I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.

  • Urist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, this “political compass” you are referring to does have some merits, but any effort to reduce political stances into scales is of course a simplification. For that sake one could argue that adding arbitrary more dimensions to the representation makes it more accurate, but I think that ultimately defeats the purpose of the simplification. There is no canonical way to express these concepts, hence it depends on context which simplification (if any) is useful.

    One particular issue I see with auth-lib is that it IMO has a bias in that most only consider the government as an authority in this setting. However if one say defines autority as

    power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior (from Merriam-Webster)

    it should be clear that under some economical systems there are definitely authorities besides the state. Personally I would argue that money translates to power and hence authority. If this power is unchecked and of great importance, which I think it largely is, I would also argue that it forms a basis of authoritarian rule.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see money as more a necessary thing, as it is much easier to operate a society that way over no money. You could replace money with barter but that does complicate things.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think you might have misunderstood the point I was making. What I implied was that for a society to be free from authoritarianism and under democratic control, there also has to be some limits to the power wielded by the rich. Of course one could try to limit the power of money, but I think the most important thing one should do is limit the mechanics of the economy that allow for unlimited accumulation of wealth (i.e. read taxes and worker collectives).

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well good luck with that. Anyone been convicted in connection with that whole Epstein Fiasco? Hell at least sometimes rich guys do get fucked like Madoff but not one government employee has had to answer for their involvement with Epstein, they won’t even release the log.

          The wealth in essence isn’t the issue, one can be wealthy and a good person, it is theoretically possible, I’d be hard pressed to think of an example while I’m shitting rn but nonetheless it is something that can happen. The issue comes in with letting those people get away with crimes because of their wealth, if we just stopped doing that your issue would be solved.

          Problem is, both of these things are equally likely to occur, which is to say not very. The ruling elite consists of both the government and the corporations propped up by them, but even the most ardent revolutionaries on both sides of the economic spectrum only hate 1/2 of this ruling elite, nothing will ever be solved because neither side can see this. You’re more likely to come back to this with “yeah it’s both but it is really the corpos” than you are to actually see the issue is both.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can have no money AND not barter. See: gift economy. People just giving each other stuff all the time.