Rejecting the Political Compass

Attempting to map something as unendingly complex as human ideology unto such a reductionist plane as the political compass is folly, for it leaves out and misrepresents ideologies such as post-leftism, anarcho-primitivism, and egoism. The political compass just isn’t suited for the job of mapping and describing human ideology.

Tell me, dear reader, what is the definition of “leftist” and “rightist?” Of the left and right wings? Of libertarianism and authoritarianism? You wouldn’t get these answers from a reading of the polcomp, nor even from browsing shit such as Wikipedia, at least not well enough.

The answers to these questions are a lot more complex than they may at first seem, and to the post-leftist and anarcho-nihilist such as myself they are even the wrong questions to be asking. What is leftism and what is rightism?

Leftists claim to be in favor of labor, and rightists are at least nominally in favor of capital, but does that mean that groups such as Marxists-Leninists, or Dengists, who claim to favor labor over capital but end up becoming just as bad as or even transferring over to capital, are the leftists in the same vein as libertarian socialists and anarchists? I believe that the terms “left” and “right” wing are so vague that they ought to be rendered obsolete, they’re holdovers of the era of the French Revolution. Well, guess what, Sherlock, this ain’t the French Revolution.

The revolutionaries of the Russian Revolution were, at least nominally, leftist, but the stark differences between the Bolsheviks and the Makhnovists should show you just how meaningless the term “leftist” becomes in this context. Lenin and Makhno could not be further apart from each other, and yet they both get lumped in together as “leftists.”

This is why I reject the political compass: it’s obsolete, reductionist, and quite frankly a hindrance to an accurate understanding of the human political spectrum.

The Questionable Nature of “Human Nature”

I find that those who cry about “human nature” are the most ignorant about human nature in general. It’s fallacious in nature, and denies the role societies play in determining what counts as “human nature” and what doesn’t. Certainly war, violence, and aggression are natural to the human condition, but equally so are peace, kindness, and solidarity.

We just so happen to live in a violently competitive culture, so therefore human nature is “violent and competitive,” and examples of human societies to the contrary are deemed “savage” and “primitive.” It’s not a coincidence that the loudest of these sophists are apologists for capital, for the ruling class, who must do everything in their power to enforce their hegemony over society, lest the common folk get too uppity.

If it is in our nature to be self-destructive, then why is that a nature worth embracing and fighting for? The ills of capitalism and authoritarianism are legion, to hand-wave away the problematic nature of capitalism with “it’s just human nature” is an evasion, a sleight-of-hand designed to avoid being confronted the inhumanity of the status quo.

Humans aren’t good or bad by nature, instead we are sociable, no man is an island. If you were to have been born in, say, India, you would likely have a different social outlook than the average Westerner. You’d most likely be Hindu, or Muslim, than be a Christian.

Human nature is not set in stone, and changes with the times. Appeals to human nature are fallacious, and violate Hume’s Guillotine. Why resort to such a spook as human nature in the first place then, if only to shoot down leftist arguments and ideologies?