Political Compass //Philosopher Edition

>this many people being this retarded
If you're at the bottom, left and right are almost identical. A funnel would be a more accurate representation, but the whole compass model is retarded anyways.

Stirner should probably move left, the only property he respects is his own

This is absolutely retarded, why the fuck is marx autho? sartre should be hard top left (even thought he called himself an anarchist), deluze&chomsk&camus should be hard bottom left
heidegger a neo con? jesus christ how can someone fuck this one up

and remove niet&stirn completely

How about you actually read these people and understand their political position instead of larping and discussing "le politics & philosophy with my fellow patriciansXDD"

Nietzsche, Camus, Striner, Kant, Aristotele, Sartre, Socrate and Heidegger all transcend rigid political definitons

camus was a staunch anarcho-syndicalist european federalist

Embark with the East Asians

Attached: AAB9962A-D247-4960-90BB-7B1D40E78836.jpg (200x227, 13K)

>why the fuck is marx auto
Because he advocated for using the state apparatus of opression to socialize the means of production, in what would be called the dictatorship of the proletariat, the intermediate step between capitalism and communism. Read Capital.

>Marcus Aurelius and Machiavelli are libertarians

OP is a retard

No matter how many times you use that portrait to represent Kant, it still won't become a portrait of Kant

Machiavelli was a republican. His work doesnt represent his position you idiot. He was hardly against tiranny or dictators

Imagine unironically thinking that Chomsky is far more radical than Deleuze

Marx on the Paris Commune:
>The split between the Marxists and anarchists at the 1872 Hague Congress of the First International (IWA) may in part be traced to Marx's stance that the Commune might have saved itself had it dealt more harshly with reactionaries, instituted conscription, and centralized decision-making in the hands of a revolutionary direction, etc.
Lenin's vanguardism is actually very orthodox.

Marx is right wing

Here, you forgot someone.

Attached: evola.png (2000x1414, 68K)

It's stupid. Don't try.

They are all baby tier reddit shit for emotional man children who don't want to work hard for thexample privilege of quality living and instead drag a whole society down into the dumps with them because it's not "fair" and they don't understand the basic concepts of value bartering, or protection and oposing opinions and forces, like the world is this big hug box that just could always find the same reasoning and logic instead of always being competitive and differing in opinions on how things should be.

LOL
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

looks about right

superfascist

I disagree with this. Plenty of premodern states were less free market than today. Democritus, Lao Tze, Cato the Younger, Al Ma'arri, the Charvarka Indian philosophers, Diogenes and possibly even Jesus and Gotama Buddha often come off as fairly anti-authority or at the very least hesitant critical of their contemporary social hierarchies. Although their philosophy is not as well known as that of the Aztecs, from their totalitarian and communal social organization, the Inca would fit very far in the top left corner.

Meant to quote

The political spectrum is a meme, the reduction of an entire corpus of work to a single point on a map is absurd, and even within your own framework these placements are enormously retarded.

I hate the political compass because I almost always end up near the certain as a result of being religious even though I'm not really socially conservative outside of refusing to recognize trannies and other genderqueer dummies as their chosen identity.

The idea of the revolt of the proletariat (as the most important/biggest part of the non-owner of means of production population) and its dictatorship as a means to tackle the current dialectical order. Like, have you even checked your Ist International/Basic dialectics?

Feels good to be in the same camp as Socrates, Camus, and Chomsky

i read ony 1 book by Evola

Wow, you labelled all the obvious ones everyone knows already. Good job.

The real question is where does Adorno belong?

Authoritarian left.

He'd be on the line between lib and authoritarian left.

Greeks

how is Evola on the economic right?

Radical centrism

Kant, although he is too verbose. Pick small books or prose philosophy for the start, I recommend you Critique of Pure (not practical at first!!) Reason and Zarathustra.

As far as i know he disliked economics
He was all about fascism's third position but I really dont know what that entails

Attached: 656221.png (700x788, 80K)

that's what I mean

What does anything mean?

Marx wrote primarily in aims of maximizing human freedom, he was not an authoritarian.

The Ego and His Own and The Philosophy of History is a good intro to philosophy

Why are you taking dictatorship of the proletariat so literally? He considered current democracy to be the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie

>feeling good about being a cuck

>disliked capitalism AND communsim because le ride the tiger anti-rationalism meme

Attached: emj.jpg (680x680, 31K)

>anarcho socialism is the same as anarcho-capitalism
k

>Anarcho-socalism
That's just regular anarchism.

>Stirner
>Libertarian

Are you for real?

He devoted several chapters in his book about libertarianism. You can't put Stirner into a political category because politics is a spook.

>Neetchee, Machiavelli and Stirner
>Libertarians
leave this board

>Evola quote
>Likesuccess.com watermark
Sums up pretty well the state of internet ""traditionalists"" to be quite honest desu familia.

