Surprising. Arguing tone (perhaps even ad-hominem fallacy), with a strawman, missing the multiple points made (to both what you wrote, and the video) evasively and dismissively saying the “ramble” doesn’t really say anything, then offer mere restatement (in the same false dichotomy oversimplification fallacy) without tackling any of the counterarguments, again walking straight back into falling foul of what was pointed out, without further reasoning nor counterargument, just circular reasoning. Ironically (apparently) not realising the assertion about the worker run state is itself an appeal to authority fallacy. The admitted simple answer (an oversimplification fallacy btw), using unqualified weasel words, misusing spectra again, offering vague “direct comparison”, merely arrogantly asserts a stubborn restatement without entertaining the critiques nor offering any reasoning at all, let alone valid, and of course even further from any sound reasoning. This density of cognitive dissonance, selective examples and perceptions, fallacies galore, and the reasserting the one true way, has more than a strong smell of a totalitarianised psyche [“When someone dismisses nuance, repeats false dichotomies, and appeals to authority without evidence, it mirrors the rhetorical tactics of totalitarian regimes. That’s not a personal attack—it’s a warning sign we should all be wary of”]. So, I’ve low expectations forming (like next will be moved goalposts, and whataboutism, more overt ad-hominem attacks, and so on, to defend dogma)… but, if you can catch all that in introspective reflection, and tend to the substance, and provide reasoning (rather than restatement of conclusion) I’m genuinely curious, perhaps most especially how do you reconcile the historical examples of the ideological slip from emancipatory(/libertarian) political philosophies / revolutions, into authoritarianism of worker-run states with your claim that they’re ‘emancipatory’? … Is it like an economist hyperfocus/blinkered stubbornly persistent unchallenged dogma in ongoing denial of the freedom dimension**?** Or some other measure (perhaps even one that’s so obvious to you it’s hard to put words to, or even that you’re oblivious to, like the fish oblivious to water)? So like, Kropotkin’s just the same as Mao, in your view**?** Or for an example on the other side, Ayn Rand’s just the same as Pinnochaet**?** Wondering how far this reassertion of dogma may go, or if considerate scrutiny, or clarification of nuances poorly expressed so far, can interrupt it.
Looking forward to hearing your reasoning. Sorry I’m not better at coaxing it from you.
The direct answer is that socialist states throughout history have implemented strong democratizations of society and created impressive systems to take care of the needs of the people. Things like “authoritarianism,” when divorced from class analysis, mean nothing at all beyond that a state exists and enforces the will of the class in power. In socialist states, though, that class is the working classes, and as such wield authority in the interests of bringing immense liberty and emancipation to the broad majority of society.
Still strawman redherring arguments [… who are you telling about this divorce from class analysis? and why? ~ some misinterpretation, imagining I (/and/or the political compass) say that?] that are mere restatements ignoring in denial without reason, further looking like groupthink dogma, mass formation, totalitarian propaganda…
Your purple prose is superfluous and annoying.
My what? Sorry, I don’t comprehend what you mean there. What’s my “purple prose”? … Just more arguing tone? Take a look at Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and see if you can offer anything at or above counter argument.
Speaking of superfluous and annoying… You keep on seeming to attempt to offer arguments against not what I’ve said, stuff I’d not say nor agree with, as if you don’t understand what I’ve said nor what the substance here is, like you’re snagged on a false dichotomy here (which would fit with the crux of your argument). Fallacies and restatement in place of reason. Also not answering any of my questions. This is not a discussion. See how lopsided this is? You just restating your position over and over. I’m not sure if you’re aware you’re doing that. Restatement of a conclusion is not offering reason, let alone steelmaning and exploring other possibilities with an open mind.
There is one thing you’re verging on answering though, albeit apparently unwittingly, that, yes, it appears your contention with liberty and authority is (/may be) near as much as I first proposed, which you neither confirmed nor denied after I proposed it, that it’s the etymology at play, and that the wording is fumblesome as popularly deployed. Ironic, given my mentions of Orwell and Wittgenstein. Also, (if I’ve understood what you’ve been saying) you seem to be rather contradicting yourself, needing to use the words authority and liberty to explain what you mean, even though having fearquoted “authoritarianism” just prior in the same breath… … and so, can you explain to me again [without false dichotomy fallacy, nor strawman fallacy] how this is bunk, and the political compass is more reductive and bunk, even though (despite its shortcomings) it still has over a thousand times more fidelity? I wonder… did you not really ever explore the political compass, and just watched that video emotively critiquing it with a strawman that misses the point that it’s not just 4 quadrants only?
