created by interpellatedHegel on 16/01/2025 at 15:18 UTC
6 upvotes, 7 top-level comments (showing 7)
Not infrequently do we find ourselves stumbling upon political/ideological labels that appear nonsensical and, after a deeper investigation about their content, they remain as such, if not more paradoxical than they initially were. From "minarcho-socialism" to "anarcho-georgism", Reddit and social media, in general, have beached off the coast, from the very surface of the ocean, many political stances, perceives ideologies and repressed desires for systems that can never exist. And if we are to speak of an "ideology store", we have to address the issues of the store itself: the political compass and the spectrum-ology that maintains these labels and produces new ones day by day. To those wondering whether I claim to exist beyond taking a stance, the answer is no. I'm a Marxist, so here it follows a Marxist critique, not of *your* ideology, but ideology per se.
First and foremost, I contend that contemporary understandings of ideology, through a linear, bilinear, nth-linear Cartesian plane, namely the "political compass", is not politically neutral, nor scientific, but a product of a liberal - now neoliberal - conception of ideology. One that conceives ideologies as commodities that are to be exchanged in the "marketplace of ideas" with their value being "how good/viable" they or the systems they propose are. The first mistake made here is the underlying assumption that humans create the systems they live and operate under *"as they please"*. That new worlds are not made by the encounter of Epicurus' raindrops that come together and, through their contradictions, form new structures, but are somehow the result of man's own will, as it presents itself independent of the roles they partake in society. Therefore, what needs to be done is to convince lots of people about our favourite ideology, say "neo-feudalism", and any paradoxical content of it will be happily imposed on real politics.
When ideology is understood through the aforementioned lens, it's inevitable to shoulder a label, as one would with a football or basketball team. However, one important thing is missed: the social totality in which each label came to be. Our social totality constructs our subjectivity, whether we resist it (as communists of all different flavours) or we accept it (as liberals of all different flavours). It guides our behaviors, our identities and interpellates us as subjects of capitalism. Capitalism remains the composer of our individual and social being and becoming and that is a position that all ideology discourse should root itself into. The imaginary order of capitalism becomes our own and ideology constructs us in such a way that, when looking at the mirror, we view what ideology has pre-constructed for us, until ideology interpellates us into seeing no difference between ourselves and what's in the mirror. All attempts, therefore, to construct ideologies from the abstract, to conduct hypothetical experiments that "prove that anarcho-capitalism is the best system based on reason and/or morality!!!" fall short when it comes to critiquing ideology through the broader social totality.
Comment by AutoModerator at 16/01/2025 at 15:18 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Before participating, consider taking a glance at our rules page[1] if you haven't before.
1: /r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Join us on Discord! ✨ https://discord.gg/fGdV7x5dk2
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism
Comment by Worried-Ad2325 at 16/01/2025 at 15:58 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The internet tends to be an enabler of the worst sorts of ideas. Nothing can physically stop someone from typing "I want a society where it's the law that women talk to me" and that's very unfortunate.
As you said, debates here happen in the absence of complete understanding. I'm not aware of every single aspect of ancap theory. I couldn't name a single prominent ancap theorist. There hasn't been an ancap state or anything that was meant to resemble one either.
Most capitalists here are not studied in Marxism. They've never even read his most common works and don't really understand how a Marxist structure would be imposed, instead going by the historical example of the state built by Lenin or any of its successors.
The result of this issue is that people are fighting blind. We don't know the totality of what we target, nor do we know if we're even targeting the correct thing.
The number of people who have replied to my statements with a long rant about Stalin has been pretty high. I've never been a Marxist-Leninist. I don't advocate for those ideas, but it's assumed regardless.
Likewise, when someone presents libertarian arguments to me, I have a bad habit of assuming they're an ancap. Plenty of times I've accidently misrepresented someone else's beliefs because I'm primed to argue against a specific frame of reference.
It's definitely a problem that requires some introspection, or at the very least an understanding that most things we assume here are incorrect.
Comment by GA-Scoli at 16/01/2025 at 16:26 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I totally agree!
It's darkly ironic watching people rail against "identity politics" as they engage it in themselves by adopting boutique micro-ideologies as political identities. The current fixation with mapping your exact spot on the four-cornered "political canvas" turns political belief into something along the lines of that MBTI bullshit. There's just something deeply satisfying to our monkey brains about pairs of two.
Especially for men, one use of the "ideology store" is carefully picking out an ideology that gets them laid. The weirder the better sometimes, because that gets them *attention*. Look at that crew of jokers that call themselves "MAGA Communists", for example.
Principles, action, and building community should come first. If you don't have a stable base right there it doesn't matter how sophisticated your ideological identity elaboration is.
Comment by Boniface222 at 16/01/2025 at 22:41 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I think all this mostly boils down to underlying personality anyways. People pick and choose what bits and pieces suit their needs. A nazi psychopath and a communist psychopath have a lot in common, not because of horseshoe theory, but because they are both psychopaths.
Ideology is just an excuse to be who we already are.
Some people are shit and believe in ideologies that justify theft, and rape, and so on.
And some people innately think theft and rape are bad.
At best ideology is an exercise in entertainment, because psychopaths are gonna psychopath.
Comment by coke_and_coffee at 16/01/2025 at 16:24 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
The first mistake made here is the underlying assumption that humans create the systems they live and operate under "as they please".
Who is assuming this? I don’t think anyone denies that the Overton window of ideology is very much path dependent, somewhat arbitrary, and highly specific to cultural context.
Comment by MightyMoosePoop at 16/01/2025 at 17:34 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I swear a lot of you socialist need to pick up Strunk & White…
Anyway, it is really good form of thesis to explain what you are talking about so the reader knows. This OP just assumes and then criticizes. Does the criticism have some merit…., maybe. The current Political Compass (test)[1] is out of the UK. Here is their 5 min video explaining the Political Compass.[2]
1: https://www.politicalcompass.org/
2: https://youtu.be/5u3UCz0TM5Q?si=Hsc2LdDsQFMM8NNe
I’m personally not fond of “them” plugging in answers for political candidates on a self-inventory test. Especially not fond of them doing it for historical figures with today’s framed questions and presenting like the test is accurate research. However, we are discussing the test and the model. You will see on the left ledgers various countries you can click and see how figures “tested” on the political compass.
Here is the recent USA POTUS election of 2024.
The original 2 dimensional political model or political compass - referenced here in the below text[3] - was some guy named Eysenck and when I researched Eysenck 2 dimensional model he was coming from an individual psychology perspective and it was rather strangely Freudian perspective. It had more to do with tender vs tough minded and intro vs extroversion. I’m not sure how that is “liberal”?
3: https://postimg.cc/F1mV9zYS
Personally, OP, you may have points but I don’t see you offer an alternative or any solution. You do the typical socialist criticism. “I don’t like it, wahhhh!”
Okay?
You don’t like the PC. Who cares?
Comment by redeggplant01 at 16/01/2025 at 15:48 UTC*
0 upvotes, 5 direct replies
There is no problem using a Cartesian Plane if you define the axis and the metrics the allow for proper measurement on the axis
Like is an object and acid of base based on the score [ metric] of its PH [ the axis ]
For left and right such an axis exists [ the size and scope of you government ] with the poles properly defined with far left being 100% government [ totalitarianism] and the far right being the opposite, 0% government [ anarchism ]. Using defining attributes of government involvement as incremental movement left or right if such involvement exists