Economically: The pro China ones can sometimes be pro market-ish. However, I’ve seen some of them talk about how Xi Jinping is making China have a more and more planned economy day by day. As for the pro USSR n North Korea ones, I’ve seen them range from hard anti-market to having teeny tiny sympathy for a very small, heavily state controlled market.
Socially: I’ve seen many trans ppl on hexbear. Aaaand I’ve also seen ppl claim transgenderism itself to being bourgeoisie manufactured fake science to distract the population from the real issue- class warfare. HOWEVER, I have seen none of them defending religious beliefs or ideals.
Therefore, the only thing similar that they share with right wingers, is that their political structures would over time evolve into stateful, classful, authoritarian systems.
Your last two paragraphs explain how they are actually right wing, because the authoritarianism has already happened and they still support it.
“Planned economy” is just state capitalism. It’s not better than neoliberal capitalism, it just has a red flag, and tankies are fool enough to think that makes difference.
Surely there is a meaningful difference between a planned economy/command economy and a semi-regulated market economy? Like, I get that corporate control can still be authoritarian, but it’s different to state control in some ways, I think?
It’s why we can’t just go around believing everybody who claims to be a leftist. We need to evaluate the actual effects of their actions. If they are oppressing the workers as every state does, they are not left wing.
Well, if we’re interested in the ideals of the people, then yes the political compass is a thing that you can use. The problem is that when you drill down into right wing “libertarianism” you find landlords and bosses (EDIT: actually they’re pretty much right there on the surface). They are in fact about the freedom of coporations to own and control human beings. They are pro-slavery and neo-feudalist. That is not actually libertarian, that is pro-slavery. Right-wingers always are. So in practice, it’s just a lie.
Murray Rothbard himself said that “those who call us anarchists are not on sound etymological footing”. That’s a wanker way to say it, said by a wanker, but it’s clear he understood that words mean things.
Sure people misrepresent (by accident or intention) what their actual political beliefs are.
But the single axis (or even two axis) political compass doesn’t really capture the nuance and especially the authoritarian aspect.
I get the feeling that by your measure, nearly everything but collectivist anarchy would be “right wing” by virtue of some axis. At which point I don’t think it’s a useful way to frame things.
I accept that the single axis is insufficient, but I think the compass is worse.
You’re right that I don’t think anything outside of the lib-left corner is actually left wing, if left wing means anything useful.
In fact, part of my point is that the political compass is misleading and rehabilitates certain ideologies in a way that they shouldn’t be. It is hopelessly naive in accepting whatever definition the proponents claim.
I don’t call an caps or right wing libertarians anarchists or libertarians. In the same way, I think tankies aren’t actually left-wing, because left wing results aren’t even in their goals. They expressly want to keep control of the means of production in the hands of a few.
Like if your version of left wing is “claims to be on the left”, then that’s equally useless, because that includes the nazis. It includes nazbols. It includes democrats.
It includes the accelerationist dickbag I spoke to one time who told me that everybody was a fascist if they were even slightly abusive, and all fascists should be punched at all times. Trump, according to this person, wasn’t a fascist, and I should vote for him because it would accelerate the destruction of society. But that person claimed to be a leftist, so I guess they’re in the club?
Like what does left-wing mean in the political compass? Is there a rigorous definition, or is it kind of vibes-based?
My solution to this is to call tankies faux-leftist, and the neo-feudalists I would call faux-libertarian. I think accepting their labels gives their cooption of left-wing language power.
There’s such a thing as right wingers who coopt left wing rhetoric and fool people into believing they are left wing. But anyone who says authoritarianism is left wing because it has some supposedly liberatory ideals is - and tankies will hate to hear this - an idealist.
HOWEVER, I have seen none of them defending religious beliefs or ideals.
Antitheism is right wing. People deserve to worship whether, what, who, and how they want. Left wing communities will always support religious diversity and freedom.
Nazis were not; despite taking the name of national-socialists, they only used socialism as a buzzword while acting in full interest of national bourgeoisie, feeding German businesses and promoting Germans over everyone. In fact, Nazism is reactionary in its nature and strongly opposed to any left-wing ideas.
The purpose of a system is what it does, and the tankie system results in right wing outcomes, which makes them right wing.
