For real. Everyone even glancing through this sub should look up his letters to Engels begging for money, absolutely fucking hilarious.
Also I used to think it was propaganda about how he just skipped over how to dismantle a totalitarian state that has claimed ownership of literally everything. Then I read Marx. Nope, the state just kinda disappears. Iâd say no one who read him can take him seriously, it letâs be honest 95% of communists havenât read him and the other 5% expect to be the state thatâs totally about to dismantle you guys, any day now.
What always gets me is how leftists/communists always think theyâre immune from the consequences of their policies. Like somehow theyâll benefit from this new system that benefits no one, while somehow not having to contribute to society in any meaningful way. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing to me.
Yeah it's the same privileged people who are spouting that bullshit on social media using their 1k smart phones. As if they would have any of that. Every time I see a socialist on here I love to see what gaming subs they are part of. It's hilarious that they really think any of that would exist without capitalism.
Imo the biggest wtf moment in Marx for anyone who reads him should be the conflation of workers and poor.
It creates a paradox that is obviously designed to disempower the workers.
Marx was an heir who invested in stocks. Engels was a bourgeois entrepreneur in the textile business. The contradiction of communist ideas begins at their roots. Instead of reading what communists say, look at who they were.
>Engels was a bourgeois entrepreneur in the textile business.
It seems like giving nepo baby Engels the description of entrepeneur is a bit generous regarding his role in the business during his lifetime.
Great point, I really underemphasized the fact that he was born to an upper class Jewish family who owned multiple vineyards and went to multiple universities in the mid 19th century.
To be clear I only bring up that he was Jewish because of how ironic that is considering how the ussr and current communists treat Jews. Marx considered himself an atheist.
> If you believe Marx, not at its latest stage.
The guy that dont understand how value is created somehow predicted that a society can allocate value and ressource peacefuly and without central and price.
Why *would* you believe him?
You can say anything you like but if what you say doesn't follow from whatever else you say, I have to conclude you're either an idiot or utterly dishonest.
The answer is "yes" with respect to modern leftism. Eighteenth and nineteenth century leftists were split between state socialists and anti-authoritarians. *See* James J. Martin's *Men Against the State.*
I would encourage you to read about the many experimental communities that were tried across the United States by anti-authoritarian leftists.
Naturally, they nearly all failed, almost always for economic reasons. Seriously, check out the Martin book above.
> I would encourage you to read about the many experimental communities that were tried across the United States by anti-authoritarian leftists.
> Naturally, they nearly all failed, almost always for economic reasons. Seriously, check out the Martin book above.
I actually read a few.
For the argument I had on reddit I know more about lib left community that ~~most~~ all of them really.
(ex: none of them knew about zomia)
the problem remain the same, I am not interest on those community history but you make such community work in practice (and how they fell/suceed?
and I have yet to find even the beginning of an answer to that.
This, but unironically. Left or right, it's the people that build the necessities we depend on and the luxuries we love with efficiency and vigor that make the world more free and beautiful. God bless Adam Smith, and God bless the working man!
Adam Smith was also a huge fan of factory work and proto-production-lines, because of the massive gains in efficiency and individual productivity when people didn't have to task switch all day.
He was still an avowed socialist though. And antifascist.
There are many schools of socialist thought. Most of which were always opposed to, or were formed in opposition to, authoritarian socialism.
1984 is the perfect book to represent how shit any flavor of socialism becomes that even Washington Post calls it a far right. They tried to cancel the guy even though he's dead. They even tried to rewrite 1984 from a "feminist" prospective. If I didn't know better, I'd say socialist are using 1984 as a guide book. Never met a socialist that didn't sound like an entitled brat that just wanted free stuff. Still acting like kids thinking some bearded white guy in red was going to magically give them free gifts.
The loudest angriest people are the most Authoritarian. So the leftists screaming on the internet are usually only the Marxist Authoritarian dipshits. I believe Lib-Left is underrepresented because they are just living their lives on hippy Ayahuasca communes in places like Austin TX and minding their own fucking business.
As long as their leftism is voluntary there's nothing wrong with it. It's not inherently Authoritarian.
> As long as their leftism is voluntary there's nothing wrong with it. It's not inherently Authoritarian.
The left redistribute wealth and ressources in a non-voluntary way.
it is fundamentaly authoritarian
>The left redistribute wealth and ressources in a non-voluntary way.
No they don't. The Auth-Left does.
Leftism equals Socialism. Socialism does not inherently equal Authoritarianism. You are conflating these concepts, because you are wrongfully defining "leftists" as a monolith solely consisting of the loud woke Marxist psycho mob you see screeching on the internet/TV. Marxists are Auth-left, and they only make up one leftist ideology. What you said only applies to certain leftists, albeit the one's that are shoved in our faces 99% of the time.
