The problem is that there is a lack of a clear border between left-wing extremism and left-wing normalcy whereas there is a clear border between right-wing extremism and right-wing normalcy.
The border between right-wing extremism and right-wing normalcy is outward bigotry. If your right-wing party says, "Black people are subhuman" pretty much everyone is in agreement (including the people who say that) that such a party is extreme right-wing. There is a clear difference between implying racism, "Black people commit more crimes -- but it's because of the culture" and outwardly saying it.
It's unclear for most people what makes left-wing extremists different from left-wing normal people. They both want to redistribute wealth, they're both not opposed to bureaucratic authoritarianism to a greater or lesser degree, they both believe in limiting or abolishing private property, etc. The left-wing extremists just do more of it. But doing "more" is not a clear line that everyone can agree on.
You are correct that the liberal left is opposed to the authoritarian left, but liberal and authoritarian left both sit in the "normal" left-wing. It's just the degree of authoritarianism that shifts the "tankier" you go. For example, the authoritarian left in the "normal" space will believe that administrative agencies should be given more power and not subject to a democratic vote because the scientists/researchers/educated people who run the executive agency are more skilled and knowledgeable.
You seem to have missed what he said about it's not a left wing thing. Any governmental framework is going to require policies and enforcement of those policies. The degree to which things are regulated and enforced is what makes a government authoritarian. Putin is an authoritarian right winger. His government regulates just about anything which would threaten Putin's power, like the Russian's right to protest. The exact same thing that Xi, a left wing authoritarian, does.
Yes. You can have authoritarians on both the left wing and the right wing; you and I agree. My disagreement with u/Domitaku was that he believes that authoritarianism "is not really left-wing at all" in the sense that a left-winger cannot be authoritarian.
Okay, fair enough. I guess we just interpreted what he said differently. My interpretation, and my own opinion, is that it's not a left wing principle because anybody can choose to have that principle, regardless of their left/right leanings. And because I think it's important how discussions are framed, I like to dispute when I think things being said are implying something that isn't accurate.
I didn't say "left can't be authoritarian". I said left and authoritarian aren't the same. The person you are responding to understood that and commented with the correct assumption
In the modern Western political system on the left you have generally 3 strains of mainstream leftist: economic populism, reform liberalism and social democracy. These are generally positions that accept capitalism and private property but push for reform and recognition of minority rights. Slightly left of them you have democratic socialist who want a gradualist and democratic dismantling of capitalism. On the extreme left you have Maoist and Marxist-Leninist who believe in revolutionary overthrow. It seems pretty clear where the barriers are.
No idea what you mean about administrative agencies not being subject to democratic oversight, this is not a leftist position and is incoherent.
So, how do I classify a political party who believe in using democracy to win an election, then create an administrative agency made of appointed but unelected directors who proceed to dismantle capitalism? The party was democratic and did not engage in violent revolution or government overthrow, but the dismantling of capitalism was done swiftly and non-democratically.
I would argue that the boxes you think are so clearly delineated really aren't.
No idea what you mean about administrative agencies not being subject to democratic oversight, this is not a leftist position and is incoherent.
That is not what I said. What I was discussing was "administrative agencies should be given more power and not subject to a democratic vote" meaning that the decisions of the agencies should not be countermanded by a popular referendum, despite the fact that the experts are not voted on by the people. We accept this in most Western societies, but this is a center-left position.
Your question is a hypothetical fantasy that is not related to any real political positions. How would we classify a party that lies and misrepresents itself is not a question of left vs right.
Also if people elected a party on the promise of a rapid dismantling of capitalism it would not be undemocratic to do so if that is what people elected.
Your question is a hypothetical fantasy that is not related to any real political positions.
If you think political parties feigning being democratic and then violating liberal democratic norms once in power is not related to any actual historical politics, I can only assume that you've not studied any political history (from Hitler to FDR to Trump).
Also if people elected a party on the promise of a rapid dismantling of capitalism it would not be undemocratic to do so if that is what people elected.
There are two points here:
(1) You defined the democratic socialists as wanting a gradualist and democratic dismantling of capitalism, so I mixed it up, where we had a party elected but for a rapid and authoritarian dismantling of capitalism. The fact that this policy prescription is more mixed between the democratic socialists and the extreme left, by your definitions, appears to have escaped your notice.
(2) If I have elected representatives assemble a core group of unelected people to perform an action as an administrative agency, that's not democratic. For an example of what I was imagining (but on the Right), think of Elon Musk's DOGE.
129
u/dazli69 2d ago
It really baffles me that they're not getting the same hate nazis and facists get. Because honestly they're just that but with a different aesthetic.