h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well then, I've thought that for a while, zoomer, but prompted by your post, now that I see that others agree with me besides R.A. Wilson, I propose that we relabel political categories as follows and see if our wonderful computers of minds can cope : X, Y and Z, where X is the classic Left, Y is the classic Right, and Z is now for something completely different. Thus, political systems like Socialism can be defined as XXZ, or Fascism as YYX, as if readings from a compass. Capitalism, although there are different branches, is all of our starting point, so that must be defined as XYZ, despite the fact that that is not strictly realistic.

My 45 degree angle thing is coming from a planar view of the political compass. It's not my own idea.

Make the X-axis an axis of economic viewpoint. Let the positive end be laissez-faire capitalism, the negative end represent socialism, and the center a balance of the two.

Make the Y axis an axis of social viewpoint. Let the positive end represent individualism, the negative end represent fascism, and the center a middle ground between the two.

Then figure out where you rank, +/-, on each scale.

++ = libertarianism (individualist economic, individualist social)
-+ = liberalism (socialist economic, individualist social)
-+ = conservatism (individualist economic, socialist social)
-- = communism (socialist economic, socialist social)

Centrist positions would land you in border country.

I don't know, I think of something like this:
http://dutch.phys.strath.ac.uk/FRC/about_us/Picture_diary/2000/images/RegA%20crystal%20up%20close%20w%2035-mm%20pinhole.jpg
when I think of a political spectrum, not something that can be graphed, even in 3 dimensions. There are just too many variables and points of view to use predetermined labels and points between them.

I'm starting a new thread (Politics and Labels) to respond to this...

Otto

Sorry, BtM, this is, er, confused at the least :

<-+ = liberalism (socialist economic, individualist social)>

"individualist social" is like "black white" or "honest politician". I have no problem with what you're suggesting, that a multi-dimensional view of politics is more meaningful and useful, but your choice of poles leaves something to be desired, IMO.

Capitalism is often contrasted with socialism, quite reasonably, but in this context, capitalism = individualism. Socialism is about (in Spock's words ) the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. It is reasonable to contrast it with individualism, which capitalism represents (in this context at least). So when you offer an axis contrasting individualism with fascism, you lose me completely.

BTW, isn't it a bit transparent assigning capitalism to the "positive" end of your X-axis, and socialism to the "negative"? Or individualism to "positive" fascism to "negative"?

Just for the record: I am anti-individualist only because of its overwhelming support in the world today. I am well aware that the ideal world is one where social and individual issues are treated in a balanced fashion. But I see no balance in our world, just selfish individuals, demanding their 'rights' (aka out for what they can get).

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I guess it was my choice of wording that got confusing... especially since I use the word social and socialist and mean two completely different things.

The poles would be stronger consideration for the needs of the individual vs. stronger consideration for the needs of society.

Capitalism is an individualistic economic model, since it emphasizes personal ownership of property and means of production, and freedom of choice in business decisions. Though a government may add regulations to it and move its particular capitalist economy closer to the center, it still has an overall individualistic emphasis.

The individualism compared with fascism is that in the social model. In a fascist state, the society severely limits the ways an individual can choose to live their life, as tons of laws and codes of conduct are produced and enforced by the central government. I don't know what you'd call its polar opposite, though. Anarchy, I guess.

So, I wasn't trying to compare capitalism and fascism. They're like apples and orangutangs.

"BTW, isn't it a bit transparent assigning capitalism to the "positive" end of your X-axis, and socialism to the "negative"?" - Yes. I have to choose one side to be negative, right?

"Just for the record: I am anti-individualist only because of its overwhelming support in the world today. I am well aware that the ideal world is one where social and individual issues are treated in a balanced fashion. But I see no balance in our world, just selfish individuals, demanding their 'rights' (aka out for what they can get)." - Isn't it amazing that we can live in the same society and see two completely different pictures of it?

All I see when I look around is an absolute excess of mothering and an escape of personal responsibility. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore... they didn't get enough love as a child, they got too much love as a child, they were too poor, they were too rich, they never got anywhere, they got too much too soon... AAARRRGH!

And all these court cases where people are trying to get what they can is a symptom of it. It's not their fault they're fat, it's the fault of McDonald's, and a huge settlement will make them all better. And every time someone wins a case like this, new rules and regulations come about to *protect* the rest of us, so we don't become victims ourselves, because apparently we're just a bunch of crazed children and can't make a sensible dinner decision for ourselves. Slowly the rights evaporate, to the point where we can't do or say anything anymore.

Everybody's a victim of something. They're not responsible for their own actions. So it's okay to sit around waiting for the food stamps to arrive, so they can trade them for crack to smoke in front of their six kids in between beatings. It's the fault of the genes, the environment, the media, sunspots, hormones, laundry cleaners, fashion magazines, ozone emmissions, the full moon, gods, generals, and money.

And mommy government will make us all better with large settlement checks, consequences be damned.

Yes! More so when reading your following text (below) indicates that we are very much in agreement!



Socialism opposes (to some extent) individualism in two ways. The first is the obvious one: a socialist society has laws/rules which constrain the individual (hopefully ) for the good of all. But the second is that it emphasises the 'downside' of individualism: the duties and responsibilities of the individual citizen. So, yes, I lament with you the lack of personal responsibility!