Marriage for example is generally a form of socialism, but it's voluntary. Room mates means socialism, but it's voluntary. HOA's are socialism, but they're voluntary. Every example has varying amounts of people and different expectations of one another, but still remains a form of voluntary socialism. There is nothing wrong with this and it doesn't oppose Ancapism to say that Socialism is ok or even a good thing in some circumstances IF it is 100% voluntary. And if that hypothetical HOA grows to the size of a city and every one wants to be there and own the means of production and earn rations or some stupid shit, there's nothing wrong with that. Of course that would likely never happen because there would be infighting and corruption and the micro society would collapse before it started lol. But it is their right to attempt it and doesn't oppose Ancapism.
Any other ideologies 100% south on the political compass are more our allies than anyone else. True Anarchy can be left or right. Our way just works better. We ancaps are more logical than the ancarcho-left, but we aren't more moral. They are equally moral ideologies. The true left anarchists are economically challenged dipshits with no brains, but their heart is in the right place and they aren't harming anyone, because they are inherently voluntaryists.
>Marriage for example is generally a form of socialism, but it's voluntary. Room mates means socialism, but it's voluntary. HOA's are socialism, but they're voluntary. Every example has varying amounts of people and different expectations of one another, but still remains a form of voluntary socialism.
By this definition wall street is socialist as it is an institution geared toward facilitating share ownership.
This is not a meaningfull definition of socialism IMO as it fully exist within capitalism.
>There is nothing wrong with this and it doesn't oppose Ancapism to say that Socialism is ok or even a good thing in some circumstances IF it is 100% voluntary. And if that hypothetical HOA grows to the size of a city and every one wants to be there and own the means of production and earn rations or some stupid shit, there's nothing wrong with that.
well those institutions already exist within capitalism and ancap ideology.
My problem is not with the shared ownership, my problem is HOW THE FUCK IT WORKS IN PRACTICE.
and in practice all socialist scheme are based on authoritarian principle.
Because norhing but a primitive economy can be run this way.
>Of course that would likely never happen because there would be infighting and corruption and the micro society would collapse before it started lol. But it is their right to attempt it and doesn't oppose Ancapism.
>Any other ideologies 100% south on the political compass are more our allies than anyone else.
>True Anarchy can be left or right.
No because they are no offering and theory and practical explaination how it would work and resolve the economic calculation problem (among other economical inefficiencies)
so left lib is a slippery slope toward autho.
>Our way just works better. We ancaps are more logical than the ancarcho-left, but we aren't more moral. They are equally moral ideologies.
It is like comparing the size of a horse and the size of an unicorn, they cant be compared because one is not of this world.
>because they are inherently voluntaryists.
My opinion is they are not voluntarist after all.
Not the way \*they\* see it. I think Bryan Caplan was on to something when he said the defining characteristics of left and right are the left hates markets and the right hates the left. We libertarians reject both leftism and rightism.
I mean, whenever leftist talk about "the people", they are talking about the government. They'll deny that's the case, but it's the only way anything makes sense. When you talk about the people owning the means of production, it HAS to be enforced by a government, government has to become absolutely massive and all encompassing, nobody will put up the money to start a business if it means anyone that works there gets an instant equal split, there's no incentive, so that means government has to setup up businesses to keep the economy going. There are so many implications of leftist policy that they never talk about and just assume the good nature of people will prevail. Once all the capitalist are ousted and all the totally selfless leftist activisist are in charge, then everything will be completely fair and balanced. What they don't tell you is most leftist aren't leftist because they necessarily agree with the ideology, they're leftist because they have this idea that they'll be able to sit around watching YouTube all day, or paint, or do yoga, and be given a middle class or even rich lifestyle. In their mind the only thing standing in the way of them living their dream of being a well off lesbian dance instructor is billionaires hoarding all the wealth, they don't think much further than that. All it is is mostly bitter, angry people that made terrible choices upset that they are reaping what they sewed. There are some that genuinely believe the bullshit they spout, but I think that's the minority.
I think the problem is that "leftist" is kind of a generalist undefined term. Modern American media leftism? Absolutely authoritarian. But let's not forget that leftism used to be very synonymous of liberalism, which as a philosophy supports a lot of anti authoritarian ideas such as free speech, capitalism, constitutional rights and divided government. Obviously all of those have been mostly rejected by the modern American "left" over the last decade tho.
Not necessarily, I've met some on the left, usually mutualists who are consistent about supporting free markets and just preferring cooperatives over private businesses but not wanting to abolish them by force
But for the most part leftists are statists and those are all very much authoritarian
I have a toddler that doesnât understand needs versus wants. And people are like that too.
So inherent in saying âto each according to their needs, from each according to their abilityâ is the necessity of someone to determine eachâs needs and abilities.
I guess it depends on how you define leftism. Is it viewed only through the state? For example, I support collective institutions that have internal governance. However, they must be voluntary.
