In the image before us, we encounter a political compass that deftly captures the underlying absurdities of our contemporary ideological landscape. Each quadrant satirically reduces the moral and political concerns of a particular ideological position to a singular, paradoxical statement: everything is framed as a dire issue except for the most egregious examples of that issue, which are somehow deemed acceptable. This visual satire speaks volumes about the state of modern discourse, where ideological purity often leads to the absurd sanctioning of the very atrocities that the ideology ostensibly seeks to prevent.

The Perverse Logic of Ideological Capture

Let us begin by examining the upper left quadrant, labeled “Authoritarian Left,” where “Everything is revisionist propaganda except actual revisionist propaganda, which is fine.” This statement encapsulates the Marxist critique of ideology in its most distilled form. The revisionist, often accused of betraying the purity of Marxist doctrine, becomes a convenient scapegoat for those who refuse to confront the revisionism inherent in their own practices. The denunciation of revisionism itself becomes a form of ideological revisionism, where the true betrayal lies not in the content of the revision but in the very act of accusing others of revisionism while engaging in it oneself. This is a classic example of the psychoanalytic concept of projection, where the subject disavows their own ideological impurity by externalizing it onto the Other.

Moving to the upper right quadrant, the “Authoritarian Right,” we find the statement “Everything is genocide except actual genocide, which is fine.” Here, we confront the most chilling aspect of ideological obfuscation: the ability to label almost anything as genocide while remaining utterly blind to—or worse, complicit in—actual genocidal practices. This reflects a deeper problem in the way language and moral categories are weaponized in political discourse. The term “genocide” becomes emptied of its historical and ethical weight, deployed instead as a rhetorical tool to delegitimize political opponents. In this perverse logic, the very concept of genocide is rendered meaningless, which in turn makes the real thing more acceptable, more palatable. The accusation of genocide becomes a cynical maneuver, a way of maintaining power rather than a genuine concern for the lives at stake.

In the bottom left quadrant, the “Libertarian Left,” we encounter “Everything is theft except actual theft, which is fine.” This statement, in its simplicity, exposes the contradictions at the heart of libertarian socialist thought. The critique of property and capital often takes on a moralistic tone, where every instance of economic exchange is viewed through the lens of theft. Yet, when confronted with actual theft—whether it be the exploitation of labor or the expropriation of land—this moral outrage is conspicuously absent. The concept of theft is thus ideologically neutered, stripped of its radical potential and reduced to a vague sense of injustice that never fully confronts the realities of economic exploitation.

Finally, in the bottom right quadrant, the “Libertarian Right,” we find “Everything is slavery except actual slavery, which is fine.” This encapsulates the libertarian paradox, where the rhetoric of freedom is employed to justify conditions of extreme unfreedom. The libertarian critique of state intervention often hinges on the idea that any form of regulation or taxation is a form of slavery. Yet, when faced with actual conditions of servitude—whether in the form of wage slavery, debt bondage, or human trafficking—this critique evaporates. The obsession with abstract freedom blinds the libertarian to the concrete realities of exploitation, making them complicit in the very forms of slavery they claim to oppose.

The Ideological Suspension of Ethics

What unites all these quadrants is a common thread of ideological perversion, where moral and political categories are evacuated of their meaning and repurposed to serve the interests of power. In each case, the most extreme example of the issue at hand—whether it be revisionism, genocide, theft, or slavery—is rendered invisible, precisely because acknowledging it would undermine the ideological coherence of the position. This is what Žižek refers to as the “ideological suspension of ethics,” where the most egregious violations of moral principles are tolerated, if not outright endorsed, in the name of maintaining ideological purity.

This suspension of ethics is not merely a theoretical concern but has real-world consequences. It allows for the perpetuation of violence and exploitation under the guise of ideological consistency. The leftist who denounces revisionism while engaging in it, the right-winger who decries genocide while committing it, the libertarian who bemoans theft while profiting from it, and the anarcho-capitalist who condemns slavery while upholding it—all are participants in a broader ideological project that seeks to maintain the status quo by inverting the very values it claims to uphold.

Conclusion: Towards a Radical Re-engagement with Ethics

The challenge before us, then, is to break free from this ideological capture and to re-engage with ethics in a way that refuses the false equivalences and moral inversions that dominate contemporary discourse. This requires a radical rethinking of our political categories, a willingness to confront the contradictions in our own positions, and a commitment to the difficult work of ethical consistency.

In the end, the political compass before us is not just a satire of ideological absurdities but a mirror reflecting the deep contradictions and moral failures of our time. It calls on us to recognize the ways in which we, too, are complicit in these failures and to strive towards a more honest and ethical engagement with the world. In this sense, the image is not merely a critique of others but a challenge to ourselves: can we confront the actual revisionism, genocide, theft, and slavery that persist in our world, or will we continue to find comfort in the ideological lies that make these horrors “fine”?

In typical Žižekian fashion, this analysis exposes the ideological mechanisms at play, revealing how moral and political categories are often manipulated to sustain power structures, rather than to challenge them. The image thus serves as a starting point for a broader critique of contemporary politics, one that demands a more rigorous and ethical approach to the issues we face.