this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
111 points (93.0% liked)
Asklemmy
51835 readers
566 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A leftist. Someone with political beliefs, empathy, and conviction.
Not all leftists are tankies the same way not all right wingers are fascists. A tankie is an authoritarian leftist
I don't follow.
On the political compass there are 4 directions. Left, right, libertarian, authoritarian.
A tankie is auth left a fascist is auth right
Saying everyone on the left is a tankie ignores the lib left it’s the same as saying that everyone on the right is a fascist which is also not accurate
The political compass was quite literally made by a right-winger that wished to perpetuate liberalism as the moderate, standard option. You can't actually put ideologies on a graph like that, it results in absurdities and contradictions.
You quite easily can, the contradictions that happen are due to humans having complex views and not everything being black and white.
Liberalism isn’t the moderate option on the political compass but is just one of the axis that has an extreme…
Yes, nothing is black and white, correct. That doesn't mean you can try to force quantitative measuring of higjly qualitative and contextual policy. Further, I did not say libertarianism, I said liberalism, which is the dominant ideology of capitalism. Left vs right is broadly okay if framed as collectivized ownership as principle vs privatized ownership as principle, but economies in the real world aren't "pure," and trying to gauge how left or right a country is by proportion of the economy that is public vs private can be misleading.
The next part, "libertarian vs authoritarian," is a false binary. The state is thoroughly linked to the mode of production, you don't just pick something on a board and create it in real life. There's no such thing as "libertarian capitalism," as an example. Centralization vs decentralization may make more sense, but that can also be misleading, as centralized systems can be more democratic than decentralized systems.
This is a pretty good, if long, video on the subject. The creator of the compass is, as I said, politically biased towards liberalism.
As a fun little side-note, I can answer the standard political compass quiz and get right around the bottom-left while being a Marxist-Leninist that approves of full collevtivization of production and central planning. Yet, at the same time, the quiz will put socialist states in the top left, seemingly based on how the creator wants to represent things. It's deeply flawed. Add on the fact that it's more of an idealist interpretation of political economy than a materialist one, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
All states are authoritarian in that they uphold one class and oppress others. It's a good thing when the class in charge is the working class, throughout history socialist states have resulted in dramatic improvements in living standards for the vast majority of society. These socialist states, and the ones who support them, are labeled "authoritarian" whenever these states practice land reform, nationalize industries, etc, and are met with mountains of hostility and slander from the west.
Even an anarchist revolution is "authoritarian," as it involves violently taking control. In practice, "authoritarianism" is more of a vibe than an actual thing we can measure or a policy to be implemented. It's used as a club against socialist states by those who've lost property to land reform or nationalization.
It’s a spectrum and a person who supports the government having more control of their citizens is considering authoritarian. A person who wants to limit government control over their citizens is more libertarian.
It’s a very valid belief that someone might want leftist policies with limited government control over individual citizens so calling them all tankies is inaccurate and confusing
When you utterly erase class analysis, and just group everyone under "citizens," you run into utter contradictions. Socialist states have been far more liberating for their populace overall, even if they've been oppressive towards fascists, capitalists, etc, meaning they would technically belong in the "libertarian" quadrant if we define it the way you claim we should. The entire idea of a "libertarian-authoritarian" spectrum, or even a left-right spectrum and not just various right and left ideologies that cannot be abstracted into a graph-based system, is actively harmful to our understanding of political ideology.
Anarchists want communalism, whereas Marxists want collectivization. Neither is more or less "authoritarian" or "libertarian," in that even horizontalist systems actually erase the democratic reach of communities to within their communities and immediate surroundings, while collectivization spreads power more evenly globally. This isn't something that can be represented on the graph in any way, yet results in fundamentally different approaches and outcomes.
This is an intentional strawman right? Like there is no way you are truly misunderstanding this much?
Auth governement dictates what individual citizens can/ can not do
Lib government limits what power the government has over individual citizens
You can’t say we are actually lib because we only are targeting the “bad people”
Show your conviction and don’t dance around your point if you want a government that has more power over its citizens that’s fine, that’s your belief and you are fully entitled to it but if you can’t acknowledge your own beliefs that’s its own problem
Again, you need to look at things from a class analysis. There is no such thing as "libertarian capitalism," capitalism requires the state, and freedoms for citizens are restricted because they don't have as much access to necessities and democracy doesn't extend to the economy.
Socialist countries that provide better access to necessities have more freedom for the average person than capitalist countries. They don't have the same privledged class of capitalists with unlimited political power, but the people have more power.
This is a false-binary. It isn't a strawman, the political compass is entirely bogus and cannot accurately depict ideology or structure as they exist in the real world. It does more harm than helps.
I'm not dancing, I've said it firm: I want the working class to use the state in their own interests, against capitalists and fascists, to meet the needs of the people and liberate society.
