You're viewing part of a thread.
You cannot distill complicated views into linear axes, though.
And yet tankies do this daily as a defining aspect of their identities.
Inb4 Biden caused ww3 somehow.
WWIII hasn't officially started, as of today. But history may yet point a finger at Biden if his longer range missiles heading towards Russian lands end up being a major factor in it beginning. That's one hell of a hot potato to pass to the next admin. Certainly Biden received some hot potatoes too. Well see how the next six months go.
I don't know what you're trying to refer to, here. Marxists have always discredited the Political Compass as overly simplistic and erasing nuance.
These views aren't complicated though, or aren't as complicated as you think. Most of our political opinions can be boiled down to any of the 4 quadrants of the axis.
Can you name any view that doesn't fit into this axis?
Many. Which is more "authoritarian" and which is more "libertarian," a fully publicly owned and democratically controlled economy, or a highly decentralized market economy with a nightwatchman state?
Well it depends right, let's not act like there isn't nuance to this.
a fully publicly owned and democratically controlled economy
It falls on the libertarian-left if individuals and communities genuinely govern themselves without coercion e.g democratic socialism. However, if the system requires a strong central authority to enforce public ownership and suppress alternative systems, it moves toward the authoritarian-left e.g Marxist-Leninism
a highly decentralized market economy with a nightwatchman state
This is just a straight up libertarian right economy. A nightwatchman state equals laissez-faire capitalism which aligns with libertarian-right philosophy.
To answer your question, it depends on the type of publicly owned and democratically controlled economy we're talking about.
See, this is where your analogy falls apart. Marxist-Leninists support recall elections and more democratic methods than what you describe as "democratic socialism." You're trying to add to the existing example to make it mean something it doesn't, I asked you a straightforward question and you had to add to it in order to force it into your tidy and neat boxes.
Same with what you call "lib-right," I would consider that more "authoritarian" because people have far less actual control over their lives than they would in the other example, despite focusing on decentralization. In such an economy, warlordism would be the dominant factor in decision making.
This is why the Political Compass is an exercise in absurdity, you cannot simplify viewpoints to 4 quadrants because that's not how economics or politics actually works. You can only describe them by their real and existing mechanisms.
Again my argument isn't that the compass is a rigid framework; rather, it is a guiding tool. Ideologies themselves are not static, but how they are applied or implemented in specific contexts determines where they fall on the compass. This is why i added the nuance earlier.
Take Marxist-Leninism as an example. In theory, it emphasizes democratic control, but in practice, it often relies on centralized enforcement. The inclusion of recall elections might move the system towards the libertarian-left quadrant. However, if those elections are tokenistic or used to maintain centralized authority, the system trends authoritarian-left again. The Political Compass isn’t saying Marxist-Leninism is always authoritarian-left—it’s showing where it falls based on how it’s applied in practice.
Similarly, decentralized market economies might theoretically align with libertarian-right values. But if power becomes concentrated through corporate dominance or "warlordism," it would practically shift toward authoritarianism.
If anything, you agree with me that it is how these ideologies are applied in practice that matters most. No framework is perfect. The political compass, when used with nuance, is a very valuable analytical tool for measuring trends and shifts in governance and power dynamics.
My point is that using it as a tool ends up doing more to obscure the actual mechanisms at play than it does to reveal them, and thus is useless when you can just state the general guiding principles themselves.
Your analysis of Marxism-Leninism is a good example of the dangers of over-simplifying and trying to make sense of it in a manner that fits on the political compass. Marxism-Leninism proposes democratic centralism and a mass line, concepts that have no way to fit on the political compass and yet give more power to the working class than Anarchism would, because Anarchism limits their reach of influence to their internal communes or syndicates. Even in practice AES states have had recall elections.
Additionally, there is no such thing as a "libertarian right," because there cannot be a market based Capitalist economy without corporations dominating it, no matter how small the state, because there is no chance of working class power.
