• Wet Noodle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    they call themselves communist because they align with ‘communist’ authoritarian regimes. that doesn’t make them left wing. at most they could be knocked to centrist for being socially leftish while politically authoritarian right

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m of the opinion that left/right has become strongly economic in its connotations, and therefore, tankies, as anti-capitalists, are still strongly left. Just, y’know, being stupid about it.

      • Klear@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m of the opinion that left/right has become strongly economic in its connotations

        Always have been. It’s just mushed together with other axes due two USA’s two-party system which makes politics seem one dimensional.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not always. The original left/right dichotomy was from the French Revolution, after all, where the main point of contention was political power, not economic power.

      • Throwaway@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly, this whole “what team are you really on?” discourse is kinda annoying.

        Like, can anyone properly define left, center, and right?

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but you’d have to accept that it’s all relative. A left-wing position in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily a left-wing position in the USA.

          Left/Right originated as change vs. conservatism, but with the rise of the revolutionary right-wing (fascists) and ideological reactionaries, it has morphed to generally mean Anti-Hierarchy vs. Hierarchy.

          Most prominent in this is in economics - those who are ideologically left support systems which, in theory, do not lend hierarchical power to any given individual or class. Those who are ideologically right support systems which unambiguously do. As such, ideologies which aim to reduce economic hierarchy - from Social Democracy seeking to lessen the coercive aspects of capitalist wealth, to Marxist-Leninists asserting that state socialism totally is above board and not a vanguardist power play, to full-on-ancoms seeking a society from each according to their ability, to each according to their need - are left. Ideologies which seek to preserve or increase economic hierarchy - neolibs at its most mild, ancaps, fascists, and corporatocrats at its most severe - are right.

          • Silverseren@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s just f’ed up that economically left and economically right nation-states are in joint agreement of wanting all of us in the LGBT+ community to die.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I agree that its realitive, but tbh it kinda seems like you took “Left is inherently good, right is inherently bad” and then defined around it. Communism (or more specifically, Stalin) is slavery to the state, and thats definitely a heirarchy and definitely left wing.

            • PugJesus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mentioned that Marxist-Leninists (‘Communists’ in common parlance) are ideologically left, even though in practice their system is dogshit.

              • Throwaway@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Except every time we tried communism, there was a state. And don’t “Not trye communism” me, its communism as practiced.

                • cacheson@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sooooo you’re both right. According to MLs, there must be a “transitional socialist state” to guide society to communism, which is supposed to be a stateless society with a gift economy instead of market economy.

                  Of course in practice they never get past the transitional phase. Anarchists often criticize these countries as being “state capitalist”, in the sense that the state takes the place of the previous capitalist class, and continues the business of exploitation as usual.

                • 31337@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Many ancient (pre-roman) societies could be described as communist (primitive communism). Some communes are also obviously pretty close (but must survive within capitalist societies, so it complicates things).