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.
Comment on [deleted]
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 days agoEhh 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…
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 3 days ago
Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yes, I wish we were more aware of the neutrality of dualities.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
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 jist has a red flag, and tankies are fool enough to think that makes difference.
thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 3 days ago
this is why left vs. right isn’t nuanced enough for real political discussion outside of a two party system
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
It’s why we can’t jist go around believing everybody who claims to be a leftist. We need to evaluate the actual effects of their actions. If they are oppressong the workers, they are not left wing.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
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.
naught101@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Labels never more useful than just as a shortcut to understanding someone’s whole nuanced belief…
realitista@lemm.ee 3 days ago
There’s such a thing as left wing authoritarianism too.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
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.
Bassman1805@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Joseph Stalin: famous right wing politician
naught101@lemmy.world 3 days ago
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?
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
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.
holo@lemmy.wtf 3 days ago
State capitalism isn’t a thing.
Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 3 days ago
Engels, Lenin and Bukharin all talked about state capitalism. Lenin decried it as “not real socialism”
That was until after the October revolution, at which point he seemed to think it was based and cool actually, and that it was definitely what the USSR was doing.
This is around the time he stripped the soviets of their power and disenfranchised the workers in favour of a central state that alienated them from control over the means of production.
You know, like a capitalist.
And now tankies are distancing themselves because they can’t square the circle that their beloved revolutionary heroes were actually capitalists, and they pretend the concept doesn’t exist.
So tell me, was Lenin wrong about this? If so, was he wrong twice? Why the flip-flopping on whether it was good or bad? Nobody seemed to dispute at the time that it existed, and an analysis of what happened shows that the USSR liberalised quickly. The bolsheviks were in effect liberal reformists.
holo@lemmy.wtf 3 days ago
That’s a hell of a gpt response and all, but no, state capitalism isn’t a thing and left wing thought has evolved in the last nearly 200 years. Except in the US.
volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 3 days ago
You’re taking things out of context. In the first example, Lenin specifically says “bourgeois reformist assertion”, he’s talking of monopoly in the context of a bourgeois state, not in a worker’s state. He understands that for as long as a strong bourgeoisie exists, not even a state monopoly can be considered socialist, because the state is in fact controlled by the bourgeoisie.
Wow, so you’re telling me that, when confronted with real situations and material conditions, the opinions of someone can change? Baffling.
Good luck fighting a civil war in which you get invaded by 14 other world powers for the sin of being a communist, while your industry is disorganized and not centralized towards the war-effort.
Wait, so tankies are actually against centralized economic planning? Strawman
“liberalism is when centrally-planned economy”. Seriously, do you know what “liberalism” means?
You know your REAL problem with the Bolsheviks? That they won. The problem YOU have with Bolsheviks, is that they had to face real historical and material problems, and big ones, and therefore had to make tough decisions. You claim to know better than the people of the time that spent their literal lives in jail or exile prior to the revolution, studying and theorizing and discussing about communism in real life, risking their lives in organizing the workers and in fighting against Tsarism, and you know why? Because the ONLY socialists that supposed “leftists” like you will support, are the leftists who failed. You’ll support Salvador Allende because he didn’t face the real conditions of his time and didn’t apply the necessary policy to fight the advance of fascism. You’ll support the anarchists in the Spanish Second Republic because they failed to fight against fascism and, because of rejecting taking power, they didn’t have to apply harsh policy to fight reactionarism. But you won’t ever support actual socialists who DID understand the dangers of fascism and of capitalist counter-revolution, and actually did something about it, because as soon as they apply their ideology to real-world conditions, they’re not perfect anymore. Because they ACTUALLY were a threat to the system, and so the propaganda will paint them as intolerable autocrats, and you’ll swallow that propaganda whole and share the same views of socialists than fucking Zbigniew Brzezinsky.