This blog has been moved.

You can find the new version at https://blog.tomat0.me/main

Thesis: “The left” as an ideological grouping is best defined by its ability to question what is taken for granted; it is through criticism that our understanding of the world evolves, and when we sacrifice criticism in favor of maintaining the coalition, we fall into ideological absurdity.

There's often a joke that goes around that the one thing a leftist hates more than capitalism is other leftists. Leftist infighting is not at all a new phenomenon, we've seen it from the original rivalry between Marx and Bakunin to the countless Trotskyist splinter parties.

The expansion of liberal imperialism and the rise of reactionary regimes throughout the 20th century only served to make the chaotic and fractured left seem incompetent in comparison. There was this sense, both among authoritarian and libertarian socialists that there needed to be a united front in order for the left to slay Goliath.

Yet, here we remain, little over a century after the initial Bolshevik insurrection, and we have to ask ourselves, what has our organization brought us? Yes, it's unfair to take a cursory look and write off the approach, so instead, I'd like to take a closer look into these centralist ideas and where they have brought us.

Democratic Centralism

Lenin's influence on political thought cannot be understated; what he brought to discussion was one of the first serious attempts at answering this question of Left Unity, in the form of democratic centralism.

What followed the First Internationale of Marx's time was a wave of various decentralized leftist insurrections and organizations, each one eventually either sabotaged or crushed in a counterrevolution. Lenin noted this, and came to the conclusion that a revolution must not just overthrow power, but also maintain it. The Bolsheviks' military success in the Russian Revolution only served to further cement this notion; it was clear they had successfully seized power. As the 20th century continued on, countless revolutionaries across the world followed the Leninist example and found themselves in control.

The interesting thing here is that due to the widespread influence of Marxism-Leninism, we actually do have an incredibly wide array of case studies to reflect upon.

Wide not just in the sense of quantity, but also in the variety of pre-existing conditions. This is important, because Marxism-Leninism, especially the more recent incarnations, make it a focus to adapt their theory to the differences in pre-existing conditions.

To quote Mao Zedong[1]:

Now, there are two different attitudes towards learning from others. One is the dogmatic attitude of transplanting everything, whether or not it is suited to our conditions. This is no good. The other attitude is to use our heads and learn those things that suit our conditions, that is, to absorb whatever experience is useful to us. That is the attitude we should adopt.

If we wish to level a critique against Marxism-Leninism, we'll have to account for the varying conditions. Luckily, the aforementioned “wide array of case studies” gives us an opening to do this.

First we must ask, what is shared? Yes, there are conditional adaptations, but ultimately, the underlying theory is going to remain consistent in an abstract sense. The most obvious answer is the existence of the workers' state, the dictatorship of the proletariat so to speak, as the ultimate expression of the will of the worker. It remains forceful, yet democratic, crushing all opposed to the proletariat while remaining as the vessel of the proletariat.

The two most obvious threats to this model are internal and external: internal, in the sense that an unchecked vanguard may lose their integrity, and external in the sense that these states are prime targets for imperialism. And to the credit of the Marxist-Leninists, these remain front and center topics for the majority of their theory.

Yet, historically, what we see is that the Marxist-Leninists have struggled greatly in maintaining the power they ever so effectively seized. Hauntingly, there seems to be this sense of gradual decay coming in from all angles.

I'll be focusing within the context of the Cold War for two reasons: one, enough time has passed that we're able to make clearer analyses, and two, the role these states played in geopolitics at the time were significant enough that it serves as a sufficient test of the effectiveness of the methods.

Within the Cold War, we see these states take upon one of two roles:

  • A proxy role, due to the aggressive containment policies of the West. Vanguards that were vulnerable either due to not having completely held power or just a lack of scale were targeted often due to being the “weakest link”. The survival of these states is highly dependent on the international aid they can receive from stronger vanguards. Class wars became global ones as the US funded rebels and counterrevolutionary groups across the world.
  • Much more developed and powerful states took upon the role of the hegemon, as their own survival was dependent on the survival of the others. They were too strong to be attacked directly, so they had to remain on the alert for espionage, sabotage, and revision. As major superpowers, their decisions held incredible weight, and the decision process was where they were most likely to be attacked.

Like I said before, all of was not some new revelation to the Marxist-Leninists. They played their cards in a fashion to compensate for these weaknesses, yet the results don't show.

Why did the Soviet Union collapse under its own weight? Why does it seem that, as the years pass, the PRC becomes more and more assimilated into the world economy? Why do the sites of countless international revolutions seem so desolate and unrecognizable today?

It's easy to respond that this was due to the influence of revisionists such as Deng and Khrushchev, that the dependent nations cannot be expected to hold a revolution for so long against such an aggressive and powerful enemy. These are all fair responses, or they would be if the goal of democratic centralism wasn't specifically to prevent this sort of outcome.

I specifically attribute this to democratic centralism itself not just because the results have been replicated across a variety of circumstances, but also because often times the cause of these failures can be directly tied to the centralist model.

  • Both Cuba and Cambodia were instances in which the organized left united behind CIA plants in the name of anti-imperialism. Of course Pol Pot and Batista had their critics, however the mass line was able to be weaponized against the left instead of by them. The revolution didn't just stall, it became a counterrevolution, as the truly radical critics were able to be isolated and silenced.
  • The USSR is an interesting case because it is the one state that Lenin was directly involved in. There's a lot that can be said about what occurred in between, but I find it hard-pressed to believe that the eventual outcome of the USSR was by any means a success. The Bolshevik Purges, regardless of your opinion on them, acted as a pivotal turning point for Soviet history; the administrations of Khrushchev and his contemporaries would not have been possible without a Stalin to juxtapose themselves against; and because of the elimination of the majority of critical factions, the subsequent policies of liberalization and eventual capitulation were able to carry through much easier.
  • The shift from the Cultural Revolution to the post-Mao China seems jarring to many ML-Maoists, however, I'd argue there was most definitely precedent for the Deng-era. The Red Guard dedicated itself to eliminating the revisionist elements of the party, creating an atmosphere that fostered dogmatism and solidarity over criticism. The Gang of Four was efficiently and quickly deposed due to the same paranoid atmosphere they were once sowing shortly before.

