this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
465 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
1357 readers
11 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Left is literally the opposite of authoritarian. You seem to be conflating a whole lot of ideas and terminology here. You sound like an ideological leftist who has been confused by the right's deliberate language-muddying.
Left is egalitarian. That takes many different forms: socialism, communism, direct democracy, anarchism, etc.
Right is authoritarian. That also takes many different forms: monarchy, feudalism, oligarchy, corporatism, etc.
Authoritarianism (or vertical/hierarchical power structure) is THE defining characteristic of the right. "Auth-left" is Doublethink; an oxymoron meant to distract from the fact that wealth and power are one and the same.
State-imposed collectivism is left-leaning authoritarianism. It is the authoritarian and non-voluntary implementation of leftist economic policy. It is an extremely simple concept that I cant fathom how you aren't able to grasp.
This is very easy. I provided the definitions of left and right.
Think about what you mean by "the state". Which definition does it fit?
Um, "the state" is whatever the government is. Are you actually suggesting that True Anarchy is the only leftist organizational structure that can fit the definition of "Leftist"? Because that's what you are alluding to.
Also, you absolutely did not provide the "definitions of left and right". These definitions aren't even universally agreed upon. I am assuming you mean "Liberalism and Conservatism" when you say "left and right", and it is just untrue that Liberalism is incompatible with authoritarianism, and it is equally untrue that conservatism must be accompanied by authoritarianism. For example, Libertarianism is a patently right-leaning ideology that completely rejects authoritarianism. At the same time, communism is state-imposed redistribution of economic means; that is 100% undeniably a left-leaning ideology that accepts and implements authoritarianism.
I provided specific examples, as well as clear, concise definitions.
You can brush up on the origins and meaning of the left-right spectrum here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum
I do not, because those are not the same thing in the same way buttered toast is not a pizza. Liberalism is "centrist". It appears egalitarian at first glance, but if focuses heavily (if not entirely) on means rather than ends, allowing for (and even encouraging) consolidation of wealth & power; that is: rightward drift. "Conservatism" is a relative term, not an absolute.
Libertarianism's origins are leftist/anarchist, but the term itself has recently been co-opted by rightists and liberals the same way authoritarians always always co-opt leftist terms.
That is not the definition of communism. Regardless of what you think about Marxist concepts themselves (or their feasibility) Marxism/Communism requires the "withering away of the state." So long as there is entrenched leadership, that society is not leftist in the same way the Nazis were not socialist, and Republicans are not "pro-life". And yes, that means the USSR was right wing, not left. At no point did the USSR meet the criteria or definition of communism. The definitions lead to the label, not the other way around.
I have disagreed with almost everything you have said, and am likely a member of the group you are railing against in this discussion. However, IMO you are spot on here.
Thank you for that. Keep this in mind though: I'm just saying the same thing over and over in different ways each time.
"Auth-left" is just another kind of "both-siding". It's rightists claiming that other rightists are actually leftists so that the masses will be too afraid to consider actual leftist proposals seriously.
Leftist/egalitarian systems tend to be inherently unstable because of the existence of human greed. Greed will always lead to certain people trying, and succeeding, to hoard wealth and power for themselves. I refer to this as "rightward pressure". The trick is pushing the dial as far left as possible while ensuring it remains stable and preventing rightward drift.
Lenin and other revolutionaries recognized this catch a long time ago, and so tried to justify "temporary tyranny" as a means to establish a leftist ends. Lenin didn't have a lot of success with that in life; then upon Lenin's death, Stalin seized power and never let it go... meaning that for all the suffering and bloodshed, Lenin and his Bolsheviks merely traded one right wing dictator/Tzar for another. Same story in China... And North Korea... And Cuba...
On the flip-side you have liberalism; which are leftist means that deliberately ignores "rightward pressure", eventually resulting in rightist ends... as wealth and power accumulate and snowball for a few at the expense of the many (e.g. "late stage capitalism").
So the question is: given that people are selfish and greedy, and any rightward movement cannot be safely considered temporary; how do we reach leftist ends while using only leftist means?
My personal stance? Democracy. We use Democracy to bolster Democracy a bit at a time... and the first thing we need to do to make that possible in implement a very aggressive progressive taxation system that caps how much wealth (and therefore power) any one individual or entity can control. Until we can fix that one thing, the politicians will continue to control the public instead of the other way around. That is the essence of leftism.
I consider myself a leftist, not a liberal, but looking at the totality of your comments, I'm doubtful you consider me one.
However, I'm also in the camp of "I have one party I can vote for who leans more to the right than I wish they did, and another who is literally courting fascism in the short term. So why are you busting my balls?" 😁
No, you provided head canon which would get you a failing grade in a freshman political science course.
This is so incredibly naive. Stalin? Mao? Evil authoritarianism comes in all flavors left and right. If you truly believe leftists aren't capable of evil you need to study more history.
So close. You are soooo close to getting it. Just a little further...
MLs and having a cringeworthy enlightenment complex - name a more iconic duo.
Not a Marxist, but I won't tolerate deliberately lying about terminology or muddying language. That's a bad faith authoritarian/rightist tactic and I won't let it slide.
Authoritarianism is literally a defining feature of communism. Redefining terms to escape the reality of what ideologies look like when implemented is just dishonest.
Communism literally - by Marx and Engel's own definition - requires the "withering away of the state". As the creators and originators of the very concept of "communism", can you name one society that has met their criteria or achieved the goals laid out in their definition?
Yes, I understand that Marx and Engels did not have realistic political ideals and that every attempt to implement their ideology has diverged from their utopian vision into authoritarianism when reality hits that ideology. That's the point.
I see you moved the goal post to a different field.
If you want to criticize the specifics of Marx/Engels proposals, that is very different than - whether by ignorance or malice - outright lying about them.
I didn't say anything about Marx or Engels. I talked about communism.
Oh dear. 🤦🏽
Pick a communist nation, any communist nation
Ok, let me spell this out…
Marx and Engels created the concept of Communism. They carefully defined it.
No nation in the history of the world has come close to meeting the criteria/definition of Communism.
You cannot pick a Communist nation because not one has ever existed. Literally. By definition.
A dictator who lies about their dictatorship is still a dictator, just as a wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Since communism has proven to be impossible to implement and every attempt has resulted in brutal authoritarian regimes, we can either say communism is an incoherent mess of a utopian ideology which can't exist, or an ideology that de facto endorses brutal authoritarianism. Dealer's choice
Other than not understanding how logical fallacies work, you’ve almost got it. Keep at it and I’m sure you’ll get there, eventually.
And there's the smug arrogance
"That's not real communism! Nothing is real communism!" Hahahahahahaha
Once you’ve read some Marx, Engels, and maybe even Lenin - you can come back here and criticize the actual ideas and arguments behind Communism rather than the completely imaginary ones you’ve blindly accepted from others.
Until then, we really have nothing more to talk about.
I'm less concerned with 100+ year old theory and more concerned with reality
I mean for fascism I'm going to look at Nazi Germany, not look at ideological texts surrounding the ideals of fascists
Reality always beats theory. You refusing to admit that communism is communism does indeed make it so that we don't really have anything to talk about.
Have you read any of Marx? I'm not an ML but if you even glance at Capital you can tell that Marx's whole schtick was using science to come up with realistic political ideals.
Then why didn't he come up with realistic political ideas