Brief Thoughts on Anarchism, College Ideological Diversity, and the Political Compass
Anarchism
Anarchism is a word that is so appropriated by media to mean disorder and chaos that no political group wanting to gain traction should use it. Also, both political groups claiming to promote "anarchism" are not truly anarchist because some form of government would form under both groups' ideals, as ideology breeds power. A society under "anarcho-capitalist" ideals would likely be so controlled by laissez-faire capitalist organizations that they would perform functions similar to modern governments (but with the profit motive, so they probably would be more exploitative than today's governments, and overlapping territory, so violent clashes would be more common). A society under "anarcho-socialist" ideals would essentially be made up of small micro-states that employ direct democracy, communal living under a non-capitalist economy, and (perhaps) sortition (this is a viable option for the far future, but in today's society its widespread implementation would cause violent conflicts that cause too much suffering to be worth it).
College Ideological Diversity
People who decry the lack of ideological diversity on college campuses are correct in stating that conservative/traditionalist views are not supported by the faculty and students of many schools. However, college education on progressive campuses is not "indoctrination" because of the important disagreements within left-of-center circles. Debates include: nuclear energy vs. renewable energy, a one-state solution vs. a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine, regulated capitalism vs. socialism, reform vs. revolution, singular-identity (usually race, gender, gender identity, or sexuality) politics vs. intersectionality vs. pure class struggle, direct vs. representative democracy, cultural relativism vs. personal freedom for all, etc...
The Political Compass
The Political Compass is a useful tool for exploring people's political ideologies: however, it does have the flaw of not showing how neoliberal/pro-elite or populist/anti-elite a person is.
These two charts I created show, respectively, how the Political Compass fails to explain why some Bernie Sanders voters supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton and how the neoliberal/populist dichotomy is needed in assessing political views (as in the second chart some Sanders supporters are closer to Trump's base than Clinton's).
In my opinion, two main processes must occur to counter neoliberalism's production of economic inequality and political corruption in the modern world. Rightist/conservative prejudices must be combated with education and nuanced reformist policy, while leftist libertarian organizing must find a way to become more continuous and coherent (by supporting political, economic, social, and environmental justice) without losing the democratic advantages of its minimally hierarchical nature. Therefore, the next generation of political leadership should inhabit the moderate bottom left of both charts.
Another flaw of the Political Compass is that it does not differentiate between the social and political components of libertarianism/authoritarianism: for example, a leader who supports racial and gender equality but authorizes violence against peaceful protesters will have an authoritarian/libertarian Political Compass score that does not reflect their full set of views.
Sources for the two charts are:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bernie_Sanders.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/donald_trump.htm
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters?fbclid=IwAR2HC-jFuu2LcKSi_O945ZWBESGhvWg3zI7ii90Q0vWOiaDfbNnFH8OiAgk
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/20/15830316/clinton-sanders-issues-rigged
Note: Positions of the three politicians on the first chart are averages of their scores from OnTheIssues.org and politicalcompass.org on similar political compass diagrams.