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 2 years ago (23 children)

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 2 years ago (2 children)

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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

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 2 years ago (14 children)

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.

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (22 replies)

[–] bagend@hexbear.net 16 points 2 years ago (12 children)

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

[–] Alterecho@midwest.social 1 points 2 years 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

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

Why are you unable to explain it then?

[–] Alterecho@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think the dictionary definition is as I mentioned in a below comment, but the colloquial meaning has more to do with censorship by the government and restrictions on freedoms than go beyond those necessary for the health and welfare of other citizens.

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

that go beyond those necessary for the health and welfare of other citizens.

What do you think of Chile under Allende? Do you think it met this standard?

[–] Alterecho@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

So just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general I have a favorable opinion of Allende's policy. Part of it is hard because, while he did some things that I agree with 10000% like increasing access to education and making basics like bread accessible, I don't have enough context to accurately judge my feelings on some of the other policies that he enacted, like land seizure. The other half of that is it's hard to see the long-term effects of policies that were then invalidated by a CIA-led coup and Pinochet.

Do you know of any places where his policies actively (for the context of our previous conversation) would be considered "authoritarian"?

[–] DictatrshipOfTheseus@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I think you missed the whole point of GarbageShoot asking you specifically about Allende.

just based on a small snippet of reading about them, I think in general [...]

I think this is the main problem here: a lack of knowledge about the historical context of "authoritarian" socialist projects, but nevertheless making generalized statements about them without even considering the material reasons why they were by necessity "authoritarian." Read up more about the history of Chile and consider what happened to Allende and the hope of a socialist Chile. Who came after Allende (and almost as important, who installed that successor)? Why do these events seem so familiar when learning about every other attempt, successful or not, to bring about a communist society? When you've done that, you will at the very least have a leg to stand on when criticizing so-called tankie authoritarianism.

I'd also suggest reading The Jakarta Method. Here's a somewhat relevant quote from it:

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Alterecho@midwest.social 1 points 2 years ago

That's fair- where the line of "authoritarianism" is drawn depends on historic, social, and economic context. I think modern colloquial usage is certainly shaped by western values, simply because America's primary export is culture, and that's what happens when you shout loud enough over enough time.