As the 22nd century marches on the eternal tangle between Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism continues, with this time, perhaps much to the surprise of the past, Constructivism finally on top. While in many ways this was a result of the growth of identity politics, the return of nationalism, and the Chinese Dynamist experiment of the 21st century, it is in just as many ways because, for the most part, liberalism and realism have reached an accord.

The world of Neoliberalism, of worship of markets and capital and the rejection of state power and force politics, is gone. In its wake Liberalism and Realism have merged into (or at least embraced and spawned) two philosophies which dominate the background of the world, Ordism and Neoordism.

Ordism came as a reexamination of the older German Ordoliberals and the Freiberg school of economics as a way to fight neoliberalism without collapsing the world economy by way of revolution. Ordism promoted the development of a social market with government and regional oversight of corporations, but did so by turning the state into a shareholder. The idea was an armed truce between the private and public markets. The public market would maintain rule of law, stable currencies, infrastructure, and enforce corporate needs through military and diplomatic force, and in return the state would be a shareholder and board-member of every company in its territory. This effectively blurred the line between governments and corporations on the global scale, in that a grouping of corporations could now openly petition individual countries to defend their interests like traditional alliances (or in some cases establish political parties) while at the same time a coalition of nations could pool their shares and positions and direct corporate policies on a global scale. In the final stroke, blurring the lines between States and Corporations forever, Ordism held that Corporations could, to a limited extent, act with extraterritoriality and own enclaves, though as subdivisions of the state they are in.

Suddenly Realpolitik, Force Politics, Free Markets, and Capital became one and the same.

Neoordism, like all positions with "post" or "neo" or "meta" in the name came a generation later as a response to its ancestor. Neoordism, formed largely by the descendants of climate refugees and "third culture" individuals without any nationality, rejected the inherent premise of Ordism that states had to have clear territories. Neoordism as such adopted the standard message of blurring the line between Private and Public inherent to Ordism but adopted with it the idea that a state could have extraterritoriality in other states and establish enclaves like a Corporation. Essentially a state was simply anywhere that a majority of people accepted its sovereignty and as such that "Sovereign Majority" had the rights to sharehold into corporations and act in the ways that a state could, seizing infrastructure, collecting taxes, accruing arms, even inside the territory of another state. This was not the only split between Ordism and Neoordism however. Neoordism adopted the idea that because a state could be divided by allegiance rather than by continuous territory it could also act in effect as a corporation and establish state corporations of its own. In the inverse a corporation could establish territory of its own, no longer as a subdivision subservient to a state, if the Sovereign Majority of the area accepted it.

Within Neoordism there are two wings. The Capital Neoordists and Social Neoordists. The Capitals argue that because the principle concern of Ordism is protecting the market and rule of law the power of extraterritoriality and Sovereign Majorities should only extend to states and corporations. The Socials on the other hand believe that these rights extend to any philosophy held by a Sovereign Majority, and so NGOs and Religious organizations should have the rights to act as states or corporations and have enclaves.

Imperfect though it may be this system of Oordism and Neoordism has maintained relative peace and prosperity between peoples, though admittedly as the world still works to emerge out of the dark days of millions of climate refugees, collapsing states and economies on the scale of continents, and nationalist purges and pogroms, the people of the 22nd century are perhaps more flexible on the definitions of peace and prosperity than we are. For instance Freedom House has not existed for 80 years and nobody is keen on bringing it back.

With the long crisis over and an accord between the once bitter forces of Realism and Liberalism leaving them at peace, or at least resting for now, Constructivism has reared its head to dominate the foreground of politics and philosophy world wide. In a world where the day to day is dominated by questions of nationalism, identity, globalism, and culture, every major political philosophy addresses it and as a result the political compass has reformed with very different axes.

----------

THE POLITICAL COMPASS

X Axis: Denotes opinion on "nationality", or the idea of ancestral culture and national culture. On the right of this axis are people who think that protecting culture and the idea of a coherent identity and "race" is important. That self identity does not exist without shared customs and a connection to one's ancestors. On the left are those that reject this idea. Those that believe that the civic sphere is where self identity lies and that cultures are arbitrary and do not need to be defended, or perhaps even need to be eliminated.

Y Axis: Denotes opinion on the size of a state or the global reach of one's culture. On the top are those that believe that larger states are better, and for those on the extreme that a world state is preferable. On the bottom are those that reject the above idea. They include everything from people who simply prefer the current number of states, believe that cultural or political self determination should go further, or in the extreme that states should be demolished (or at least crippled) and that people should move towards more communal ideas.

Diagonal Lines: This denotes a philosophy's opinion on force. Closer to the center the more pacifist one is. Closer to the end the more militant one is. The diagonal lines denote where two philosophies on the same X/Y block split in regards to violence. Examples include Dynamism which is traditionally pacifist or at least positive towards international cooperation and Diversitarianism which is traditionally for revolutionary violence or some other form of violence to enforce itself.

