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.