Still bending over backwards here trying to give you ample grace to explain, and trying to invite you to explore the ideas…
And, again, sorry if my low verbal aptitude and communication try-hard style is failing and only pushing you into doubling down on dogma, rather than inviting you to explore the ideas
I just re-read a post on diaspora that in one part said:
We are told “hate” is bad, but when the government do it, its fine.
#we are living in a horror movie as the workers are complicit in murder
People of the government and the workers are evil
which while can be described as an absolutist over-statement in itself, the other way, it does at least highlight the folly and fallacy of your own erroneous criteria, where it’s as if merely the workers are infallably virtuous, beyond succumbing to complicity, or beyond becoming the ruling class distinct from those they rule over, like power cannot corrupt the workers, like hierarchical power structures with such distinctions of roles are still workers ruling same as the workers ruled… Rather reminds me of the Labour Party conference, where one can play a drinking game to stay sober, taking a drink every time you see someone working class there, towit when mentioned prior someone (I think maybe on Lemmy here) suggested one MP (Angela Rayner ~ that took longer to remember/find than I want to admit), who, when I looked at her stats, is worth (iirc) over 5 million, gets near about 200 thousand a year, plus expenses, plus unknown other bribes and kickbacks… And it’s like, wouldn’t that be nice if all “working class” had such access to resources and power. Strikingly Orwellian to even call “representative democracy” democracy at all. Seems a problem worsened by denying the freedom axis, as if economics alone confers freedom that we need not be concerned about it, much as Marx did, when he did not heed Bakunin’s warnings and advice, drifting from the fuller political philosophy of his youth, to the more blinkered economics dogma, that handed over his work (and the word communism, (originally coined by anarchists, btw)) to the tankie cascade through trotsky, lenin, stalin… which not only regressed, obviously, on the freedom dimension, but also economically, half way back to the middle. Which when snug along the top line of the political compass, means half way to Hitler. Revolutionary ferver alone, in ignorance of this, screams loud to me as this most dire folly. So, please, tell me again~ er, for the first time, rather, why this dimension does not matter, and how the political compass is more reductive than what you’re offering, even though it looks as though you’ve a naive-realist conflation of the map for the terrain where a few labels are taken as offering more fidelity than the four million points of the political compass. why and how?
And yes, it’s 4 million. Not 4. (2 dimensions, -10.00 to 10,00 = 4,000,000).
And I’d like it to be 8,000,000,000 with a 3rd dimension! Do you think we can come up with enough labels for that? XD
… ps,
Also, in the comments on that post (part of one of my comments),
It’s a comforting blanket to imagine if the workers were “in control”, such would not have happened, and would not be happening, and worse would not be happening.
When I say your comments are filled with purple prose but are superfluous, I mean the language is flowery and elaborate, lengthy and complex, but devoid of any substance. It’s linguistic gymnastics and theatrics to dodge making an actual point.
My point was quite clear: when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class, you miss the nature of authority. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian/libertarian” scale, because an increase in state power can also coincide with an increase in liberty for the broad majority of society if said state power is directed in the interests of the working class. This is true in existing and historical socialist states. Your tirade against existing socialism and against Marx is also done in flowery terms, but without any point.
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas. Same with other idealist (ie, non-materialist) notions of “power corrupting,” like a spectral force haunting the planet made real. These are all devoid of materialist analysis, yet you hold them to be equal.
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum, as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character. Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums, trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time. Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.
