This is a series of posts. You may
wish to read the other ones first:
1. "Dimensions of Government"
2. "Symmetries of Responsibility"
3. "Stacking of Thresholds"
4. "Intermingling of Structures"
5. "Examples of Alignment"
Ok, so far we have managed to use some old words in a way that
makes their old use quite obsolete. Now we can't yell "Socialism!"
or "Capitalism!" as an insult. Well what now? We haven't actually
made any predictions or gained great insights. We have just named
things in a more nuanced way. What is the meaning of this?
I think I still need to play around with seeing where everything
fits within the system before I can see if there is any meaning
to be squeezed out.
How about those monoliths that lost some of their bluntness?
How about the political parties? Well, all political parties
as far as they are working within democratic principles would
be called socialists in my scheme. There are exhanges, though,
and there are authorities within the parties, so it is not that
clear. I suppose here we get to a similar territory as with
social media. The entity is so complex that it occupies more than
one spot inside the coordinate system. It is a blob of some sort,
or it is many things, that would have to be dissected before
analysis.
Well, there is something that seems less vague than the actual
functioning of these parties: The talk of the parties. The
conservatives (in the American sense) have been for traditional
family, gun ownership, christianity and against taxation and
wellfare state. I'm probably missing something important, but
lets start there. The liberals are basically the opposite of
the conservatives on these matters.
If we look at the individual talking points there, it seems that
the conservatives are trying to maintain a smaller sphere of
trust by the small authoritarian socialist family and medium
anarchic socialist church. The large anarchic capitalist system
around them is not "trusted". The gun ownership is to protect
the inner circle of family and neighborhood.
Liberals are more anarchic socialist with the family, so they
probably don't have as strong trust in the support of the family.
They are more likely to move to another state to get schooled.
They find a large anarchic socialist support group in their peers,
who they may not know that well, but who are supposed to offer
mutual protection. Since these support groups are a lot bigger
than the conservative inner circle, they don't need guns. In
fact guns (in the hands of other groups) make this group less
safe. These people are more for authoritarian socialist plans
such as the wellfare state and banning of guns.
NOTE: Interesting difference between socialist
and capitalist authoritarian is that the
capitalist deals in the notations system
of who has power through money, while the
socialist deals with power itself. It is
a question of which rung of the ladder you
occupy. This is also why guns are more
dangerous to authoritarian socialists.
A person on a ladder is a lot more visible
target.
The authoritarian family structure of the conservative is
reflected in the authoritarian structure of the church (different
than the anarchic congregation). It also fits quite nicely that
these people are against abortion. Abortion is against the family
authority and agaisnt the church authority.
In similar vein we can say that liberals being for abortion is
a reflection of their anarchic socialist peer group
identification, as is their support for immigration. The
immigrant are their peers in some way. At least when they are
an abstraction and waiting to be allowed in.
When an immigrant is let in, they fall into the anarchic
capitalist system that keeps them in a limbo. This system is
there to protect the conservative, but the liberals are secretly
glad that it is there. They like to support the little guy
through this system when an authoritarian socialist plan is not
possible. There are other ways to support the people in the
peer group, but an immigrant can be culturally too far to
be included in the liberal peer group, which is in fact, not
as all-encompassing as it presents itself.
NOTE: A thing about anarchy. It is a different
thing altogether when it is small, compared
to when it is large. Small anarchy is a
group of friends talking to each other,
organically tossing the authority from one
to the next. Large anarchy is a mob.
I can't think of a truly anarchic system
that works in a beneficial way when large.
But then again, the other's don't work
either. It is the fact of stacking levels
of hierarchy that gets anything useful
out of large entities, but anarchy is
not capable of this, at least without
some technological solution.
Where does all this leave us? Well, it seems that the terms
socialist, anarchist, capitalist and authoritarian don't
necessarily mean anything if we pull these different interactions
apart from the group identity. It seems that both sides of
the divide will use these organizational tools to control the
memetic battle lines.
And the battle is about
who is your daddy
and who is your friend.
