They are revolution fetishists. That’s why orthodox MLs repeatedly fail at actual statecraft - because they study revolution, and often get angry when that fan service gets interrupted by conversation about policy.
As far as I can tell, your intended meaning is absolutely correct, but you have some of the terminology wrong: fascism is an explicitly right wing form of oppressive authoritarianism. The extreme left can be authoritarian and oppressive, but never fascist.
Stalinism and the ideology of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge are notorious examples of tankies: left wing fanatics who engage in oppressive authoritarianism and violent persecution of anyone different from their narrow definition of the ideal citizen, often using arbitrary metrics just like fascists do.
Is the end result the same for an LGBTQ+ person, a pacifist or anyone else demonised by all forms of oppressive authoritarianism? Yes.
But that does not make the ideologies identical and the distinction is important because the differences mean that different tools are more effective in combating one than the other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarian_personality
I see where some confusion lies. There is a discrepancy between the psychological and political definitions. I’m largely interested in why people think x and is they make it make sense, discard/set it aside until it does. I didn’t account for that and it’s on me.
From Wikipedia: in psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person’s upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.[2]
The right-wing authoritarian personality was defined by Bob Altemeyer as a refinement of the research of Theodor Adorno. Adorno was the first to propose the existence of an authoritarian personality as part of an attempt to explain the rise of fascism and the Holocaust, but his theory fell into disfavor because it was associated with Freudian psychoanalysis. Altemeyer nonetheless felt that Adorno was on to something, and so developed a more scientifically rigorous theory.
The RWA scale was designed to measure authoritarianism in North America. It has proven to be similarly reliable in English-speaking countries such as Australia, but less effective in other countries such as France due to cultural differences and translation issues.[3]
Hey! You learned how to use a search engine! I mean, you probably just clicked the letmegooglethatforyou link that I gave you, but still! I’m super proud of you!
No i didn’t, i just realized where part of the problem lies. That you don’t know anything about communication being a two way avenue is your issue abcs you’reas obnoxious as the people you criticize. Nothing changes anything about what I’ve already argued, and your arguments are lacking since they’re only insults.
You didn’t learn how to use a search engine, or you didn’t click the link I gave you?
Nothing changes anything about what I’ve already argued
Have you argued, though? I have looked back through our conversation, and I don’t see a single argument. Do you not know what an argument is? An argument is when you make a specific claim, and then use evidence to support that claim. What claims have you made? What evidence did you provide in support of those claims?
Or do you just think that whining is the same as arguing?
you don’t know anything about communication being a two way avenue
You started this “conversation” by saying you were going to block this sub, then being a butthurt little baby when people like me and a couple of others ridiculed you for it. How does that behavior align with your ideas about what “conversation” is?
your arguments are lacking since they’re only insults.
I have made one argument (that you are a moron), and the evidence that I have provided for this has been:
You don’t know what a search engine is
You get dramatically offended by things you don’t understand
You conflated shitposting online with being an authoritarian
You believed that defederating from an instance made that instance no longer exist
You believed that defending Nazis was a good thing
Now, granted, I’ve hurled a lot of insults in addition to my argument, but that was just for myself, as a little treat, as a form of catharsis for having to respond to a moron.
deleted by creator
Not actually true if we mean left as in ownership by the people and the right means ownership by capital.
Authoritarian or totalitarian are not the same as right.
There is an argument that tankies aren’t exactly ownership by the people.
Like you don’t look at the USSR and think "oh yeah the people really had ownership over their means of production*.
Ownership by the people implies the people have a say.
They are revolution fetishists. That’s why orthodox MLs repeatedly fail at actual statecraft - because they study revolution, and often get angry when that fan service gets interrupted by conversation about policy.
It’s not “right wing”
It’s just totalitarian fascism.
We need to let go of this stupid idea that only right wing politics ends up in totalitarian fascism.
ANY FORM OF IDEOLOGY OR BELIEF CAN LEAD TO FASCISM.
“Love thy neighbour as thyself” can lead to totalitarian fascism.
No matter how benign the belief, someone can turn it into fascism.
As far as I can tell, your intended meaning is absolutely correct, but you have some of the terminology wrong: fascism is an explicitly right wing form of oppressive authoritarianism. The extreme left can be authoritarian and oppressive, but never fascist.
Stalinism and the ideology of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge are notorious examples of tankies: left wing fanatics who engage in oppressive authoritarianism and violent persecution of anyone different from their narrow definition of the ideal citizen, often using arbitrary metrics just like fascists do.
Is the end result the same for an LGBTQ+ person, a pacifist or anyone else demonised by all forms of oppressive authoritarianism? Yes.
But that does not make the ideologies identical and the distinction is important because the differences mean that different tools are more effective in combating one than the other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarian_personality
I see where some confusion lies. There is a discrepancy between the psychological and political definitions. I’m largely interested in why people think x and is they make it make sense, discard/set it aside until it does. I didn’t account for that and it’s on me.
What definition is that? Authoritarianism is independent of right and left
From Wikipedia: in psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior.[1] The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person’s upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.[2]
The right-wing authoritarian personality was defined by Bob Altemeyer as a refinement of the research of Theodor Adorno. Adorno was the first to propose the existence of an authoritarian personality as part of an attempt to explain the rise of fascism and the Holocaust, but his theory fell into disfavor because it was associated with Freudian psychoanalysis. Altemeyer nonetheless felt that Adorno was on to something, and so developed a more scientifically rigorous theory.
The RWA scale was designed to measure authoritarianism in North America. It has proven to be similarly reliable in English-speaking countries such as Australia, but less effective in other countries such as France due to cultural differences and translation issues.[3]
Hey! You learned how to use a search engine! I mean, you probably just clicked the letmegooglethatforyou link that I gave you, but still! I’m super proud of you!
No i didn’t, i just realized where part of the problem lies. That you don’t know anything about communication being a two way avenue is your issue abcs you’reas obnoxious as the people you criticize. Nothing changes anything about what I’ve already argued, and your arguments are lacking since they’re only insults.
You didn’t learn how to use a search engine, or you didn’t click the link I gave you?
Have you argued, though? I have looked back through our conversation, and I don’t see a single argument. Do you not know what an argument is? An argument is when you make a specific claim, and then use evidence to support that claim. What claims have you made? What evidence did you provide in support of those claims?
Or do you just think that whining is the same as arguing?
You started this “conversation” by saying you were going to block this sub, then being a butthurt little baby when people like me and a couple of others ridiculed you for it. How does that behavior align with your ideas about what “conversation” is?
I have made one argument (that you are a moron), and the evidence that I have provided for this has been:
Now, granted, I’ve hurled a lot of insults in addition to my argument, but that was just for myself, as a little treat, as a form of catharsis for having to respond to a moron.