Well left/right isn’t authoritarian/libertarian, it’s collectivist economics/individualist economics.
Authoritarians with collectivist ideals are authoritarian leftists, i.e tankies,
Libertarians with collectivist ideals are libertarian leftists i.e anarchocommunists,
Authoritarians with individualist ideals are authoritarian right, i.e monarchism,
Libertarians with individualist ideals are libertarian right, i.e anarchocapitalism.
Of course there are more examples of ideologies for each quadrant with varying levels of “auth-lib” or “left-right,” but just to give you some idea of the differences. There’s also auth-lib centers, like National Socialists on the auth side and agorists or anarchoprimativists on the lib side.
Of course judge all of the above groups to your own accord, but it isn’t as simple as “left means libertarian” unless you think anarchocapitalism is a leftist ideal, which it by definition isn’t.
Yeah, I didn’t elaborate enough. If you use left-right as people usually do, as an economic position, with communism and socialism being on the left, I don’t see how that leftist position could in any way be compatible with authoritarianism in any way. The core tenet of socialism is worker collectively owning means of production and making decisions about their workspace and getting the benefits of their labour. The core tenet of communism is stateless society (among other core tenets). Both are at the core incompatible with authoritarian style government of any sorts.
You could just be socialist for example, but tankies are very keen on adding dictatorship on top, which means that they either don’t understand what socialism is, or do but for them loving “strong hand” is more important, and that makes them “non leftists” as far as I can see it.
It works for the other side of the mirror, but kinda less obviously so. Capitalism either requires on necessarily leads to accumulation of power by the few, because money is power in capitalism, and accumulating capital is the only function of capital, so anarchocapitalism is just a precursor to oligarchy (or neofeudalism in it’s worst case).
It’s literally they want “what is best for you whether you like it or not, and we’ll kill you to give it to you.” Tankies are leftists, even if they’re the “Harvey Dent’s left half personality” of the left. “Walks like the left, talks like the left, but also kills people = leftist that kills people.”
Again, it’s physically, dialectically, impossible to simultaneously be for “workers own and collectively operate the means of production” and “unelected autocratic dictatorship owns and operates means of production”. It’s either or, there is no shared ownership between the two. Same goes for the question “who is in charge of fruits of the labour” and “who is in charge of natural resources”. It’s either collective, by any mean, or autocrat.
So when they say “I want autocracy” they necessarily pick one of those, and it’s not one that is called socialism (or communism for that matter).
If “the party” is “the worker’s party,” or “the collective,” as has historically been the case, it absolutely can be. It’s like the rightoids claiming the nazis were socialist, they just want to pretend the worst parts of their ideology are actually someone else’s ideology instead of just admitting “yes, X can be done wrong, it can also be done this other way which I think is right.”
The fact that tankies are leftists isn’t an admonishment of leftists at large, the leftists at large’s inability to admit tankies are “the demon within themselves” (in terms of whole party not in you necessarily,) is however.
Of course, many on the right and left define their side as “everything good,” and the other as “everything bad,” so, if you’re one of those, then yeah I guess, whatever dude. In any case this conversation seems pointless, you’ve determined that “leftist authoritarians can’t be leftists frfr” and nothing I say will make you see just how silly that is.
Well left/right isn’t authoritarian/libertarian, it’s collectivist economics/individualist economics.
Authoritarians with collectivist ideals are authoritarian leftists, i.e tankies,
Libertarians with collectivist ideals are libertarian leftists i.e anarchocommunists,
Authoritarians with individualist ideals are authoritarian right, i.e monarchism,
Libertarians with individualist ideals are libertarian right, i.e anarchocapitalism.
Of course there are more examples of ideologies for each quadrant with varying levels of “auth-lib” or “left-right,” but just to give you some idea of the differences. There’s also auth-lib centers, like National Socialists on the auth side and agorists or anarchoprimativists on the lib side.
Of course judge all of the above groups to your own accord, but it isn’t as simple as “left means libertarian” unless you think anarchocapitalism is a leftist ideal, which it by definition isn’t.
Left = Egalitarian flat power structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
Right = Hierarchical power structure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
The collectivist/individualist framework you describe is propaganda to appeal to supporters.
Authoritarianism is the sole perview of the right. What makes it confusing is that right wing people claim to support leftist ideals.
Well shit I guess ancaps are leftists then, my mistake.
Removed by mod
No, they just never thought about their set of believes long enough to recognize how self-contradicting they are
Yeah, I didn’t elaborate enough. If you use left-right as people usually do, as an economic position, with communism and socialism being on the left, I don’t see how that leftist position could in any way be compatible with authoritarianism in any way. The core tenet of socialism is worker collectively owning means of production and making decisions about their workspace and getting the benefits of their labour. The core tenet of communism is stateless society (among other core tenets). Both are at the core incompatible with authoritarian style government of any sorts.
You could just be socialist for example, but tankies are very keen on adding dictatorship on top, which means that they either don’t understand what socialism is, or do but for them loving “strong hand” is more important, and that makes them “non leftists” as far as I can see it.
It works for the other side of the mirror, but kinda less obviously so. Capitalism either requires on necessarily leads to accumulation of power by the few, because money is power in capitalism, and accumulating capital is the only function of capital, so anarchocapitalism is just a precursor to oligarchy (or neofeudalism in it’s worst case).
It’s literally they want “what is best for you whether you like it or not, and we’ll kill you to give it to you.” Tankies are leftists, even if they’re the “Harvey Dent’s left half personality” of the left. “Walks like the left, talks like the left, but also kills people = leftist that kills people.”
Again, it’s physically, dialectically, impossible to simultaneously be for “workers own and collectively operate the means of production” and “unelected autocratic dictatorship owns and operates means of production”. It’s either or, there is no shared ownership between the two. Same goes for the question “who is in charge of fruits of the labour” and “who is in charge of natural resources”. It’s either collective, by any mean, or autocrat.
So when they say “I want autocracy” they necessarily pick one of those, and it’s not one that is called socialism (or communism for that matter).
If “the party” is “the worker’s party,” or “the collective,” as has historically been the case, it absolutely can be. It’s like the rightoids claiming the nazis were socialist, they just want to pretend the worst parts of their ideology are actually someone else’s ideology instead of just admitting “yes, X can be done wrong, it can also be done this other way which I think is right.”
The fact that tankies are leftists isn’t an admonishment of leftists at large, the leftists at large’s inability to admit tankies are “the demon within themselves” (in terms of whole party not in you necessarily,) is however.
Of course, many on the right and left define their side as “everything good,” and the other as “everything bad,” so, if you’re one of those, then yeah I guess, whatever dude. In any case this conversation seems pointless, you’ve determined that “leftist authoritarians can’t be leftists frfr” and nothing I say will make you see just how silly that is.