That’s not true. Authoritarian leftism is definitely a thing — Soviet communism was extremely authoritarian to the point of totalitarianism. The opposite would be liberal communism, the extreme of which is anarcho-communism.
Left vs Right and Libertarian vs Authoritarian are two separate axes on a political compass.
What’s inaccurate about claiming the moon is made of cheese? It’s an absurd lie invented to enable right-wing “both siding”.
The political spectrum dates back to the French Revolution, with the powerful entrenched nobility literally sitting on the right and the representatives of the people on the left. Today the spectrum is a complex web of ideologies with vertical power on the right and horizontal power on the left.
Direct democracy is one example leftism (as are socialism, anarchy, communism as defined by Marx, etc). Feudalism is an example of rightism (as is dictatorship, oligarchy, fascism, etc).
It is a meaningless vertice. Imagine adding abortion, racism, women’s rights, religion, trans-rights or any other tool the right uses to fragment us to the vertical axis.
Authoritarian is right-wing, power in the hands of the few.
If anyone in this thread really wants to discuss it why not start a new topic? I’m sure you’d get lots of responses.
“vertice” isn’t a word-- perhaps you meant “vertex”? and what, precisely, do you mean by calling “it” “worthless”?
Authoritarian is right-wing, power in the hands of the few.
as explained (and illustrated) In previous comments, authoritarianism is not exclusive to right-wing ideologies; Soviet-style communism was a left-wing ideology and infamously authoritarian.
Are you trying to argue in good faith? Vertices are the plural of vertex.
Authoritarianism is all there is to right wing ideology. Power is in the hands of the few. Adding a vertical axis for different flavors of right/left wing are a meme, and not a very good one at that. If an “enlightened” dictator implemented full communism through sheer military force or charismatic sorcery, it would still be right wing.
says the person claiming that authoritarianism can old exist on the right, lmao
Vertices are the plural of vertex.
yeah, but you said “vertice” not “vertices”, and the political compass only has one vertex at the intersection of the two axes, ahem, so what you said still doesn’t make sense.
Authoritarianism is all there is to right wing ideology.
wrong. right-wing ideologies are varied and complex and can vary from authoritarian to libertarian in nature. your ignorance on this subject doesn’t make your statement correct simply because you lack knowledge of anything else.
If an “enlightened” dictator implemented full communism through sheer military force or charismatic sorcery, it would still be right wing.
if ignorant statements and “magical” reasoning like this are the best you have, then it’s especially hilarious that you accused me of arguing in bad faith…
Yes it does. The political compass is nonsense in it’s entirety.
It attempts to separate power and wealth, which are the same thing. It attempts to paint leftism an economic policy rather than a complete ideology so that right-wing governments like Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or the PRC can be scapegoated as “leftist”.
I spelled out the reality of the political spectrum: vertical (top-down) authority vs horizontal (shared) authority. Wealth equals authority and authority equals wealth. The political compass is a lie cut from whole cloth to make people more accepting of different kinds of authoritarian lever-pulling while distrusting actual leftist policy by offloading the crimes and traits of the right onto the left.
Whether you realize it or not, you just spread right-wing propaganda. The “political compass” is a lie designed specifically to create a “both sides” narrative out of the abuses of one side and one side only: the right.
The right is defined by vertical power structures (monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, authoritarianism, etc) and the left is defined by distributed horizontal power (democracy, socialism, anarchy, communism, etc).
There is no “auth left” just as there is no “wet dry” or “true false” - they are incompatible opposites.
Case in point (and unpopular statement of fact for tankies): Soviet Russia was, at no point whatsoever, communist (or leftist) as defined by Marx (or Lenin). Communism REQUIRES the “withering away of the state” - so if leaders of an ostensible leftist movement seize power, but do not cede it back to the people, they are ordinary right-wing authoritarians.
Whether you realize it or not, you just spread right-wing propaganda. The “political compass” is a lie designed specifically to create a “both sides” narrative out of the abuses of one side and one side only: the right.
how does it do that?
There is no “auth left” just as there is no “wet dry” or “true false” - they are incompatible opposites.
any form of government can be either libertarian or authoritarian.
Case in point (and unpopular statement of fact for tankies): Soviet Russia was, at no point whatsoever, communist (or leftist) as defined by Marx (or Lenin).
that’s a No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Just because a Communist regime fails to uphold the promise of returning the power back to the people doesn’t make it magically not Communist, but it does make it auth-left. Every system is as fallible as the human who run it.
edit: also authoritarian ≠ fascist. it’s true that all fascism is authoritarian, but not all authoritarianism is fascism. again, many (not all) communist regimes, a left-wing political ideology, have historically been authoritarian.
Just because a Communist regime fails to uphold the promise of returning the power back to the people doesn’t make it magically not Communist
I suppose you think the Nazis were socialist, as well? How could you write that and not realize how absurdly paradoxical that is. Let me analogize that for you:
“Just because a husband fails to uphold the promise of returning home with cheeseburgers, doesn’t mean the TV he returned with is not a cheeseburger.”
Communism has a clear definition and you apparently do not know what that is. So go read some Marx and then hit me up for a discussion that involves facts rather than fascist apologetics and bad faith logical fallacy accusations.
