Commie Blocs (thelemmy.club)
submitted 21 hours ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 34 points 19 hours ago* (23 children)

The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.

The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.

What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That’s precisely what’s driving political discontent all across western sphere today.

Ask yourself is guzzling western propaganda uncritically good, on the whole no is bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that’s used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.

    The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.

    I honestly think we should have a bot where anytime someone says the word authoritarian it just spits this out at them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -11 points 19 hours ago* (20 children)

    Every government is authoritarian, so the logical solution would be to abolish government altogether.

    Signed,
    An anarchist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (2 children)

    Step 1: Abolish Government

    Step 2: Establish absolutely no institutional infrastucture to ensure nobody else makes a new government. Because that would be authoritatian.

    Step 3: Someone makes another government by establishing a monopoly on violence.

    Step 4: Abolish Government... wait what?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 43 minutes ago* (1 child)

    Straw man
    noun

    • An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
    • A doll or scarecrow (particularly one stuffed with straw).
    • An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavor or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 18 hours ago (12 children)

    Capitalists aren't going to let you abolish their rule without an organized violence that they will tell others is "authoritarian".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 17 hours ago (11 children)

    You mean a revolution? In that case, I can agree with all but the very last word.

    "Authoritarian" is (generally speaking) a word used to describe governments' usage of violence or other means to either establish or maintain rule over their populace.

    The capitalist class (or, more generally speaking speaking, the powerful elite) will more often use terms like "barbarians," "rioters," or similar language. They will reserve the word "authoritarian" as a separate method of propaganda to go to war with countries they want to steal natural resources from or to otherwise invade to expand their empire, though I'm not a historian by any means, so the idea of "regieme change" might be a bit newer than I'm thinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 hours ago

    “Authoritarian” is (generally speaking) a word used to describe governments’ usage of violence or other means to either establish or maintain rule over their populace.

    So all governments

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago

    “Authoritarian” is (generally speaking) a word used to describe governments’ usage of violence or other means to either establish or maintain rule over their populace.

    That's just every government. The word is completely meaningless using your definition, you can just say "state" or "government" or "regime".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 9 points 15 hours ago (8 children)

    “A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?”

    ― Frederick Engels

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 14 hours ago (7 children)

    Is there a real world example of the bourgeois specifically calling revolutionairies authoritarian, or is that limited to theory?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago*

    Cuba, China, Vietnam, USSR, DPRK, Soviet Afghanistan (The one where women weren't slaves, which the US overthrew in favour of poppy-growing pedophiles), East Germany, Nelson Mandela, Venezuela, Chile, the list goes on. Similarly: Countries that do not have governments, they have "regimes". They do not have Vice-presidents or deputies, they have "hand-picked successors".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 13 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

    Western media regularly calls China and DPRK authoritarian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 14 hours ago* (3 children)

    Those are governments/countries and not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about an organization of people attempting a revolution on their own government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    Oh, they cultivate anarchists domestically to do that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    Define what you mean by anarchist, because we may have very different definitions of the word.

    When I say anarchist, I mean those who believe in the philosophical ideals of anarchism, which could manifest in many different forms, but all have one common thread, being having the ideal of the abolition of heirarchy in society (which makes something like AnCap not anarchy despite its name).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment