While America has long seen itself as culturally and socially divisible along the lines outlined above, our cousins across the sea have largely come to believe in a different system of ruling divisions: The Marxist interpretation of societal divide, commonly called the "Class Struggle." While volumes have been written about Marxism and the competing interpretations about its minutiae, it is enough for our purposes to look at the core of its belief system only. Marxism specifically believes that the political divide is irrelevant, or at minimum far less important, than the economic divide between two principle "classes" of people. The "upper class" Bourgeoisie who have the greatest wealth, and most importantly who own and control the means by which wealth is produced - i.e. businesses, firms, factories, mines, logging forests, etcetera. And the "proletariat" Working Class who do not own or control the means by which wealth is produced, but are employed by the upper class, working for them in their factories and firms in exchange for smaller sums of money. Marxism generally holds that this system is undesirable because it allows, or indeed requires, that the upper class "exploit" the working class by generating excess wealth from their labor. A single worker in the gold mine does not earn as much money each year as the CEO of the mining company. As the theory holds, the upper class do not do anything in regards to the production of wealth that the working class could not do for themselves, provided the working class were the ones who owned and controlled the means of production. It is further held then, that the upper class desires to prevent the working class from becoming aware of this situation (so-called "Class Awareness"), and will expend considerable energy in the form of both propaganda to dissuade the working class from it, and of systemically repressing the working class to prevent any of them who do become aware of it from doing anything about it (Strike-breaking, anti-Union laws, etc.). This clash between the upper class and the working class, of the "haves" on top versus the "have-nots" on the bottom, and the desire of the "haves" to maintain the status quo are thought to be the origin of all lesser societal divides. These lesser divides, Marxists hold, are artificial divisions sown by the upper class to keep the much more numerous working class people from uniting against them, preventing the Marxist ideal of a "working class revolution" from becoming a reality. Marxists thus see a victory of the working class in the "class struggle" to be a panacea for most or all of the lesser problems in society. Once the working class is in a position of incontestable power - the so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" the lesser societal divides promulgated by the extinct upper class will then resolve themselves. The only true division in society is Upper Class versus Working Class.

What if, much in the same way that Marxism believes that the Left-Right political divide is merely a symptom of the "true" problem, that both of these interpretations are merely shadows. By "shadow" I refer to how a three dimensional object, illuminated by an energy source, projects a lesser-dimensional representation on its surroundings. Shine a light at a basketball and its shadow is merely a circle. I would like to make the argument that society is affected in its highest dimension by a two sided divide imposed upon a third, larger faction. These three "sides" are, from least populous to most, the Intellectual Class, the Socialized Class, and the Working Class. Each of these is definable primarily by the way in which they define, order, and contribute to their own priorities in pursuit of human development. To demonstrate this theory, let us later consider the implications of political correctness and the "Social Justice Warrior" phenomenon. First, some background. >The Intellectual Class The Intellectual Class (IC) could be roundly defined as a class of people who prioritize general scientific, intellectual, or material improvement as human progress. >The Socialized Class The Socialized Class (SC) can be defined as a class of people who prioritize general improvement in interpersonal and inter-group social relations and the production of positive emotional states as human progress. >The Working Class The Working Class (WC) can be defined as a class of people who view improvement in their own personal material and/or social standing as progress and who are less concerned about human progress as a whole due to their lack, or perceived lack, of personal ability to impact it. Examples of the IC are typical and easy to produce and recall from memory. Chemists, physicists, engineers, computer programmers, philosophers, great inventors, historians, explorers, archaeologists, resource managers, and participants in any other field of endeavour which require a level of technical intelligence and which has at least the potential to improve mankind's scientific, intellectual, or material standing. The SCs, likewise, provide easy and typical examples. Artists, sociologists, political scientists, psychologists, musicians, therapists, feminists, political activists, actors and actresses, screenwriters, and persons engaged in any other endeavour which does not require technical skills and which has at least the potential to improve interpersonal or inter-group relations, or generate positive emotional states in society. The WCs offer the easiest and most simple example of them all: The common citizen, working a normal, boring nine-to-five job and whose primary concern is acquiring a minimum necessary level of social and financial stability for themselves and their family to survive, with advancement along other axes being desirable but secondary. The vast majority of the world's population fits into this category.

