How should authoritarian regimes be classified?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi all.

This is probably going to end up being a hot-button topic. That being said, I feel I need to bring this topic up because some people don't even know what "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean. Let's talk about authoritarian regimes. Today, I want to talk about various authoritarian regimes. I will try to politically classify them ... or at least reconsider the classification that they are traditionally given.

Lenin's Russia: A lot of people consider Lenin's Russia to be a product of left-wing extremism. Indeed, Leninists almost always consider themselves to be left-wing ... but is that how politics works? Are you instantly left-wing just because you choose to label yourself that way? Don't "right-wing" and "left-wing" have objective definitions?

I will admit that Lenin was progressive in a few ways, but he was also an opponent of democracy. Let's not forget that modern democracy came out of the 18th century liberal enlightenment, which was one of the world's first left-wing movements. Additionally, most of the earliest socialists were pro-democracy.

What is democracy? In a non-democratic society, power is concentrated in the upper class. In a democratic society, the middle and lower classes have some say on what the government does. In other words, anyone who opposes democracy loses leftism points.

Additionally, Lenin hated "left-communists" so much, he made a book comparing them to spoiled children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-Wing%22_Communism:_An_Infantile_Disorder

Additionally, most liberals have always supported religious liberty. Banning religion has never been a leftist principle.

Stalin's Russia: Classifying Stalin as a left-wing extremist is even harder. He rejected international socialism in favor of "socialism in one country". Internationalism has always been in the bedrock of leftism. Stalin also re-criminalised homosexuality after Lenin legalised it.

Additionally, Stalin killed Trotsky because Trotsky was too liberal for his tastes.

China: China is a essentially a far-right dictatorship at this point. A socialist leader never says "getting rich is glorious". In China, children are forced to work in factories to make clothes for Western businesses. Isn't that precisely what Karl Marx fought against?

Additionally, China has a very poor track record when it comes to environmental protection, animal welfare and LGBT rights.

I suppose the Chinese revolutionaries considered themselves "progressive" because they were rebelling against Western imperialists. Of course, being anti-Western does not automatically make you a progressive. Some people manage to free themselves from oppression and then become oppressors. In many ways, the Chinese government is trying to preserve old Chinese traditions. This is, arguably, just another form of conservatism. In my opinion, governments should not try to preserve traditions. If the masses aren't choosing to continue a certain cultural tradition, it probably wasn't a good tradition anyway.

Mugabe's Zimbabwe: Science has conformed that race is a social construct. In other words, Mugabe's anti-white racism wasn't leftist or progressive. Overall, Mugabe's "Zimbabwe for Zimbabweans" rhetoric was very right-wing.

Here's the thing about politics: Right-wing organisations do frequently clash. This is because patriotism is a common right-wing principle. Of course, what benefits one country may hinder another country. In other words, when people who are loyal to British imperialism fight against people who are loyal to Zimbabwean nationalism, it's essentially a fight between two right-wing forces. What about the masses? Britain Vs. Zimbabwe? What about universal human rights?

Pol Pot's Cambodia: Pol Pot hated intellectuals so much, he had them all killed. He even killed people with glasses, because they reminded him of intellectuals. Since when has anti-intellectualism ever been a leftist trait?

North Korea: The North Korean government is flamingly racist. They are also obsessed with war and have a poor LGBT rights record. Overall, the conflict between North Korea and the West appears to be a clash between two different types of patriotism. Leftism is supposed to look beyond patriotism and see universal human rights ... which is a foreign concept in North Korea.

Cuba: Che Guevara was never a good leftist icon and I hate seeing people wear Che Guevara shirts. Che was a homophobic racist who had anarchists and Trotskyists put to death. Che originally became a leftist icon because he was killed by the US government. Of course, being killed by the US government does not automatically make you a good person. After Che's death, Cuba continued to have a poor LGBT rights record.

Overall, this seems to be one of the major problems with the third world. Most of the leaders who try to free the third world from Western imperialism end up creating tyrannical non-Western patriotism. In this struggle, the concepts of internationalism and universal human rights are typically ignored.

Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is definitely a right-wing dictatorship. It's a patriotic theocracy in which men are tough, women are objects and queers are target practice. Saudi Arabia is also really into capitalism. They have no universal health care and they love to trade oil.

Overall, Islamic extremism has far more in common with the right than the left. This is true of nearly every Islamic extremist society.

Fascism: This is probably going to be the most rage-inducing part of this post ... so let's get this over with quickly. Fascism is right-wing. It's placed on the political right for a reason. Although some fascist countries restrict the market in a few ways, all fascist countries see patriotism as an absolute. Additionally, fascist culture is driven by homophobia, xenophobia and machismo. Fascists generally expect women to dress and act ladylike, which is how they sucker in sexually frustrated young men. Additionally, some fascist countries are flamingly religious. Francisco Franco was a devout Christian. The Ustaše were also devout Christians ... and they were so brutal that their Nazi allies were shocked and appalled.

Absolute Monarchy: Leftism was originally created to defeat absolute monarchy. Thus, absolute monarchy is, and has always been, far-right. By the way, Medieval feudal landlords were essentially private tyrants.

All I can say is you are a braver man than me...<chuckle>
I might sit this one out and see the fur fly from a distance...
Besides, my knowledge of various political systems is very superficial...
I will learn something here...if it survives...