And what worries me even more is that to this day, Marxist-Leninists are doubling down rather than taking their analysis to a theoretical level. Sure, there's a willingness to criticize individual leaders or acknowledge the crushing heel of imperialism, but these are treated as the cause of failure rather than failure itself. Revisionists and imperialism are exactly what the system of democratic centralism is intended to prevent, yet what we see instead is the united front work towards its amplification.

Platformism

Marxist-Leninists aren't the only ones guilty of this reliance on coalition-building: similar sentiments seem to pervade anarchist circles as well. Of course the anarchists have their gripes with the centralized model of the state-socialists, but their response ends up as less of a rejection of left-unity than just simply a reinterpretation.

One of the earliest and most-cited of these reinterpretations is the 1926 The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists [2]. True to its libertarian roots, the Platform seeks to unite the left on a banner of abstract principle as opposed to party. The platform calls for anarchists to hold to four fundamental principles:

  • Theoretical Unity
  • Tactical Unity
  • Social Responsibility
  • Federation

The goal of the platform is to “reconcile the independence and initiative of individuals and the organisation with service to the common cause”, or in simpler terms, create a liberty free of egoism. The first two sections deal with unity, both in thought and practice: their should be common principles and concentrated action that corresponds with the greater anarchist movement.

Instantly, we begin to see the first problem an anarchist platform has to contend with: being authoritative without being authoritarian. What ends up resulting from walking this tight line is an incredibly vague sort of anarchist fundamentalism.

The Platform itself undeniably sets boundaries and direction for the anarchist movement, but the given definitions of the principles remain incredibly open-ended and unclear on how it should be read. Exactly how does the platform get revised, if at all? Is it inclusive or conclusive? If there's varying interpretations, how does one decide which interpretation is the correct one?

The Platform ended up facing severe criticism from other anarchists due to these issues, many of whom would go on to create “synthesis anarchism”[3]. Synthesis anarchism focuses on reconciling the three dominant currents (anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, and individualist anarchism) in a positive fashion; in other words, instead of constructing a platform for people to align with, they emphasized the commonalities the different branches share in their struggle.

While this ended up addressing some of the issues of The Platform, synthesis anarchism ends up feeling less of a synthesis and more of a peace treaty. Both Voline[4] and Faure's[5] writings on the topic focus less on the synthesizing and moreso on decrying infighting, hence the focus on the most politically-relevant strains of anarchism. The underlying issues of “anarchist organization” still remain: what is the limit of tolerance in this unity, how should coalition and principle be balanced? It makes sense that the critics of this approach tend to be individualist anarchists; what do egoists have to gain when this idea of a united front is one born in social anarchism?

The political origins make synthetic centralism feel like a political Hail Mary; casting aside fundamental debates of Ego versus Collective in the name of making sure the Left can live to fight another day.

The Left, Criticism, and Revolution

From what I can gather, these failures of centralism stem from a misunderstanding of revolution and the Left's relation to it. The main reason Marxism gives primacy to the proletariat is not because of their moral superiority or victimhood, but because as the class that is responsible for the production of value, they alone are capable of bringing an end to capitalism.

Yes, one could argue there's crossover between the proletariat and the Left to some extent, however there remains a clear distinction between the two by definition. The proletariat is economically defined, the Left is ideologically defined.

One can be part of the Left and still not hold that economic role, in the case of Sartre and Kropotkin; does this mean they are somehow “invalid Leftists” or worse people for being so? No, because morality is irrelevant here; what's important to note is that an ideological grouping alone is inherently incapable of bringing about material revolution.

One of the most damning examples of this was the fallout of the 1968 French riots. This is an especially interesting case because we see the actions of both the proletariat and the Left and what they lead to.

  • We start with the Situationists developing a critique of the social relations within capitalism, with an emphasis on subversion and tackling boredom. These critiques were highly influential, directly challenging the ideology of late-modernity, giving room to a dystopian vision of the current conditions and exploring relations between the individual and larger society as a whole.
  • As tensions heat up, the most pivotal moment occurs: the unplanned, simultaneous strikes of five million workers. At this point capitalism had adapted to utilizing unions as a negotiation tool, so the spontaneous movement of workers with no room for bargaining or concessions was devastating. This is precisely what led De Gaulle to flee the country and the country to enter a panic.
  • What happened next, however, was the Left attempting to take upon the role of directing revolution.[6] The PCF negotiated another election in which they brutally lost, the student anarchists were won over by reforms to policy, and the proletariat, the one class with no demands or negotiations, found themselves suffocated and forced to return back to their role under capitalism.

The Left, as an ideological grouping, found themselves successful throughout the period of their ideological critique. However, their challenge against the material hegemony ended up becoming destructive because they, definitionally, did not hold the same fundamental stake in the class war as the proletariat. They could be negotiated with, their demands met, and their movement rendered useless.

Because they saw themselves as the class of revolution, their actions were centered around this faulty principle. The victories they fought for were victories for the Left, increasing awareness of their movement and passing “leftist” reforms. They compromised their own critical nature out of fears that the fate of revolution hinged on their own popularity. And as these vanguards grow, the dissonance between the will of the proletariat and the will of the Left becomes more and more apparent. The spark of revolution stems from class unity, not left unity.

Is this to decry the left as useless? Absolutely not. The Left has a key tool up their sleeve, and that precisely is criticism. Communism is the ruthless criticism of all that exists. It's our constant and unyielding critique that serves to break down the boundaries of liberal mythos and bringing inspiration for the revolutionary movement itself.

Which is why it remains so important that the critical spirit of the Left remains, because without it, you end up recreating capitalist ideology under a different name. Theoretical developments have always come from a place of criticism, whether it be Marx's attack on the classical economists or Lenin's polemics against the reformists. It's through criticism and not coalition building that our understanding of the world around us evolves.

Referenced Works:

  1. On The Correct Handling of Contradiction Among The People by Mao Zedong
  2. The Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists by Delo Truda Group
  3. Reply By Several Russian Anarchists To The Platform by several Russian anarchists
  4. Synthesis (Anarchist) by Voline
  5. The Anarchist Synthesis by Faure
  6. Letter on The “May Events” by Louis Althusser

Here's a quick insight into the progress I've made since I've started this project, hopefully it gives you a better idea of how something comes about, and what effort I've put in to constantly refine it.

