I wonder why religious extremists would rise to the forefront in a culture of oppressed, victimized people!
It couldn't be because the second-largest party in the PA is full of quislings, could it? People couldn't have co nsidered carefully their votes for Hamas because of their legitimate advantages over Fatah, such as fair administration and charitable work, while weighing carefully the disadvantages, could they?
hell, it couldn't be that our
own media is full of similar propaganda, could it? It couldn't possibly be that for the most part, our entire culture is based around promoting divine myths of American exceptionalism and the glories of American-style capitalism, could it?
Naaaaah
rio wrote:
The problem I have with the political compass is that it assumes you can have this "mix and match" between social and economic attitudes, without needing to acknowledge the deep connections between social conservatism and economic "individualism", and conversely between social liberalism and economic "collectivism". Both the former have their roots in uptight English Protestants in the 17th century, and for the earliest radicals economic and social leftism where two sides of the exact same coin. They were both an integral part of rejecting the ruling orders.
The same is true today, unless we accept the logic that the capitalist economy equals "individual freedom". If you see, as I and I assume DM does too, the capitalist wage relationship as an unfree one, in comparison to, say, the socialist idea of workers running their own workplaces, then social and economic freedom are part of the same thing. Both are against hierarchy, and that is ultimately what all left wing ideas SHOULD be about.
So, for me the idea of seperating out social attitudes as being purpendicular to economic ones is wrong.
I would agree with this, but looking at the Political Compass as a tool to see where one stands, it does in fact do an admirable job of representing people's full views on subjects.
Besides, it's a graph. I don't think it's in particular stating that this attitude is inherently perpendicular to this attitude- by that logic, it's saying the same thing about authoritarian attitudes and economic neoliberalism.