I get that these terms get tossed around without people knowing what they mean, and I’m not against language evolving. But liberalism was never really intended to describe wherever you are on a progressive-conservative spectrum.
Pulling from Wikipedia, but it’s a similar definition in most texts.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
Classical liberals just tended to look progressive compared to people who weren’t liberals, because, well, read the definition. The countervailing force to liberalism is authoritarianism. It’s more of a government legitimacy and structure philosophy.
I really like this way of looking at it.
One thing though, the countervailing force to liberalism is illiberalism. Authoritarians can be liberal even if in theory they oppose individual rights. This is seen in liberal autocracy and ordoliberalism.
How do you oppose individual rights while supporting the individual right to self determination?
Liberal autocracy is an oxymoron, unless you define liberalism along the progressive-conservative spectrum. Which is what the capitalists and autocrats and tankies would like you to do.
Dictatorships which doesn’t enforce some specific social order, but which does aggressively stomp out criticism. See - people who moved to UAE and thought it was a free country until their government didn’t like what they said anymore.
…that is an example of enforcing a specific social order…?
Maybe I should’ve specified culture / moral
Yes, that’s what we need now more than ever as we approach the general election in the US: More in-fighting amongst anti-fascists.
idk if i’d call liberals antifascists; not credible as that. they specialize in losing to fascists while blaming everyone but themselves
The funny thing is there’s a comment from just a few minutes ago saying the auth-left definitely doesn’t oppose fascists either.
So if we want to play games with terms and further the exact infighting I’m criticizing, I guess nobody apart from anarchists is against fascism? Doesn’t make any sense, but I guess you don’t have to make sense if you’re just here to bicker.
you simultaneously accuse me of bickering and try to get me to defend a caricature of a position… that you constructed for me
i said liberals are not credible opponents of fascism. my reasoning being they are not really opposed to fascism as much as upholding capitalism.
MLs oppose both, i can work with them on those things at least. with liberals i have to worry that they’re going to turn me into the police.
The ridiculous part of this that you don’t seem to see is that liberals oppose fascism mildly and you refuse to ally with them to get rid of fascism.
Fascism is just over there in the corner smirking, glad you hate liberals too.
my issue is that liberals aren’t going to resolve fascism because they create the material conditions for fascism.
fascism doesn’t appear from nowhere, it emerges from the immiseration and instability that capitalism produces, something liberals are content to ‘manage’ without resolving.
Okay, imagine someone is blasting your house with a high-pressure hose, breaking all its windows, flooding it, etc.
Your argument is to target the people who make plastic because that hose nozzle has plastic, rather than either convincing them to stop selling hoses to psychopaths or targeting the psychopath with the hose.
Again, the guy with the hose is just glad you’re focusing your efforts elsewhere while he destroys everything you have.
that metaphor is incoherent and doesn’t really engage anything i said, so i’ll pass
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.
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?
idk if I’d call tankies antifascist. They just think it’s the wrong color
The auth-left does oppose the auth-right, so your pedantry is both unnecessary and unappreciated as it drives the exact divisiveness among [whatever preferred term you choose for the group we both know I’m talking about] that I’m criticizing.
So what? Whether the auth-left or the auth-right, talk about pedantic. It’s the auth. IT’S THE AUTH.
and I don’t appreciate your lack of appreciation
Tankies don’t have left aligned values, only left aligned appearance.
Frankly this is some No True Leftist stuff. Tankies want to bring about socialism via an intermediary step of brutality. You could definitely argue that such a step is not True Socialism, and I think you’d be right, but I took a shit today that wasn’t True Socialism so does that mean the next thing I did was not socialism?
For the record, I don’t like tankies either, but there’s plenty of space to push back against them without relying on bad faith arguments.
They want their label of socialism, not yours. And it’s a rather brutal one.