Disclaimer: All sections before October 2019 were written in retrospect.

May 2018

As part of some of the changes I was rolling out to an old Discord server of mine, I had the idea of creating a test to help people choose roles. The two main differences from other tests at this point were:

  • The test is integrated into the Discord server's custom bot I made, so there's no need for an external site.
  • Instead of approximating through a score, the test was purely operating on Boolean logic in an attempt to guess someone's beliefs through process of elimination.

Version 1

While this proved accurate for more common beliefs and had a clean front-end, behind the scenes it was scaling horribly: the amount of questions and possibilities to be accounted for grew exponentially as the scope of ideology broadened.

July 2018

Following some discussions and the retiring of the old bot, I returned to the drawing board and began drafting a chart in an attempt to categorize ideology; the main purpose at the time was to prove that a political center did not exist, and that ideology was not a left/right gradient.

I used the Political Triangle as a model, basically drawing on top of it in OneNote. As you can see, it was incredibly crude and inaccurate in a lot of places. A lot would have to be fixed, but you can begin to see concepts being ironed out such as the usage of a table before the logic gates.

Unsurprisingly, it got posted on /r/badpolitics; mocking aside, I actually did end up getting important feedback on the design from a few people in the thread.

Version 2

August 2018

The triangle itself was rather confusing without a proper explanation, and up until this point I had simply gave the explanation on the spot whenever I posted it; I felt it was more efficient and sensible to bundle the explanation with it onto a “poster” of sorts. It came with a warning and a guide to what each of the various colors represented.

Version 2.5

October 2018

The chart design badly needed an update, not just due to how ungodly ugly it was, but also because making changes was difficult when all the layers get merged on a standard image.

So I decided to sit down and remake the chart from scratch, but as an SVG this time. This would allow me to change colors, text, and positioning easily without affecting the rest of the image. This ended up being a good move, because over the next few months, the chart would go through countless minor revisions here and there.

Version 3

November 2018

I concluded my design was too complex for solely a chart, not just in a matter of execution, but also due to the nature of the topic itself. Too simple and it becomes just as inaccurate as the other charts I intended to replace, too dense and it's incomprehensible.

So, a new idea came to me: the other charts are known to use websites which are able to set up a test of sorts to walk people through the process. With a test I'd be able to convey these concepts without overwhelming the user with the information density.

At this point in time, I had no idea what I wanted the site to look like, so I focused on the more mechanical parts of the test with minimal CSS.

Main Page (11/18) Canopy Page (11/18)

I settled on a model that fused the table-chart with the flowchart questions of May's design. The chart would narrow down the person to a specific “leaf” or sector of ideology, and then the flowchart would narrow it down to something specific.

In order to do this, I drafted a list of final results, or “branches”, and began making questions to bridge the leaf to the branch.

Branches Brainstorming Questions Brainstorming

December 2018

I eventually got around to setting up the site's CSS, using the aesthetic theme of another website I was running as a model. Things felt a lot more organized now that I could visualize the direction the test was taking and I had a clearer idea of how I wanted to execute the project.

Main Page 12/18 Canopy Page 12/18

April 2019

After an extended hiatus, I returned back to work on the site, finally creating the page for the second question and changing up the color palette.

Second Canopy Page 4/19

June 2019

With the site coming further underway, and the SVG going through its countless revisions, I decided to shift my strategy. If I were to work on the questions first and make the results later, any changes I'd make to the results would force me to rework the questions that are dependent on them too.

I decided to go back and rework the branches themselves, since a lot of them were mostly either filler or too similar to others. I took notes until I settled on a balance of around two to three per leaf. This greatly helped me narrow things down and get a better understanding of exactly what I was adding to the test instead of just taking everything I could find off of Wikipedia.

Branches Sketch

July 2019

Now that I had narrowed down the branches and started to get a more consistent idea of my plan for the leaves, I began my strategy of working backwards. In order to better complement the quiz portion and make the whole project more accessible to people newer to political theory, I'd shape the info/results pages for the leaves and branches around the goal of giving people a primer on the various ideologies that are being discussed in the test.

My plan was to provide a definition for each one, some key facts to clear misconceptions, and also a list of historical figures who would fall under each category.

Notes on People

August 2019

By this point, the project had been moved to GitLab for a few months. It was around this time I began taking my planning from July and began on the execution. The list of historical figures got scrapped: the difficulty of accurately pigeonholing was not worth the effort when a list of names didn't exactly serve as a useful reference for those who weren't already familiar with their work.

The development of the “primer” aspects of the leaf and branch pages involved the following:

  • The aforementioned definitions and key facts were kept, as they still served a use.
  • An FAQ page was added, it explains the process of the test, and acts as a “wiki” of sorts for the whole site.
  • Each leaf was given a key term that showed what concept is at the core of their worldview, and also a few statements explaining the leaf's relation to the previously answered questions.
  • Reading lists are given for both leaves and branches, with the consultation of various people across the political landscape to ensure they are both introductory and also comprehensive. I put priority towards primary sources and texts that covered historiography, theory, and action.

Branch Pages

September 2019

As per the feedback I was receiving, I went ahead and made cosmetic changes to the site. Icons were added for each leaf, the triangle was completely recolored with contrast toned down, and the site was minimized, with unnecessary patterns/effects removed and the theme reduced to three main colors.

I started by sketching the icons, then eventually found similiar ones online that matched what I was going for. I edited them to match the color scheme of the site, then imported them in.

New Site and Icons New Triangle

October 2019

A large chunk of October was dedicated to finishing up the bio pages for the various branches. As of the 31st of October, 19 out of the 34 pages have been completed, with 87 books being linked as further reading material. Some of these books were more difficult to get than others, especially the Futurist Cookbook, which I am still working on getting together.

The Futurist Cookbook by F.T. Marinetti is an incredibly fascinating work, with one caveat. Digital copies are region-locked to the United Kingdom. So instead, I have taken to manually transcribing a physical copy I found at my library using LaTeX. Here's a preview of what I've done so far: Preview of Futurist Cookbook

On top of that I've been experimenting with a few ways to improve the bio pages.