Surprising. Arguing tone (perhaps even ad-hominem fallacy), with a strawman, missing the multiple points made (to both what you wrote, and the video) evasively and dismissively saying the “ramble” doesn’t really say anything, then offer mere restatement (in the same false dichotomy oversimplification fallacy) without tackling any of the counterarguments, again walking straight back into falling foul of what was pointed out, without further reasoning nor counterargument, just circular reasoning. Ironically (apparently) not realising the assertion about the worker run state is itself an appeal to authority fallacy. The admitted simple answer (an oversimplification fallacy btw), using unqualified weasel words, misusing spectra again, offering vague “direct comparison”, merely arrogantly asserts a stubborn restatement without entertaining the critiques nor offering any reasoning at all, let alone valid, and of course even further from any sound reasoning. This density of cognitive dissonance, selective examples and perceptions, fallacies galore, and the reasserting the one true way, has more than a strong smell of a totalitarianised psyche [“When someone dismisses nuance, repeats false dichotomies, and appeals to authority without evidence, it mirrors the rhetorical tactics of totalitarian regimes. That’s not a personal attack—it’s a warning sign we should all be wary of”]. So, I’ve low expectations forming (like next will be moved goalposts, and whataboutism, more overt ad-hominem attacks, and so on, to defend dogma)… but, if you can catch all that in introspective reflection, and tend to the substance, and provide reasoning (rather than restatement of conclusion) I’m genuinely curious, perhaps most especially how do you reconcile the historical examples of the ideological slip from emancipatory(/libertarian) political philosophies / revolutions, into authoritarianism of worker-run states with your claim that they’re ‘emancipatory’? … Is it like an economist hyperfocus/blinkered stubbornly persistent unchallenged dogma in ongoing denial of the freedom dimension**?** Or some other measure (perhaps even one that’s so obvious to you it’s hard to put words to, or even that you’re oblivious to, like the fish oblivious to water)? So like, Kropotkin’s just the same as Mao, in your view**?** Or for an example on the other side, Ayn Rand’s just the same as Pinnochaet**?** Wondering how far this reassertion of dogma may go, or if considerate scrutiny, or clarification of nuances poorly expressed so far, can interrupt it.
Looking forward to hearing your reasoning. Sorry I’m not better at coaxing it from you.
The direct answer is that socialist states throughout history have implemented strong democratizations of society and created impressive systems to take care of the needs of the people. Things like “authoritarianism,” when divorced from class analysis, mean nothing at all beyond that a state exists and enforces the will of the class in power. In socialist states, though, that class is the working classes, and as such wield authority in the interests of bringing immense liberty and emancipation to the broad majority of society.
Your purple prose is superfluous and annoying.
Still strawman redherring arguments [… who are you telling about this divorce from class analysis? and why? ~ some misinterpretation, imagining I (/and/or the political compass) say that?] that are mere restatements ignoring in denial without reason, further looking like groupthink dogma, mass formation, totalitarian propaganda…
My what? Sorry, I don’t comprehend what you mean there. What’s my “purple prose”? … Just more arguing tone? Take a look at Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and see if you can offer anything at or above counter argument.
Speaking of superfluous and annoying… You keep on seeming to attempt to offer arguments against not what I’ve said, stuff I’d not say nor agree with, as if you don’t understand what I’ve said nor what the substance here is, like you’re snagged on a false dichotomy here (which would fit with the crux of your argument). Fallacies and restatement in place of reason. Also not answering any of my questions. This is not a discussion. See how lopsided this is? You just restating your position over and over. I’m not sure if you’re aware you’re doing that. Restatement of a conclusion is not offering reason, let alone steelmaning and exploring other possibilities with an open mind.
There is one thing you’re verging on answering though, albeit apparently unwittingly, that, yes, it appears your contention with liberty and authority is (/may be) near as much as I first proposed, which you neither confirmed nor denied after I proposed it, that it’s the etymology at play, and that the wording is fumblesome as popularly deployed. Ironic, given my mentions of Orwell and Wittgenstein. Also, (if I’ve understood what you’ve been saying) you seem to be rather contradicting yourself, needing to use the words authority and liberty to explain what you mean, even though having fearquoted “authoritarianism” just prior in the same breath… … and so, can you explain to me again [without false dichotomy fallacy, nor strawman fallacy] how this is bunk, and the political compass is more reductive and bunk, even though (despite its shortcomings) it still has over a thousand times more fidelity? I wonder… did you not really ever explore the political compass, and just watched that video emotively critiquing it with a strawman that misses the point that it’s not just 4 quadrants only?