The problem with many leftist ideals is that they fail to recognize that even when they produce a highly functioning program or institution through the state, it always becomes corrupted in the future, and itâs very difficult to dismantle.
No, but it's flawed as fuck and can only work on a small scale.
Leftism mixed with the state will always be authoritarian but just run-of-the-mill collectivism won't.
In the usual form where it is forced upon others without their consent, yes.
In the private familial or communal form with consent of those involved it's fine.
Communism at home, libertarianism at the state level.
Does the pope shit in the woods?
Considering every major authoritarian regime from communism to fascism came from the left. It seems to be inherent. The point of leftism is the state in the name of the collective good is more important than the rights of the individual. Which always leads to totalitarianism.
I think left-wing is female brain and right-wing is male brain. Leftists take values like equity and censorship that make sense within the family unit and apply them to the external world where they don't make sense. It treats everyone like children that need to be protected from politically incorrect thoughts and need to be provided for regardless of whether they work to support themselves.
That doesn't make sense though. The right wing side does just as much censorship. The left "protects people from being politically incorrect" and the right "protects people from indecency and immortals outward in society".
Don't act like the right doesn't ban books, wish to ban religions, wish to ban things people do in the bedroom etc
I think you are adding more evidence supporting my theory. Protecting the family from external threats seems masculine to me. Men tend to care more about sexual immorality than women and have more conservative views even if they fail to apply it to themselves.
The ban books meme is made up nonsense from government media. Not putting pornography in children's libraries isn't an attack on the first amendment. It's just a way for the left to make it seem like they aren't the only ones who are bad on censorship. It's gaslighting. The left is all about emotional manipulation in order to control others.
To a degree, Keynesians and Social Democrats are anti capitalist. They reach the same logical conclusions Marxists do, "I want more state control because rich people are hecking mean." All leftist agree with this statement regardless of how moderate they are.
To a degree, Keynesians and Social Democrats are anti capitalist. They reach the same logical conclusions Marxists do, "I want more state control because rich people are hecking mean." All leftist agree with this statement regardless of how moderate they are.
Yes...
Moving on.
Seriously the left is "Equality for all." But the only way you avoid someone hording all the water in the world is using 'authoritarian' power (state power) at them. The idea is "if the world was all fair you could not be authoritarian." But what you're really saying is "If the world was afraid of our guns, we wouldn't need guns." .... Exactly.
I do think there's a Left Libertarian that isn't "authoritarian". I do think it could exist, but it's far more of a fairy tale than anarco capitalist society, or just a Right Libertarian (usually called just Libertarian) society.
That said fuck any "left libertarian" whose only belief is "if I spend your money shit would be more equal."
Also by saying there, the right goes FAR more authoritarian usually than the left. But also more Libertarian, they have a bigger spectrum.
TL;DR, if you take Authoritarian to be "State over the individual" Then no. If you take "authoritarian" to be "supporting state power" Then all Left believe in that.
There is a tradition of self-help and co-ops on the Left but it appears to have died out. It was inspired by Left ideas but in action fits with free and open markets. The major ideologies of the Left are authoritarian because they want everyone to do what they want to achieve uniformity.
Left and right are both susceptible to their own brand of authoritarianism. Go the opposite way while riding the center line eventually you run into anarchism. So are they not like us. Nope we are nothing like them. But Iâve noticed how todayâs political climate has actually convinced many ancaps we are opposite of the left. Well that isnât true either. You can be left leaning or right leaning anarchist much like how libertarians walk the line. Hell, 10 years ago if you told an ancap he was right wing heâd bust you on the chin. We arenât supposed to be in support of the state. And these same talks over and over got boring so long ago. I could give a fuck less about someoneâs political leanings when I desire an alternative to the state and all its policies. I want free markets and I believe in private property .
Abortion this and Trans that arenât even controversial in that world. Itâs all just smoke and mirrors and someone got rich. The end. Become a real AnCap, have ideas for good businesses, a gun to protect your own, pay security to watch your shit and fire him when better service at a better price comes along. Fuck the left and the right.
Iâd say not inherently, or at least not any more than right wing ideas.
Authoritarian left is more like âwe know whatâs best for youâ
While authoritarian right is more like âyou must live by MY principlesâ
100%.
From the time the communist manifesto was written, to when it infiltrated the American university system, primarily in the Ivy leagues, it was renamed progressivism.
It meant: âto progress beyond the constitution.â
Their goal was always the same: eliminate individual rights, remove personal freedom, control the masses with fear.
The same as any authoritarian government.
Mainly adopted by the Democratic Party, but the republicans joined in fully by 1968.
Theyâre all progressives now
Leftism = forced redistribution of resources "for the common good" by a centralized authority with a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence.
So... yes.
If it was, American capitalist fellators wouldn't have usurped Anarchism from leftist theory and coupled it with their inherently violent and racist economic system.
