You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
It's not at all a trick question, it's poking a giant hole in the notion that the Political Compass has any credibility. The answer is that it isn't "left" or "right," but a move towards Marxian economics. It can be considered leftist, yes, but in labeling it left or right in a specific context you ignore that there is a leftist reason to adopt market mechanics, something designated as right wing.
As for your sidenote, I don't see why Marxism is "soft totalitarianism," nor do I know what that means or why you argue "against transitional phases that rely on government action." This is word salad to me and I'd like to know what you're referring to here.
Moreover, why do you believe the LeftValues test to be worse? We've established that I support full public ownership and central planning, and the LeftValues test displays that better than the Political Compass. In fact, the Political Compass puts the PRC at the absolute top despite also being Marxist.
I never said Marxism is soft totalitarianism. I said state socialism is soft totalitarianism - a situation where all requirements for a dictatorship have been met; those are two different things. The reason is because if a situation is created where all property, institutions and means of production are government owned there is a non-zero chance of that government going rogue e.g Stalin.
Moreover, why do you believe the LeftValues test to be worse
I never explicitly said it was worse. I'm only saying that it could be a possible reason why your results weren't congruent.
Marxism is "state socialism," so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Marxism wants full government ownership of production and central planning. Additionally, as we already discussed, Stalin didn't "go rogue," he was elected and retirement was rejected. He was kept because he cracked down on opposition and opportunists within the party, and the central committee deemed this necessary. I provided the transcripts of his resignation speeches in my other comment that elaborate more on this. There was also a thread on Stalin over on Lemmy.ml with nuanced answers on him I recommend checking out.
Stalin was no saint, make no mistake, but he wasn't a "rogue agent" either. He was deeply flawed, no doubt, but he was selected for by the party itself.
As for the left values test not aligning with the political compass, I recommend you reinvestigate that. Clearly it is highly flawed.
What do you define as state socialism? What sort of Marxism do you practice?
The definitions I'm used to are state socialism - A type of socialism wherein some or many of the means of production are controlled by the state, the state in turn being operated by (or on behalf of) the workers.
Marxism - Based on the ideas of Karl Marx, envisions a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the people.
The point being that in state socialism, power is generally centralized so the workers do not have direct control over the means of production.
Also, why do you keep defending Stalin? I don't think Marx would have condoned any of Stalin's actions. I listed a bunch of atrocities committed by Stalin exercising his totalitarian whims. I guess if the nature of Marxism is to be genocidal, then we can say he didn't go rogue. But if I'm not mistaken, that isn't the case. By all standards, he went rogue.
You are confusing several aspects of Marxism, particularly with respect to the State. The State, for Marx, is an element of class oppression. In a classless society, the "State" doesn't exist, when property is fully collectivized there cease to be classes. What remains is a "state" in the modern linguistic sense, but for Marxists is just "government" or "the administration of things," as Engels puts it. From Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society -- the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society -- is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase "a free people's state" with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
Marxism is not Anarchistic, it advocates for a world Socialist republic of full Central Planning and Worker Ownership, complete with hierarchy for planning and whatnot. The "state" isn't a separate thing from the workers, but the workers themselves. The concept of a State is important for the lower stage, when Private Property still exists. From Principles of Communism:
Question 17 : Will it be possible to abolish private property at one stroke?
Answer : No, no more than the existing productive forces can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. Hence, the proletarian revolution, which in all probability is approaching, will be able gradually to transform existing society and abolish private property only when the necessary means of production have been created in sufficient quantity.
As per Stalin, I don't "defend" him, and don't appreciate your assertions that I do. I again want you to read "Tankies" by Roderic Day. Moreover, your confused understanding of Marx can be alleviated by reading my reading list.
Yet the roadmap of every communist country so far has involved a state and a leader that may or may not have represented the interest of the people. Yeah, it seems like your idols need to go back to the basics
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.