Still bending over backwards here trying to give you ample grace to explain, and trying to invite you to explore the ideas…
And, again, sorry if my low verbal aptitude and communication try-hard style is failing and only pushing you into doubling down on dogma, rather than inviting you to explore the ideas
I just re-read a post on diaspora that in one part said:
which while can be described as an absolutist over-statement in itself, the other way, it does at least highlight the folly and fallacy of your own erroneous criteria, where it’s as if merely the workers are infallably virtuous, beyond succumbing to complicity, or beyond becoming the ruling class distinct from those they rule over, like power cannot corrupt the workers, like hierarchical power structures with such distinctions of roles are still workers ruling same as the workers ruled… Rather reminds me of the Labour Party conference, where one can play a drinking game to stay sober, taking a drink every time you see someone working class there, towit when mentioned prior someone (I think maybe on Lemmy here) suggested one MP (Angela Rayner ~ that took longer to remember/find than I want to admit), who, when I looked at her stats, is worth (iirc) over 5 million, gets near about 200 thousand a year, plus expenses, plus unknown other bribes and kickbacks… And it’s like, wouldn’t that be nice if all “working class” had such access to resources and power. Strikingly Orwellian to even call “representative democracy” democracy at all. Seems a problem worsened by denying the freedom axis, as if economics alone confers freedom that we need not be concerned about it, much as Marx did, when he did not heed Bakunin’s warnings and advice, drifting from the fuller political philosophy of his youth, to the more blinkered economics dogma, that handed over his work (and the word communism, (originally coined by anarchists, btw)) to the tankie cascade through trotsky, lenin, stalin… which not only regressed, obviously, on the freedom dimension, but also economically, half way back to the middle. Which when snug along the top line of the political compass, means half way to Hitler. Revolutionary ferver alone, in ignorance of this, screams loud to me as this most dire folly. So, please, tell me again~ er, for the first time, rather, why this dimension does not matter, and how the political compass is more reductive than what you’re offering, even though it looks as though you’ve a naive-realist conflation of the map for the terrain where a few labels are taken as offering more fidelity than the four million points of the political compass. why and how?
And yes, it’s 4 million. Not 4. (2 dimensions, -10.00 to 10,00 = 4,000,000).
And I’d like it to be 8,000,000,000 with a 3rd dimension! Do you think we can come up with enough labels for that? XD
… ps,
Also, in the comments on that post (part of one of my comments),
It’s a comforting blanket to imagine if the workers were “in control”, such would not have happened, and would not be happening, and worse would not be happening.
When I say your comments are filled with purple prose but are superfluous, I mean the language is flowery and elaborate, lengthy and complex, but devoid of any substance. It’s linguistic gymnastics and theatrics to dodge making an actual point.
My point was quite clear: when you don’t analyze authority’s relationship to class, you miss the nature of authority. There’s no such thing as an “authoritarian/libertarian” scale, because an increase in state power can also coincide with an increase in liberty for the broad majority of society if said state power is directed in the interests of the working class. This is true in existing and historical socialist states. Your tirade against existing socialism and against Marx is also done in flowery terms, but without any point.
You keep repeating the phrasemongering of British fed, antisemite, and rapist Eric Blair, as though “Orwellian” terms are scientific and not literary tools used by the CIA to push anti-communist agendas. Same with other idealist (ie, non-materialist) notions of “power corrupting,” like a spectral force haunting the planet made real. These are all devoid of materialist analysis, yet you hold them to be equal.
The Political Compass represents a false spectrum, as authority and liberty are not counterposed and are in reality most contingent on class character. Further, left and right are not really binaries or spectrums, trying to claim something is “more left” or “more right” more often than not requires redefining what left and right mean each time. Anarchism is no more left than Marxism-Leninism, they each answer the questions posed by capitalist society in a different way but are no more or less “left” than each other.
Adding more dimensions doesn’t fix anything because the chart itself is based on 2 false spectra, one that doesn’t actually counterpose the other, the other that’s based more on vibes when forced into a graph rather than a simple question of affirming socialism or capitalism.