I don’t particularly care if their sweet little lefty hearts bleed for the working class, or if they’re going to heaven. What matters is the results, and authoritarian structures are always right wing.
You still burned a fucking house down. That is the headline. “Local dipshit tries to light candle” is not.
Anyway, I think that analogy is pretty poor when it comes to either of these ideologies. It’s less “I was just trying to light a candle uwu” and “all I did was dig a trench around the house, fill it with gasoline and set it on fire. I was trying to establish a firewall, how was I supposed to know the flames engulfing the house would be a problem? And now all my neighbours are angry at me because their houses burned down, and I’m just not responsible for that!”
I don’t know there buddy, I think you could’ve asked literally anyone who knows anything about fire how well that would go, but you clearly didn’t care enough to figure it out. Either way, that’s arson, either deliberate or through reckless indifference, you burned a fucking neighbourhood down.
And now there are apologists running around saying, “But it kept burglars away, and nobody inside the house suffered from hypothermia! This person was a hero, how dare you call them an arsonist!”
I think it’s important to understand the distinction between a faux-leftist and a faux-libertarian, and an explicit fascist for that matter. I’m not saying we should throw the information out, I’m saying it matters whether we accept that they actually are libertarian or leftist.
Also what people are “allowed” to do doesn’t seem like it’s relevant to any of this, but if you see your neighbour digging a gasoline trench you should probably stop them.
Tankies are right wing
Ehh not really.
Economically: The pro China ones can sometimes be pro market-ish. However, I’ve seen some of them talk about how Xi Jinping is making China have a more and more planned economy day by day. As for the pro USSR n North Korea ones, I’ve seen them range from hard anti-market to having teeny tiny sympathy for a very small, heavily state controlled market.
Socially: I’ve seen many trans ppl on hexbear. Aaaand I’ve also seen ppl claim transgenderism itself to being bourgeoisie manufactured fake science to distract the population from the real issue- class warfare. HOWEVER, I have seen none of them defending religious beliefs or ideals.
Therefore, the only thing similar that they share with right wingers, is that their political structures would over time evolve into stateful, classful, authoritarian systems.
Oh, and yeah- they both really love strongmen…
Your last two paragraphs explain how they are actually right wing, because the authoritarianism has already happened and they still support it.
“Planned economy” is just state capitalism. It’s not better than neoliberal capitalism, it just has a red flag, and tankies are fool enough to think that makes difference.
Surely there is a meaningful difference between a planned economy/command economy and a semi-regulated market economy? Like, I get that corporate control can still be authoritarian, but it’s different to state control in some ways, I think?
I didn’t say it was no different. You can tell because I used different words for the two things.
I said it was no better.
this is why left vs. right isn’t nuanced enough for real political discussion outside of a two party system
It’s why we can’t just go around believing everybody who claims to be a leftist. We need to evaluate the actual effects of their actions. If they are oppressing the workers as every state does, they are not left wing.
Labels never more useful than just as a shortcut to understanding someone’s whole nuanced belief…
Yeah, but that’s what I’m doing. I am evaluating the beliefs of authoritarians of all kinds and concluding that they are right wing.
I’m not throwing out the labels, I’m saying this left-right-auth-lib pair of dichotomies is not useful.
They were saying that there are more axes than left/right, and that the left/right axis is typically not one of authoritarianism.
See: libertarians and anarchocapitalists are absolutely right wing but are radically anti-authoritarian.
Well, if we’re interested in the ideals of the people, then yes the political compass is a thing that you can use. The problem is that when you drill down into right wing “libertarianism” you find landlords and bosses (EDIT: actually they’re pretty much right there on the surface). They are in fact about the freedom of coporations to own and control human beings. They are pro-slavery and neo-feudalist. That is not actually libertarian, that is pro-slavery. Right-wingers always are. So in practice, it’s just a lie.
Murray Rothbard himself said that “those who call us anarchists are not on sound etymological footing”. That’s a wanker way to say it, said by a wanker, but it’s clear he understood that words mean things.
That still doesn’t matter.
Sure people misrepresent (by accident or intention) what their actual political beliefs are.
But the single axis (or even two axis) political compass doesn’t really capture the nuance and especially the authoritarian aspect.
I get the feeling that by your measure, nearly everything but collectivist anarchy would be “right wing” by virtue of some axis. At which point I don’t think it’s a useful way to frame things.
