The political triangle

Cherico

Well-known member
political_triangle_2_by_deviantsock-dbqt7la.png



So I think the reason why a lot of us are having problems figuring each other out is that we have different values.

And Im talking foundational values and I thing the political triangle does a lot to explain why we disagree so heavily.


Essentally there are three core value sets.

A desire for freedom, a desire for equality, and a desire for stability.
Or Liberty, Equlality, and franternity.

Life is a series of trade offs, if freedom is your foundational value then your going to sacerfice equality and stability in the name of freedom.

If stability is your foundational value then your willing to sacerfice freedom and equality in the name of stability.

If Equality is your foundational value then your willing to sacerfice freedom and stability in the name of equality.

And no you can not have all three of them in equal amounts, its not possible, trade offs are invitable. The question is how much your willing to trade of X for X and if you got to the extreme corner your going to have a bad time.

We are never going to agree on everything because we have different foundational value systems, but what we can do is be less self righteous towards each other and admit that we have these value systems and that there are trade offs and that were willing to trade things to get the things we want.

If we take in this lesson I think we can manage to be slightly less dickish to each other.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
Obviously it's better than some other attempts at political classification diagrams, and obviously I am a Reactionary, though it doesn't deal with feminine essentialism; which means that essentially for me the diagram is applicable if "fraternity" becomes "Sorority".
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Obviously it's better than some other attempts at political classification diagrams, and obviously I am a Reactionary, though it doesn't deal with feminine essentialism; which means that essentially for me the diagram is applicable if "fraternity" becomes "Sorority".

hence why I refer to it as stability, and its ok to like stability, that's the core of who you are and thats fine.
 

Big Steve

For the Republic!
Founder
Hrm. I wonder if one could see this as the reason for certain historical instabilities in French Republican government, since their national motto continues to be "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". That is, each end of the triangle, which under this theory is not easily maintained in balance.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
It's an interesting idea, @Big Steve , but I have to feel the very triangle itself is impacted by the ideologies which do exist, and so by the French motto as having been around so long. Is there any information on who developed it and under what grounds?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
It's strikingly similar to the system used in Hearts of Iron games.


The logically obvious problem is that this system is accurate only as long as it deals with variatons of the "3 big ideologies of XX century".
If you apply it earlier, or outside of the major states of that time, it gives really funny results.
Namely, while the liberty and equality corners clearly refer to their respective parts of "big 3", the remaining corner is a catch-all for all ideologies, governments and organisation systems based on membership in a cohesive group defined by either religion, natonality, ethnicity, culture, race, or even tribe/clan membership, or any combination of these, in the end giving this corner an immense variety of groups and ideas that don't necessarily have much in common with each other. After all, the definition of it does specify that the group is united around membership in some of such ethno-culturally defined community, but says nothing about what that particular community and its traditional values stand for, including what it thinks about equality and liberty, among other things.

Another observation of mine is that it would be perfectly feasible to add a nationalism-internationalism "height" dimension to this triangle in form of nationalism-internationalism scale, creating a triangle base tower, which does a good job of showing the problem with "fraternity" corner.

The internationalist extreme of the equality corner would be Trotskyite types and many modern "open borders" people, while the nationalist version would be "socialism in one country" governments, and to extreme, national bolsheviks.

In the liberty corner, on internationalist side we have, in the extreme, anarchocapitalists, and less extreme, everyone for a global, borderless free market above all; while in nationalist variant, we get some more isolationist minarchists, some of authoritarian capitalisms, paleolibertarians, and of course, nationalist capitalism.

And in the fraternity corner, on nationalist side we have any of many isolationist traditionalist groups, in the middle of dimension factions that wanted to expand territory by conquest which may or may not include it's former inhabitants into the group as it doesn't fit isolationism, while on the internationalist extreme, the Islamic State is the perfect example - it wants every single person on Earth to convert to it's particular religion, tradition and way of life, or die, some being allowed to make the choice for themselves, others not, oddly similar to the most militant and idealist revolutionary international socialists, who also are a good example of internationalist extreme.
 