Not only is this hilariously reductionist, it belies such an ignorance of both Marxism and communism in general, that it borders on misinformation.
If you have to keep moving the goalposts this much and swing around the no true Scotsman fallacy like a cudgel, you should just admit that you lost the argument instead of digging, the whole, deeper and deeper.
That’s not true. Authoritarian leftism is definitely a thing — Soviet communism was extremely authoritarian to the point of totalitarianism. The opposite would be liberal communism, the extreme of which is anarcho-communism.
Left vs Right and Libertarian vs Authoritarian are two separate axes on a political compass.
Just FYI those political compasses are not accurate.
what’s inaccurate here?
What’s inaccurate about claiming the moon is made of cheese? It’s an absurd lie invented to enable right-wing “both siding”.
The political spectrum dates back to the French Revolution, with the powerful entrenched nobility literally sitting on the right and the representatives of the people on the left. Today the spectrum is a complex web of ideologies with vertical power on the right and horizontal power on the left.
Direct democracy is one example leftism (as are socialism, anarchy, communism as defined by Marx, etc). Feudalism is an example of rightism (as is dictatorship, oligarchy, fascism, etc).
that doesn’t answer my question
It is a meaningless vertice. Imagine adding abortion, racism, women’s rights, religion, trans-rights or any other tool the right uses to fragment us to the vertical axis.
Authoritarian is right-wing, power in the hands of the few.
If anyone in this thread really wants to discuss it why not start a new topic? I’m sure you’d get lots of responses.
“vertice” isn’t a word-- perhaps you meant “vertex”? and what, precisely, do you mean by calling “it” “worthless”?
as explained (and illustrated) In previous comments, authoritarianism is not exclusive to right-wing ideologies; Soviet-style communism was a left-wing ideology and infamously authoritarian.
Are you trying to argue in good faith? Vertices are the plural of vertex.
Authoritarianism is all there is to right wing ideology. Power is in the hands of the few. Adding a vertical axis for different flavors of right/left wing are a meme, and not a very good one at that. If an “enlightened” dictator implemented full communism through sheer military force or charismatic sorcery, it would still be right wing.
says the person claiming that authoritarianism can old exist on the right, lmao
yeah, but you said “vertice” not “vertices”, and the political compass only has one vertex at the intersection of the two axes, ahem, so what you said still doesn’t make sense.
wrong. right-wing ideologies are varied and complex and can vary from authoritarian to libertarian in nature. your ignorance on this subject doesn’t make your statement correct simply because you lack knowledge of anything else.
if ignorant statements and “magical” reasoning like this are the best you have, then it’s especially hilarious that you accused me of arguing in bad faith…
Yes it does. The political compass is nonsense in it’s entirety.
It attempts to separate power and wealth, which are the same thing. It attempts to paint leftism an economic policy rather than a complete ideology so that right-wing governments like Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or the PRC can be scapegoated as “leftist”.
I spelled out the reality of the political spectrum: vertical (top-down) authority vs horizontal (shared) authority. Wealth equals authority and authority equals wealth. The political compass is a lie cut from whole cloth to make people more accepting of different kinds of authoritarian lever-pulling while distrusting actual leftist policy by offloading the crimes and traits of the right onto the left.
Any other questions?
Whether you realize it or not, you just spread right-wing propaganda. The “political compass” is a lie designed specifically to create a “both sides” narrative out of the abuses of one side and one side only: the right.
The right is defined by vertical power structures (monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, authoritarianism, etc) and the left is defined by distributed horizontal power (democracy, socialism, anarchy, communism, etc).
There is no “auth left” just as there is no “wet dry” or “true false” - they are incompatible opposites.
Case in point (and unpopular statement of fact for tankies): Soviet Russia was, at no point whatsoever, communist (or leftist) as defined by Marx (or Lenin). Communism REQUIRES the “withering away of the state” - so if leaders of an ostensible leftist movement seize power, but do not cede it back to the people, they are ordinary right-wing authoritarians.
how does it do that?
any form of government can be either libertarian or authoritarian.
that’s a No True Scotsman logical fallacy. Just because a Communist regime fails to uphold the promise of returning the power back to the people doesn’t make it magically not Communist, but it does make it auth-left. Every system is as fallible as the human who run it.
edit: also authoritarian ≠ fascist. it’s true that all fascism is authoritarian, but not all authoritarianism is fascism. again, many (not all) communist regimes, a left-wing political ideology, have historically been authoritarian.
I suppose you think the Nazis were socialist, as well? How could you write that and not realize how absurdly paradoxical that is. Let me analogize that for you:
“Just because a husband fails to uphold the promise of returning home with cheeseburgers, doesn’t mean the TV he returned with is not a cheeseburger.”
Communism has a clear definition and you apparently do not know what that is. So go read some Marx and then hit me up for a discussion that involves facts rather than fascist apologetics and bad faith logical fallacy accusations.
Not only is this hilariously reductionist, it belies such an ignorance of both Marxism and communism in general, that it borders on misinformation.
If you have to keep moving the goalposts this much and swing around the no true Scotsman fallacy like a cudgel, you should just admit that you lost the argument instead of digging, the whole, deeper and deeper.
You claim to have facts, yet you cannot show any. All you have is complaints, whining, and insults. Yet you accuse me of arguing in bad faith? Lol.