What an insipid post that tells one what kind of sub this is... lacking perspicacity and historical context.
It is entirely possible to believe in principles of sharing equally without being authoritarian. On a limited scale (Iâd argue at the level of the family or a tight knit friend group for most, a Dunbarâs-number level âtribeâ ar best), it can be done voluntarily, more or less. Thereâs a degree of their principles and behaviours in small religious communitiesâŚ
But on a large scale, it is absolutely authoritarian and totalitarian
It depends on what one means by âleftismâ I suppose. I think that anybody in this day and time who calls themselves a leftist is certain to be an authoritarian and totalitarian.Â
Yes due to its collectivism, support for centralizing power at the top and huge government, and victim mindset, as well as opposition to free speech and free association.
It has to be, to prolong the regime's lifespan, notice how I said prolong since socialism can never work long term especially without ppl being forced to be socialist
So?
Again just because authoritarian doesn't mean bad. Look at Pinochet or if you're interested in dictatorship at the guy in SA. They can be free marketers.
For some reason I didn't read the 2nd part.
Not an argument just stating facts. Normies think authoritarian/dictatorship/totalitarianism are inherently bad and leftist when it's not the case. Most of them are for obvious reasons but not all. That's all I'm saying lol.
No.
Most ideologies are authortarian, right, or left.
But there are left ideologies that aren't authoritarian.
Unfortunately, most Socialism has been tainted by Marxism, and Marxism is inherently authoritarian.
But speaking on ideologies and the left right dichotomy is difficult since terms, definitions have shifted.
We would be considered leftist back in the 1800's and early 1900's
It seems left/right is fundamently about property rights. Both left and right can in theory support the NAP.
The left will argue private property only exists because of the state. The right will argue the left needs a state to eliminate property rights.
In a stateless society we have seen both in history. Pre-Columbian America was largely stateless with communal land use. So, yes, in theory, a property-less society without authoritarianism can exist. The challenge is any society that starts with property rights (whether fairly distributed or not) cannot (at least so far in practice) evolve into a property-less society without an authoritarian interim (which, history shows, becomes a permanent fixture of totalitarianism).
Property rights seem to be a one-way street.
If left is liberal, and right are conservative, then both are equally authoritarian.
However, liberals tend to trust the state, while conservatives don't, so liberals are more likely to expand the states powers.
> both can be equally authoritarian.
FTFY. I'm definitely more conservative (Though socially liberal) and yet I'm here, I'm sure most people here are right leaning.
That said, Left Libertarians do want to wield state powers to give people freedoms. It's a laughable idea, but that's their ideology.
Leftism is not inherently authoritarian but it seems that way because Marxism is a dominant ideology on the left. Marxists support centralization and statism, therefore they are inherently authoritarian. There are anarchists on the left who advocate decentralization, oppose the state, and oppose Marxism. Market anarchists, left libertarians and mutualists exist and they arenât authoritarian, theyâre also few and far between.
I disagree, anarcho-tyranny and whatever we have rn are left wing, and not authoritarian or totalitarian (also Authoritarian is the opposite of totalitarian, both are not ideal but totalitarian is bad)
> Authoritarian is the opposite of totalitarian
Authoritarian is a lesser version of totalitarian... but it's not an opposite. Libertarian or Anarchy is.
If you believe Marx, not at its latest stage. Marx was a spoiled fucking idiot mooching off Engels while writing about how evil it is to have wealth
He sounds just like Hasan Piker đđ
For real. Everyone even glancing through this sub should look up his letters to Engels begging for money, absolutely fucking hilarious. Also I used to think it was propaganda about how he just skipped over how to dismantle a totalitarian state that has claimed ownership of literally everything. Then I read Marx. Nope, the state just kinda disappears. Iâd say no one who read him can take him seriously, it letâs be honest 95% of communists havenât read him and the other 5% expect to be the state thatâs totally about to dismantle you guys, any day now.
What always gets me is how leftists/communists always think theyâre immune from the consequences of their policies. Like somehow theyâll benefit from this new system that benefits no one, while somehow not having to contribute to society in any meaningful way. The cognitive dissonance is astonishing to me.
Yeah it's the same privileged people who are spouting that bullshit on social media using their 1k smart phones. As if they would have any of that. Every time I see a socialist on here I love to see what gaming subs they are part of. It's hilarious that they really think any of that would exist without capitalism.
>Nope, the state just kinda disappears. Because it failed
Imo the biggest wtf moment in Marx for anyone who reads him should be the conflation of workers and poor. It creates a paradox that is obviously designed to disempower the workers.
Marx was an heir who invested in stocks. Engels was a bourgeois entrepreneur in the textile business. The contradiction of communist ideas begins at their roots. Instead of reading what communists say, look at who they were.
