I don't know where the Right and Left are on the scale in Australia compared to the US and in Europe though.
The scale is kinda pointless tbh, it's too simplistic. Thus you get this shit where Trump is allied to some left wing groups (relative to US) whereas some centre-leftist (relative to US) are humiliated, and nowhere is this most obvious with how Russian communists like Trump,
further compounded by political religious factions.
I think values is more important, being defined enough to group things meaningfully in a vague sorta way that determines what end-goals each party is striving for, but being vague enough that the groups can be applied across the world with parties that pursue different economic, social and foreign policies with different labels, local objectives and terminology/definition variations
I liken this to a river, the further left you go on the values, the more inclusive and shallow the embracement of the values are. The further right you go, the more exclusive and deep the embracement of the values are. It's also vague but you get the right kinda idea with the values, European, American and Australian progressives will not agree on what progress is, but will agree that it is a very desirable end goal. Conversely a French conservative may be deeply secularist whilst a Polish one deeply Catholic; neither are upholding the same continuities, but both value the same concept of continuity. The further left you go the less demands are made on the individual to do anything, but creates people who grow bored and kill themselves/join jihadist groups/embrace hedonism. The further right you go the more demands are made on the individual to do stuff (based on whatever local institutions, religion and traditions are present), which satisfies people's need to feel part of something larger but is naturally more and more exclusive the more demands are placed - no Illegals in Murrica, no non-Muslims in Mecca, for some obvious contemporary examples. That's on the macro level but exclusivity also on subtler and micro levels, so for example nats tend to require newcomers to learn the language whilst cons form communities based around something hard to get, like a community you are born or convert into, by contrast a liberal community will expect very little of newcomers whilst a progressive community will actively go out of its way to seek newcomers.
They're also not exclusive values, nor is there any particular order or exclusivity of the values, certainly I just placed them in that left-right order because that's how I imagine most people naturally see the social values ordered on a linear scale, but it's most definitely not a linear scale with stratified values. Also minor note, I find liberalism concerned with equal rights as satisfying its definition of equality where progressives find such systems better but unsatisfactory; in this sense those who are focused on liberalism values will fight for non-discrimination in employment, those who are focused on progressivism values will push for affirmative action in employment - the difference the two have is a belief in equality versus equity.
It's also rather illustrative how easy it is for a lot of them to get along and how difficult it is for some of them to get along. Progressives and Conservatives make natural opponents because they both seek to preserve and mutate the same continuity, that much is an obvious contention point, as well as Conservatives tending to favour objective standards versus Progressives with relative standards. Conservative focus on morality and progressive focus on sexual liberty can also be a major contention point depending on local morality.
Liberalism I find to be an odd one in that it can get along ambivalently with any of the other value groups, meshing neither particularly well or poorly. I suppose it's more a state of maximizing choices, but not giving any strong message on what choice to take, that results in liberals becoming something else. Also here's a neat concept: With such a categorization of values, a communist in the West is progressive and liberal, but a communist in the East is nationalist and conservative, despite the Western communist being right-wing and the Eastern communist being left-wing. It scratches that Ox-bow itch of why certain left-wing groups and right-wing groups seem natural allies whilst others are not.
It also explains why certain groups are similar enough to seem like natural allies but are different enough to become bitterest enemies. Running on this assumption:
From the outside, to typical right-wing people, all liberals and progressives look the same. However, liberals and progressives certainly know the differences, thus the bitter enmity between Hillary and Bernie when to the non-Democrat, it appeared to be that they were indistinguishable.
From the outside, to typical left-wing people, all nationalists and conservatives look the same. However, nationalists and conservatives certainly know the differences, thus the cautious enmity between Farage and May when to Americans, it appeared to be that they were indistinguishable.
And then there's the neolibs and neocons of Yurop, Aussie and Murrica, who are all various degrees of right or left wing, but are getting universally hammered by progs, nats and cons, because they sit in that awkward boat where they're similar enough to everyone but different enough to everyone, attacked because they stand for no value in particular.
