If something is a propaganda it does not automatically mean it's false.
propaganda
n 1: information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
If something is a propaganda it does not automatically mean it's false.
propaganda
n 1: information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
Anyone says anything against their worldview
Libs: HURR DURR .ML HURR DURR TANKIE
Yes yes but the truth is always in the middle. (I am so smart)
Yeah, kinda. But, it’s far righties that jizz over capitalism the most. Trump’s such a good businessman. He will run the country great, it’s a business after all.
Does it happen a lot around here though? Most of the time I think we're mostly just critical of Capitalists and Authoritarians. Usually Socialism, real Communism, and Anarchism are not really critisized except by some .world users.
Edit: Except during a round of good ol' Leftist Infighting.
Authoritarianism is just yet another word made up by the west to label communists
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.
Wouldn't you consider Hitler's ideology authoritarian? Or Mussolini's?
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
I find it interesting the way you put it
What would a stateless society look like in your opinion? Are there any practical examples?
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
No, go break free of the western "media" and look it up, it was a YACACO (Yet Another CIA Anti-Commie Op)
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.
Lately it's been seeming the opposite to me, whenever a criticism is made against soviets / ex Soviets
Who is liberals???
The liberals were never extreme enough for the communists and Marxist. Although they were made to feel like the group, they were never actually accepted. And for some reason now its being revealed that "liberals" are not extreme enough and part of the problem.
It's not about being "extreme" (and liberalism is plenty extreme, see books like The Jakarta Method, Killing Hope, and Liberalism: A Counter-History), it's about liberalism being pro-capitalism and therefore Liberals not leftists.
all 33 comments