Get your 67 year old ass back to the retirement home

If you’re a boomer, no

Most shocking news of 2025

cough dessalines cough davel cough UltraGiGaGigantic cough, etc etc.

If you don’t want to see communist content or participate in discussions about communism, I’d suggest blocking it. It can get quite annoying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The axis spectrum has proven to be very efficient imo. A lot of the politics we talk about are mainly composed of social and economic elements which the axis spectrum portrays well.

This is why we need to reeducate people and stop using the traditional left-right spectrum and start using the axis spectrum

I believe that if OP had a mask in this situation, they would most likely wear it. So we should assume that they don’t have one

Salty