One of them being a “metadata” block for each book, detailing important information such as length and difficulty: Metadata planning doc

Another one was having specific, traceable schools of thought mentioned on the branches with a short definition, to give people something to connect to. Not sure if I'm going to keep this idea or not, but it's still a possibility for the time being.

Definitions

November 2019

By the end of November, I had finished up all the pages in the Radical and the Reformist clusters. A lot of this month was dedicated to cleaning up the various reading materials and grinding out a lot more of the boring stuff as we approach the end of the results pages. As for transcribing The Futurist Cookbook, currently I have completed a third of the whole thing.

Behind the scenes I have been consulting others for advice and beginning work on preparing for manually testing this with focus groups. I'll most likely begin putting this into action when the results are more concretely laid out.

February 2020

The months of December and January were mostly dedicated to finishing up the results pages. As of today, only two results pages have to be done and I have already begun work on the next step in the process, which is creating the questions to filter from the leaves to the results respectively.

The methods of filtering vary depending on how many branches are contained in each respective leaf, but the overall format is the same. At first, I was doing logic-gates to filter; however, I scrapped that idea as the ordering of questions would simply introduce too much bias. Instead, I've decided to do it in terms of meters; each meter contains a principle which distinguishes the specific branch from the other ones within the leaf.

The core concept is similar to the meters present in 8Values, but the execution is very different, as you'll see very soon.

8Values

The most basic implementation of this is on leaves with two branches, such as the Moderate leaf. Within the Moderate leaf, the two branches are Syncretic and Pluralist.

  1. I started by asking myself about what fundamentally separates a syncretist from a pluralist. What I decided is that they are both varying approaches to reconciling ideas; the syncretist resolves differences in opinion by fusing elements of ideas while the pluralist believes in the mutual conflict of ideologies and interests in order to keep each other in check.

  2. We'll label our principles as Competition and Cooperation for the sake of simplicity. And this is where the inspiration from 8Values comes in; a set of ten binary questions will be asked, each contributing varying amounts to either Convergence or Coexistence, depending on their individual importance. For example, if I asked: “Are the best solutions typically found in the middle?”, that would give some points to the Cooperation but not to the Competition side of the meter.

  3. And because we only have to filter between two, evaluating these results is as simple as comparing which one has the majority of points at the end.

The next level of complexity occurs if we have four branches on our leaf, such as what occurs in the Communist leaf. Within the Communist leaf, we have Autonomist, Councilist, Syndicalist, and Vanguardist as branches.

  1. Now that there is more than one, let us introduce the concept of matchups. Our meter system gives us the ability to evaluate one branch against the other, but we won't be able to add any more into each comparison. We will have to break this down into one versus one.
  2. Since there is an even number of branches, we can make our first matchup a two versus two. We will need a shared characteristic for each pair however, as to fit it into the 1v1 nature of the matchup. These shared characteristics we will label Democratic and Organic respectively.
  3. We can do this because both the Syndicalist and the Vanguardist branches ascribe to democratic forms of organization while both the Councilist and Autonomist branches ascribe to organic forms of organization. Being able to know which the test-taker fits into eliminates half the field.
  4. Because half of four is two, we can simply use the same process we used for the two-branch for each remaining pair, to get our final result.

And finally, let us discuss what is by far the most complex implementation, the three-branch. The reason I made it more complex is because we deal with an issue known as the Condorcet Paradox. In simple terms, it just means that when applying a matchup method to a field of three candidates, there is a specific scenario in which no winner can be determined. Due to the way we're applying the matchup method, this scenario is a lot more likely to occur than it normally should be, so we will have to find a way around this.

To demonstrate this, I'll use the Anarchist leaf, which happens to have three branches (Pacifist, Intersectionalist, and Communalist).

  1. I begin by deciding that we will need every combination of matchups between each of the three candidates for the results to be evaluated fairly. The required combinations and their principles are as follows:

    • Pacifist v. Intersectionalist – Clemency/Retribution

    • Pacifist v. Communalist – Nonviolence/Insurrection

    • Communalist v. Intersectionalist – Majority/Minority

  2. In the situations where a candidate wins twice, the dilemma is quickly solved; however, what happens if each one wins once? A possible fallback could be to check margins of victory: perhaps one victory is stronger than the other. However, that would introduce another issue, which is: what if the margins of victory are equal? We'll end up back where we started.

  3. So, instead I have devised a definitive fallback, known as disqualifying matchups. To explain, let assume our winning principles are as follows: Clemency, Insurrection, and Minority. Insurrection as a principle is inherently antithetical to Pacifism, outright disqualifying it from being a possibility. This leaves Communalist and Intersectionalist remaining, and we have the Majority/Minority matchup to tell us which one wins. In this case, the “tie” would result in Intersectionalist being the final result.

April 2020

April was an unexpectedly productive month for the project. Starting with the minor changes:

  • Post-Left branch got reworked into New Left
  • References for the majority of branches were redone
  • The Monarchist branch was completed
  • The “schools of thought” idea has been implemented; branch pages have been given a section listing real-world ideological currents
  • Cleaned out junk files and properly organized the resources folder

The two major changes for this month is the overhaul to the manual/FAQ and the progress made on the filter questions.

Beginning with the manual:

  • The link to the quiz itself has been removed, as it was causing too much confusion. The quiz is long outdated and it remaining accessible misleads people into thinking otherwise.
  • I've begun rolling the manual into a GitLab wiki-page. It'll be easier to edit and will create less clutter to the site itself.
  • Another reason I am doing this is because one of the long-term plans is to rewrite the HTML from scratch once the methodology is fully laid out. Currently the code is rather messy and chaotic.
  • I may or may not self-host the rewritten site, depending on whether or not a static page (which GitLab offers) is a hindrance to the site.

The filter questions have been developed for both the Progressive and Proprietarian branches, and the layout should follow the below template:

Filter Questions version 1

As for other long-term goals, I'm planning to implement the metadata pages I was considering following the site's overhaul. For now the main priority is finishing the filter questions.