Attached: 1521179927052.jpg (724x948, 609K)

I read l unico e la sua proprieta. His critics liberalism, but the only way to realize his anarchism nowadays is with the freer market possible

Why is Hegel at the top?

Evola isn't that authoritarian.

Where ma boy Carl at?

Attached: Schmitt.jpg (780x1034, 252K)

awful

you misspelled bagel

Where would you place Deleuze then? He never wrote that many explicitly political works.

Machiavekli was against tiranny idiot

>realize his anarchism

The whole points of his book is that there is no need for any -ism. His critcs about "free speech" also apply to the "free market". Stirner would laugh into your face if you wanted to "realize his anarchism". There is no need for any collective movement that follows any kind of idea, thus no need for politics.

But none of those philosophers were on he chart, were they?

Ftfy

Attached: fixed.jpg (3096x2344, 788K)

My God, the rhizozome is taking over the spectrum

delusional

It's simply natural that people should think this. No anarcho-socialist has ever been able to give a good answer why it is not so either.
We are dealing with a godless peoples, who -- naturally, logically -- see coercion as the center of all political ideology. Politics revolves for them entirely around who needs to be coerced, what body needs to coerce them, to what extent and so on. It is natural that they should see it this way, because there is no such thing as a moral obligation in their world view, and certainly not as something that can be relied on.

Yet they will call me naive while ignoring all of the historical and anthropological evidence that backs up my case, that there can be 'societies' which do not rely on formalized laws and mechanisms of coercion and checking.

>Camus
>Philosopher

Sartre is definitely more authoritarian than Marx

>Posting wikipedia quotes and not quotes from Marx.

He was against state ownership and said the entire working class as a whole would run the state. That's basically anarchism.

> The claim that through revolution the proletariat will be “raised to a governing class” thus has nothing to do with creating a dictatorship of a political sect, but is rather a claim that the proletariat will use “general means of coercion” to undercut the bourgeoisie’s power (by abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, disbanding the standing army, and so forth). It is the entire proletariat that is to exercise this power. Bakunin asks, “Will all 40 million [German workers] be members of the government?”28 Marx responds, “Certainly! For the system starts with the self-government of the communities.

...

>stirner and nietzsche on a political grid
fucking retarded

lmfao bro Marx wasn't authoritarian, he argued for a stateless society where everyone respects eachother - the exact opposite of authoritarianism. It's only later commies like Stalin that were authoritarian.

kek

It's wrong, but I laughed nonetheless.

You mean real life Schmitt or shitpost Schmitt?
Where would you even place 'restrain democracy so it can't shoot itself' and 'pretend to support nazis'?

He was pretty much an authoritarian reactionary with sympathies towards Italian fascism, so i'd place him pretty deep in top right.

based

Attached: 1503253052230.jpg (423x520, 39K)

>Marx wrote primarily in aims of maximizing human freedom
Where? And if it's true, why did his followers fucked up so bad?

Traditionalism? More like retarditionalism :^)

>Where?
>t. never read Marx
Read some of the early stuff like the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. It's literally his main goal though, there isn't just a quote or two to point to. It's also why he had such a hard-on for democracy.

Seems appropriate here:

I am actually about to go full eco-fascist.
What's some good political philosophy on anything ecologically related to politics ?

Singer and Arnie Næss

linkola...........

Ellul

>Stirner
>Political Right

>Implying Stirner can be classified on this kind of compass

Attached: 28660661_787230791469355_4873367681304100864_n.jpg (648x960, 65K)

Heidegger

Whoops posted the crap version

Attached: a_new_meme.jpg (648x960, 134K)

ANALYTIC ANIME PROTAG: Derrida, you bastard! Why did you deconstruct reason, why did you deconstruct metaphysics!
DERRIDA: Because there was no truth in it. I have done what I did solely out of love for it. I'll never act in the name of anything else.
ANALYTIC ANIME PROTAGONIST: So you'd sacrifice every grounding of reality for a pipedream? A mystical 'truth' inhabiting, inalterable, the void? I'll show it to you! I'll show you the truth of this world, of my friendship to everyone who stood by me, the truth of my sword!
DERRIDA: Heh, nothing personnel kid.
*Ebin anime fight*.

Yes, I've never read Marx. I know about the polemics envolving the early, humanist Marx, and the older Marx, tho.

>I am actually about to go full eco-fascist.
Kek, don't go full retard bro. At least find a political position that isn't a meme.

this unironically

Shouldn't Heidegger be authoritarian left because he claimed he joined the Nazi party on May 1st because he mistook them for actual socialists?

>a nice curve through Hume Arelius and Marx
this can work right?

stalin or Mao never read Marx

Ecology blended with fascism is too much of an idiosyncrasy. You can't be an ecologist trying to bring an authoritarian rule to bear only on your country, because it is to no avail. Ecology regards the planet at large, if another country pollutes then your environment suffers too. But as a primitivist I recommend Thoreau and Linkola.

>plato
>that libertarian

Popper would like a word