You're viewing part of a thread.
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
Again, I have specifically argued against idolization. Did you outright ignore the part where Marx and Engels argued for the usage of a state when building up towards Communism? You admit to having little knowledge of Marxism and Socialist history, yet refuse to learn more.
Only because how it should be implemented differs from how it has been implemented. I'm just saying. There's nothing wrong with Marxism. There's something wrong with the people who practice it.
State socialism is soft totalitarianism. There is a non-zero chance that any government that utilizes such a path will succumb to totalitarianism. Thereby making it a flawed system
Also, my knowledge of socialist history isn't too limited. I know enough to know that Stalin didn't do more for humanity than even the most corrupt of third world country politicians.
How should it be implemented in your eyes? You speak in vague, non-Marxist idealism like "soft totalitarianism," when you should already know better having read Politzer.
It should be implemented the way Marx thought it should. If it still cannot be properly carried out after that, then Marxism is flawed.
You speak in vague, non-Marxist idealism like "soft totalitarianism," when you should already know better having read Politzer.
Very funny. Soft totalitarianism is a term i came up with, am proud of, and will continue to use for the foreseeable future.