>Analysis of the Intellectual Class The IC is the smallest of the three groups because it has greater requirements for participation. Specifically you first have to be socially and financially stable before you can elevate yourself to this position from the working class, secondly you have to have a high degree of technical skill in your chosen field in order to make genuine advancements amidst strong competition in an ever more technologically complex world, and third you have to be in a field which has a realistic possibility of producing meaningful intellectual, scientific, or material gains. The inventor of the electric spaghetti fork is certainly an inventor, but could hardly be called a member of the IC for it as the invention lacks any meaningful impact on society. A practical class, the IC is chiefly concerned with the solving of real-world problems. From "How do we make a man fly?" to "How do we make a plane break the sound barrier?" to "How do we put a man on the moon?" The IC seeks out questions of a material, scientific, and intellectual nature and hopes to reap the rewards of finding the answer. Often these rewards will be pivoted into a means for pursuing the next question - the so called "march of science" laid bare. The IC is a class of practical thinking, hard data, and minimal compromise. Individuals in it rarely shy away from making personal sacrifices in their pursuit of progress - long hours and obsessive quests are hallmarks in the history of Western invention - and the IC is often just as willing to expect similar sacrifices by society when chasing the greatest gains. The IC would argue that air pollution and deforestation are acceptable prices to pay for an advancement as great as the Industrial Revolution. Likewise that the managed risk of nuclear accidents is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of nuclear power. Or that guns being misused by criminals is an acceptable risk to preserve the practical ability of citizens to defend themselves from harm. The IC will tend to stand in favor of whatever hard, honest, and conclusive data shows to be true about the physical world, and will tend to stand against whatever such data shows to be false or inconclusive. This last sentence reflects a tendency for the IC to be simultaneously innovative as well as conservative. The IC sees no reason to move with force when the available data does not suggest it to be necessary. Until a new innovation happens that suggests a change in the status quo would be beneficial in positive proportion to the effort required to change, the IC favors the status quo. While this combination of intellectual exploration and conservative action may seem at first paradoxical, it can be simply described with the phrase: "You need not start a revolution at home, to set sail and explore the world abroad, though what you find abroad may start one when you return." The IC is not limited only to lofty thinkers in well-funded laboratories and classical universities. It does share some overlap with the Working Class. Consider for a moment that somewhere out there right now, an engineer from Boeing is sitting at his desk, his mind on fire, turning an idea for a new turbine blade cooling system over in his head. He is an employed worker, making perhaps $60,000 a year. His day shift is 9 to 5. Yes he is sitting up, drinking coffee, and working on this turbine engine blade. If he completes it and the idea is a true improvement, it may find its way into jet engines all over the world. Air travel may become safer as a result, or faster as more powerful engines can be developed. His country may become safer in the next war, with faster fighter jets being fielded with his blade design. This man may have voted for Donald Trump. Hardly the modern stereotype of a member of the "intellectual class" as the old systems perceived it. >to be continued

I think you should rest, Acid.

There are some missing like neo,alt,alt right neo added to each and every spectrum on the circle and it gets very confusing to me. At this point especially on twitter i just call people lefties or righties much easier than trying to pin down their political alignment example this image is a leftie in his natural environment notice the telltale signs of leftism notice them i say.

> What if, much in the same way that Marxism believes that the Left-Right political divide is merely a symptom of the "true" problem, that both of these interpretations are merely shadows. By "shadow" I refer to how a three dimensional object, illuminated by an energy source, projects a lesser-dimensional representation on its surroundings. In math terms, these 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional political spectra are derivatives of higher order functions. > Acid discovers class consciousness and will be a commie in a week The three-class model seems to match well with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The Working Class cares about their basic needs. The Social Class has their basic needs and cares about social validation. The Intellectual Class has both and cares about self-achievement. SJWs in the 3-class model are people who want the social validation of being considered as members of the intellectual class, who will take away the social validation of the social class, and who will take away the livelihood of the working class. > that Boeing guy might have voted for Donald Trump That reminds me of this: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2004/12/i-miss-republicans.html

>>329213 Sjws seem to have some desperate need for validation - from what I've seen it's nearly always intellectual validation too. Notice how much they bang on about being 'academic'. Is this need some side effect of growing up in the participation trophy crowd?

>on the left you have… globalism You really need to learn the difference between neoliberalism and worldwide communism. Neoliberalism is simply the latest evolution of capitalism, allowing it one avenue of escaping the regulation of any one government by transcending national boundaries. Socialists and communists certainly are "globalists", but only in the sense of the necessity to defeat capitalism on all fronts because socialism in one country faces incredible odds against other countries' governments working against it in the service of capital. Just look at the past 50 years of US intervention in Latin America. >… atheism Also rofl, there's plenty of atheist ancaps and nazis. Freeing oneself from the moral constraints of certain religions is one way objectivists are able to justify being selfish assholes. Since reading Marx and other theory and becoming a socialist I have had a more and more difficult time taking political "spectrum" stuff seriously. I'm not sure I believe in a fabled "center" anymore. You're either ignorant of what's going on around you and thus fine with the status quo or do know and actively defending the power structures, but in both cases that makes you in support of the system. It's an abstraction with only so much function in itself, but the traditional Left-Right divide came from the national assembly during the French Revolution where the monarchists sat to the right of the president and supporters of the revolution sat to the left. At the time, the leftists were those supporting the capitalist class. Since capitalism is now the dominant economic arrangement, leftism encompasses those who want something different. Both of your spectrum images are hilariously inaccurate in any event. Now… How does this relate to Gamergate?

>>329212 >example this image is a leftie in his natural environment notice the telltale signs of leftism notice them i say. Take away the pink hair and the ugly glasses and you'd have a metalhead. I guess those are the signs?

>>329207 >These lesser divides, Marxists hold, are artificial divisions sown by the upper class to keep the much more numerous working class people from uniting against them, preventing the Marxist ideal of a "working class revolution" from becoming a reality. >Marxists thus see a victory of the working class in the "class struggle" to be a panacea for most or all of the lesser problems in society. Once the working class is in a position of incontestable power - the so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" the lesser societal divides promulgated by the extinct upper class will then resolve themselves. Marxists love this idea of 'the working class revolution/Dictatorship of the Proletariat' - except they are basing it on a massive assumption and a massive flaw - that the working classes all share the same view, all want the same thing, and that there are no hierarchical structures within those working classes. As if none would be out to seek power, or benefit for themselves over others, or none are corrupt or have bias or prejudice. In dealing with people that's not going to be the case. Marxists seem to think if they get their working class revolution it'll be peace and love all around. >>329257 >Since capitalism is now the dominant economic arrangement, leftism encompasses those who want something different. You don't have to be a leftist to want something different. You can support capitalism and still want something different.