A fascist who falsely tells others they are leftist. Other right-wingers would call them “auth-left” but there is no such thing, because leftism is about egalitarian, distributed power & wealth. Being a proponent of consolidated power or wealth makes you right wing.
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).
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.
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.
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.
You either go to a lot of effort in order to misinterpret what’s on that page or you live in a certain country with a certain “great firewall” that has Wikipedia blocked. Which is it?
I searched it out myself. Tankie by Wikipedia’s definition isn’t the same definition used by people nowadays. It’s a derogatory. Similar to how the right redefined “woke”.
And I’m most certainly not conservative. Tankies in the wiki sense and tankies in the Lemmy sense are not the same. Both are dumb as shit, but different.
Tankies on Lemmy are a lot closer to less organized and, somehow, even dumber than /r/theDonald.
Imagine if you will a Trump rally run by junior high school kids. That’s Lemmy tankies
Edit: also, I’m not the one who replied to you with the wiki link
I didn’t think you were. I was just responding. The point is, I looked it up- and from what I’m seeing- it’s basically a derogatory used to describe anyone that doesn’t support capitalism.
Judging people by their preference in economic systems is about as dumb as blind nationalism. I don’t think I’ll ever understand this level of ignorance.
Tf is a tankie?
tankies have a giant hardon for the Supreme Soviet & they worship the CCP.
Appreciate the unbiased definition.
A fascist who falsely tells others they are leftist. Other right-wingers would call them “auth-left” but there is no such thing, because leftism is about egalitarian, distributed power & wealth. Being a proponent of consolidated power or wealth makes you right wing.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankie
So, basically- according to conservatives, anyone that doesn’t worship capitalism. Got it.
Learned something new.
You either go to a lot of effort in order to misinterpret what’s on that page or you live in a certain country with a certain “great firewall” that has Wikipedia blocked. Which is it?
I searched it out myself. Tankie by Wikipedia’s definition isn’t the same definition used by people nowadays. It’s a derogatory. Similar to how the right redefined “woke”.
The whole thing is fucking dumb and polarizing.
Hah, no. Definitely not.
And I’m most certainly not conservative. Tankies in the wiki sense and tankies in the Lemmy sense are not the same. Both are dumb as shit, but different.
Tankies on Lemmy are a lot closer to less organized and, somehow, even dumber than /r/theDonald.
Imagine if you will a Trump rally run by junior high school kids. That’s Lemmy tankies
Edit: also, I’m not the one who replied to you with the wiki link
I didn’t think you were. I was just responding. The point is, I looked it up- and from what I’m seeing- it’s basically a derogatory used to describe anyone that doesn’t support capitalism.
I’m not sure why you can’t seem to understand this. You’ll see. Spend a little bit longer here on Lemmy, and you’ll see soon enough.
Zoomer term for a Marxist.
A militant communist, usually.
Isn’t that something conservatives call people they disagree with?
American conservatives generally call anybody left of Joe Manchin, “communists”.
Of course, there are real communists too, and some of them are militant, and that’s what people generally are referring to when they say “tankie”.
Judging people by their preference in economic systems is about as dumb as blind nationalism. I don’t think I’ll ever understand this level of ignorance.
It’s meaningless, let’s the right subdivide people further.
Let’s argue about methods of trade!