Additional musings:
I think this sort of illustration of values also explains why Progressives, Liberals and Nationalists and Conservatives tend to have such differing views on things like immigration, even though logically there should not be such political groupings. Why do certain groups form better allies than others? To use immigration, immigration is just a phenomenon. There is nothing explicitly political about immigration, but it is immensely contentious, and there are noticeably common lines from country to country. Progs favour laxer laws and immigration control, Nats and Cons favour stronger laws and control, Libs have great variance (as they tend to do). With these broad values in mind, the lines are clearer:
*Conservatives want to maintain their local continuities and moralities, which are harder to maintain with an influx of people who do not share the same roots or moral system. Thus Conservatives tend towards reducing immigration as far as possible, most pronounced in such examples as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Japan, which implicitly seek to preserve their nation's religious homogeneity.
*Nationalists want to maintain a cohesive culture with attendant common responsibility, which is harder to maintain with an influx of people, and especially undone with illegal immigration. This was perhaps rather relevantly something of a confusion to many liberals today, who wondered why various ethnic or religious minorities voted for anti-illegal immigration candidates, unconscious of this basic principle - they had undergone the process of naturalization, whilst illegal immigrants were being offered the same entitlements with none of the attendant responsibility or civic duty, thus they had no reason to vote in favour of illegal immigration except out of an expected racial loyalty which did not exist.
*Liberals are very hard to generalize with wants, and on immigration tend to just go for whatever they're convinced is the best course of action in regards to immigration and what benefits the most or fulfills their desired ambition. Compare and contrast the neolibs of Germany with the neolibs of Australia, one rigorously attacks the very concept of border control whilst the other rigorously polices its own. They're a very flexible bunch until they've made up their mind
*Progressives can be best summed up with the phrase "diversity is our strength," which is something they all say across the world from Canada to Europe to New Zealand. Lacking any standard with which to cultivate a national or religious culture within its own community, it actively and continually seeks newcomers to enrich the culture. Whereas a nationalist will seek to assimilate newcomers, a progressive will not seek to do so, instead seeking to help newcomers form new homogeneous communities within a larger pluralist society. By continually seeking newcomers, progressives can continually culturally enrich their pluralist society without relying on conservative values to maintain them, instead continually remaking them altogether.
This helps show I think, why certain groups naturally form links, regardless of whether they pray to Christ, Marx, Muhammad, Freud, Moses or some God-Emperor of the week or perhaps, simply none.
I'm thinking there could perhaps be room for a few more columns in future, as technology creates new emphasis values. One day I expect there could be a column for those who are politically ironic. I considered adding a column for revolutionary, but I could not find a series of vague values common to all revolutionaries. This is especially disappointing because revolutionaries are a good extra axis that adds more depth to the other four; progs often share goals with revs but differ on approach, lib revs were once a big thing with Napoleon, rev nats often fuck things up fiercely and cons & revs seem most opposed of all in approach - with some interesting exceptions, such as a revolutionary jihadist. I also think this goes at some lengths to explaining why how when those whose political camps have too different values, the other side appears cartoonishly evil. Sure geographical splits and lines of communication factor immensely into this, but even on the internet where there are no such barriers, people put up barriers and still lack any ability to comprehend how the other thinks. To use another pair of illustrative examples, a Progressive cannot understand why a Conservative wants to uphold an old, oppressive morality in the face of sexual liberty, whilst the Conservative cannot comprehend why the Progressive attacks the unbroken religion for the sake of degeneracy. The difference in how such two groups look at the same situation necessarily renders understanding and respect for one another very difficult. Another great example in Europe is between the nationalists and liberals within the European Union, the liberals are unconcerned with where governance is because they feel their individual rights, freedom and self-expression are respected, whilst the nationalist sees their sovereign unit being replaced by the EU. The liberals see the nationalists as tearing down an international pillar of democracy and freedom whilst the nationalist sees an international entity tearing down their supreme self-governance, once more the difference in how things are viewed and how both are directly seeing the other as antagonist and threat to the other is visible
Progressivism values as foremost importance:
*Equality, seeking to ensure that everyone is of an equal social, professional and political status, holding it to an ideal that everyone is equal on whatever categorization system employed.
