This ramble doesn’t really say anything. You meander around, and then fail to give any examples of how revolutionary th0t misses the point. You also keep going on and on about “big brother,” etc. The entire “libertarian/authoritarian” spectrum is false, as a worker run state has been enormously emancipatory historically.

My answer is simple, abandon the awful false spectra of the political compass in favor of direct comparison.

The entire DNC vs GOP political theater is right-wing infighting.

The idea of a “libertarian - authoritarian” spectrum is already false, what’s important is the class character of a society. Ie, are the working classes in control? Or are capitalists in control? Just nakedly calling something “libertarian” or “authoritarian” is meaningless without class analysis, and libertarianism isn’t necessarily non-authoritarian, revolution is the wielding of absolute authority over another group and that’s the most common method of gaining control.

If I say I’m a Marxist-Leninist, people generally know what that means. If someone says they are an anarcho-communist, then people know what that means. Even if the depth of knowledge someone has isn’t that great, it’s better than people trying to guess from a reductive quadrant based system that increases confusion, rather than decreasing it.

Here’s a great video going over the political compass’s absurdities.

You’re not going to find a single source or video covering all of China, what in particular are you asking for? The Prolewiki article on the PRC has 132 sources listed and would be a good general intro, and Qiao Collective’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Study Guide can help you understand China’s model.

I live in the US Empire, just like you I live in an imperialist country. Luxemburg only has the money they do through imperialism as well, it has incredibly low taxes and no capital gains tax so billionaires store their money in Luxemburg’s assets. If you want to genuinely make the world a better place, then you’d do a far better job by opposing western imperialism and trying to build socialism in your own country.

Already did:

Ideologies can be generally described as right or left depending on if they uphold capitalism or socialism, beyond that they are best compared by their actual stances and not a farcical grid.

Just don’t try to abstract complex views into a grid and compare them directly.

Sounds like I know what I meant, and you saying “you’re wrong” has done nothing to challenge that.

The flaws are definitely in line with what I described, and more. Trying to describe left and right as a spectrun is already horribly reductive, trying to pretend “authoritarian” and “libertarian” is a spectrum is even worse. ideologies can be generally described as right or left depending on if they uphold capitalism or socialism, beyond that they are best compared by their actual stances and not a farcical grid.

The political compass is what politics looks like from a liberal perspective. It has no actual bearing on the reality of political thought, and has been disastrous for those trying to understand politics for the first time.

No, it isn’t besides the point, the west runs on a system called imperialism by which they export capital and super-exploit the global south for super profits domestically. It’s why the US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases, and nobody else comes close. The west never stopped plundering, and the slow death of imperialism is why the west is currently turning to fascism.

Secondly, China is a democratic country where the working class is in control, and extreme poverty has been eliminated. The working class gains immense improvements in their lives year over year. They have strong protections for minority ethnic groups, and aren’t enslaving the Uyghurs. They do have elected representatives, even if they don’t practice the same system as western systems. LGBTQIA+ rights are regularly improving as well.

You fundamentally do not know what China is actuslly like nor how western countries function.

Cool, except socialism in AES has brought liberty to the working class. Sloganeering isn’t a substitute for a point.

AES states have their authority under the control of the working class, and wield it against capitalists, imperialists, landlords, and fascists. Capitalist states wield their authority against the working classes, and the imperialist west wields their authority globally against the global south to super-exploit for super profits. It isn’t that western countries have better human rights than AES countries, the opposite is true. What the west has is the spoils of imperialism, plundering the global south. AES states don’t have that.

A good example of this in action is people’s perceptions towards their democracy in China, compared to the US and UK:

No worries! 🫡

Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, USSR, etc. Cuba is similar to these other countries in economic model and democratic structure, which is why they have all seen good success, especially compared to peer countries.

Actually Existing Socialism, ie the former USSR and current Cuba, PRC, Vietnam, etc.

This is incorrect. Not only is your characterization of fascism oversimplified, it doesn’t actually apply to actually existing socialism (AES).

1. AES states have not had dictators. In all socialist states, the governmental structure has been collectivized and democratic. Holding government positions for a longer period of time than capitalist democracies doesn’t make a country a dictatorship.

2. Socialist states, with their more collectivized control, have had more evenly spread decisionmaling power than capitalist states.

3. Millitarism is correct, all lasting socialist states have had a necessity to build up at minimum defensive armies. The USSR was invaded by over a dozen countries at its inception.

4. Forcible suppression of opposition is technically correct, but fascism has always suppressed the working classes while socialist states have suppressed the capitalist class and landlords, fascists, etc. This erasure of class distinctions from the definition of fascism is a factor of wikipedia’s liberal bias.

5. The belief in class systems technically counts as a social hierarchy, but the key difference is that socialist states work towards abolishing class, while fascist states uphold class and uphold racial supremacy.

6. Subordination of the individual to the many technically applies, but for fascism it refers to submission to a capitalist dictatorship for private profits whereas for socialism it refers to working class unity to meet the needs of all.

7. Socialism is a collectivized form of economic management, fascism’s strong state control was in the interest of crushing working class organization and merging the state with corporate interests.

I believe in left wing ideology, it’s just only ever seemed to emerge successfully from non-violent system-internal populism.

Fundamentally ahistorical. All meaningful working class victories have arrived through either direct violence, ie revolution, or the threat of violence, ie mass protests and civil unrest.

No, what happens is left wing solution is successful, and the ensuing governments are thoroughly demonized and slandered via a complex propaganda apparatus.

East Germany is especially complicated considering when the Berlin Wall fell the communists were all purged from their positions, many in show trials.

Socialism (what you call communism) already stands firm, working in theory and in practice. If you’re not familiar with the theory and haven’t looked much into the practice, just adopting standard red scare views, then I don’'t see why you think yourself fit to judge them.

China is a socialist country. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, mixed forms of ownership govern the small and medium firms while massive state owned enterprises form the backbone of the economy. The State is under the control of the working class, which results in over 90% approval rates.

We should absolutely learn from their successes in creating a society controlled by the working class and directed in its interests.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, sarcasm isn’t a point. These are all examples of countries that have been dramatically successful in uplifting the lives of the working classes.