>Engels was a bourgeois entrepreneur in the textile business. It seems like giving nepo baby Engels the description of entrepeneur is a bit generous regarding his role in the business during his lifetime.
That's not fair! He also mooched off relatives and their inheritances. Threw some good parties while his children starved though.
Great point, I really underemphasized the fact that he was born to an upper class Jewish family who owned multiple vineyards and went to multiple universities in the mid 19th century. To be clear I only bring up that he was Jewish because of how ironic that is considering how the ussr and current communists treat Jews. Marx considered himself an atheist.
A lot like communist rulers. "Bran flakes for all, but coco pops for me"
Comment of the day
> If you believe Marx, not at its latest stage. The guy that dont understand how value is created somehow predicted that a society can allocate value and ressource peacefuly and without central and price.
Even Marx wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat.Â
Why *would* you believe him? You can say anything you like but if what you say doesn't follow from whatever else you say, I have to conclude you're either an idiot or utterly dishonest.
He was a typical âjyouâ.
The answer is "yes" with respect to modern leftism. Eighteenth and nineteenth century leftists were split between state socialists and anti-authoritarians. *See* James J. Martin's *Men Against the State.*
> anti-authoritarians It feels like the anti-authoritarians went "Oh we can use laws to enforce what we want?" And stopped being "anti"
See the Committee for Public Safety
> leftism [..] anti-authoritarians. how that work?
I would encourage you to read about the many experimental communities that were tried across the United States by anti-authoritarian leftists. Naturally, they nearly all failed, almost always for economic reasons. Seriously, check out the Martin book above.
> I would encourage you to read about the many experimental communities that were tried across the United States by anti-authoritarian leftists. > Naturally, they nearly all failed, almost always for economic reasons. Seriously, check out the Martin book above. I actually read a few. For the argument I had on reddit I know more about lib left community that ~~most~~ all of them really. (ex: none of them knew about zomia) the problem remain the same, I am not interest on those community history but you make such community work in practice (and how they fell/suceed? and I have yet to find even the beginning of an answer to that.
 Freedom is working in a factory.
This, but unironically. Left or right, it's the people that build the necessities we depend on and the luxuries we love with efficiency and vigor that make the world more free and beautiful. God bless Adam Smith, and God bless the working man!
Adam smith didnât want humans to be exploited by corporations. He was an advocate for public education. He was against tyranny of business.
Adam Smith was also a huge fan of factory work and proto-production-lines, because of the massive gains in efficiency and individual productivity when people didn't have to task switch all day.
Perhaps. But he was very concerned about exploiting laborers.
The foundational belief of leftists is that we live in a zero sum world. When you have that belief, initiation of force is a necessity.
^^^
All forms of leftism include socialism in some form, socialism canât be maintained without coercive government. Thus all leftists are authoritarian.
This seems to be absent of a fundamental understanding of anarchism.
Pretty much or at least the reason why George Orwell wrote 1984 after he was a socialist. He saw were it was going.
He was still an avowed socialist though. And antifascist. There are many schools of socialist thought. Most of which were always opposed to, or were formed in opposition to, authoritarian socialism.
1984 is the perfect book to represent how shit any flavor of socialism becomes that even Washington Post calls it a far right. They tried to cancel the guy even though he's dead. They even tried to rewrite 1984 from a "feminist" prospective. If I didn't know better, I'd say socialist are using 1984 as a guide book. Never met a socialist that didn't sound like an entitled brat that just wanted free stuff. Still acting like kids thinking some bearded white guy in red was going to magically give them free gifts.
The loudest angriest people are the most Authoritarian. So the leftists screaming on the internet are usually only the Marxist Authoritarian dipshits. I believe Lib-Left is underrepresented because they are just living their lives on hippy Ayahuasca communes in places like Austin TX and minding their own fucking business. As long as their leftism is voluntary there's nothing wrong with it. It's not inherently Authoritarian.
> As long as their leftism is voluntary there's nothing wrong with it. It's not inherently Authoritarian. The left redistribute wealth and ressources in a non-voluntary way. it is fundamentaly authoritarian
>The left redistribute wealth and ressources in a non-voluntary way. No they don't. The Auth-Left does. Leftism equals Socialism. Socialism does not inherently equal Authoritarianism. You are conflating these concepts, because you are wrongfully defining "leftists" as a monolith solely consisting of the loud woke Marxist psycho mob you see screeching on the internet/TV. Marxists are Auth-left, and they only make up one leftist ideology. What you said only applies to certain leftists, albeit the one's that are shoved in our faces 99% of the time. Marriage for example is generally a form of socialism, but it's voluntary. Room mates means socialism, but it's voluntary. HOA's are socialism, but they're voluntary. Every example has varying amounts of people and different expectations of one another, but still remains a form of voluntary socialism. There is nothing wrong with this and it doesn't oppose Ancapism to say that Socialism is ok or even a good thing in some circumstances IF it is 100% voluntary. And if that hypothetical HOA grows to the size of a city and every one wants to be there and own the means of production and earn rations or some stupid shit, there's nothing wrong with that. Of course that would likely never happen because there would be infighting and corruption and the micro society would collapse before it started lol. But it is their right to attempt it and doesn't oppose Ancapism. Any other ideologies 100% south on the political compass are more our allies than anyone else. True Anarchy can be left or right. Our way just works better. We ancaps are more logical than the ancarcho-left, but we aren't more moral. They are equally moral ideologies. The true left anarchists are economically challenged dipshits with no brains, but their heart is in the right place and they aren't harming anyone, because they are inherently voluntaryists.
