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.)
I recommend keeping different accounts if you want to chat with everyone else. I like my Grad account and Hexbear account for chilling out or browsing, but almost all of my commenting is done via my Lemmy.ml account.
Or something like sopuli or other generalist instance. Lemmy.ml is where the admins are communist but it’s widely federated, so I do all of my “lead liberals to theory” talks here, with my Lemmy.ml account. If I want to chill or actually discuss theory, ask questions, keep up with the news, etc, then I use Grad or Hexbear. I have accounts on all 3 and scroll each locally (sometimes I peak out on Lemmy.ml but not frequently).
Some comrades use Lemmygrad.ml for scrolling all. Not only can you see pretty much everything and comment everywhere, other instances that aren’t defederated can see you too, and you won’t get swarmed by lemmy.world accounts or sh.itjust.works accounts when you do so. It’ll be more lonely, I suppose, but it does mean you aren’t going to be getting into nearly as many fights.
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.)
dbzero blocks grad.
Ah dang. It’s so confusing talking on .ml because half of the time the people can’t see what I say.
I recommend keeping different accounts if you want to chat with everyone else. I like my Grad account and Hexbear account for chilling out or browsing, but almost all of my commenting is done via my Lemmy.ml account.
So I need a lemmy.ml account if I want to comment on most things?
Or something like sopuli or other generalist instance. Lemmy.ml is where the admins are communist but it’s widely federated, so I do all of my “lead liberals to theory” talks here, with my Lemmy.ml account. If I want to chill or actually discuss theory, ask questions, keep up with the news, etc, then I use Grad or Hexbear. I have accounts on all 3 and scroll each locally (sometimes I peak out on Lemmy.ml but not frequently).
I explained my position more over on Grad.
Some comrades use Lemmygrad.ml for scrolling all. Not only can you see pretty much everything and comment everywhere, other instances that aren’t defederated can see you too, and you won’t get swarmed by lemmy.world accounts or sh.itjust.works accounts when you do so. It’ll be more lonely, I suppose, but it does mean you aren’t going to be getting into nearly as many fights.
Why is there a lemmy.ml and a lemmygrad.ml?
The former is the dev’s test instance, the latter is an ML instance.
I don’t use this enough to bother with multiple accounts tbh.
That’s also entirely fair, too.