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 will concede that I’m not well versed in socialist history enough to further buttress my points than i already have. However, you contradict yourself saying “Stalin could not simply do whatever he wanted”. This is like saying Hitler wasn’t a bad guy because he didn’t do the killings himself.
We are both aware of the history of the Soviet Union under Stalin (probably you moreso than me, which confuses me as to why you would suggest Stalin couldn’t do whatever he wanted).
Are you suggesting that The Great Purges, The Holodomor influenced by his forced collectivisation, The Gulag system, The Great Terror, The Soviet-Nazi pact, The Katyn Massacre, The Anti-Jewish campaigns and many more atrocities were not examples of Stalin doing whatever he wanted?
I genuinely want to believe that you’re not one of those crazy Marxists bud.
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?
The difference in results does not speak to the ineffectiveness of the political compass test and can be interpreted as the ineffectiveness of the Left Values test alone.
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?
Well, that’s sort of a trick question isn’t it? The left-right categorization is less useful because what’s happening is a pragmatic response to economic conditions. Whether this temporary shift is seen as ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ is less important than understanding the broader aim. The political compass might not capture these complexities, but the intention behind the reforms would still be left-wing.
Also, this is just a sidenote, but state socialism is just soft totalitarianism. One of the reasons why I’m against transitional phases that explicitly rely on government action.
