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.
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?
