Submitted by cute in AskRaddle (edited )

I took the political compass test awhile ago, the result I got was around libertarian socialism which made me curious as to what that even means. This quiz started my journey into political and social issues. I did research on what exactly it is, only to find that it really doesn't fit me completely. I then found out about anarcho-communism which seemed to fit my mold a bit more, but there were some fundamental things I also thought didn't really fit me. I started to get confused at this point as I didn't know where exactly I stood politically. To this day, I'm still wandering around attempting to find where exactly I fit in. I've also been taught for years that radical left views are wrong and that the opposing radical right views are right, if that makes sense.

My question is how did you find out where exactly you stood politically and socially? Have you also felt like me at some point? It just seems like a massive, complex mess that I don't think I'll ever thoroughly complete. I do have a plan to eventually get literature and media on subjects such as fascism, anarchism, communism, and what not to help me comprehend political and social subjects. I've always been the more submissive type to just accept what others say and to have my opinions easily swayed by others say despite me not really liking them, so excuse me if this is a bad or uninformed question to ask.

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

OdiousOutlaw wrote

It took a lot of introspection and reading. I knew about the dominant two parties in the US, and didn't care for either; leading me to libertarianism (not the socialist kind. I wouldn't know what a socialist was until my late teens), and I was unschooled for most of middle school, so I didn't learn about "the evils of communism". Called myself an anarchist at around 14, because I saw libertarianism as just too clingy to the flawed premise of a small government; might as well not have any. My real turning point was my debate class assigning my group and me an argument on corporate personhood, and I read something about how corporations can legally rent cops, who I already hated; then Trump won the election, leading to me wanting to look more into anarchism, found a few communities read a buncha socialist/ancom/communist shit, registered to raddle after lurking here back when it was called raddit, started paying more attention here when it was obvious that reddit was getting worse, got disillusioned with communism, and now I'm here.

7

ziq wrote

I've always been super uncomfortable with authority of any kind, to the point where it would make my physically sick to be given orders or be held against my will (in a classroom, by the army, etc). So when I heard there was a word for it, "anarchy", it made perfect sense.

5

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

As a side note, I would absolutely love to see this question answered in all different forums of different ideologies. How would it look different in a tankie forum, or a pepe frog make america great forum? The way we answer this and the significance of those differences is definitely one of the most interesting political questions there is for me.

4

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

u/ziq u/emma u/mofongo just a note that it didn't let me say MA GA and it didn't tell me which word was banned. It's a bit troublesome if we can't refer to banned words, not sure what we can do about that.

3

yaaqov wrote

Maybe it can somehow be overridden if put inside quotation marks or something like that?

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Works until the fash figure out that's all you need to do, but it would probably do good in most cases.

1

ziq wrote

i removed maga and kek from the list

3

Majrelende wrote

I never really did, but finding Raddle was a major event.

Before that, when I had heard of communism for the first time, I instantly clung onto the idea of the lack of money, and though I was told that it was a terrible and totalitarian system, I did not believe that part— I only saw the future when a tomato would be a gift from a person or from the earth rather than a commodity from a faceless monolith.

Through this period, I confounded myself with paradoxes, such as stateless states, hierarchy-free political hierarchies, and such until I came upon the conclusion that rule is necessarily a vile thing.

Eventually, Raddle was revealed, where my views began to develop past vague ideals with little basis in the current world.

4

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

going to college challenged me for the first time to think deeper about these questions. prior to that, I despised grade school (just waiting it out) and the idea of a workforce (just putting it off by entering college), but couldnt articulate at the time exactly why. studying art and theory in a university, in spite of its flaws (there are many), gave me time and some freedom to study what I wanted, and opened new ideas and criticisms Id never thought or heard of prior. without that experience, I may have eventually explored what I did, but Im unsure. with this came a series of disillusionments: first with the democrat/republican binary, then with the role of the military, then with capitalist economics, and so on with more norms I had taken as givens.

the process accelerated in grad school. going into it, I was sympathetic to anarcho-syndicalism, IWW, zapatistas, black and indigenous liberation movements, general leftist labor and immigration activism, etc.: pretty much what you see on the shelves of any radical bookstore. once there, I was exposed to what is considered more academic critical theory: the situationists, post-marxist italian autonomia, the ultra-left of tiqqun/invisible committee. I also began studying philosophy for the first time, but really only in bits through french mid-to late century critiques of power such as foucault, deleuze&guattari, virilio, etc. toward the end another disillusionment set in: many professors and colleagues wearing these ideas as sexy ideas, at the end of the day resorted to bland political reform or careerism.

this led me to revisit anarchism, and really dive into anarchist theory. this, and the resonant influence of the SI, led me to aragorn! and their projects LBC and the brilliant. what is generally considered post-left, anti-civ, and green/ecology-centered anarchism is where I found the engaging ideas and conversations I had been looking for that were unheard of in school, even among the most radical. in the writings of max stirner (and those influenced by) I found more interesting critiques of what would become the marxist influenced left, mass society, humanism, and the self. this also led to further study of foundational philosophies like the different hellenistic schools, daoism, existentialism, nihilism, and pessimism. all of these in particular share similar anti-political positioning.

although its difficult to have this discussion without being trapped by large categories and -isms, I recommend avoiding as much as possible a predetermined method looking to fit you an ideological coat to wear (or singular writers as divine interpreters of truth) reflected in something like the political compass. rather, try picking up bits and pieces (and shedding them as well!) you find useful for yourself along the road, and often times better yet: hidden off-road.

4

BrowseDuringClass1917 wrote

The complexity exists only to confuse and distract from real politics. Politics really aren’t all that complex

2

LeftHack wrote

It's better to find your ideology based on self-experience rather than basing on pre-indicator like political compass. My ideology had been murky for a while, even when I decided that following anarchy path would be better for me. I'd put label on myself and change it once every while. But now I have decided that I'd just be an anarchist and abolish the labels.

1