Remember me comrades!

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

748 comments

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
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  Yeah, what they should have said is that authoritarianism as a term is mainly used as a truncheon against non Western countries in order to increase support for Western hegemony, which it absolutely is.
  
  You are correct, I should have picked my words more precisely, thanks for explaining what I meant better than I could have
  
  I disagree but that at least would have been a better argument
  
  And you disagree why?
  
  Yeah, but you doing that is unhelpful. It is confusing people because that is not a reasonable place to find criticism with the argument. Too much precision is not helpful in arguments and the CIA literally ran propaganda programs to get people to try to bog down any discussion of communism with meaningless minutiae. So, do better or something.
  
  It is helpful because it's not about having too much precision, he made a bullshit argument and I found it ridiculous.
  
  I'm not sure you if you can see my pronouns because federation is still kinda confusing to me, but I go by they/them please thanks ❤
  
  Didn't see but will keep in mind for the future, sorry and thank you for understanding
  
  No worries mate ☺️
  
  Look at the replies? Was it really helpful? No. I am glad you found it emotionally validating but that is not reason enough do to all that.
  
  Yeah cause I only comment when I think everyone's gonna agree with me
- 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.
  
  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".
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  in the past
  You're running damage control for Western atrocities right now.
  
  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
  
  Who do you vote for to put a stop to US support for the occupation of Syria? Which US politicians are you voting for to end the murderous sanctions against Cuba, Iran the DPRK and Venezuela? Which US politicians have pledged to quit murdering civilians in Yemen? Which US politicians support Palestinian human rights or at least want to quit bankrolling the open air prison they live in? Which US politicians support ending the concentration camps at our borders? Or slowing down all the refugee deportations to Latin American countries we've devastated with all of our "interventions?"
  Oh wait, there are none with any power or possibility of getting serious power. Actually the only one putting a stop to the bloodshed in Yemen is China.
  The fact is that you probably vote for the Democrats because you wouldn't be shameless enough to vote for Republicans and then claim that you vote against the US's mass murdering behavior, but the Democrats don't have any intentions of ending any of these atrocities and if you're claiming that they do you're either a gullible fool or a murder-supporting liar.
  Maybe you vote Green? They might be less evil than the GOP and DNC but they will NEVER hold power so they have no impact on how evil the US is.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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.

748 comments