Who is liberals???
Liberals are generally those who support the capitalist status quo, or think it only needs tweaks.
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.
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 causeYep, correct. Propaganda can be for a good cause, like for climate activism.
Or promoting socialism
Yep!
Sure. But the meme still holds.
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)
Far-Right: Donald Trump and Xi Jinping
Far-Left: DSA
The Middle: ducking Amy Klobacher throwing a stapler
Took me a moment to realize this is rhetorical device to illustrate the point.
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?
It’s not about if an ideology uses authority to entrench itself. Every state and organization with any power in the world does that. It’s about who wields that authority against who, and for what purpose. We generally consider Hitler and Mussolini to be exceptionally “authoritarian”, but in reality the only thing exceptional about them was that they directed that authority inward instead of just outward, the latter of which we in the west are all more accustomed to. They took the full-spectrum colonial violence typically reserved for non-white people outside their borders, and directed it also towards white people within their borders. This (and only this) is what we have been taught to view as an unacceptable aberration.
TLDR Authority itself is not “good” or “evil”. Authority is just a weapon like any other, and what makes it heroic or repugnant is who wields it against who.
It’s less that “authoritarian” is made up, and more that it’s useless. Hitler and Mussolini represented the capitalist class and oppressed workers and other social groups. Socialist states represent workers, and oppress capitalists and fascists through land reform and collectivization. Both wield authority, but some for good and some for bad.
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
What they are saying is that “Authoritarian” is not a precise term that distinguishes anything and was just made up as a way to try to accuse AES states of being just as bad as fascist ones. It’s a horseshoe theory term because any actually accurate term you would use to describe Hitler’s or Mussolini’s ideology would exclude the ideology of socialist states.
Pardon my ignorance but I don’t know the term “AES state”
If I see it through that perspective I get it, still sounds odd to me to label authoritarianism only as a western tool to criticise communists
“AES” meaning “actually existing socialism.” The debate over this word goes all the way back to Engels at least.
Someone else may help me find a link, because I remember reading a different article about this specifically, but these three definitely touch on it:
https://redsails.org/brainwashing/
https://redsails.org/losurdo-on-totalitarianism/ (this one is about “totalitarianism” and the “horseshoe” theory I referenced above)
Authoritarian is to hold power, in the basic sense. It is to have a state, and to enact that state power. Anarchist comrades will call any state or ideology authoritarian if it does not go against the state. I am not as well read on this as other, but this is the gist.
Right that’s why I don’t understand @bubblybubbles’s point.
All terms are made up, but it makes sense to have a definition for authoritarianism. It feels like we are just discussing semantics
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.
deleted by creator
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.
It’s less that “authoritarian” is made up, and more that it’s useless as a descriptor. Hitler and Mussolini represented the capitalist class and oppressed workers and other social groups. Socialist states represent workers, and oppress capitalists and fascists through land reform and collectivization. Both wield authority, but some for good and some for bad.
“Authoritarianism” is not a distinct mode of production, nor does it actually describe structures. It’s like saying “bad” or “mean,” it has a negative connotation but means almost anything.
Ok so, I have a question. You say “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.”
So where is the line for you? What is “problematic power” vs “non-problematic power”.
Like what countries do you think are authoritarian now vs ones that arent?
At what point does a government that enforces laws on the people who live in it through a monopoly on state violence stop being “Not-Authoritarian” and start being “Authoritarian” in your view? I am legit asking because I don’t get why you see some countries as “Authoritarian” and others as not.
(Idk if that persons instance can see my question. If not oops I forget which of them blocks grad.)
Ah dang. It’s so confusing talking on .ml because half of the time the people can’t see what I say.
Capitalism is shit. Fascism is shit.
The fuck is a “counter source”? That’s just not how the burden of proof works.
Lately it’s been seeming the opposite to me, whenever a criticism is made against soviets / ex Soviets
Depends on the criticism. The Red Scare is well-documented, and the soviet archives are (somewhat) open, we can begin to really dig through history and verify or deny allegations. Soviet historians have been doing just that, actually.
