slightly spicy political take (not related to current events)
The "authoritarian left" can only exist if you treat "left" vs. "right" as being about what policy positions someone holds while disregarding the underlying motivation; because you can argue for *any* policy position in an authoritarian manner.
But if you treat "left" vs. "right" as being about the value system that someone lives by (equitable collaboration vs. competitive hierarchy), then the "authoritarian left" is a fundamentally impossible concept, because any kind of authoritarian stance is incompatible with equitable collaboration at a very basic level.
When people are in conflict about whether leftists can be authoritarian, it's because some of the people involved only consider 'values-neutral' policy positions and not value systems or societal outcomes. Which is why this so often happens with centrists in particular.
ACAB
slightly spicy political take (not related to current events)
@joepie91 i have seen plenty of people use the vehicle of leftist values or populism to advocate for what is essentially a rightwing dictatorship (source: my history lol) so i am not sure if i agree with this take
slightly spicy political take (not related to current events)
@joepie91 like, it depends on what we define as "leftist" and "rightist".
one can appear as leftist but their actions, values and end goal might as well be not
slightly spicy political take (not related to current events)
@mynameistillian Right, but this is exactly my point; people who appear as leftist but do not hold a leftist value system only appear like credible leftists to people who judge "left/right" by looking at policy points.
People who judge it by underlying values, and how those expose themselves through one's behaviour, rhetoric and introspection (and who actually pay attention to that), are going to catch on pretty quickly when someone's talking leftist but not walking leftist.