June 2020

May and June were mostly wrapping things up with the branch pages and making actual progress on filter questions:

  • It is now official that all thirty-six branch pages are done, marking off a major milestone for the project.
  • I've gone ahead and made a directory for the various filter questions which can be found here.
  • The divisions for each filter set has been decided (barring the Egoist vs. Post Left division). Currently, 11 out of the 32 expected sets are completed.

These filter questions are subject to revision as I am constantly testing them with various people I know from online political communities.

August 2020

One of the things I didn't expect to complete by now was the metadata, but it has been added for every branch page. I put these inside drop-downs as not to overwhelm the reader with information. Check the wiki to learn more about how it works.

Metadata

When creating these drop-downs, I had to consider how I wanted to split up the information. At first I was considering setting up a section for Importance, but eventually decided to roll that into a Seminal type for the key readings.

Even after I decided on the list of tags, there were still things I had to reconsider. A rating for Length is one of these, as the site currently contains documents ranging from 1 to 1000 pages. The original plan was to make every star worth 200 pages and every half-star worth 100, but ultimately this left a lot of resources with either a one or two-star length rating. Eventually, I decided to take into account what the most common page ranges are and developed a solution: ranges would get wider on the fringes (with incredibly short or incredibly long documents) and narrow towards the middle. This means that a two-star rating might cover a range of about 50 pages (books between 250 and 300 pages long), while a five-star rating would cover triple that (books between 850 and 1000 pages long). This would allow for nuance between the ratings of books of average lengths.

Currently, the Difficulty rating I'm doing rather loosely: I read random passages in the book, and judge its difficulty. However, I am considering a rubric of sorts in the future, it would just take some more brainstorming.

Genre was initially limited to a set of about five options (the way Type is handled), but eventually I decided the library is too diverse to keep it limited. Readers should be able to understand what each Genre tag means anyways, so this should not be a big deal.

Type, on the other hand, is using terms with a very particular meaning in this context, so it has to remain limited. I might add definitions for each type in the wiki later.

In addition:

  • Various reference files have been replaced with ones that are smaller and easier to read.
  • We are now up to 15 out of 32 sets of filter questions completed.

December 2020

I've been on a semi-hiatus between August and November due to me being stuck on the filter questions. Eventually I had to come to the conclusion that this went beyond my individual motivation, and that the structure of the filter questions was simply unworkable. It was a tough pill to swallow considering it'd mean discarding my progress, but I eventually decided to go through with it. My issues with the filter questions as a concept are as follows:

  • Every set of filter questions comes back to a single axis determining the distinction. In the case of the Populist branch (separating a Left Nationalist from a Civic Nationalist), the axis is “assimilation versus liberation”. Issue is, when developing a set of questions, there's only so many ways you can stretch that before you're either just rephrasing the question or asking stuff irrelevant to the question.
  • The filter questions as a concept assume a certain level of familiarity with the topic at hand. Under the current design, people who have not yet had time to form an opinion on these questions would be encouraged to either guess or select N/A for every answer. The scope of these questions were also inherently theoretical/abstract, only exacerbating the problem. Seeing as one of the goals for this project is to introduce people to theory, this is counterintuitive.
  • Probably the lesser issue here, but there's the risk of the framing of the questions introducing a bias which can sway lesser informed test-takers.

These doubts kept growing in the back of my mind and made it rather difficult to just trudge through and do all the questions. When I looked at the calendar and saw that it was already November, I decided that this wasn't just me second-guessing myself and that I had to take action.

So, here is the new model:

Dealing with the most obvious question first, yes, the page is borked. CSS is an absolute nightmare to work with, and considering the fact that I'm planning to redo the whole site's code after a foundation is worked out, I decided there's better things to do with my time than trying to fix it. Apart from the whack positioning, this is the layout I'm planning to go with, with one thing that still needs to be set up: notches for the slider (indicating the five positions it can be set to) and labels on each end representing the respective side as belonging to Passage A or Passage B.

Now onto the logic of the activity itself. When you arrive at the page, you're presented with a question, two passages, and a slider. Each passage makes a short argument for each side of the debate and it's up to you to decide which passage you agree with more. You indicate this by dragging the slider closer or further away from the side you agree with more. Think of it as similar to those “how much do you agree” questions on other tests (such as the one pictured below):

So now onto how this should alleviate the problems with the previous design:

  • I've decided to embrace the idea of a single question. This will encourage the user to give more consideration to their answer and also shorten the time of the test overall. The less that has to be asked, the more room for the user to be thoughtful before they run out of patience.
  • Having two passages to argue should help with both the issues of framing and also help with the issue of prior knowledge. The end user is receiving framing straight from passionate adherents of each side (as opposed to me having to guess the framing as an ideological outsider), in addition to providing the necessary background information at the same time.

The passages themselves are taken from primary sources (mostly theoretical texts and polemics), and then paraphrased to ensure that: one, they are short enough to keep the user's attention, and two, make sure both passages are equally accessible as to eliminate writing style as a skewing factor. The sources are still linked not just for citation purposes but also so that its easier for people to give feedback/suggestions on the paraphrase and selection of passage.

Currently three of these have been completed.

In other news, I have been somewhat considering the addition of a new branch, although it's still very much up in the air whether or not I consider it worthwhile: a “Radical Democracy” branch for the Populist leaf. This branch would cover things such as consensus democracy, participatory democracy, and so on, filling the space that used to be covered by the Third Position leaf. Question is what to call it, and whether or not it truly even warrants its own branch, as opposed to just implementing some of the stuff into other branches.

What is this?

I'm utilizing WriteFreely as a place to compile the various projects I do across multiple mediums, their progress, the thought process behind their development, and various other things.

Some of the topics I cover in these projects include the following:

  • Technology, especially stuff relating to the copyleft and free-software movement

  • Media in general, whether it be video games, books, movies, or animation

  • Politics, related to political theory and more abstract ideas of ideology

  • Philosophy, with some theology mixed in usually.

I like experimenting with various mediums to find different ways to communicate ideas.

Where can you find me?