The political compass erases nuance and oversimplifies to dangerous degrees. It's an idealist framing of material reality and distorts trends and mechanisms, rather than helping track them. The sooner it leaves discourse the better the discourse will be.
Look dude, I completely understand and agree with your emphasis on the importance of analyzing real-world mechanisms like democratic centralism, the mass line, or corporate dominance. However, I don't see the political compass as a replacement for detailed analysis—it’s a supplementary tool to map the trends and tendencies of political and economic systems based on their observable outcomes. It isn’t meant to capture every nuance but rather provide a starting point for discussion.
Marxism-Leninism proposes democratic centralism and a mass line, concepts that have no way to fit on the political compass
I'm not disputing that democratic centralism and the mass line are important concepts, but they don’t inherently negate the usefulness of the compass. If these mechanisms genuinely empower the working class without coercion, they would trend toward a libertarian-left position. However, if in practice they require centralized enforcement or suppress dissent, they trend toward authoritarian-left. That's it! I don't know why you haven't grasped my point yet.
And even in practice, AES states like the USSR and China have had recall elections, but we can also observe instances where those systems centralized power to a degree that suppressed dissent. Over time, especially under Stalin, centralized power reduced any meaningful democratic processes. The leadership of the Communist Party became increasingly authoritarian, and the political system increasingly suppressed dissent e.g The Great Purges. Recall mechanisms were largely ineffective in curbing authoritarianism - similar things occurred in China under Zedong's rule.
I'm not using this point to take a jab at Marxism, I'm only demonstrating that systems you claim are meant to sustain democracy have actively been dismantled in the past. The compass can simply help map these contradictions over time.
there is no such thing as a "libertarian right," because there cannot be a market based Capitalist economy without corporations dominating it, no matter how small the state, because there is no chance of working class power.
Fair enough, but the compass doesn't deny this. A libertarian-right system is theoretical, and its real-world outcomes could shift to authoritarian-right if corporate hierarchies emerge. This is why nuance matters, even when using the compass.
I see your concern that the compass might oversimplify or distort. But tools like this are not meant to replace detailed material analysis—they’re frameworks to orient discussions and provide a rough map of tendencies. If used with care and nuance, the compass doesn’t erase complexity; it helps track trends and spark dialogue about mechanisms. It’s not perfect, but it’s a tool to orient ourselves in complex discussions. Dismissing it entirely risks losing a useful way to track trends and communicate ideas clearly.
You have not demonstrated any usefulness, and in fact its flaws have caused you to contradict yourself.
If these mechanisms genuinely empower the working class without coercion, they would trend toward a libertarian-left position.
Here, your framing of the lib-auth scale is empowering the working class without coercion. It doesn't matter if a system is highly centralized with thorough planning and full public ownership, what matters in this context is the extent to which the working class has power.
However, if in practice they require centralized enforcement or suppress dissent, they trend toward authoritarian-left. That’s it!
This contradicts your previous statement, where centralization doesn't matter, only working class power does, assuming there is no "coercion," which you leave vague and ill-defined.
Moreover, if we define lib-auth as working class power, that means Marxism-Leninism is less authoritarian than Anarchism. I want to reiterate that point, because communes or syndicates have horizontalism in place, there is no control from one commune over another, giving rise to potential power differences and coercion. This doesn't make any sense in the traditional notion of lib-auth!
What this means is that lib-auth must mean, instead, size of government, not how democratic it is, in order to be somewhat useful. This means Marxism is fully auth, as it is for a fully centrally planned economy, yet also democratic. This also seems oversimplified. If we define it as working class power, however, the dynamic flips, and Marxism becomes fully libertarian! This also doesn't make sense.
You can see that, rather than being useful in any capacity, trying to force ideologies and structures onto a grid does more for misinformation than information and needs to be thoroughly forgotten. Ignoring your oversimplification (and frequently wrong, such as the fact that Stalin tried to resign no fewer than 4 times and was democratically rejected, and Mao actually successfully was recalled after the struggles of the Cultural Revolution) analysis of Socialist history, this point remains clear.