*Sexual Liberty, seeking to ensure that everyone is capable of having sex free from oppressive restrictions or judgements both institutionally and socially.
*Progress, Progressives believe that as humanity moves forwards in time, humanity should be developing towards some "improved" condition. What counts as the improved end-goal varies, but the value of moving forwards is what unites progressives where they otherwise disagree where "forward" lies.
Liberalism values as foremost importance:
*Equal Rights, seeking to ensure that everyone has available to them equal opportunities to make what they wish of their life with the skills and resources available to them.
*Liberty, seeking to ensure that everyone is able to act in whatever manner they wish to the furthest extent that is reasonable within the bounds of society. Basically, until one's freedom impinges on another's.
*Individualism, seeking to ensure that the state seeks as little as possible from the citizen in order to better allow them to exert their own individuality in the world.
Nationalism values as foremost importance:
*Justice, seeking consistency, fairness and accordance with principles when dealing with people, business, affairs and law. Fairly vague as naturally what is considered fair and just differs from country to country, especially with such things as fair sentencing for criminals.
*Civic Duty, inspiring in citizens to make self-sacrifice in order to achieve some national goal or betterment of the national community, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
*Sovereignty, the concept that the nation is supreme in determining self-governance, pretty simple but again, many differences differing from country to country in how that sovereignty is expressed.
Conservatism values as foremost importance:
*Objectivity, seeking to hold all things to one standard, with this standard being held as the one closest to reality. Usually revolves around (but not limited to) Empiricism, Aesthetics, Philosophy, Religion, Canon and Visionaries or Community Experts/Clergy/Ulema/Monks.
*Morality, seeking to define what is right and wrong, living, leading and following in accordance with the standards of good and bad conduct in mind and heart.
*Continuity, seeking to continue and cultivate the traditions, customs and institutions founded in the oldest past possible.
For Conservatives, this would explain why they often have much difficulty in politically integrating those from outside religions. Christian Conservatives that stress an ecumenical sense of "Christian values" are able to maintain unity and continuity with no difference, whereas in the old case of Ireland the descent from Presbyterians vs Roman Catholics is a significant threat to the continuity of either. A more contemporary example would be how in the USA, the Christian Conservatives do not endorse Islam even though they share many opinions: accepting a religion which denies the core tenet or their creed would threaten their most significant source of Objectivity. An intriguing example is Hindu Nationalism, which being an amalgamation of many polytheistic faiths, is very tolerant of all of its constituents and cousins, but is highly intolerant of proselytizing faiths it views as undermining its objectivity, morality and continuity.
Also my last point I can think of before I'm absolutely too knackered to think any longer is the notion of there being an end-goal of progress one can definitively work towards. It shows in how for one side the current year is a serious argument whilst for the other the current year is a meme; one considers that there is such a quantifiable thing as progress whilst the other simply views change as change, with whether the change being good or bad standing on the merits of the change involved itself. When Conservatives fail to deal with outside political groups amicably it's usually a clash of the objective standard against another, when Progressives fail to deal with outside political groups amicably it's usually a clash of this concept against anyone else. The idea that the nats, libs or cons do not have any valid ideas, truths, wisdoms or possible better ways to live, the prog way is the way forward and they're all just wrong. To best illustrate this, the whole saying "be on the right side of history" makes many judgements, centering on the assumption that the progressive way is universally good and shall remain unchallenged for all history as the only good that is, and will ever be. It is amusing to note the parallels in how religious conservatives are usually more reluctant to conduct interfaith dialogues than religious liberals, much in the same way that progressives do not conduct interpolitical dialogues in Universities or the Media. We are all much alike in our flaws and virtues!
That is all from me.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4471404 times)