By my understanding, the left seeks to diffuse political power as widely and evenly as possible, while the right seeks to consolidate it.
Communism works only if there’s a mechanism to assure that the command economy actually serves the public and not the political class. So when we look at USSR, it was authoritarian since Stalin.
Similarly the Democratic Republic of the Congo was a Leninist Democracy until France came in and installed a puppet dictator. It’s still called the Democratic Republic, I think.
Reagan did the same thing to Grenada in 1983. That was especially conspicuous since there weren’t any major resources or strategic points involved. It was about black folks making a public-serving government work.
This is why I don’t understand what Tankies are, unless they’re to the left what Christian Nationalists are to Christianity.
Similarly, the seeds of the dissolution of democracy are built into the Constitution of the United States, in the preservation of institutionalized slavery and safeguards against mob rule is est, the loss of white male landowner power to poors, blacks and women as they respectively gain suffrage. It was meant all along to be democracy but not really.
Isildur should have thrown the damn ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance.
Totally. There’s a great book called The Founder’s Coup, which goes into exhaustive detail about how the Constitution was absolutely designed to stop democracy - most specifically, that which could threaten debt collection. See Shay’s Rebellion, a very ignored topic on much US casual history.
By my understanding, the left seeks to diffuse political power as widely and evenly as possible, while the right seeks to consolidate it.
No, that discounts the Auth-Left, who consolidates power in the form of a Vanguard Party and/or autocrat.
Communism works only if there’s a mechanism to assure that the command economy actually serves the public and not the political class. So when we look at USSR, it was authoritarian since Stalin.
It was authoritarian before that, but Stalin was definitely the cherry on top.
The rest of your comment is true; capitalists have an extensive history of installing pro-capitalist dictatorships.
This is why I don’t understand what Tankies are, unless they’re to the left what Christian Nationalists are to Christianity.
To me, a “tankie” is more or less the Auth-Left, more or less a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist, in the sense that they believe that as long as the goal is ostensibly some form of socialism (or “socialism”), no amount of brutality, cruelty, or immorality can be too far.
On lemmy.world, they hail from @lemmy.ml 99% of the time, and you’ll see them doing mental gymnastics to defend Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and denying things like the Holodomor and the Uyghur genocide. You’ll also see them making moves to take down the USA rather than reform it for the better, no matter how many people suffer and die in the process. There’s a lot of overlap with accelerationism in my opinion, as I suspect a lot of the people in this thread and others are trying to convince people the DNC isn’t worth voting for because it will help the GOP win, bringing on a second US civil war and/or a massive and bloody world-wide class-war/revolution, killing millions or even billions but possibly resulting in a socialist government faster.
Tankies will claim that any non-tankie slaps “tankie” on any socialist or communist, but that’s not true for any reasonable person, hopefully myself included.
Surprising no one, the tankies were very upset by being described here, including one whom I’ve blocked that replied something below.
Go ahead, ask them if Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is imperialist or if China’s oppression of the Uyghurs is a genocide, and watch the definition of “imperialism” and “genocide” change before your very eyes.
The common theme is “as long as it somehow opposes western capitalism, nothing can be immoral.”
Well, the classic definition of right and left is in accordance with or opposition to the king, respectively.
I think it moved from there to pro- / anti-monarchism when the notion of monarchy was challenged in the 19th century.
After the French revolution, foreign neighbors demands France select a new king under threat of war. The War of the First Coalition results and Napoleon shows them what’s what. Then Napoleon declares himself emperor and declares a bunch of civil rights to get everyone on board. Later, during the Bourbon restoration, Charles X rolls those rights back necessitating a second revolution. It’ll take about seventy years or so before France establishes a proper republic, and another thirty-ish years to re-establish rights. And there are some controversies today, such as the right to practice Islam and wear a burqa.
These days, we see multi-party democracies as the most liberal, but voters can be manipulated, as per the Southern Strategy. Today, a massive far-right propaganda machine runs in the US 24/7 using the same brainwashing techniques used on US soldiers in Korea. So it’s possible democracy is already obsolete due to modern communications and… well, they call it messaging.
One option is sortition, that is, election by lottery. This drastically increases the odds we won’t get officials like Ted Cruz or JD Vance (fhat is, shapeshifters who have no principles but can say anything, feigning confidence and sincerity to stay adjacent to power). We’ll need redundant checks against corruption and incompetence. We might also need a system that sorts experts from lobbyists, to provide our citizen-officials complete information and a public-serving mandate.
That said, I can’t imagine what else leftism can mean. It certainly doesn’t refer to command economics such as socialism or communism, since those, on their own, more authoritarian than a free market.
I cannot discern a point to your comment other than to muddy the waters by eroding the modern definitions of “left” and “right.” Maybe you just enjoy pedantry?
Rather, the modern definition of left and right you appear to be adhering to is Warsaw Pact and NATO, respectively. Maybe the chart is meant to preserve wealth and political power, by not including actual left-wing theory.
Tankies will claim that any non-tankie slaps “tankie” on any socialist or communist
Except they do. I don’t know which of you taught the liberals that word, but it was a very very bad move. Now it means “anyone who criticized Joe Biden while he tried to start WWIII”.
