Politics doesn’t really have dimensions to begin with, things like the Political Compass are just abstractions of ideas and positions

Which is why I’m saying it’s nonsense to claim that say a social democrat should not criticise a Marxist-Leninist because it’s “punching left”.

As an example, Marxism-Leninism and AES states espouse and implement more democratic structures, but harshly oppressed opposition from liberals, monarchists, and fascists. This is certainly “authoritarian,” but I don’t think that’s a bad use of authority. Rather, all systems and positions are “authoritarian” in different directions and towards different groups.

This makes little sense. Apart from extremists most groups and systems do tolerate different opinions and viewpoints, and would even allow change if a majority agrees with it. Authoritarian governments explicitly do not allow this.

There’s a case to be made for suppressing views that are directly harmful to human life. Authoritarian governments suppress viewpoints that may harm or reduce their own power. And much like capital, power has a tendency to accumulate in one place, which is exactly why democratic systems that allow other viewpoints are so important: it decentralizes power. This also deradicalizes extreme elements in government.

Take the Netherlands. There’s been much said about the PVV, the anti-Islam and anti-migration party, coming into power. But because their power is so diluted and shared with other parties with different viewpoints, they’re having to work with three much more moderate parties. As a result:

• They settled for a PM who was formerly associated with the labour party, a longtime fairly apolitical bureaucrat.
• They had to let go of their anti-Islam views.
• And the big anti-migration bill? The current proposal makes it so they can better differentiate between refugees from wartorn countries and those who are in immediate danger, between migrants who are coming from relatively safe countries who were not in immediate danger and between those who are actively prosecuted based on their identity and who cannot reasonably be expected to return safely. Not exactly massively radical stuff.

They’re still twats, but they haven’t made any extreme or radical changes, and they won’t be able to do so either. They had to moderate, and they did (to a point, of course).

As a side-note, if you think Communists are “just as detestable” as Nazis, I think you need to look more critically at these movements historically.

History isn’t exactly kind on either movement. The theory is always different from practice unfortunately. I’m not interested in counting skulls, I decide for myself what the boundary is for me to consider acceptable. I don’t care how far beyond that boundary a movement is. I won’t vote for it nor will I cease criticizing it so long as I have alternatives (and thankfully I have plenty). Both Marxism-Leninism as well as Nazism are beyond that boundary for me. Sure, there’s more elements I agree with in ML, but I can find those in other ideologies too. It’s the elements that I heavily disagree with that make me dislike it. I can acknowledge Nazism is worse, but that doesn’t draw me towards ML in any way.

I suppose you could draw a parallel to people who won’t support the democrats over their stance on Gaza having caused a genocide. Sure, republicans are certainly worse, but that won’t make me a cheerleader for Harris. But given that the US has no alternative, I would (begrudgingly) still vote D. Thankfully I live in a country with strong democratic principles, which does provide me with alternatives, so I don’t have to compromise on my principles.