Speaker4thesilent

Crazed Deplorable
The problem I note with your model is that it assumes that the ‘equality’ you are selecting for is equality of outcome.

Frankly, equality of outcome requires oppression of one sort or another, and thus can not be truly said to result in equality because there are always the Elite at the too of the social strata that are in charge of the oppression.

The Party Leaders in Communism, for instance, that live in mansions and eat caviar while the huddled masses freeze and starve.

What is enshrined in the Constitution is equality of opportunity: that being that if you’re willing to put in the work, you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps as far as your talent and work ethic will take you.

This tends to result in an independent, individualistic mindset that rejects oppression. It also neatly helps explain why the country today is so divided.
 
Last edited:

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Might be connected to this topic.





I highly recommend subbing to this guy if you are deep into political theory. He's one of the better expounders of Neo-Reactionary philosophy on YouTube, even if he sounds like Mr. Spock.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
Might be connected to this topic.





I highly recommend subbing to this guy if you are deep into political theory. He's one of the better expounders of Neo-Reactionary philosophy on YouTube, even if he sounds like Mr. Spock.


The critical question and only one that matters really is whether or not he grounds his arguments in science or in metaphysics.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
The critical question and only one that matters really is whether or not he grounds his arguments in science or in metaphysics.
I like you.

But to be fair, I don't really know if he does. He talks about it being the basic structure of Western Civilization, but it's a bit of a speculative model.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
I like you.

But to be fair, I don't really know if he does. He talks about it being the basic structure of Western Civilization, but it's a bit of a speculative model.

My only objection to that is that, really, metaphysics is the basis of all of human civilisation and really of all of human existence, and experience. I only brought that up because, as myself and one of my coreligionists have discussed elsewhere here, a fair number of NRx thinkers rely on science far too much for their justifications. I will have to take the time to review everything this gentleman says carefully.

Oh, and thank you very kindly, by the way.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
My only objection to that is that, really, metaphysics is the basis of all of human civilisation and really of all of human existence, and experience. I only brought that up because, as myself and one of my coreligionists have discussed elsewhere here, a fair number of NRx thinkers rely on science far too much for their justifications. I will have to take the time to review everything this gentleman says carefully.

Oh, and thank you very kindly, by the way.
Yes, I do think there's a bit of presumption in some of the NRx thinking at times. If I had to understand their general approach, it would be "modelling," similar to an engineer. You take an approximation of reality and look at what would happen in certain scenarios. These models are created based on historical data.

You're welcome. I can tell you are a man after my own heart on the metaphysics question. Or are you a woman? It's hard to tell online, and I've been mistake for a woman a lot online.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
Yes, I do think there's a bit of presumption in some of the NRx thinking at times. If I had to understand their general approach, it would be "modelling," similar to an engineer. You take an approximation of reality and look at what would happen in certain scenarios. These models are created based on historical data.

You're welcome. I can tell you are a man after my own heart on the metaphysics question. Or are you a woman? It's hard to tell online, and I've been mistake for a woman a lot online.

I am a woman, a Feminine Essentialist, a Guénonian esoteric traditionalist, a Filyani by religious conviction; an Aristasian in spirit though not oath, and an incurable and proud Romantic who is unashamed to say that she is a daughter of counterrevolution until her last dying breath.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
I am a woman, a Feminine Essentialist, a Guénonian esoteric traditionalist, a Filyani by religious conviction; an Aristasian in spirit though not oath, and an incurable and proud Romantic who is unashamed to say that she is a daughter of counterrevolution until her last dying breath.
Ah well, since you introduced yourself like that, I have to respond in kind.

I'm a Aristotelian-Thomist, a Roman Catholic traditionalist, a meta-political neo-reactionary, and an amateur philosopher. Merry meet, Punch Card Girl.

We'll have to talk some time about our differences.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Might be connected to this topic.





I highly recommend subbing to this guy if you are deep into political theory. He's one of the better expounders of Neo-Reactionary philosophy on YouTube, even if he sounds like Mr. Spock.

Watching those videos, I think I oppose Neo-Reactionary philosophy; if only due to its apparent focus on Christianity as a necessity to western civilization.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top