radical and Neutral – zealots are uncompromising in their pursuit of their ideals, but are often unconcerned about those outside their sphere of influence. During its Cultural Revolution, China was isolationist, but also engulfed in internal turmoil as its government sought to make radical societal changes whilst enforcing strict ideological purity.
+
+---
+
+> _Militant_ as the extreme of Radical and Interventionist – militants are also uncompromising, but their focus is often on bringing the world into line with their ideology. Cuban Revolutionaries, supporting guerilla warfare across South America fit this category – offering their help to any that were willing to take up cause against the US and global capitalist interests.
+
+---
+
+> We can characterise the 4 different axes as follows:
+> 
+> | Individuals’ duties to one another:    | Obliged – Atomised        |
+> | -------------------------------------- | ------------------------- |
+> | The purpose of society for its people: | Thrive – Survive          |
+> | Society’s role in the wider world:     | Neutral – Interventionist |
+> | Approach to making changes:            | Gradual – Radical         |
+> 
+> Therefore the original political compass covers the axes expressing our views on “individuals’ duties to one another” and “the purpose of society for its people” – these could be summarised as “how you think the world should act on you”.
+
+I really like how the two new axis provide a subject/object inversion like this. It makes me reconsider my notion of neutral/interventionist being a different subjective scale (ie. Leviathan scale) of Atomised/Obliged.
+
+---
+
+> an axis of Gradual vs. Radical, which I would argue is not well captured at all by the existing two axes.
+
+The speed with which change is necessary is definitely an overlooked dimension, as we’ve all grown somewhat accustomed to the break-neck rate of change in our societies since (at least) the invention of the internet.
+
+This does feel a little imbalanced and _unidirectional_ though. It implies that a centrist is comfortable with some imprecise amount of change that’s faster than gradual though, which seems a little off to me.
+
+I think there’s something worth exploring in the _other_ extent of this axis (though it does destroy the rather eloquent categorisations that come later): a desire to return to simpler, possibly even less human-dominant, times. I wonder where societies like the Amish sit in this compass without it.
+
+One extreme of this “regressive-progressive” axis could be primitivism, with the other extreme being accelerationism. Though this has the annoying implication that a centrist wants things to stay exactly as they are, which isn’t really suitable either, so you’d want to squash this axis to have “gradual” at the centre, “progressive” to be directionally out of the metaphorical page, and “regressive” a _shorter_ distance into it.

data/interactions/notes/2024-10-10/h3pj0.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"interactions":[{"guid":"webmentions.io#1851417","emoji":"⭐️","url":"https://hachyderm.io/@byjp/113285514333022071#favorited-by-109304530922889319","author":{"name":"Marcus","url":"https://mastodon.scot/@marcus"},"timestamp":"2024-10-11T02:58:47Z"}]}