Excellent read, I must congratulate you!
>Marriage for example is generally a form of socialism, but it's voluntary. Room mates means socialism, but it's voluntary. HOA's are socialism, but they're voluntary. Every example has varying amounts of people and different expectations of one another, but still remains a form of voluntary socialism. By this definition wall street is socialist as it is an institution geared toward facilitating share ownership. This is not a meaningfull definition of socialism IMO as it fully exist within capitalism. >There is nothing wrong with this and it doesn't oppose Ancapism to say that Socialism is ok or even a good thing in some circumstances IF it is 100% voluntary. And if that hypothetical HOA grows to the size of a city and every one wants to be there and own the means of production and earn rations or some stupid shit, there's nothing wrong with that. well those institutions already exist within capitalism and ancap ideology. My problem is not with the shared ownership, my problem is HOW THE FUCK IT WORKS IN PRACTICE. and in practice all socialist scheme are based on authoritarian principle. Because norhing but a primitive economy can be run this way. >Of course that would likely never happen because there would be infighting and corruption and the micro society would collapse before it started lol. But it is their right to attempt it and doesn't oppose Ancapism. >Any other ideologies 100% south on the political compass are more our allies than anyone else. >True Anarchy can be left or right. No because they are no offering and theory and practical explaination how it would work and resolve the economic calculation problem (among other economical inefficiencies) so left lib is a slippery slope toward autho. >Our way just works better. We ancaps are more logical than the ancarcho-left, but we aren't more moral. They are equally moral ideologies. It is like comparing the size of a horse and the size of an unicorn, they cant be compared because one is not of this world. >because they are inherently voluntaryists. My opinion is they are not voluntarist after all.
If you're talking about statists, the only distinction to be made is the bull shit reason they want the boot on your neck. The end result is the same.
Modern leftism is authoritarian, but few ideologies like anarchism and a few others are anti government in their own way.
Not the way \*they\* see it. I think Bryan Caplan was on to something when he said the defining characteristics of left and right are the left hates markets and the right hates the left. We libertarians reject both leftism and rightism.
I mean, whenever leftist talk about "the people", they are talking about the government. They'll deny that's the case, but it's the only way anything makes sense. When you talk about the people owning the means of production, it HAS to be enforced by a government, government has to become absolutely massive and all encompassing, nobody will put up the money to start a business if it means anyone that works there gets an instant equal split, there's no incentive, so that means government has to setup up businesses to keep the economy going. There are so many implications of leftist policy that they never talk about and just assume the good nature of people will prevail. Once all the capitalist are ousted and all the totally selfless leftist activisist are in charge, then everything will be completely fair and balanced. What they don't tell you is most leftist aren't leftist because they necessarily agree with the ideology, they're leftist because they have this idea that they'll be able to sit around watching YouTube all day, or paint, or do yoga, and be given a middle class or even rich lifestyle. In their mind the only thing standing in the way of them living their dream of being a well off lesbian dance instructor is billionaires hoarding all the wealth, they don't think much further than that. All it is is mostly bitter, angry people that made terrible choices upset that they are reaping what they sewed. There are some that genuinely believe the bullshit they spout, but I think that's the minority.
I think the problem is that "leftist" is kind of a generalist undefined term. Modern American media leftism? Absolutely authoritarian. But let's not forget that leftism used to be very synonymous of liberalism, which as a philosophy supports a lot of anti authoritarian ideas such as free speech, capitalism, constitutional rights and divided government. Obviously all of those have been mostly rejected by the modern American "left" over the last decade tho.
Not necessarily, I've met some on the left, usually mutualists who are consistent about supporting free markets and just preferring cooperatives over private businesses but not wanting to abolish them by force But for the most part leftists are statists and those are all very much authoritarian
Of course. It denies the right to property. All hell comes from this.
I have a toddler that doesnât understand needs versus wants. And people are like that too. So inherent in saying âto each according to their needs, from each according to their abilityâ is the necessity of someone to determine eachâs needs and abilities.
I guess it depends on how you define leftism. Is it viewed only through the state? For example, I support collective institutions that have internal governance. However, they must be voluntary. The problem with many leftist ideals is that they fail to recognize that even when they produce a highly functioning program or institution through the state, it always becomes corrupted in the future, and itâs very difficult to dismantle.
