• Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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).

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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).

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.