this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2025
343 points (92.1% liked)
Comics
7517 readers
42 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine π΅πΈ . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple β- Meβ would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the βLinkβ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can't have two definitions of authoritarianism, here's the actual definition from a dictionary "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.".
More knowledge for the hungry below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#%3A%7E%3Atext=11+External+links-%2CCharacteristics%2Cthe+goals+of+the+regime.
Right-libertarians or anarcho-capitalists would say the same thing about libertarianism, a word historically coined to mean mostly the opposite of their ideology - a word they later co-opted to dress their preferred ideology (capitalism) up with language that implies freedom.
I'll remain steadfast in my position: capitalism is economic authoritarianism by nature. Many thinkers agree that authoritarianism is a continuum or spectrum.
The good thing about dictionaries is that we don't have to follow them strictly regarding political theory, which is fluid and evolving by nature. But regardless, "favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority [...] at the expense of personal freedom" seems to be a core principle of capitalist institutions. Regulation cannot meaningfully address core internal authoritarian structures and hierarchy present in capitalism.
The only examples of capitalism being compatible with libertarian or democratic governance would be in a direct democracy, with stronger regulation than anywhere on the planet, or in examples like worker-owned cooperatives (if that concept was enforced or widespread) - however, it would be closer to market socialism at that point.
Even in Sweden, contesting the violence (inherent in the enforcement of private property) of capitalist institutions would be met with violence.
How the fuck is an inanimate object supposed to be violent?
A relevant example in Sweden is the pending Kallak iron ore mine, which is opposed by the indigenous population because it threatens reindeer herding. Sweden is exerting violence, albeit under the guise of legal frameworks and processes, to maintain the rights of capitalist resource extraction over favoring true democratic processes and considering indigenous or local livelihoods.
If all this gets approved and the mine becomes operational, even local protestors or affected indigenous communities will be removed if they interfere or block operations. There is certainly an element of violence in a state enforcing property rights.
We see this with the Dakota Access Pipeline more starkly, organizers of the protests against its construction recently faced a lawsuit with harsh financial penalties, and protestors (including indigenous individuals) were dispersed with violence (with the use of LRADs, rubber bullets, sprayed with water in freezing temperatures, or were arrested) so construction could proceed.
There's this thing called a court system where people use democracy to handle such disputes.
It's not working.
The DAPL was built, leaked multiple times, and damaged indigenous land (including their water). The people organizing the protests were fined more than $660 million through the court systems and many indigenous individuals were arrested and some charged - again through the court systems. The arrests happened under Obama, who appeased the tribe upon leaving office after deafening silence, which was short-lived as this was subsequently very quickly overridden by Trump. The courts were silent to their pleas, from start to finish.
The democracy in Sweden, which you loosely tout as a gold standard, is similarly deaf to their local indigenous population and other concerned individuals, including other locals, and they are running out of legal options.
It's the Sami's land that they are constructing the mine on, but the Sami have to fight to stop the construction of a mine that could damage their livelihood and harm the environment, including their water? Make it make sense. Courts favor capitalists in capitalist economies - you need capital as input and legal action is very expensive.
This is an authoritarian move by Sweden and the only democratic process is for the Sami to go broke fighting this. When it's inevitably approved, their only real option is to see their land be taken, have their sovereignty/land rights impacted, have their water contaminated, and see their food and financial livelihood affected significantly. The damage will be permanent, even if some time down the road, an appeal or other democratic process rules in their favor.
If they do anything outside of the law to respond to the mine, including enforcing their land rights themselves, their personal freedom will be impacted and their "strict obedience to authority" will be enforced and subsequently maintained.
But right, Sweden isn't authoritarian - not even a little bit. I'm so convinced.
Can I see your source?
I'm not sourcing every single claim. I promise that I am not purposely misrepresenting any key facts or spinning anything in regards to indigenous land being impacted in so-called democracies. I have a libertarian socialist bias and I feel strongly in my belief that capitalism is incompatible with democracy - that's my opinion and there is no source for that.
If there is anything specific that you would like sourced, because it is unbelievable or difficult for you to verify, feel free to ask. It's my opinion and belief that if there is a spill, there is damage, too.
Otherwise, if you are interested, I strongly invite you to investigate not only my claims but these indigenous land disputes in a general sense.
We can sit here all day and night arguing political theory and definitions, but these are real issues with permanent consequences. Mines tend to have environmental effects on a greater scale than most are willing to admit.