HOME | DD
deviantsock β Political Triangle
#anarchism #authoritarian #communism #conservative #democracy #fascism #liberal #libertarianism #politics #politicalcompass
Published: 2017-10-16 23:05:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 19028; Favourites: 99; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
I love making political compasses8 Values seems to be the most accurate and reliable test, but I love the triangle shape, it's so aesthetic.
Related content
Comments: 25
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
You have communism and socialism switched. Totalitarian should be where nationalism is. Fascism where totalitarian is. Not sure if Nationalism is supposed to be in Fascim's current spot or reactionary's. The rest are right though.
π: 0 β©: 0
How is totalitarianism close to equality? You do realize that for there to be a leader, the leader has to be greater, aka not equal, to the people?
π: 0 β©: 1
Who will enforce the equality? oh that's right, the government. Under natural circumstances the world is unequal as individually humans have distinct strengths and weaknesses. The only way to harness equality is to inhibit the strong and give the weak unfair advantage.
And generally, once a government is given more authority, the political elite will seek to strengthen their authority so as they may stay in power. Ironically this creates a higher gap in equality, in once the weak/marginalized groups realize that the government no longer caters to their interests, they will align themselves with the strong and rebel. This is the natural order of things. Look at the rise and fall of the communist bloc in the 1980s.
π: 3 β©: 2
Enforced equality is communism. Or modern socialism. Totalitarian is straight up higherarchy and should be at the fraternity point.
π: 1 β©: 0
I found myself disagreeing with you at every other sentence, so I've had to break it down.
> Who will enforce the equality? oh that's right, the government.
We're starting off with a strawman. Awesome.
> Under natural circumstances the world is unequal as individually humans have distinct strengths and weaknesses.
Humans are more cooperative than you give them credit for. It's why we formed tribes instead of attacking each other as individuals, and why social norms are very powerful.
> The only way to harness equality is to inhibit the strong and give the weak unfair advantage.
Ensuring that everyone can be productive and take part in a community does not mean hindering some kind of "strong", or giving some kind of unfair advantage to some kind of "weak".
> And generally, once a government is given more authority, the political elite will seek to strengthen their authority so as they may stay in power.
We don't disagree here.
π: 1 β©: 1
> Humans are more cooperative than you give them credit for. It's why we formed tribes instead of attacking each other as individuals, and why social norms are very powerful.
How exactly do tribes form? They form by a collective sense of identity. Smaller groups have higher social trust, larger groups are more divided and harder to maintain. Most people would not voluntarily give up their resources/earnings to another group without some form of intervention.
>Β Ensuring that everyone can be productive and take part in a community does not mean hindering some kind of "strong", or giving some kind of unfair advantage to some kind of "weak".
But under natural circumstances the strong would take positions of power and be the most productive. Strength can be measured on many metrics: intelligence, physical strength, wealth, popularity, etc. Would a group give leadership or authority to someone who is unqualified for a certain task? And how would you deter the strong from not harming or resisting the weak? Again, authority/intervention is required.
Even if it isn't a government, some sort of organization or authority is required to maintain equality. Humans are naturally hierarchical, even in an anarchist state some form of intervention would be necessary to maintain equality.
I should also note that I don't believe absolute liberty, equality or fraternityΒ is feasible. Ideals are imaginary constructs and are limited by the confines of reality. There are no absolutes in reality.Β
π: 1 β©: 0
communism, socialism, and fascism are all forms of economic nationalism
π: 0 β©: 2
They're also well defined political ideologies. That's why they're called "socio-economic-models".
π: 0 β©: 0
I made this a long time ago and some o the wording is off. "Fraternity" is intended to mean "Nationalism." What I have listed as Nationalism should probably be called Nonpartisan or Unaligned.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Isn't what you're describing for Liberty actually Anarchy?
π: 0 β©: 1
One criticism: the description for fraternity might be a bit too vague to represent one particular part of the spectrum. Say what you want about socialists and libertarians, they are both perfectly capable of forming networks of connections, and using them to collectively serve the common good sounds like it would fit in the best in the socialist part of the triangle. Other then that, its a visually pleasing political triangle.
π: 0 β©: 1
It was originally Liberty, Equity and Chilvalry, but "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," has more of a ring to it. When I use the term fraternity, I mean ultra-nationalism and supremacy.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Liberty, equality, Hierarchy. Fraternity just confuses people, because brotherhoods have a big emphasis on equality of it's members.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think this deviation is great! 
I have one small criticism of the piece though, the text on the bottom is a bit hard to read. If you'd like, with your permission of course, I could edit it and give you it back via sta.sh with the text a little clearer? You know what, actually, nah, it's fine. 
π: 0 β©: 0
