The "authoritarian" left is just the framework of every revolution that actually won. There is a very special kind of Western detached romantic chauvinist "left" that believes only in failed and failing pure leftism and tragedy and is shocked and outraged at what it means to win, to establish defenses, to keep a nation or nations running.

There is no liberal left. Liberals are the mainstream political and are by definition conservative under global capitalism.

[–] Funkwonker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Those aforementioned nations aren't exactly still running though.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Frequently targeted by the states these precious purity "leftists" live in. And that is not coincidental.

[–] GrammarPolice@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

And the authoritarians try to reconcile this issue by saying we liberals are actually on the right. How wonderful!

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To be clear, you were saying Capitalism is left wing. They are using Liberal, as in Libertarian, not as in the actual meaning of Liberal as in Capitalist.

[–] GrammarPolice@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 month ago

Ain't gonna argue with you bro

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago

There is a difference.

A lot of people who claim to be liberal, just aren't left wing. The good example is the FDP party in Germany.

To quote Wikipedia: The FDP's political position has variously been described as centrist, centre-right, and right-wing. The FDP has been described as liberal, conservative-liberal, classical-liberal, and liberal-conservative. Other sources have described the party as libertarian or right-libertarian.

There are left wing liberals, but don't act like they usually call themselves liberal.

[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml -4 points 1 month ago

It's a simple fact.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except for the ones that succeed.