  • Videos get uploaded to PeerTube
  • Odd sketches I make get posted to PixelFed
  • Random software/web projects end up on my GitLab
  • General contact/updates is handled through Mastodon

Index of Essays:

Index of Projects:

Copyleft Curator:

Shorts From a Webcomic Artist

Note: Some of the posts are NSFW (not pornographic, however), these posts are tagged, so pay attention to tags if that is an issue

I apologize for the brief hiatus, I'm juggling a lot of projects right now. You can see what else I'm working on right now, I'm working on compiling and journaling all my projects onto my personal blog. If you'd like to contact me regarding Copyleft Curator or something else, I do have a Mastodon.

Onto the issue itself, this time I wanted to check out something of a different medium, so I spent some time scrolling through the federated PixelFed timeline. A lot of good stuff here and there, but Reinder's work definitely stuck out.

What does Reinder do?

Reinder is an internet cartoonist known for continuously working on the webcomic known as Rogues of Clywd-Rhan for the past 28 years alongside various other series which can be found on his site.

On PixelFed, however, he uploads various sketches and one-off panels of his, mixing traditional and digital techniques.

Tomat0's Thoughts

  • Reinder shows not just skill, but also versatility and a willingness to experiment with his art. Usage of different styles, subjects, and tools can be seen not just across his comics, but also even within his PixelFed page.
  • In addition, we see a consistent output of content being produced; the Inktober challenge he's taken up (one ink drawing per day, based on a daily prompt) showcases his commitment and willingness to improve.
  • He somewhat gives us a glimpse into the process of making these, by showing the ink layer and then his finishing touches.

Drawings

Interview with Creator:

1. Could you break down your process of making comic strips, whether it be the writing, the planning or the sketching?

In terms of writing and planning, my process varies per title. The Lives of X!Gloop isn't planned at all, by design, because I want to stretch or even break the rules of storytelling in it. Rogues of Clwyd-Rhan is planned only in a broad sense, but since I haven't done substantial work on it in a few years, it's maybe not a great one to talk about. Spun Off and Abúi's Travels have more of a roadmap that's in my head than a detailed plan and are written page by page. I really shouldn't do this; whenever I have sat down and written a story in full, with revisions before drawing it, the results have been a lot better. But I don't seem to be able to discipline myself into doing that. I blame brain issues, because self-medicating helps a bit. My newer project, “Cultish Manners” is one that I'm working on in advance a little more. One way I do that is by dedicating most of my Inktober this year to scenes that I want to happen in that story and its sequels; ultimately I want that comic to be like a recent Doctor Who season where themes from the early episodes recur in the final ones. As for drawing, I typically just pencil the whole either digitally or traditionally, then do inks digitally followed by flats in the color scheme the page should have overall, then shades and highlights, then word text and word balloons, in that order. Lately, to help me solidify things a little more, I've started typing up the words during the thumbnailing phase, so the dialog is at least more fixed. That goes into the transcripts that I now put up on the website and I hope it helps ease me into a process where things are planned in advance a little more, for all of the titles.

2. Could you talk more about your experience participating in Inktober? Any challenges you've faced, what you've gained out of it so far?

I try to do drawing challenges year-round, but Inktober is the big one for me because it's one that so many people take part in. It's the same way I approach running: I run all year but train a little more extensively for the 4-Mile event in my home town that has 10,000 people taking part. I did Inktober for the first time in 2017 using characters from a comic I was then considering and without the official prompts, but abandoned it after about 7 drawings. The biggest challenge for me is that October is a busy period in my day job, as well as the time of year where it becomes harder to work in daylight, so scheduling around these factors is the hardest. But it's also the area where I have the most to gain, because my executive function isn't great, so it's good for me to have a regular way to say “I'll do this at that time of day, and if that doesn't work, I'll do this other thing instead. For example, if I don't get my inks done and drying up by 9 AM when I have to leave for work, I can use a different tool that doesn't take so long to dry, or I can take the penciled art with me and work on it during my lunch break, or in extreme cases I can ink or even do the whole piece digitally. That decision-making process has been broken for me for a long time, but this year it's finally gotten better. I also try to be more flexible about what I draw on any given day. If an idea in my head is too complex, I may be better off drawing a thumbnail and leaving that for later, or if a prompt doesn't work for me on that day, instead of beating myself up trying to come up with something, I can go to a different prompt or no prompt. That prevents tunnel vision and because I don't do this for a living, I don't have to stick to a specific plan at any time. I'm privileged to be able to do that.

3. You've done this for quite a long time, not just drawing but also interacting with the online community even from the early days. How has the internet helped you grow as a creator?

“The internet” as a large and amorphous thing hasn't done much for me, on the whole, other than providing an endless source of reference. What helps me grow has been communities of people, on any platform. Those can be traditional social media, forums, federated social media or chat rooms; I'm not picky about that. In fact, I get a lot of encouragement from knowing that three of my co-workers who I see every day are also doing Inktober. Having said that, the places where I get the most energy and inspiration have been a small Discord server of other artists, and mastodon.art where I follow the Inktober2019 hashtag and see people putting out great stuff every day. There's a good balance on Mastodon.art where there is on the one hand a community that will encourage and validate you, but for me, I can also be a bit competitive with them and channel my envy of other people's greater technical skills in a healthy, positive way. When I was getting started with webcomics, the part where you engage and communicate with others was much more stigmatized. People I talked to would not recognise interacting with other artists, and with the audience, as part of the job of publishing art online. But it's important for me to share my work widely, to know what people like and where the people are who like it, and to talk to people about what I'm doing – for validation more than critique if I'm honest. I can critique myself pretty well.

4. Webcomics often require a lot of dedication, which is often what kills off a ton of them. What keeps you going even when you don't feel like continuing?