----------

THE IDEOLOGIES

Dynamism: The darling child of the 21st century, the lumbering mass of the 22nd century. Takes credit for ending the nationalist pogroms, bringing back world peace, feeding the refugees, getting you that A on your exam, basically whatever it can get away with. Dynamism is essentially a form of pacifist nationalism. The state exists, in large part, to maintain and reflect local culture and protect its own cultural diversity. Furthermore there is no superior culture as culture itself is really just a social construction maintained by consensus, and the state is too by extension. As such the state has an interest in protecting national culture in order to protect itself, while also seeking peaceful cooperation with other states so that cultures don't destroy each other. After all, you may win a war today, and then lose it tomorrow, and then where will you be? Dynamists tend towards Ordism as it gives the state more power to protect itself and prevents dissidents from seizing land and influence. Although a number of Bantu derived Dynamist states lean toward Capital Neoordism and the "Free Capital" front in the African Parliament is often courted by coalition builders and political aspirants.

Diversitarianism: The edgy younger brother of Dynamism, though technically older as it stems from the neo-reactionary micronationalists of the early 21st century. Screw the state, the state is a parasite that systematizes and destroys culture and tradition all to appeal to international actors and the corporate bottom line. If large states are given power over culture what is to stop them from abusing that power? Could the remaining Shanghaiese speakers really fight back if Beijing wanted to wipe them out? Of course not. Not unless they armed themselves first. This fixation on state skepticism and minority cultures causes moderate Diversitarians to tend towards regionalism and the breaking up of large states and in some cases a withdrawal from international relations, whereas the "Utopian" wing of the philosophy tends towards the ultimate destruction of all states and the reshaping of the world to a point where every person reflects their own culture and is empowered to defend it by force. Both ends tend toward Neoordism.

Chauvinism: Culture is amazing, but my culture is better and you should realize that. This is the basis of Chauvinism. On paper sounding like nothing more than cultural conservatism with a dash of xenophobia, on the ground it acts a lot like Dynamism only rejecting the need to have official institutions to ensure peace between states. Given that the definition of culture can be flexible here and is broader than our current definition it can also include things like a national focus on Deep Greenism. The hermitish state of Buryatia fits this definition: Proud of its Deep Green roots, obnoxious to its neighbors, very loud in talking about how its morals are better and why you should join it, and unwilling to step foot in any international court, but none-the-less rather peaceful and minds its borders. As a result they often reside just outside of Ordism and Neoordism, but when they pick sides they often pick Ordism due to concerns over borders.

Imperialism:  Imperialists not only believe that their culture is great, and objectively better, but that it is an objective good to spread it as far as possible. The Guardians are one such example of this, believing that people need to give way to a vaguely Brazilian Ecotopian World State, but given the flexibility of what a State can be defined as, institutions like Churches often register as Imperialist due to their desire to proselytize and convert the world. Imperialists lean heavily towards Social Neoordism, as it offers as many tools possible to spread their culture and allows them space to ignore the legitimacy of "inferior" states and peoples.

Assimilationism: The tip is in the name. Assimilationists like to assimilate. They believe in fostering "melting-pot" cultures directed by the state as a way to favor state and "secular" power over cultural institutions. The states they form or fight for in many ways reflect a lot of 21st century democracies, though many actually lean authoritarian and tend to act with little public input when established... so exactly like a lot of 21st century democracies. They lean solidly Ordist, mainly out of suspicion of Neoordism eroding state power.

Civicism: Emerging from later 21st century America prior to the rise of the United Path Party, and largely a reaction to Chinese Dynamism, Civicists believe that the only culture that should exist is subservience and loyalty to civil society. The melting pot turned into an industrial smelter with everyone thrown in, not just minority cultures. Civicists tend to reject both Ordism and Neoordism, as for many their ultimate goal is a world state, or at least a union of Civicist states with a common planned economy. The fact that an internationalist philosophy similar to communism but with some serial numbers filed off was formed in the USA has not escaped everyone, but the average person is divorced from the Soviet Union by over 160 years so the comparison doesn't mean much.

Parochialism: Motivated by a distrust of states and "culture uber alles" the Parochials believe that civic cultures based around distance and geography are the most reasonable form of society. After all, the president may change, the church may wither or reform, the culture may jumble about, but your neighbor is your neighbor. Parochials tend to be Neoordists of the Social type, often supporting locally centered NGOs and strong, but independently minded local governments and companies. They also tend to be the most likely to establish enclaves and apply for legal recognition by their federal government or international organizations.

Syndicalism: In many ways the Syndicalists are like the Parochials, only they distrust even the mechanism of Neoordism and governments in general. After all, a group which only "represents" and "serves" the public can be corrupted, so it is up to the common man and her neighbors to sustain each other directly. They tend to form communes of both the anarcho-capitalist and communist variety, and ironically tend to organize into effectively international associations. The Seventh Internationale is an example of this.

My stances:
- A return to 20th century/21st century social democratic economic models
- The right for anyone to associate with any group, ethnicity, race, gender, creed, etc.
- The right for diasporas to participate in domestic and foreign politics
- Heavy regulations against private interest groups
- Accountability from private interest groups
- Global cooperation in climate management and space exploration
- Post-Westphalian Sovereignty
- The right to protect the public for private interest groups forcing products people do not want
- Greater regional autonomy

Where am I placed on the compass?