I accept that the single axis is insufficient, but I think the compass is worse.
You’re right that I don’t think anything outside of the lib-left corner is actually left wing, if left wing means anything useful.
In fact, part of my point is that the political compass is misleading and rehabilitates certain ideologies in a way that they shouldn’t be. It is hopelessly naive in accepting whatever definition the proponents claim.
I don’t call an caps or right wing libertarians anarchists or libertarians. In the same way, I think tankies aren’t actually left-wing, because left wing results aren’t even in their goals. They expressly want to keep control of the means of production in the hands of a few.
Like if your version of left wing is “claims to be on the left”, then that’s equally useless, because that includes the nazis. It includes nazbols. It includes democrats.
It includes the accelerationist dickbag I spoke to one time who told me that everybody was a fascist if they were even slightly abusive, and all fascists should be punched at all times. Trump, according to this person, wasn’t a fascist, and I should vote for him because it would accelerate the destruction of society. But that person claimed to be a leftist, so I guess they’re in the club?
Like what does left-wing mean in the political compass? Is there a rigorous definition, or is it kind of vibes-based?
My solution to this is to call tankies faux-leftist, and the neo-feudalists I would call faux-libertarian. I think accepting their labels gives their cooption of left-wing language power.
There’s such a thing as left wing authoritarianism too.
There’s such a thing as right wingers who coopt left wing rhetoric and fool people into believing they are left wing. But anyone who says authoritarianism is left wing because it has some supposedly liberatory ideals is - and tankies will hate to hear this - an idealist.
Joseph Stalin: famous right wing politician
Antitheism is right wing. People deserve to worship whether, what, who, and how they want. Left wing communities will always support religious diversity and freedom.
Yes, I wish we were more aware of the neutrality of dualities.
This is very true. I’ve been told by many leftists that liberals are enemy. The right is the enemy of liberals.
Leftist have clearly decided that the enemy of my enemy is my friend by embracing right wing political candidates and echoing their propaganda.
Labor is the left wing party in the UK
They are not, but sometimes their actions can result in outcomes beneficial to right wing.
Do you think Nazis and Stalinists were left wing?
Nazis were not; despite taking the name of national-socialists, they only used socialism as a buzzword while acting in full interest of national bourgeoisie, feeding German businesses and promoting Germans over everyone. In fact, Nazism is reactionary in its nature and strongly opposed to any left-wing ideas.
Stalinists were left-wing, yes.
The purpose of a system is what it does, and the tankie system results in right wing outcomes, which makes them right wing.
I don’t particularly care if their sweet little lefty hearts bleed for the working class, or if they’re going to heaven. What matters is the results, and authoritarian structures are always right wing.
Please dont redefine words to fit your argument
As long as you don’t bother to make an argument I’d say I’m doing better.
Arguing that intention is not the same as result?
If you accidentally burn a house while trying to light a candle, your intention was to light a candle, not to burn a house
If you shouldnt be allowed to light candles because you will burn more houses is a completely different argument
You still burned a fucking house down. That is the headline. “Local dipshit tries to light candle” is not.
Anyway, I think that analogy is pretty poor when it comes to either of these ideologies. It’s less “I was just trying to light a candle uwu” and “all I did was dig a trench around the house, fill it with gasoline and set it on fire. I was trying to establish a firewall, how was I supposed to know the flames engulfing the house would be a problem? And now all my neighbours are angry at me because their houses burned down, and I’m just not responsible for that!”
I don’t know there buddy, I think you could’ve asked literally anyone who knows anything about fire how well that would go, but you clearly didn’t care enough to figure it out. Either way, that’s arson, either deliberate or through reckless indifference, you burned a fucking neighbourhood down.
And now there are apologists running around saying, “But it kept burglars away, and nobody inside the house suffered from hypothermia! This person was a hero, how dare you call them an arsonist!”
I think it’s important to understand the distinction between a faux-leftist and a faux-libertarian, and an explicit fascist for that matter. I’m not saying we should throw the information out, I’m saying it matters whether we accept that they actually are libertarian or leftist.
Also what people are “allowed” to do doesn’t seem like it’s relevant to any of this, but if you see your neighbour digging a gasoline trench you should probably stop them.
maybe in a more traditionally defined sense of the word, but neo conservatism is anything but equal to tankie based behavior.