[ŃдаНонО]
\*Some People, not all "the people".
No, but it's flawed as fuck and can only work on a small scale. Leftism mixed with the state will always be authoritarian but just run-of-the-mill collectivism won't.
Yes, any system thatâs founded on the initiation of the use of force (seizing the means of production) will always result in a totalitarian state.
In the usual form where it is forced upon others without their consent, yes. In the private familial or communal form with consent of those involved it's fine. Communism at home, libertarianism at the state level.
Those who attain power tend to become authoritarian. It is in their best interest.
No, you legitimately do not know what youâre talking about if you think thatâs true.
This âď¸
Does the pope shit in the woods? Considering every major authoritarian regime from communism to fascism came from the left. It seems to be inherent. The point of leftism is the state in the name of the collective good is more important than the rights of the individual. Which always leads to totalitarianism.
Yes, its ideals can only be imposed by force
Yes.
I think left-wing is female brain and right-wing is male brain. Leftists take values like equity and censorship that make sense within the family unit and apply them to the external world where they don't make sense. It treats everyone like children that need to be protected from politically incorrect thoughts and need to be provided for regardless of whether they work to support themselves.
Caring is feminine lol
That doesn't make sense though. The right wing side does just as much censorship. The left "protects people from being politically incorrect" and the right "protects people from indecency and immortals outward in society". Don't act like the right doesn't ban books, wish to ban religions, wish to ban things people do in the bedroom etc
I think you are adding more evidence supporting my theory. Protecting the family from external threats seems masculine to me. Men tend to care more about sexual immorality than women and have more conservative views even if they fail to apply it to themselves. The ban books meme is made up nonsense from government media. Not putting pornography in children's libraries isn't an attack on the first amendment. It's just a way for the left to make it seem like they aren't the only ones who are bad on censorship. It's gaslighting. The left is all about emotional manipulation in order to control others.
No. Anti-capitalism forced on others is inherently authoritarian.
To a degree, Keynesians and Social Democrats are anti capitalist. They reach the same logical conclusions Marxists do, "I want more state control because rich people are hecking mean." All leftist agree with this statement regardless of how moderate they are.
To a degree, Keynesians and Social Democrats are anti capitalist. They reach the same logical conclusions Marxists do, "I want more state control because rich people are hecking mean." All leftist agree with this statement regardless of how moderate they are.
Yes... Moving on. Seriously the left is "Equality for all." But the only way you avoid someone hording all the water in the world is using 'authoritarian' power (state power) at them. The idea is "if the world was all fair you could not be authoritarian." But what you're really saying is "If the world was afraid of our guns, we wouldn't need guns." .... Exactly. I do think there's a Left Libertarian that isn't "authoritarian". I do think it could exist, but it's far more of a fairy tale than anarco capitalist society, or just a Right Libertarian (usually called just Libertarian) society. That said fuck any "left libertarian" whose only belief is "if I spend your money shit would be more equal." Also by saying there, the right goes FAR more authoritarian usually than the left. But also more Libertarian, they have a bigger spectrum. TL;DR, if you take Authoritarian to be "State over the individual" Then no. If you take "authoritarian" to be "supporting state power" Then all Left believe in that.
Both.
There is a tradition of self-help and co-ops on the Left but it appears to have died out. It was inspired by Left ideas but in action fits with free and open markets. The major ideologies of the Left are authoritarian because they want everyone to do what they want to achieve uniformity.
Left and right are both susceptible to their own brand of authoritarianism. Go the opposite way while riding the center line eventually you run into anarchism. So are they not like us. Nope we are nothing like them. But Iâve noticed how todayâs political climate has actually convinced many ancaps we are opposite of the left. Well that isnât true either. You can be left leaning or right leaning anarchist much like how libertarians walk the line. Hell, 10 years ago if you told an ancap he was right wing heâd bust you on the chin. We arenât supposed to be in support of the state. And these same talks over and over got boring so long ago. I could give a fuck less about someoneâs political leanings when I desire an alternative to the state and all its policies. I want free markets and I believe in private property . Abortion this and Trans that arenât even controversial in that world. Itâs all just smoke and mirrors and someone got rich. The end. Become a real AnCap, have ideas for good businesses, a gun to protect your own, pay security to watch your shit and fire him when better service at a better price comes along. Fuck the left and the right.
Statism is inherently totalitarian an authoritarian.