You are the one making it binary when it isn’t and when I say it isn’t you bring it back to being binary. You can have libertarian beliefs without wanting a complete dissolution of the government the same way you can have authoritarian beliefs while still wanting people to have individual freedoms. So yes you can have libertarian capitalism which is simply a less regulated form vs authoritarian capitalism. We can see this in the UK vs EU where the UK is requiring people to submit official IDs to see porn (auth) vs the EU passing data privacy laws (lib)
You are inventing all these other arguments that I am not making. I have never said socialist countries have less freedoms and don’t even remotely believe that so if you are not making a strawman then try rereading what I am saying because you are arguing against an argument I am not making which is the literal definition of a strawman
That’s called being authoritarian, there is nothing wrong with that and as long as the state is using that power fairly that can create a great society but you must realize that on a 1-10 scale of government authority with a 1 being full on anarchy and 10 being the state has full control to make all decisions that you are closer to a 10 then a 1
As soon as you give the state power to go after people with different beliefs (even if those beliefs are deplorable) you are being authoritarian
I'm telling you that you're running into extreme absurdities. I have more personal freedom in a socialist society, where my needs are more assured, than I do in capitalist society, even if said capitalist society was more of a nightwatchman state. By making "authority" purely about how the state treats anyone, and removing all economics from the equation, you create absurd contradictions. That's why class analysis is important.
The political compass makes no sense. It's sole purpose is to affirm liberalism by pretending there's a spectrum of libertarian to authoritarian, when such terms are utterly meaningless when looked at without understanding class. What matters is who is the state serving, how, and why, not if the state is mean or if the state is nice.
Dude are you a bot? For the 500th time I NEVER SAID YOU HAVE LESS FREEDOM IN A SOCIALIST SOCIETY
That is a straw man you have made up and keep arguing against
You've said "authoritarianism" is about "restricting individual freedoms," and categorized me and existing socialist states as "authoritarian." These are contradictions, though, they both cannot be true.
I understand that you are generally categorizing socialist society as something on the left, and saying you can have a bigger or smaller state, etc. I am telling you that this isn't how society works in real life. The state and the mode of production are interconnected, and reinforce each other. They aren't sliders you select in a lab, you can't just have a bigger or smaller state like that.
I'm not a bot, no. You haven't responded to me saying class analysis is critical, you've brushed it aside entirely and continued to re-affirm the original statement.
I literally never did and I am done reading your page long responses that involve you not reading anything I wrote, making up an argument and then responding to that I have had more productive conversations with a homeless man on the bus
These are your words. I do read what you write, as much as you insist that I'm not. I agree that this conversation isn't very productive, but I think it's more due to your refusal to actually engage with what I've been saying and instead just re-affirm the useless political compass as though it actually means anything.
Really don't like the way you casually look down on the homeless, too.
What makes them authoritarian?
They believe in an authoritarian government systems. Where the state has extra power that they can use to enforce their goals. That is in contrast to anarcho communists where the state is dissolved.
Logically most leftists fall somewhere in the middle as not wanting full on authoritarian government but also not wanting a complete lack of government
In theory if the state has the best interests of the people, then by giving the state extra power all you are doing is reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. That however also makes it easier for the state to abuse that power so I am not saying one is better or worse than the other
This is not how any communist views authority or the state. All communists are in favor of abolishing the state. This requires erasing the basis of the state, which is class society, and that requires collectivizing production and distribution. With production and distribution collectivized, class doesn't exist, and as such the state withers as it loses its reason to function.
It isn't about "giving the state power." It's about taking state power from the capitalist class, and creating a working class state. This socialist state does not have "more power" than a capitalist state, the class it serves is what's distinct.
Leftists usually fall into the Marxist umbrella or anarchist umbrella. Marxists are for collectivization, while anarchists are for communalization.
When I say “communalization,” I mean anarchists propose horizontalist, decentralized cells, similar to early humanity’s cooperative production but with more interconnection and modern tech. When I say collectivization, I mean the unification of all of humanity into one system, where production and distribution is planned collectively to satisfy the needs of everyone as best as possible.
For anarchists, collectivized society still seems to retain the state, as some anarchists conflate administration with the state as it represents a hierarchy. For Marxists, this focus on communalism creates inter-cell class distinctions, as each cell only truly owns their own means of production, giving rise to class distinctions and thus states in the future.
For Marxists, socialism must have a state, a state can only wither with respect to how far along it has come in collectivizing production and therefore eliminating class. All states are authoritarian, but we cannot get rid of the state without erasing the foundations of the state: class society, and to do so we must collectivize production and distribution globally. Socialist states, where the working class wields its authority against capitalists and fascists, are the means by which this collectivization can actually happen, and are fully in-line with Marx’s beliefs. Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society is only possible post-socialism.
Anarchists obviously disagree with this, and see the state more as independent of class society and thus itself must be abolished outright.
This is not at all about being more "authoritarian" or "libertarian." It's a fundamentally different understanding of class and power dynamics, and both seek a liberated society. The political compass cannot depict this, even if the liberal view of anarchism and Marxism wants to point them as two extremes on a tidy graph with most people in the middle of them. What's important is that politics is not a bell curve, Marxism and anarchism are consistent ideologies with specific tendencies under them that fundamentally contradict. People don't just pick what they like from each (usually), because then they cease to be internally consistent.
Extra power in comparison to what? What is the normal amount of state power?
That’s a debate since authoritarianism to libertarianism is a spectrum so there is no official “normal” and its generally used qualitatively on individual polices
Regulated and censoring speech - auth Absolute freedom of speech - lib Limiting speech to prohibit only speech that can cause harm to others - somewhere in the middle
Requiring the state to dispense all drugs - auth No drug regulations, no dea, no fda- lib Some drug regulations including requiring “generally recognized as safe and effective”- somewhere in the middle
No country is full auth or full lib
So, essentially, it's subjective?
You would accuse your grandmother defending herself from an attacker as a tankie.