By my understanding, the left seeks to diffuse political power as widely and evenly as possible, while the right seeks to consolidate it.
Communism works only if there’s a mechanism to assure that the command economy actually serves the public and not the political class. So when we look at USSR, it was authoritarian since Stalin.
Similarly the Democratic Republic of the Congo was a Leninist Democracy until France came in and installed a puppet dictator. It’s still called the Democratic Republic, I think.
Reagan did the same thing to Grenada in 1983. That was especially conspicuous since there weren’t any major resources or strategic points involved. It was about black folks making a public-serving government work.
This is why I don’t understand what Tankies are, unless they’re to the left what Christian Nationalists are to Christianity.
That’s a popular view, promoted most by Troskyists and Orwell.
That said, the original bullshit of dissolving the Soviets by the claim the Party was the voice of the people was actually done by . . . Trotsky.
Makes sense actually.
Similarly, the seeds of the dissolution of democracy are built into the Constitution of the United States, in the preservation of institutionalized slavery and safeguards against mob rule is est, the loss of white male landowner power to poors, blacks and women as they respectively gain suffrage. It was meant all along to be democracy but not really.
Isildur should have thrown the damn ring into Mount Doom when he had the chance.
Totally. There’s a great book called The Founder’s Coup, which goes into exhaustive detail about how the Constitution was absolutely designed to stop democracy - most specifically, that which could threaten debt collection. See Shay’s Rebellion, a very ignored topic on much US casual history.
No, that discounts the Auth-Left, who consolidates power in the form of a Vanguard Party and/or autocrat.
It was authoritarian before that, but Stalin was definitely the cherry on top.
The rest of your comment is true; capitalists have an extensive history of installing pro-capitalist dictatorships.
To me, a “tankie” is more or less the Auth-Left, more or less a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist, in the sense that they believe that as long as the goal is ostensibly some form of socialism (or “socialism”), no amount of brutality, cruelty, or immorality can be too far.
On lemmy.world, they hail from @lemmy.ml 99% of the time, and you’ll see them doing mental gymnastics to defend Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and denying things like the Holodomor and the Uyghur genocide. You’ll also see them making moves to take down the USA rather than reform it for the better, no matter how many people suffer and die in the process. There’s a lot of overlap with accelerationism in my opinion, as I suspect a lot of the people in this thread and others are trying to convince people the DNC isn’t worth voting for because it will help the GOP win, bringing on a second US civil war and/or a massive and bloody world-wide class-war/revolution, killing millions or even billions but possibly resulting in a socialist government faster.
Tankies will claim that any non-tankie slaps “tankie” on any socialist or communist, but that’s not true for any reasonable person, hopefully myself included.
Surprising no one, the tankies were very upset by being described here, including one whom I’ve blocked that replied something below.
Go ahead, ask them if Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is imperialist or if China’s oppression of the Uyghurs is a genocide, and watch the definition of “imperialism” and “genocide” change before your very eyes.
The common theme is “as long as it somehow opposes western capitalism, nothing can be immoral.”
Well, the classic definition of right and left is in accordance with or opposition to the king, respectively.
I think it moved from there to pro- / anti-monarchism when the notion of monarchy was challenged in the 19th century.
After the French revolution, foreign neighbors demands France select a new king under threat of war. The War of the First Coalition results and Napoleon shows them what’s what. Then Napoleon declares himself emperor and declares a bunch of civil rights to get everyone on board. Later, during the Bourbon restoration, Charles X rolls those rights back necessitating a second revolution. It’ll take about seventy years or so before France establishes a proper republic, and another thirty-ish years to re-establish rights. And there are some controversies today, such as the right to practice Islam and wear a burqa.
These days, we see multi-party democracies as the most liberal, but voters can be manipulated, as per the Southern Strategy. Today, a massive far-right propaganda machine runs in the US 24/7 using the same brainwashing techniques used on US soldiers in Korea. So it’s possible democracy is already obsolete due to modern communications and… well, they call it messaging.
One option is sortition, that is, election by lottery. This drastically increases the odds we won’t get officials like Ted Cruz or JD Vance (fhat is, shapeshifters who have no principles but can say anything, feigning confidence and sincerity to stay adjacent to power). We’ll need redundant checks against corruption and incompetence. We might also need a system that sorts experts from lobbyists, to provide our citizen-officials complete information and a public-serving mandate.
That said, I can’t imagine what else leftism can mean. It certainly doesn’t refer to command economics such as socialism or communism, since those, on their own, more authoritarian than a free market.
I cannot discern a point to your comment other than to muddy the waters by eroding the modern definitions of “left” and “right.” Maybe you just enjoy pedantry?
Rather, the modern definition of left and right you appear to be adhering to is Warsaw Pact and NATO, respectively. Maybe the chart is meant to preserve wealth and political power, by not including actual left-wing theory.
Definitely not. That would be closer to “East” and “West.”
Except they do. I don’t know which of you taught the liberals that word, but it was a very very bad move. Now it means “anyone who criticized Joe Biden while he tried to start WWIII”.