You know, I don't know if the way I do things counts as 'keeping going' because I produce like about six pages per comic per year and it's bothering me a lot that this is so. I do have a lot of dedication and will to continue, but I have a hard time keeping focus on any one thing and almost no uninterrupted free time to speak of. It's not as bad as a few years ago when I came close to begging my spouse not to refer to me as any kind of artist, because I wasn't doing much art. For her to announce me as an artist, and indeed as someone obsessed with creating art, to strangers made me feel like a fraud, because if any of them were to ask me 'so where's the art?', I wouldn't have a really good answer to that. It's gotten better as I got some of my executive function back from its absolute low of a year and a half ago. But it's still a struggle. Drawing art in bite-sized chunks helps, which is why I do art challenges all the time. If I can finish a piece over the course of a day by taking 15 minutes in the morning when everyone else is asleep, 15 at lunchtime and maybe 30 in the evening, that makes me feel like I've accomplished something. But it's not a great way to make a comic. When there's an idea in my head, even if it's just about how to do a thing that I'd been working on before, it excites me and takes up all the room in my brain. I need to get it out and I get really unpleasant if I have no opportunity to catch it. So that drives me, just having an inner need to do it. It's not always fun to have a day job in the way of being creative. But on the other hand, it's also been a blessing that I don't have to do this for a living, and that I've never had any real success at it. When artists become successful with something, there's a risk that they will then have to keep doing the same thing over and over again, and I've never had to deal with that. If something becomes too repetitive, I do something else instead.

In addition to the featured account, Reinder can also be found on Mastodon, his own website, and Patreon if you'd wish to support him directly.

The Political Dichotomy Assessment is my attempt to create a proper alternative to other ideological testing methods such as the Political Compass and 8Values.

Key Links: * FAQ for the test: gives a detailed overview of the methodology * GitLab repo, feel free to add commits and report bugs here * Mastodon, if you need to contact me directly

The main goals of this project are:

  • Develop a system that is able to categorize and break up the realm of political discussion according to a consistent, yet thorough set of rules.
  • Create a test that is able to accurately, yet easily narrow down the information to what interests them.
  • Provide basic information and introductory reading material to encourage readers and test-takers to explore further on their own.
  • Demonstrate that political beliefs are qualitatively rather than quantitatively distinguished.

In more abstract terms, the project's purpose is to create a more constructive picture of our Overton window in a fashion that encourages people to learn about these topics in more detail.

Why is this project necessary?

This might seem like a petty or insignificant project, however, our understanding of politics and the discussions we've had throughout history reflects on our understanding of the world as a whole.

To be more specific: the figureheads we rely on for information, pop politics discourages learning rather than encouraging it.

Instead of pushing people to dig further into concepts utilizing primary sources, each source of information instead invalidates all other sources except itself. Because of this, people often struggle with identifying exactly what they believe in at the core; if you aren't able to understand what you're opposing or supporting, then you won't be able to understand why either.

We see a large amount of people remain unsure of what they believe, and these people will often seek out online tests in the hopes that they can better understand themselves.

The issue is, these tests often times fail to solve the problem, often times making the problem worse. These tests don't just act as a fun score, but also reflect how we as a society understand politics.

I'll make my criticism of these tests brief so we can move on:

  • The traditional left-right spectrum ends up falling short because “left-wing” and “right-wing” are relative terms. When I say relative, I refer both to the era/society, but also to the person making the assessment. In other words, because there's no universal standard of “left” and “right”, the distinction is ultimately useless.

  • The political compass is an evolution on this, but it runs into its own set of issues too. The distinction between left/right and libertarian/authoritarian still remain incredibly contextual and vague: there's more than one reason you may answer a question a certain way, but your “Yes/No” answer doesn't reflect that.

  • 8Values attempts to fix this by adding more axes, but all it does is kick the can down the road. The scores tell me nothing about what I believe apart from a set of numbers with no real-world application and the questions still remain contextual.

All of these view politics in a quantitative fashion as opposed to a qualitative one; ideas are treated as if they are related by their intensity on one side of the scale or the other. It ends up putting a limit on what we are able to conceive and grasp about our world.

It's why I've gone to extra care to put in carefully curated references and make the learning aspect as constructive as possible. There's an unimaginably large amount of conflicting material for someone new to politics, and what this test serves to do is curate that to the point of curing that sense of overwhelming paralysis, giving people a jumping off point to learn in a constructive fashion.

What does this assessment do differently?

Some of the main things that distinguishes this assessment from others is the following:

  • A multi-tabular method is used as opposed to a scoring one; this ensures that we're not just getting an approximation, but rather instead an exact result with applicable meaning.

  • The exactness of results allows for more precise definitions and linking to reading materials.

  • Because a lot the development is done by hand, it's able to be a lot more precise and researched as opposed to having the imprecision of an automatically generated test.

How far along is the development?

The test has been around a year in the works, going through numerous revisions and changes, but still keeping the same core methodology. Currently, the test portion is non-functional and outdated, as I've begun working backwards, writing up the final results pages before resuming work on the questions. Working backwards allows me to iron out the results and make revisions without being forced to retroactively edit the rest of the test.

If you'd like to see the progress I've made on the results page, I've linked the site's FAQ with all of the

The Creative Commons Musician

With a blog like this, it's important to find a solid work to start off on. After all, first impressions matter, and in order to encourage more people to explore the creative side of the FediVerse, you have to demonstrate what is possible. Music is fantastic in this regard as even a few minutes can densely pack in so much meaning and effort. So when I noticed Uwe Hermann's channel on PeerTube, my interest was piqued.

And upon further inspection of his content, I was not at all disappointed.

What does uwehermann do?

Typically his videos consist of recordings of multiple percussion instruments being laid out in a tile-like fashion (see below) edited to form a full song. Songs covered range from standard grooves to full remixes of songs in the Creative Commons. uwehermann_video

Tomat0's Thoughts

  • The content does fit on PeerTube; while one could argue that music would be a better fit on FunkWhale, the video component itself does actually contribute to the impact of the work as a whole. Hermann is able to use a wide array of live instruments and by showcasing them through the video, not only does he distinguish his work from purely digital music, but also breaks down the process in a fashion that potential viewers could be inspired.
  • The choice to remix Creative Commons songs exclusively is a bold one, but also a very admirable one. By promoting music available to the public and redistributing his own work under a CC Share-Alike license, the derivability is clearly demonstrated in a fashion that benefits the Free Culture movement as a whole.
  • His video descriptions are comprehensive, naming all the instruments he uses and also providing complete credit to all work utilized.