"Nothing is anyone's fault anymore" - the blame culture rears its ugly head, and again the lack of personal responsibility.



Agreed again! I would look to a socialist government to instill - and maybe enforce - collective responsibility into its citizens. So, instead of no-one taking responsibility for their actions, people are encouraged to take *both* personal *and* collective responsibility for what goes on.

It seems it's the solutions, not the problems, that we don't quite agree on! Variety is the spice of life!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

After a little more thought: it occurs to me, BtM, that if I was forming a world government along socialist lines - as I surely should! - I can think of no-one else I would rather have serving with me than you. I misunderstand your terminology sometimes, but the thought underlying it always proves to be sound. How do you fancy 'People's Minister for Individual Rights and Duties'?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I've set aside my principles in the past in order to make a living. How much does that position pay?

The problem I see with the socialist approach is that I believe it promotes the atmosphere of the blame culture. Going back to my earlier example, the food stamps make it easier for the crackhead to be lazy and purchase crack. The welfare payments promote larger families among people who won't take care of them. The kids grow up in this terrible environment and find it a convenient excuse for their own future contributions to the decline of society.

This is what would happen to that family if I were running the government myself:

Without welfare, they wouldn't have so many kids. And they'd have to find another way to make money. Dealing drugs wouldn't do, because I'd legalized marijuana, corporations are mass-producing it and underselling the cartels, and the economical high has crippled the illegal drug trade. That leaves the options of prostitution, crime, and work as possible income sources. Prostitution has been legalized and tightly regulated (and produces an outstanding revenue source to the government), so it's basically a job, with health benefits and personal protection.

That leaves crime and work. They can expect to serve a full sentence for any crime, since we've cleared space by releasing people who were in for non-violent crimes associated with prostitution and/or minor drug offenses. So crime doesn't pay, again.

Which leaves work. Unemployment services would be expanded, so that, after six months of benefits, unemployed persons could be rolled into temporary positions made available in the public and private sector, where they would be required to work for six months (barring disability) before qualifying for unemployment benefits again. At the very worst, people are working for half the year, which should help keep them out of trouble.

Did you notice a socialist solution to a problem in there?

Not to be a*sed to individually counter each point, Blather, but as it stands your logic Doesn't Work. At least, insofar as planning a society, it wouldn't. The massive element of random factors would destroy it, and make it just as likely to go in the opposite direction as anything else. For example, what self-respecting self-loving person, male or female, would allow the government to legalise prostitution? Struggle as you might, Christian-type beliefs about prostitution are practically genetically inherent.

*capitalism = individualism*
As an ideal, yes, but hardly relevant in a world of global economics, really big business, legal monopolies, and price fixing.

No more relavent than describing socialism as democratic, since democracy itself falls under the *dictatorship of the masses* described by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1832. Or communism as socialist since it seems to have universally fallen under dictatorship in short order.

I think the only description that seems to be relevant is *social-minded democracy* since it is broad enough and loose enough to encompass a few generations of our interpretation of what that is. Unfortunately that seems to include systems as diverse as those of the US, Canada, and Sweden although they are obviously very, very different.

"For example, what self-respecting self-loving person, male or female, would allow the government to legalise prostitution?" - The people of Australia, Austria, Germany, Greece, Holland, Singapore, and Nevada.

And Britain, I think. The laws we do have generally apply to those who wish to profit from the prostitutes by providing premises and so on. Anyone know for certain; I'm just voicing half-informed opinions here....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

New member info:

political
left mixed with libertarian
open society, jailing only violent offenders. No death penality.

philosophical
zen like -Jungian archetypes & dreams
Personal responsibility. Strive to act rather than react.

Religion
(yuk on organized religion)
pantheist interests with spiritual faith based on connectivity of all things, compassion, courage.

Membership Application for U234848

Political-Highly Inconsistant

Plilosophical-Inverted or Exterior Solipsist

Religion-Recreational Agnostic

Sanity-None

And let me be the first to welcome the new members, abbit normal and Inverted Solipsist. Both of you I'm sure I've met before, so, hello again, or for the first time, if I forgot it previously.

Thankyou Fnord Prefix

I sort of like your typo ~ abbit normal!
Matters not whether I'm abnormal or abbi normal, I'm only a bit normal in spots in any case

Makes sense, you think you're only a bit normal, I think you're abbit normal...
Can I join your club of people who haven't been annoyed by you? I'm a self-confessed lurker.

Best laugh and compliment (? I think) today!
Better than being declared the abby of normal

*one of lifes annoying beings*

Nothing unless you bring your principles with you! I have this quaint notion that politicians should have principles.



I don't see why it should promote the blame culture any more or less than (say) a capitalist system. The blame culture is basically bad management. Solve the problem so it doesn't happen again. You can't undo history, but you *can* try to learn from your mistakes. I don't think this is a political issue, is it?



So people avoid their responsibilities as citizens: that's not socialism as I understand it. The people should be cared for by the state - to each according to his needs... - but the same applies in reverse - from each according to his means.

And so on. I think your points are valid criticisms of things that do happen, but they wouldn't happen in an 'ideal' state, whether it was capitalist or socialist. Whatever your political leanings, such things are the problems that governments have to address. Do you still want that job?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"