In general, the so-called "leftist"-"Communist"-"Socialist" regimes of the past and present have many right-wing features to them.

Many are one-party states both de jure and de facto. Many have an "elite" class which lords it over the "lower" classes. Many have "secret police" type apparatuses which seeks to silence all dissent.

I sensed strong anti-conservative bias in the OP. Made me cringe a little.

Yay!...
The battle begins... <rub hands together in glee>

On this Site, there anti-Conservative bias, anti-Liberal bias. Anti-everything bias.

That's par for the course. Nothing earth-shattering about that.

It's EGOS that cause the extremity of the argument here, not most of the ideas themselves.

I backed up my points using evidence, facts and effort.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss hard facts using a simple hand wave.

I have serious issues with this post. It is essentially an extreme "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It says that leftists cannot be authoritarian, then tries to claim all the authoritarian leftists are therefore far-right, regardless of their actual political positions.

No. Words do not have objective definitions.


This is a great example of words not having objective definitions. While classic liberals called themselves "left wing", they didn't use that the way that you are using it.

Essentially, you think that someone is left-wing if they are good. However, the way most people use the word is that left-wing people tend towards removal of hierarchies. It is uncontroversial to place Marxist-Leninism on the far left.

I would not, however, call Marxist-Leninism "progressive". Having said that, I have little knowledge of Lenin's personal views.

I think this is broadly fair but lacks nuance. Could there be a better system for diffusing power than representative democracy? Could someone be opposed to democracy and still, overall, be left-wing? For example, could they impose rigid economic planning?


Not all leftists are liberals and many leftists are opposed to secularism and pluralism.


Stalin pursued a command economy, collectivisation, destruction of the class system, persecution of the rich, and even persecution of middle-class farmers ("Kulaks"). These are far-left ideas.

Legalising homosexuality is not a left-wing idea.

No it hasn't. Even today, many leftist "icons" like Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and particularly Jean-Luc Melenchon are opposed to internationalism. Sanders rejected TTP, Corbyn is a Eurosceptic, and Melenchon is anti-NATO.


While China has liberalised its markets recently, and seen economic growth as a result, it still lacks economic freedom and cannot reasonably be described as right-wing.

In any case, when people talk about China as a left-wing dictatorship, they're usually talking about Mao rather than Xi (while Xi is not good, he's unarguably much better than Mao). Mao was certainly far left. Class warfare, collectivisation, a command economy...


Again, a simplistic view of the left-right divide. This is primarily an economic divide. Mugabe pursued far-left economic policies.

By this logic, someone like George Osborne would be left-wing because he supports gay rights, globalism, and democracy, whereas Caroline Flint would be right-wing because she is opposed to trans rights. John McDonnell would be right-wing because he supports the murder of one's political opponents. It's just completely divorced from how people actually use the terms.

Since always?

From Lysenkoism to tuition fees, many on the left ignore evidence when it doesn't suit them and derides experts when they disagree. Today, this can most clearly be seen in discussions around economics (again, tuition fees in the UK are a good example, or rail nationalisation, or corporation tax), but also neonicotinoids, GMOs, Monsanto, rent controls, price caps, maximum wages, and vaccine safety. There are also many anti-Semites on the left, such as George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, and parts of the left have also historically been somewhat prone to believing implausible negative accounts of police shootings.


Again, you're thinking of liberalism, not leftism. There are many leftists who are racist, homophobic, and patriotic. Indeed, there are liberals who are those things despite it all.


Despite being far-left. Huh.


OK, so what about Western leftists?

Some leftists uphold these values, like Caroline Lucas of the Green Party of England and Wales. Others do not, like Jill Stein of the Green Party of the USA.



Don't think anything there should be rage-inducing. You put Stalin and Mao on the far-right already, after all.


Well yes, but Nintendo was originally created to make trading cards and Netflix originally rented DVDs.

I thought the same.

DMK, what would DarthMetaKnight-world look like? More importantly how would you get there without using some of the same tactics as these former attempts at "socialist" "egalitarian" "classless" societies? I suspect you'd find any road to that place involves cracking quite a few stupid unteachable eggs to make your utopian omelette, just as the societies you listed did.

It is that infernal internal emotional reptilian beast which needs to be bridled...<sigh>

"Passion is the nemesis of objectivity..."
Emotionalism is at the heart of intolerance!
Emotionalism is powered by unconscious bias!
Emotionalism engages the engines of confirmation bias!

Down with those dirty filthy emotionalist bastards! <torch and pitchforks at the ready>
D'oh!...

So for this thread, the joke is on him.

Is there even any purpose to labeling stuff left-wing and right-wing other than sloppy political rhetoric?

How else will we know who the pantomime villains are?

We have to boo someone, right?

Funny thing about the extreme right and the extreme left: they eventually twist around and meet up with each other.

Yes. As with all words, they provide a quick shorthand to tell you something: in this case, they tell you about the nature of an individual or party's positions, rhetoric, philosophy, and policies.

They are a blunt instrument, but an instrument nonetheless.

That's true and the opposite is also true the Nazis are considered far right by most but had very left wing economic policies. Its the horse shoe theory the extreme left and extreme right mimic each other. I believe social and economic freedom are linked to each other you lose one and before long you lose the other.