Interview with Creator:

1. What does your video creation process look like?

I generally record 1080p/60fps videos using a smartphone, with a Zoom H5 used as USB “soundcard”. Most of my editing is done on Linux using open-source software: e.g. Audacity for audio editing, Ardour for multi-track audio arrangement, and Kdenlive for video editing. As for the process in general, I usually start by playing around with various instruments until I find a nice set of patterns or rhythms I want to base the song on. Then I quickly record a draft version (audio only) of the patterns and try to make a rough audio arrangement in Ardour until I'm happy with the overall song and every individual track (4-12 usually) and how they fit together with the other tracks. The most time-consuming step is then actually recording the final version of the video (and at the same time audio) tracks. This usually requires quite a few “takes” to get a good run where video/lighting is OK, where audio quality is OK, where I'm actually playing the instruments with a usable timing and without errors etc. The process repeats for every single track/video of the song. I usually have a “click track” on a headphone while I'm playing each instrument, so that the timing between the different tracks is correct; I also add small hints to the “click track” for when I need to pause or change patterns for the respective instrument. After all videos are recorded I extract the audio tracks to individual WAV files, arrange and mix those in Ardour, and export the result as the final audio version. Similarly, all video tracks are arranged in Kdenlive. Intro, outro, transitions etc. are added as video effects, and the final audio file from Ardour is used here. When all is done, the resulting final video is rendered, which usually takes an hour or two, depending on how many tracks there are.

2. Are there any videos you wish you could do-over or regret making?

Not really. The first video is arguably the least “professional” one I made, but it was OK as a quick test of both the instrument (which I received on the same day I made the video) and the video editing process in general. I improved my video/audio/editing/timing/musical processes quite a bit for the next few videos (though it's all still far from perfect, of course; I'm not a professional musician, just a random dude on the Internet doing this in my spare time, just for fun).

3. What would be some advice to people who are interested in making content similar to yours?

Give it a go! It's a lot of fun to make your own little arrangements or songs, or to remix other (Creative Commons licensed) songs. You don't really necessarily need a lot of equipment or expensive software (a smartphone and some open-source software will do just fine). You don't even need to own or be able to play any instruments really, you can easily just arrange songs or remixes in Ardour by using other Creative Commons licensed audio files, e.g. from ccmixter.org or freesound.org or the like.

In addition to the featured channel, uwehermann can also be found on Mastodon, FunkWhale, and PixelFed.

One of the biggest hurdles the FediVerse has to overcome right now is highlighting quality content in the ocean of spam. In order to get people on the platform, we need both infrastructure and content. We've made great strides in the former as a community, but not as much the latter. Or to put it simply, the best way to help the Fediverse grow is to encourage creators to begin using it. Only once there's creators can an audience grow.

This isn't unique to our platforms, however as a relatively new and small community, we still face this issue a lot more than more established sites. The purpose of this blog is to promote and highlight creators who create thought-provoking and substantive content and aggregate them into one place where potential fans can find them. This'll help encourage creators to join the platform while also giving fans a way to quickly find what they want.

Why create for the Fediverse?

For years now, social media platforms have been very heavy-handed with privacy violations, seemingly arbitrary moderation policies, and favoritism.

This has led to an environment incredibly hostile for both creators and consumers, where it is content that is advertiser-friendly that rises to the top. This puts unrealistic expectations on creators to upload frequently, make videos that are broadly appealing, and avoid scaring off advertisers.

The Fediverse provides the foundation for an ecosystem that is able to tackle this problem at the root. “Alternative platforms” have sprung up in the past, but they often end up being rather shady, since they have nothing to hold them accountable.

The Fediverse is not one site, but rather instead a network of individually hosted servers all running open-source software with a common protocol. This ensures that no one person controls it and everyone is able to see its internal mechanisms.

Even if you decide to still create content for other platforms, you should still consider mirroring your content to a Fediverse platform. That way, you can find a new audience, have insurance should something happen to your main account, and also help out the community initiative.

Submitting Federated Content

Basic Requirements

  • Content may not be pornographic/obscene in nature. NSFW is fine as long as an explicitly artistic purpose is served, but there's other places to host your porn/gore.
  • Do not upload other's content directly; copyright may be bent in a transformative fashion but explicit plagiarism is not.
  • Optional, but it'd be appreciated if your content is not traditionally copyrighted; if you would like to add an open license, Creative Commons has a quick tool that helps you decide on one.

What platforms are accepted?

  • PeerTube (Video)
  • FunkWhale (Audio)
  • WriteFreely/Plume (Blogging)
  • PixelFed (Visual Art/Photography)

Exceptions may be made for Matrix rooms and Mastodon accounts on occasion, however they must demonstrate the four characteristics of substantive content; for example, a personal Mastodon would not be accepted, but a Mastodon created for the purpose of an ARG might be.

What instances do you recommend to upload my stuff?

Software and Services

Software is accepted too, however all software must be licensed as open source in one fashion or another. (Despite the name of the blog, permissive licenses are allowed too.)

What constitutes “substantive content?”

Substantive content is consisted of four parts: quality, consistency, novelty, and derivability.

  • Quality refers to both presentation and the actual meat of the content. Does your work reflect both professionalism and effort on your part?

  • Consistency refers to the ability to upkeep the level of content, more specifically in terms of density as opposed to time. Ultimately, a page that is consisted of high quality content spread across gaps of multiple months comes off as more consistent than a page that finds its quality content drowned out by frequent, thoughtless content.

  • Novelty refers to its place in the FediVerse as a whole. Does this need to exist? Does it fill a niche that has not been extensively tapped or bring something new to an existing genre?

  • Derivability refers to how the audience is able to interact with the work itself. Is there room for inspiration? Can people build off of this idea to help the community as a whole?

F.A.Q

I'm a content creator, but I'm not on the Fediverse yet. Can I still get a review?

Set up a profile at any of the above instances, mirror your content, and put in at least some effort to update it and I'll be more than happy to review it.

What will the reviews look like?

Reviews will mostly comprise of a brief overview, followed by the creator's statements (if they are available for contact), and my own thoughts as an audience member. I do not intend to score anything, just stir conversation and provide links.

Can I submit others' content for review?

Yes you can, as long as the content is being hosted by them. This means you can recommend a content creator you like, however you cannot re-host others' work or pass it off as your own.

Where can I submit content?

DM me at tomat0@mastodon.social. If you are suggesting someone else's self-hosted work, please also include their contact information in your DM. Alternatively, you may DM me through Twitter if you do not have a Mastodon account.