I’ve run across these terms several times, but without enough context to figure out what they mean. Could someone help me out, please?
ETA All of you are amazing! A huge thank you to everyone who responded, and an extra thank you to those who have provided links or explanations to further and/or related information. I am learning so much by reading all of these comments!
Tankies are Red Fascists. They’re essentially communism-flavored authoritarians. I would contend they do not qualify as “left”, “leftists”, etc but far-right. They support and defend Soviet Russia and the CCP, specifically defending their atrocities and oppression.
Can there be such a thing as a progressive/leftist who is pro-authoritarianism? I guess they must exist somewhere but I haven’t met any.
I suppose it’s always possible to believe in a benevolent dictator who will use their authority to establish whatever system it is that you think is “best”, even if it’s not authoritarian. Lots of revolutions try that.
Political leanings and ideological preferences aside, anyone believing in a benevolent dictator needs to crack a book and read some history :)
I don’t see why not since progressive leftist describes where their beliefs lie and authoritarianism describes how they go about enforcing their beliefs.
Really depends on how specific you want to be with the definition of leftist though.
Sure, I guess I equate a desire to be subject to an authoritarian, strongman type leader as something that appeals more to people on the right. We’re a diverse and messy species though so there’s likely someone, somewhere who will be the exception that proves the rule.
Not really.
Progressivness is about freedom, authoritarianism about the lack of freedom.
But someone could hypothetically be an actual communist and an authoritarian. Because communism is just an economic system.
In practice the only way it would work is “mob rule”. Like what happened during the French revolution where people rose up, killed the ruling class, and then distributed their wealth.
But even that wasn’t the same because the mob didn’t attempt to distribute it equally. Everyone just grabbed shit.
I think it’s especially confusing to people with a two party political system, because economic and social policy start to get intertwined, when they’re two different things.
Which a cynic would say is intentional so that no matter who gets elected, the wealthy win.
A cynic or a realist? All political systems have to have some checks against human greed and avarice or things quickly turn to shit for the average person. If you can’t vote someone out, that’s an important check you’re giving up.
From wikipedia:
So maybe? If you had a truly benevolent dictator that promoted equality, freedom (limited to everything except changing nature of government) and prosperity for all then that might fit? But in the real world, not effectively.
I’ve seen plenty of people start off with good intentions and then they change when they get a taste of power.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” - Lord Acton.
Environmental change activists? They have pretty authoritarian views on certain subjects, even if they are more “liberal” and alternative views?
I wouldn’t say they’re authoritarian, as there is no strongman they want to appoint to govern.
Removed by mod