• PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    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 [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

      • PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t particularly care as that wasn’t my point. My point was to disagree with your comment prior which stated that authoritarian as a term was mainly used as a truncheon against communist nations in order to increase support for capitalism, which it isn’t.

    • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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.

          spoiler

          us-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.

          • PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            God this is just like being in college again. You can’t be serious, as you must understand the difference between using eminent domain vs a pogrom. Like maybe I’m being dramatic, but I think that the Uyghurs might be slightly more inconvenienced than someone who at worst is getting a paycheck in order to move their house. There’s is a significant difference in how countries even go about implementing shit as well, as eminent domain in a modern democracy vs eminent domain in a authoritarian dictatorship could be executed radically differently.

            • axont [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are however disregarding how a nation conducts itself internationally, instead focusing entirely on domestic policy. Should we not consider how a nation acts towards people outside of its own borders as this authoritarianism? If we include a country’s imperialism, you’ll find the overwhelmingly most violent, brutal and authoritarian nations are the USA, the EU, and the west in general.

              • PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                While I wholeheartedly agree with you that there are serious human rights problems in the way the EU and US has conducted itself overseas in the past, you are grossly underestimating just how fucked up other countries behave themselves when operating past their own borders

                  • PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure, you’re right, but again, you are downplaying atrocities by other nations far greater right now. Would I like the US to conduct itself better? Of course. Do I advocate and vote in a way that supports that? Of course. Do I think the US is the worst compared to other countries? Not even close

                • axont [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll put it like this:

                  The external imperialism of western countries far outweighs the danger, threat, and damage to human life than even the most cartoonish and absurd claims about the alleged internal authoritarianism in countries like Cuba, China, and the DPRK. It’s such a massive disconnect and it’s also not even a dialectical comparison.

                  The external imperialism of western nations is precisely what generates the security apparatuses that are developed within modern socialist countries. Most of the time what you regard as gross and needless authoritarianism is in fact socialist states defending themselves from external aggression. Go listen to Parenti talking about the measures Nicaragua had to take in regards to capitalist encirclement.

                  And furthermore, the decision to not use the term authoritarian to describe western nations constantly confuses me. Is it because the term imperialism is more accurate? If you want my gut feeling on this: authoritarian, totalitarian, and related terms were all cooked up by liberal historians like Hannah Arendt to make the USSR sound like the same type of thing as Nazi Germany, which is frankly Holocaust trivialization.

        • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          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.

          • PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree and I don’t appreciate people splitting hairs when very obviously it is not the case. Anyone can sit down and stare that “oh well this is authoritarian because if you don’t pay your taxes you lose your home”, and it’s completely irrelevant to any legitimate conversation. There’s a difference between the United States and Pol Pots Cambodia, and if you’re gonna try to argue that they’re the same then I’m done

            • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s not splitting hairs, it’s literally the entire point of the discussion. I understand that you’ve had the idea that there’s some fundamental, qualitive, difference between the authoritarianism of Western counties and the authoritarianism of foreigners so deeply instilled in you that the idea of questioning it, or even having to justify it, is absurd to you. But the fact of the matter is that it is perfectly reasonable “legitimate conversation” to actually ask you to back up your claims, and you trying to assert that it’s just “obvious” that you’re right and if anyone tries to argue “you’re just done” just makes it clear that you’ve never actually examined why you hold these beliefs and you refuse to do so.

              There’s a difference between the United States and Pol Pots Cambodia, and if you’re gonna try to argue that they’re the same then I’m done

              You’re right, there is a difference: an order of magnitude more people have been killed and emiserated by the USA.

              • PvtGetSum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Incorrect. In the past I had been a dues paying member of socialist/leftist organizations, I went to school for politics and philosophy, I’ve spent years of my life having conversations with people like you and reading arguments and following these topics. I’m not done because I’m ignorant or unwilling to face a truth, I’m done because I think you’re wrong, and that you’re unable to see reason. I’ve had this conversation dozens of times. No rational person would look at how an atrocity like the Pol Pot regime conducted itself and say “Yeah that wasn’t fun but look at America! That’s where the real evil is!” It’s insane. For that reason I hope you have a nice evening, I will not be continuing this conversation.

                • brain_in_a_box [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Incorrect. In the past I had been a dues paying member of socialist/leftist organizations, I went to school for politics and philosophy, I’ve spent years of my life having conversations with people like you and reading arguments and following these topics. I’m not done because I’m ignorant or unwilling to face a truth

                  Didn’t ask, don’t care.

                  I’m going off the actual content of your statements, and that content is that you take liberalism as axiomatically true and you fundamentally are unwilling to examine that axiom, instead writing off anyone who challenges it as “not rational” or even “insane” and refusing to engage further.