1106
submitted 1 year ago by Someonelol@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Alterecho@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

I'm sorry, maybe I'm misunderstanding here. I think the delineation between authoritarian regimes and non-authoritarian governments is pretty clear - are you implying that all socialist and communist influenced governments are necessarily authoritarian?

[-] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago

No, I'm suggesting that authoritarian is a meaningless term unless defined specifically and was asking what theories of power and authority they had for making the delineation they are.

The derogatory term authoritarian is always leveled at socialist or communist countries, and never capitalist ones even though capitalist countries restrict rights for the majority of their populations by the very nature of the inherent power structure in capitalism. Even though communist countries usually enjoy far more decentralised authority, better voting rights, and higher political involvement in the populace, they are labeled as "authoritarian," the implication being that they need "freedom" aka capitalism

[-] PvtGetSum@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

What? The term authoritarian is thrown at non-communist/capitalist nations all the time. Syria, Nazi Germany, Libya, Franco's Spain, Modern Russia, and a million other instances. Authoritarian is a clearly defined term and is in no way exclusively applied to communist nations in almost any circles. It also happens to have been applied to most "communist" countries because most of them have been authoritarian

[-] JamesConeZone@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Notice you didn't name the United States which is just as authoritarian as modern Russia by any definition we choose (voting rights? participation in political process? allowed dissent? access to clean water? basic access to healthcare? food desserts? policies meant to keep people in poverty?). That's my point. It's an ethereal term unless properly defined.

We'll have to set Libya aside since after given "freedom," there are now literal slave traders everywhere.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

It's not clearly defined at all; try to give a definition of authoritarianism that applies to all of the countries frequently described as authoritarian, but not to any of the ones that aren't, and you'll see how vague a term it is.

[-] PvtGetSum@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Countries frequently have authoritarian tendencies without being overwhelmingly described as an authoritarian nation. When a nations primary mode of function is in authoritarian action it ceases to be a country I would consider something anyone should aim to emulate, which is why most people have problems with tankies and their support of the USSR or the CCP. It is fine to point at those countries and say "hey for all of their faults they managed to do X pretty well" but an entirely different thing to look at them and say "if only they came out on top, the world would be a much better place today".

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

I hope you can appreciate that you just said absolutely nothing concrete whatsoever.

Countries frequently have authoritarian tendencies without being overwhelmingly described as an authoritarian nation.

spoilerus-foreign-policy

When a nations primary mode of function is in authoritarian action it ceases to be a country I would consider something anyone should aim to emulate

ALL nations and ALL governments' 'primary mode of function' is 'authoritarian action'. You can't run a water main without using 'authoritarian action' to secure right of way.

The terms you're using are vapor.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

When a nations primary mode of function is in authoritarian action it ceases to be a country I would consider something anyone should aim to emulate

All nations primary mode of function is authoritarian action, and all revolutions too.

It is fine to point at those countries and say "hey for all of their faults they managed to do X pretty well"

It really isn't, I can tell you from personal experience that this will absolutely get you labelled a tankie.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[-] bagend@hexbear.net 16 points 1 year ago

Can you give an example of a 'non-authoritarian government'?

[-] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

All governments are inherently authoritarian by their nature, but there's a scale and I think in most people's minds there's a line.

The line is probably drawn where people are prosecuted or even killed when they publicly criticise the ruling regime, where you have to "escape" to simply leave, where there's a culture of fear that your neighbour or friends or even family could report you for disagreeing with the government. More often than not there's no way for the public to change the government through democratic means.

[-] axont@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago

Ok, but if that's the case, why are we drawing a line at a nation's internal population and disregarding their external policies? The USA killed three million people in the War in Iraq, including Iraqis who were very critical of the American presence. The USA has assassinated Latin American presidents for speaking out against the USA and replaced them with more America-friendly dictators. And yet everyone who talks about authoritarianism doesn't include western nations in their discussion, they instead make up a cartoon idea of what countries outside the west are like. Your definition of what is or isn't tankie/authoritarian has some kind of nationalist bias built into it.

Every time someone describes what authoritarianism is, it makes me think that America and the EU are the worst perpetrators of this behavior, but they mainly export all their violence rather than use the worst of it domestically. Domestically they use private sector means to distribute violence, such as poverty, prisons, and the facilitation of ambient racism.

This reminds me of the dividing line that liberals use, which is when they say things like "that dictator killed HIS OWN PEOPLE." As if killing people externally is more excusable crime?

[-] GreatWhiteNope@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

And even with lib logic, the US kills its own people who speak out against the government.

See Fred Hampton, the suspicious number of Ferguson protest leaders who have since died in strange ways, etc.

Unless there’s a certain criteria which determines who are your own people… us-foreign-policy

[-] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

Because authoritarianism is about the internal control of its own populace, not how a nation state acts against other nation states.

The illegal invasion of Iraq wasn't authoritarianism. And I'm not going to start defending the actions of any nation that assassinates other leaders to try and get them under their influence.

And yet everyone who talks about authoritarianism doesn't include western nations in their discussion

I think there's very few western nations that fit that line I described in an earlier comment. That's not to say none have authoritarian traits, the UK is always criticised for being a bit too much of a surveillance state, for example.

This reminds me of the dividing line that liberals use, which is when they say things like "that dictator killed HIS OWN PEOPLE." As if killing people externally is more excusable crime?

Obviously killing people externally or internally is bad, but it's more shocking in the same way that a parent murders their own child.

[-] axont@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If invasions, sanctions, assassinations, and complete immiseration of other nations isn't authoritarian then what is it? Why are we arbitrarily deciding there's a distinction with how a country's internal and external policies? These things inform one another. If a nation like America is doing far worse things than authoritarianism, except externally, why can't we say that's what it is?

Obviously killing people externally or internally is bad, but it's more shocking in the same way that a parent murders their own child.

That makes no sense. Joseph Biden is not my dad and my shared nationality with him means nothing because he represents an economic class at war with my own. Was Hitler the father of German Jews? What the fuck are you talking about

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Alterecho@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know if there is such a thing as a perfectly free, truly democratic society wherein everyone is capable of existing free of oppression lol, but I think there's definitely a spectrum of authoritarian policy and sentiment, often correlated with nationalist and fascist fervor.

I may, as a person of color, experience more oppression in a country where I do not fit the standard vision of what a citizen looks like, and less in a country wherein which I do meet that criteria. That's usually more an issue with nationalist rhetoric than systems of governance - unless that nationalism is codified and enforced by the government, which is the case in many governments that I would consider "more authoritarian." America is one that has tended towards that, historically. Certainly, though, there are others that have also instituted systems explicitly designed to oppress.

I'd say, in general, I have many rights and privileges in current-day America that a truly authoritarian government wouldn't allow. And that's not to say that I think America is the greatest, or even good lmao. We're constantly on the verge of disenfranchisement, and the fact that we're constantly fighting for things that should be just baseline isn't exactly a good look. But, in all, I'm allowed to openly state my thoughts in the court of public opinion, I'm able to vote to elect a representative, able to practice religion as I'd like, etc.

For sure, the validity of all of that is affected deeply by the corruption of capital in those arenas, but there's something to be said about the power to openly share ideas and influence fellow citizens without active censorship. Keeping in mind things like COINTELPRO and Fred Hampton, etc, I obviously can't say in good conscience that the government has never censored it's citizens, but the purported adherence to the first amendment and being "the land of the free" at least makes them work for it.

Sorry for the novel lol. It's a complicated subject and there's a lot of nuance to try and tease out

I think the delineation between authoritarian regimes and non-authoritarian governments is pretty clear

Why are you unable to explain it then?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago

I believe they are suggesting that, if "authoritarian" means anything, that every large state that has ever existed was "authoritarian," though some diffuse the authority through things like enclosure of the commons combined with strict property laws or other, older methods like religious law.

load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1106 points (88.2% liked)

Memes

45728 readers
744 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS