Most other political compass’ do a terrible job at explaining how people view and understand their values. I have created a new political compass that I believe better explains how people feel about their values.
My political compass is designed as a rhombus intentionally. It appears more true to how an actual compass would look, with the sections each having their extreme point. These points are such so that the extremes are exclusive to their purest ideals. In reality, it is impossible to reach those purest ideals, as ideological purity stands against how reality operates. I’d argue that the realistic political compass exists within a square that occupies a smaller section of the rhombus shape. I placed how a society holds power over its constituents vertically in the form of Anarchism and Totalitarianism. I placed how the rules of society are created and enforced horizontally in the forms of Traditionalism and Revolution.
I started with anarchism on the bottom, as I believe in the end, anarchism is the starting point of human reality. In actuality, we live in an anarchic reality, we just have convinced ourselves and others that we do not, and share values and ideals that change our subjective perception. In politics, there is a sort of gravity, and I believe that anarchism is the natural point of gravity for all values. In the end, everyone wants to leave in some form of anarchic reality, they just do not want others whom they do not wish to abuse them to have power over them, so they engage in the politics. That gravity is that power is held by each individual person, and whether or not they give it up is, in the end, their choice. The first principle of anarchism is the ability to make a choice.
Across from anarchism is totalitarianism. I considered using authoritarianism, but I felt that would imply that muddle what I was intending for the pure ideological position of the opposition of anarchism, which is the singular dictatorship ruled by one person over literally everyone else. If anarchism is power residing in each person, the opposite must mean that the power resides in one singular person. In pure totalitarianism, there is no ability to make a decision. I would even argue that the dictator in this reality is ruled himself by the power necessary to maintain the regime.
I placed traditionalism on the right, as I see it fitting in line with the classical interpretation of the political spectrum, with the right wing being associated with the supporters of monarchism and traditional order during the French Revolution. Tradition at its core are rules that society does not question, or in its extreme form, cannot question. The usual reasoning of this more or less aligns with the principle of Chesterton’s Fence, which more or less sounds like this: If there fence, there is probably a good reason for the fence, and you should find out what that reasoning is before you tear it down.
Across from Traditionalism, and its foil, is Revolution. Again, I placed Revolution on the left wing because of the classical political spectrum based on the French Revolution. Revolution at its core seeks to overturn the rules of society. At its extreme, rules are overturned, and there are essentially no rules to society. While this may sound like anarchism, I do not believe that anarchy is the same as chaos, which is the final endstate of Revolution. As I stated above, I believe true anarchy is the ability to make a decision, but that does not mean that individuals cannot make agreements to rules between each other. A truly Revolutionary society would never have rules, and its extreme endpoint would be a form of chaos, much like was seen in the French Revolution.
As I stated above, I do not believe it is at all possible to actually reach the extremes of any of these points. A square exists within the rhombus in which the reality of those virtues can actually exist within. I have placed where I think I land in the image below. I align fairly deep with Anarchism, and tend slightly towards tradition, and away from Revolution.
