you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (15 children)

Authoritarianism is just yet another word made up by the west to label communists

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I mean, it's definitely a deliberately ill-defined term that's used to conflate dictatorships of the bourgeoisie and dictatorships of proletariat. Also, mysteriously, never seems to describe friendly oligarchies like MBS's Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu's Israel, Milei's Argentina, or Bukele's El Salvador.

    But its language that's very intentionally borrowed from Anarcho-Capitalism, intended to defame any kind of public governing structure. The end goal of describing every governing body we don't like as "authoritarian" is to venerate "free markets" as a utopian alternative to popular governance.

    It's not just about communism. It's a term intended to denigrate any kind of popular government.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    Wouldn't you consider Hitler's ideology authoritarian? Or Mussolini's?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    I would consider authoritarian a useless word for describing them. Sure, you could call them that and it would fit, but it says very little about them and fails to distinguish them from other states.

    All states are authoritarian. Holding and exerting authority is the point of a state. The state exists as a tool for a class to express its authority over the other.

    This same issue applies to the term dictatorship as well. When we hear the term authoritarian we must ask authority for whom. When we hear the word dictatorship we must ask what group is dictating and to what end.

    Until the state is abolished every society is authoritarian and a dictatorship. So what's the point of the descriptor?

    Edit: if I have been too vague I'm happy to elaborate further

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I find it interesting the way you put it

    What would a stateless society look like in your opinion? Are there any practical examples?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I feel like the definition I use for state might be somewhat different than most around here, as I would consider an administration as a state.

    Even without class struggle, crimes and abused would still occur how can a copless society (with millions of members) resolve this issues? Local militias? Wouldn't those be the "police"?

    Curious to hear from you

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Honestly, it's very difficult to imagine and while there is plenty of literature on the subject I don't think any of us can truly say. I personally have not read the literature and for me to speculate on it would do more harm than good I think. The reality of a stateless society seems so far off from my lifetime that discussing how it might look feels like fantasizing to me. My focus has always been on getting to a point where one is possible and studying how to do so as this is far more relevant to my conditions.

    Stateless societies absolutely have existed. The state had to arise at some point. Foraging and horticultural groups are examples of this but neither can sustain our current human population so no they are not practical in the way you are asking. There were also attempts at utopian communism that were internally stateless but ultimately subject to the whims of whatever state they resided in so their status as stateless is debatable. You won't find a largescale stateless society in the modern era primarily because it would make them incredibly vulnerable. Proposing, hypothetically, you eliminate class within a large industrialized society and therefore internally remove the requirement for a state, that society is still beholden to the global dynamic of imperialism. The state is still required to protect the interests of their society from the contradicting interests of capital abroad. This is why communism must be an international struggle.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't agree with equating the behaviour of fascist states and AES.

    Yes both wield authority, but one's authority is backed by a small number of people with access to great power and resources, while other's authority is legitimised by the will of the majority

    I believe that difference is critical in differentiating the two

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'll be honest, I don't know enough about Cuba to know whether or not it deserves the label. I've seen first accounts of events supporting both views, that Cuba is on path to a society exempt from exploitation and that it's ruled by an oppressive elite that uses the aesthetic of Marxism to fool the population.

    If you have any suggestions on how to learn more I'd appreciate it.

    And yes "authoritarianism" is reductive of all interactions in a political system, we agree on that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hitler's government qualifies as "authoritarian" in the same way that FDR's government does. It can describe Starmer's UK. Or Sheinbaum's Mexico. It can be applied as easily to Lai Ching-te's Taiwan as Xi's China. It's a nothingburger of a word, mostly implying you don't like the policies of the person in charge.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure I agree with your view.

    Words are commonly misused but they still have meanings. In a society where the will of the majority is ignored in favour of the will of the few I think most people would agree it's an authoritarian society, it's usually not that black and white but every society is closer or further from authoritarian

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    In a society where the will of the majority is ignored in favour of the will of the few I think most people would agree it’s an authoritarian society

    Sure. But then the reverse is true, as well. Libertarians call it "mob rule"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Are you... being sarcastic?

    If so: Good one!
    If not: I would not like to enguage in the infighting atm, so I bid you a lovely day,

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, go break free of the western "media" and look it up, it was a YACACO (Yet Another CIA Anti-Commie Op)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    sighs, Ok, fine, if you want to do this rn, I guess we can.

    Though I have no doubt it was probobly originally a word meant to slander real communism as the western world has done countless times (few ppl on lemmy would/should deny that the west has produced a shitton of bad anti-commie propoganda), I also fully agree that Authoritarianism does actually exist as much as Capitalism, Communism, and Anarchism exists based off of the actual agreed upon definition. If you take the definition of the system itself, there is no reason to conflate it with Communism. It IS a different system than real Communism, hence why that word was used as Anti-Communist Propaganda. It associates communism with a different (and very real) malignant system to make communism look bad. Sorry if this became too much of a rant, but I really just think that denying the existance of "Authoritarian" states is not a good idea. Let's explain to people that Communism ≠ Authoritarianism instead of trying to claim that Authoritarianism doesn't exist.

    Edit: I also fully beleive that ANY government/social system can devolve into Authoritarianism if implemented incorrectly or not vigilant enough about making sure not to centralize power in a problematic way.

  • source
  • parent