From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 22:41:23 BST
Dear Platt,
You wrote 4 Apr 2004 10:02:45 -0400:
'that "Political Compass" ... is flawed. The lower left quadrant consisting
of collectivist anarchists is an oxymoron. Political collectivism cannot
exist without coercion.'
I wrote 15 Apr 2004 08:30:33 +0200:
'The questionnaire constituting the Political Compass
(www.politicalcompass.org) didn't measure economical "left" and "right" (the
horizontal coordinates) as collectivism versus individualism. The analysis
attached describes them as state planning of the economy versus deregulated
economy.'
You replied 15 Apr 2004 11:16:14 -0400:
'I'm looking now at one of the charts labeled Left and Right at the
extremities of the horizontal line. Above the Left label it says Communism
and below that in parentheses Collectivism.'
You're right. I was a bit confused about the labels at the end of the axes
of this chart. At the lower end of the vertical axis one of the labels is
'libertarian' and at the right end of the horizontal axis one of the labels
is 'libertarianism'. So I overlooked the other labels of the charts and
looked in the text for proper descriptions of the dimensions of the charts
instead. That's where I found 'the opposite of communism (i.e. an entirely
state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated
economy)'.
I'm still not sure that 'political collectivism' fits 'collectivism' on an
axis that is explicitly called 'economic dimension' (while the other axis is
called 'social dimension'). I would associate 'political collectivism' with
the upper part of the chart. Especially if you associate 'political
collectivism' with a strong state (and weak individuals), the political
compass makers clearly wanted to put that on the vertical, social axis. They
write: 'By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an
authoritarian leftist (i.e. the state is more important than the individual)
and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a
liberal leftist.'
The test would be whether economic collectivism is thinkable with a weak
state (low on the social axis). I think it is. It requires voluntary
association of individuals and freedom to change over from one such
association to another. The political compass makers describe it as 'the
classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism (libertarian
socialism)'. Like all extremes it is difficult to find in practice, I agree.
In the Dutch situation (with widespread consensus about the desirability of
a tax level that doesn't differ much from the present -by American
standards- high level) there is not much coercion needed to maintain it.
You wrote 15 Apr 2004 11:16:14 -0400:
'it seems the "literal" meaning [of "liberal" and "conservative"] is quite
different there in Europe than here in the U.S.'
I'm afraid that I didn't recognize your descriptions of "liberal" and
"conservative" as "literal meanings". Would you agree that a literal meaning
of these terms should be phrased (or rephrasable) using the verbs "to
liberate" respectively to "conserve"? If yes, could you give a description
of American "liberals" and "conservatives" using these verbs? If no, what
would be the criteria for a "literal meaning" of these terms for you (also
applicable outside a political context)?
You wrote 4 Apr 2004 17:06:38 -0400:
'I think Pirsig's "war" between the social and intellectual levels is less
between conservatives and liberals than
between the state (the collective or group) and the individual.'
If I may translate '"war" between the social and intellectual levels' as
'"war" and sometimes war between supporters of social patterns of value and
supporters of intellectual patterns of value' (in which verbal "war"
expresses more intellectual patterns of value and physical "war" expresses
more social patterns of value) ...
If I must take 'conservatives and liberals' as meaning 'American
conservatives and liberals' (or 'European conservatives and liberals') ...
Yes, groups/collectives (with states as examples) are kept together by
social patterns of value and individuals are by definition free from social
patterns of value. Being free from social patterns of value doesn't
necessarily imply support of or participation in intellectual patterns of
value, however. So I would classify 'collectivism' versus 'individualism'
understood as practices as a conflict within the social level, between
more/stronger and less/weaker social patterns of value. When understood as
theoretical support for more/stronger versus less/weaker social patterns of
value it is a conflict within the intellectual level.
So I agree that the "war" between supporters of social patterns of value and
supporters of intellectual patterns of value is 'less between conservatives
and liberals than between the collective/group and the individual', but I
still don't think there is a necessary parallel between social/intellectual
and collective/individual.
By the way does your individual also get 'upset when individual opinions are
stifled such as when someone stands up to [oppose] fundamental Christianity,
or the superiority of Western culture, or the existence of
racial differences in intelligence, or that America is a force for good in a
corrupt world'? (-:
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 15 2004 - 22:45:30 BST