To your last points, while it’s true that Stalin did attempt to resign a few times, particularly during moments of crisis or internal conflict, these resignations were never accepted, and this is likely due to his entrenched power and the loyalty he commanded from key figures within the Communist Party. His position was deeply centralized, and while he may have "tried" to step down, he was ultimately not removed from power in any meaningful way.
While these attempts might suggest some level of internal political tension, they don't negate the fact that Stalin's overall control and the repressive mechanisms he put in place (like the purges) show a clear trend toward authoritarianism. The failure of democracy within the system (such as the purging of opposition) is what shaped Stalin’s power in a more authoritarian direction.
Similarly with Mao, while he was temporarily sidelined during the Cultural Revolution, his influence still remained powerful in the political structure of China. The system allowed for a bit of power struggle, but the authoritarian nature of the government under Mao and his followers was never fully dismantled until after his death.
These points CANNOT be disputed by you. You cannot deny that many examples of communism are wholly authoritarian, and that it is largely due to the centralisation of power.
This is a very surface-level analysis of Socialist history, though, your reliance on describing mechanisms in terms of "shifting towards or away from authoritarianism" is precisely the crux of the issue. If you want to say Mao retained influence despite being recalled, describe how and why! Don't just vaguely gesture at "authoritarianism" as though it's a miasma that grows and shrinks, describe how there were many people still loyal to him and his ideas despite the party shifting away from him. By folding it under an umbrella of "authoritarianism" you shroud your points. For Stalin, for example, his resignation was rejected, the fact that it was rejected does not mean it was more authoritarian by itself. Rather, it proves a reverse, that Stalin could not simply do whatever he wanted.
My point is that you attempt to describe nuanced, multifaceted concepts in vague and nondescript terms, and this runs counter to any actual points you are trying to make. I could just as easily call your claim that "I CANNOT" dispute your claims to be itself "authoritarian," but I won't because that's silly too.
I agree that working-class power is important in defining whether a system is libertarian or authoritarian. However, the way centralization plays out matters because a system can claim to empower the working class but centralize power in a way that actually diminishes their ability to act or dissent. So, while centralization alone doesn’t determine libertarianism, it does interact with how power is distributed and exercised. That’s why it matters.
This contradicts your previous statement, where centralization doesn't matter, only working class power does, assuming there is no "coercion," which you leave vague and ill-defined.
You’re also right to point out that centralization itself doesn’t automatically negate working-class power - Hell, i even support centralisation myself in certain economical frameworks - but in practice, we often see centralized control leading to the suppression of dissent and limiting democratic decision-making (coercion). The balance between centralization and freedom is a very fine line, and when centralization stops allowing for genuine worker control, that’s when it shifts toward authoritarianism.
Look, I agree that the political compass is far from perfect. It can oversimplify things, but it’s still useful as a way of understanding where systems might fall in terms of broader trends. The point isn’t to force every ideology into a box, but rather to use the grid as a rough guide while still allowing room for the nuance and contradictions you’re emphasizing. Can you at least agree to this point?
You're not making the case for the political compass by showing the issues with how it treats government power and centralization. My point is that the grid itself fails to convey anything meaningful because it is far too simplistic to give any idea, so no, I will not agree that it has any place. As an example, here are my results of the Political Compass test:
And now here are my results on Left Values (which describes me as an "Eco-Marxist," despite my being a Marxist-Leninist):
Very different results, but why? Because all of these tests are meaningless. I consider myself 0% Utopian and 100% scientific, for example, and I think Union vs Party is a false dichotomy. There are numerous issues with all of these because none of them present a true dichotomy.
Here's an example. Let's say you have a country that collectivized too early, and as such growth slows way down. The Means of Production are not ready for it. Is introducing market reforms as Marx and Engels would have it, with the intention of future recollectivization, right or left wing? Does it matter?