this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
507 points (94.9% liked)
Political Memes
9223 readers
3253 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't call tankies "left".
just sparkling authoritarianism
They're calling themselves that, and probably calling you a Liberal (that is now a derogatory term apparently)
But they are?
Not all rightists are authoritarians, but all authoritarians are rightists. Being leftist literally means being anti-authoritarian. Tankies are classic right wing authoritarians cosplaying as leftist. Whether someone thinks their brand of authoritarianism is more benevolent is not the metric that determines their position on the political spectrum, it is whether power is evenly distributed (leftist) or consolidated (rightist).
That's not what being politically right or left entails. Economic rightism involves private ownership of the means of production, not whether "power" (whatever you mean by that word) is concentrated or spread out. Economic leftism involves even distribution of the means of production at least to the point it can no longer be used for personal gain but for societal development. You’re redefining right-wing to mean authoritarian, which isn’t how the term is used in political science. By your definition, you’ve made “left-wing authoritarianism” impossible, which makes your claim unfalsifiable but also meaningless in the usual political context.
What does this even mean?
I am using the classic definition of the political spectrum, which was defined by the French Revolution. The Egalitarian revolutionaries sat on the left side of the hall and the institutional nobility on the right. I reject the Cold War era Capitalist propaganda doublespeak re-definition in which it means “whatever rightists want it to mean to more easily demonize the enemies of Capitalism.” I also reject the notion that Marx, who was born decades after the Revolution, was the only leftist philosopher or that he, ironically, would hold a monopoly on leftism.
You seem to have accepted the Capitalist fallacy that social and economic policy can be separated, or that power and wealth are not one and the same. An economy controlled by a few is not leftist, it is feudal and rightist. While the political spectrum is not a binary, leftism always aims for egalitarian ends. Egality involves equitable sharing in authority and economic power. One who shares in an economy but holds no power does not share in the economy. One who shares in power and is destitute does not share in power. These things are at odds. They are fundamental opposites.
Tankies support consolidation of power (both “violent” and “economic” authority) into the hands of a few. This is rightist no matter the justification. Benevolent authoritarianism is still authoritarianism and authoritarianism is always rightist (consolidation of power/authority/wealth). They use leftist terminology to justify their authoritarianism, but it does not change the fact that the means and ends are authoritarian in the extreme. If only a minority have authority (control of violence/force) then those few also have complete ownership of the economy, which is the opposite of leftist. If only a minority have wealth (control of the economy) then those few also have the power to buy authority. There is no difference between social power and economic power. Leftism requires egality in both domains or else it dies.
You’re using a moral definition of “left” whereas in political science, “left” and “right” are only descriptive terms about economic organization (collective vs. private ownership respectively), and authoritarian/libertarian describes political power distribution. Your definition makes “left-wing auth” impossible by definition, but that’s a linguistic choice, not an empirical fact.
The problem with collapsing the axes is that it stops us from describing history accurately. Under your framework, a regime like the USSR which abolished private ownership and implemented central planning can’t be left because it wasn’t egalitarian in political power. But in mainstream classification, it’s economically far left and politically authoritarian a very different thing than right-wing authoritarianism.
Yes, wealth and power influence each other, but they are not identical; otherwise we wouldn’t need different terms. A billionaire under a strong democracy can have wealth without full political authority, and a military dictator in a collapsed economy can have political authority without wealth. Conflating them makes analysis less precise, not more.