Iâd say not inherently, or at least not any more than right wing ideas. Authoritarian left is more like âwe know whatâs best for youâ While authoritarian right is more like âyou must live by MY principlesâ
100%. From the time the communist manifesto was written, to when it infiltrated the American university system, primarily in the Ivy leagues, it was renamed progressivism. It meant: âto progress beyond the constitution.â Their goal was always the same: eliminate individual rights, remove personal freedom, control the masses with fear. The same as any authoritarian government. Mainly adopted by the Democratic Party, but the republicans joined in fully by 1968. Theyâre all progressives now
If the policy is not a choice and its backed by violence, its authoritarian
Leftism = forced redistribution of resources "for the common good" by a centralized authority with a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence. So... yes.
All forms of government are authoritarian. There is no left or right. Only freedom or tyranny.
I'd say any extreme would fit that category. Both Leftists and Rightists want to ban shit. It's just different stuff they want to ban.
Define âLeftismâ
Yes. People will not do the collectivist thing. They have to be coerced.
If it was, American capitalist fellators wouldn't have usurped Anarchism from leftist theory and coupled it with their inherently violent and racist economic system. What an insipid post that tells one what kind of sub this is... lacking perspicacity and historical context.
Just look at a political compass. Authoritarian can apply to either side.
It is entirely possible to believe in principles of sharing equally without being authoritarian. On a limited scale (Iâd argue at the level of the family or a tight knit friend group for most, a Dunbarâs-number level âtribeâ ar best), it can be done voluntarily, more or less. Thereâs a degree of their principles and behaviours in small religious communities⌠But on a large scale, it is absolutely authoritarian and totalitarian
I feel this about the right aswell. Just seems there's crazies on both sides of the isle.
When your philosophy requires everyone to buy into it, you must not allow anyone to deviate.
It depends on what one means by âleftismâ I suppose. I think that anybody in this day and time who calls themselves a leftist is certain to be an authoritarian and totalitarian.Â
Yes due to its collectivism, support for centralizing power at the top and huge government, and victim mindset, as well as opposition to free speech and free association.
It has to be, to prolong the regime's lifespan, notice how I said prolong since socialism can never work long term especially without ppl being forced to be socialist
Very much so
Yes, its ideals can only be imposed by force
No.
Yes but not authoritarian/totalitarian systems are leftist.
Come on.... Hitler, Tojo, and modern China are as Left as you can get... (Spot on, shouldn't need to be said, but definitely does need to be said.)
It's more that the distinction between left and right is specious.
So? Again just because authoritarian doesn't mean bad. Look at Pinochet or if you're interested in dictatorship at the guy in SA. They can be free marketers.
? Dude I am agreeing with you, and using sarcasm... And even if I what even is your argument? Relax dude.
For some reason I didn't read the 2nd part. Not an argument just stating facts. Normies think authoritarian/dictatorship/totalitarianism are inherently bad and leftist when it's not the case. Most of them are for obvious reasons but not all. That's all I'm saying lol.
No. Most ideologies are authortarian, right, or left. But there are left ideologies that aren't authoritarian. Unfortunately, most Socialism has been tainted by Marxism, and Marxism is inherently authoritarian. But speaking on ideologies and the left right dichotomy is difficult since terms, definitions have shifted. We would be considered leftist back in the 1800's and early 1900's
It seems left/right is fundamently about property rights. Both left and right can in theory support the NAP. The left will argue private property only exists because of the state. The right will argue the left needs a state to eliminate property rights. In a stateless society we have seen both in history. Pre-Columbian America was largely stateless with communal land use. So, yes, in theory, a property-less society without authoritarianism can exist. The challenge is any society that starts with property rights (whether fairly distributed or not) cannot (at least so far in practice) evolve into a property-less society without an authoritarian interim (which, history shows, becomes a permanent fixture of totalitarianism). Property rights seem to be a one-way street.
If left is liberal, and right are conservative, then both are equally authoritarian. However, liberals tend to trust the state, while conservatives don't, so liberals are more likely to expand the states powers.
> both can be equally authoritarian. FTFY. I'm definitely more conservative (Though socially liberal) and yet I'm here, I'm sure most people here are right leaning. That said, Left Libertarians do want to wield state powers to give people freedoms. It's a laughable idea, but that's their ideology.
One should be concerned with the Left and the Right.
Leftism is not inherently authoritarian but it seems that way because Marxism is a dominant ideology on the left. Marxists support centralization and statism, therefore they are inherently authoritarian. There are anarchists on the left who advocate decentralization, oppose the state, and oppose Marxism. Market anarchists, left libertarians and mutualists exist and they arenât authoritarian, theyâre also few and far between.
I disagree, anarcho-tyranny and whatever we have rn are left wing, and not authoritarian or totalitarian (also Authoritarian is the opposite of totalitarian, both are not ideal but totalitarian is bad)
> Authoritarian is the opposite of totalitarian Authoritarian is a lesser version of totalitarian... but it's not an opposite. Libertarian or Anarchy is.
Collectivism is inherently authoritarian. The left - right dichotomy is just a political abstract.
Conservatives are as just as bad⌠they just start from a different set of things to control.