I wrote a super non-timely blog post on political alignments: (link: ianbicking.org/blog/2019/07/kl) ianbicking.org/blog/2019/07/k… – somehow I feel bad writing about politics, but no current events are mentioned!

@ianbicking I think your theory collapses when you account for all the different political leanings out there:
- socialism (oppressor vs. oppressed)
- fascism/alt-right (glory vs. weakness?)
- left-libertarianism (freedom vs. coercion but also oppressor vs. oppressed)
- neoliberalism (efficiency vs. inefficiency)

@jwinnie Is there anything wrong with having a lot of them? Except that you need some critical mass that is able to construct and reinforce these ideas among themselves.

I suspect people have a dominant perspective, and the secondary perspective is much much weaker. So you only get as many dichotomies as there are distinct intellectual and cultural political groups.


@ianbicking So you think all of these ideas are subdivisions of "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," and "technocratic"?

@jwinnie Not at all – the point is that there's no universal spectrum that applies to all these political identities. If you can convince enough people of a value system you can create a new political identity from scratch.

The outcomes of that value system might align with another value system. For instance, I think technocratic and liberal are closely aligned, with "progressive" maybe being the loose term to encompass both. But the reasons and emotional resonances are still distinct.

@ianbicking I understand your point now. This is a very interesting idea.

But I would change the terminology a bit. To me, "Liberal" is "progress vs. superstition" and "Leftist" is "oppressor vs. oppressed."

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Generalistic and moderated instance.