Imagine believing that the political compass - a literal right wing propaganda tool - is not only useful, but unassailable
Edit i was almost a more of a lib than normal. link: https://hexbear.net/comment/4012025
Imagine believing that the political compass - a literal right wing propaganda tool - is not only useful, but unassailable
Edit i was almost a more of a lib than normal. link: https://hexbear.net/comment/4012025
Does anybody have jerry pournelles phd thesis? I have not been able to find it. But its related to this type of horoscope.
Now idealy each question should be its own axis of variation. And then you would do a pca or similar to define your political space with that basis. That method would be more objective.
And could lead to interesting questions, how do these arrangments vary culturally. Both the spaces and their dimentionality. Maybe in some cultures the first "n" axes are all really similar while in others one axis sufices to represent most of the variation? How does these variations relate to social economic and other struvctural forces? Do diferent compositions and or historical pathways to capital produce diferent ideological relations in semengly unrelated isues? Etc.
Or you could run all sorts of analysis to create your ideological space not just pca but network embeding or some of the fancy new shit.
But in this case the space is asumed a priori wich is shit. I dont know if dr pournelle also pulls the space out of his ass or if he does some statistical justification. The psichological tests that look for protestant virtues like agreeablnes, concienciousnes etc serm to operate under a similar system are those categories aslo bullshit or is there a correlation analysis used to define them?
The entire idea of creating a model, with any number of axises more and more abstract, is flawed and idealist. The marxist conception is that there is only one "axis" and it's not a smooth gradient but several distinct classes with different interests. On one side you have the interests of the colonized, the renters, the employees, the lessees, the workers and the poor. On the other side you have the interests of the colonizers, the renters, the employers, the lessors, the owners and the rich. It's not that simple exactly, but that's the starting point before you start chiseling in with additional contours of nuance. Currently in America there is no political party representing the interests of the former group, and there's 2 dominant parties representing factions of the latter groups.
Much of what you think you know of as "politics" is interfactional disputes between the owning class. A lot of what actually determines political economy is disguised and invisible because both groups of ruling elites agree on a subject, so it assumed to be necessary or permanent. Lots of social problems are fabricated to divide the poor or are downstream symptoms of upstream profit generators.
Every additional axis you add makes a model more abstract and disconnected from material interests of groups, more idealist and a priori. One's held political belief also is less important than we like to think, and what actually matters is your lived political existence. It doesn't really matter if you believe in communism or fascism or whatever ism if you never leave your house or do anything to impact reality besides shouting into the void of online. Which class are you part of, and do you want to pursue your self interests selfishly or as an entire class in solidarity?
Good response. Agree. In general. I specially agree with the last paragraph.
But it is also the case that diferent owner clases beneffit from diferent laws and ideology. The common example is the american civil war were feudal aristocrats favored low tariffs while industrial capital prefered protectionist tarifs and wage labor, and a strong state that invested in infraestructure like railroads. Views on ussury in feudal vs trade vs mixed societies is another example.
Similarly labor relations as determined by the means of production influence the ideological positions of a society towards labor.
No society has a single means of production, there is usually an amalgam of economic interests each of this benefits from a different law, ideology or coustom. My line of questioning was in this sense, wether diferent material basis of siciety for example pastoralists vs agriculturalists lead to different ideological spaces, and how much of that is pure idealism and how much correlates to differences in the mode of prodiction.
Good response. Agree. In general. I specially agree with the last paragraph.
But it is also the case that diferent owner clases beneffit from diferent laws and ideology. The common example is the american civil war were feudal aristocrats favored low tariffs while industrial capital prefered protectionist tarifs and wage labor, and a strong state that invested in infraestructure like railroads. Views on ussury in feudal vs trade vs mixed societies is another example.
Similarly labor relations as determined by the means of production influence the ideological positions of a society towards labor.
No society has a single means of production, there is usually an amalgam of economic interests each of this benefits from a different law, ideology or coustom. My line of questioning was in this sense, wether diferent material basis of siciety for example pastoralists vs agriculturalists lead to different ideological spaces, and how much of that is pure idealism and how much correlates to differences in the mode of prodiction.
deleted by creator