No, in no way is that comparable. The CIA didn't believe he was all powerful, and in his attempts to resign, he even tried to suggest eliminating his two positions overall. I suggest that Stalin could not simply do whatever he wanted because I understand, like the CIA did, that he was more of a "captain of the team." He certainly had extensive power and his opinions were held with high weight, but he did not have absolute command nor all-encompasing command. He had the power of his positions, and no more. I suggest reading books on Soviet History post-early 90s, after the Archives opened up.
My friend, you're grossly downplaying the severity of your arguments here, and linking to a CIA document and a hexbear thread 💀 isn't assisting the argument. That document (and subsequently YOU) severely underestimates the extent of Stalin's authoritarian control.
Who wrote that document? No really? Talking about how Stalin faced limited external opposition. WELL NO FUCKING SHIT!! BECAUSE HE PURGED ANY OPPOSITION THE SECOND HE HAD THE CHANCE TO!! YOU'D BE OUT OF YOUR MIND TO OPPOSE HIM!!
Also, the document is talking about how he was merely the leader among many. Are you aware that Stalin had absolute control over the NKVD, the military, and the political system? The purges and repression of opposition eliminated any real collective decision-making. His control over the apparatus of power meant that, in practice, his word was final. Khrushchev’s rise to power came after Stalin's death, in part because of Stalin's purging of potential rivals—further solidifying that Stalin was more than just "the captain of a team."
I genuinely can't believe these takes and it can only be retorted by someone who was in support of the actions of his regime frankly speaking. I don't know why you can't be Marxist and condemn the actions of Stalin or all the other authoritarian communist regimes. It's quite frankly ridiculous that you would offer up these points to me as solid rebuttals. I may not be an expert in sociology or history or political science or whatever, and I may just be a college student who engages in political discourse merely as a hobby, but I refuse to take anyone who downplays the acts of Stalin and his regime, nevertheless in the face glaring contradictions, seriously. I'm sorry buddy. I tried to engage in this discussion with you unbiasedly, but i can't take it anymore.
I encourage you to, again, read history books, rather than taking any one person's word for anything. The thread I linked has references posted as well, so you can check the original sources yourself if you question their validity. In order to be a Marxist, it is critical that we learn to separate fact from fiction, and part of that is recognizing that we all have implicit biases. We should not fear searching for more truth. Stalin certainly wasn't a saint, and I am not making him out to be one. I believe you are over-correcting and making critical errors in judgement because of it.
I highly recommend the short, 8 minute article "Tankies" by Roderic Day, hosted over on Red Sails. For more in-depth reading, Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo is a good historical critique of Stalin that focuses on taking a critical stance towards Stalin and contextualizes him.
We believe that Stalin and Mao were committed socialists who, despite their mistakes, did much more for humanity than most of the bourgeois politicians
And i stopped reading there. I don't consider causing the deaths of 20 million people to be "doing more for humanity". I don't think there's anything wrong with Marxism. There's something wrong with the people that believe it however.
You freely admit to being unfamiliar with Socialist history, and yet are unwilling to even finish a short article? It's 8 minutes long, if you refuse to read things you don't agree with without doing the due research to overcome them you doom yourself to blindness.
Seriously, read the full article or you'll never be able to genuinely understand anything you don't already agree with. Better yet you could read the history book, but if you can't be trusted to read an 8 minute article I fear you're simply fine with never even daring to let your preconveived notions be challenged by historical and archival evidence.
I think I'll pass. This is like a Nazi coming up to me and suggesting i consider Nazism because it focuses on national and racial pride. Sounds like a good idea on paper right?
See, equating Communism with Nazism is fascist apologia and perpetuates Double Genocide Theory. This is something you desparately need to correct, if nothing else, because it is a common form of Holocaust minimization. Since you're already under the mistaken impression that Communists and Nazis could ever be in the same category, you definitely need to read Dr. Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Fall of Communism. Your refusal to read has taken on direct forms of fascist apologia, unintentional as it may be, and if not for me (as I assume you have no respect for me) then you must do it for yourself.
The CIA didn’t believe he was all powerful
Please avoid framing this document as the CIA's assessment of the USSR. This is merely collected comments from an undisclosed informant, not a memorandum or anything close to an official statement.