Problem with bad things, like bad arguments, lack thought or think about self. Also call self reflection.
Ask self, apartments good, yes. Ask self, stalin good, on whole probably not. Ask self, authoritarianism good, on whole no is bad. Ask self, shit posting on lemmy good, depends.
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.
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.
How are you gonna defend your country from fascism if you won’t express authority on hostile invasions? You think Hitler was defeated by just chillin and giving up authority? I gotta stop taking the bait.
Edit: if you abolish the government already before this theoretical invasion there is no voluntary training, there is no organization because you need authority to back those systems up otherwise some Nazis are just going to act cool until you train them and then they’ll take all your shit. Or just come in and kill you while your random decentralized groups are training and organizing.
So now your back @ square one, no government, everything is decentralized (no one group of organizers because those who organize into hierarchy are authoritarian) Nazis took all your weapons, and I ask again, how are you going to defend your country which has now been violently invaded and destroyed by fascists?
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.
I have a feeling youre going to take this as disingenuous because it challenges your notions and people typically get defensive when pushed on something that does not have the most solid of foundations, which it seems to me to be whats going on with you, but these questions are genuine.
An organization of armed vigilantes fighting against whomever they decide is a “bad actor” wanting to “coup” “their” community? Sounds authoritarian.
Also, try to be less vague.
Who decides what a “bad actor” is?
What makes it a “coup” compared to just a change in leadership?
What makes it “their” community and how are the “bad actors” separate from said community?
What if you don’t have any volunteers?
Where do you get the weapons from?
Who organises the training and how?
What happens if a volunteer won’t participate in the training?
What if I disagree with your volunteers?
What if I, as a volunteer, disagree on the course of action?
You seem to be imagining some sort of situation where you have a society that’s organised well enough to be able to supply itself with arms and all other logistical needs for a prolonged conflict. Such a society is one with a remarkable industrial base, meaning it is quite large. How did that come to be at that point?
How are the materials passed around, who decides what goes where and why does everyone go along with it? What happens when needs change or there is not sufficient material?
You also seem to imagine everyone just agreeing on a course of action. How is said course organised?
You seem to imagine that this volunteer corps springs into action with unilateral support against some vague “bad actor”. How does this “bad actor” manage to come to a position where they can “coup” (and what is it they are “couping”?) yet also one where everyone agrees that this bad actor is an outsider that must be fought and not just a political reformer?
I have a feeling youre going to take this as disingenuous because it challenges your notions and people typically get defensive when pushed on something that does not have the most solid of foundations, which it seems to me to be whats going on with you, but these questions are genuine.
I take it comments as disingenuous when I sense the commenter wants to argue in bad faith. You’re clearly trying to argue in good faith, so I don’t understand the assumption. I enjoy getting pushed on my political beliefs because if challenges me to think about them more deeply.
An organization of armed vigilantes fighting against whomever they decide is a “bad actor” wanting to “coup” “their” community? Sounds authoritarian.
Please explain. To me, that sounds more authoritative rather than authoritarian. While they might sound like near synonyms, I am considering colloquial usage of the words when I use them, especially in the way that western propaganda outlets have defined the word “authoritarian.”
Also, try to be less vague.
Who decides what a “bad actor” is?
I am being vague on purpose because there is no single example of a bad actor who would seek control. A bad actor could be someone or a group of people who have power-seeking behavior who specifically seek to control a populace. A bad actor could also be a foreign state attempting to seize land to make it a part of their empire and/or to use the populace for slave labor.
What makes it a “coup” compared to just a change in leadership?
A coup is involuntary. A change in leadership in an anarchist society (assuming a leadership position or positions are absolutely necessary and there could be no reasonable substitute) would be purely democratic in nature, and more importantly be kept on very small scales.
A quick aside, I’m in favor of a form of governance where there is a larger federation of small communities who all have independence, but all work together towards common goals, and I am keeping that vague on purpose since I am not the decider of what those common goals are. I guess vague terms like “peace” and “prosperity” would come to mind. The small communities would be where the actual people live, and would be where they have direct control over how their lives are run via direct democratic rule. The larger federation would be involved with guaranteeing that necessities are able to be provided based on a taxation system. One of these necessities would include arms. Now since this federation would have a lot of power, avoiding corruption would be difficult, espcially since people have to be involved. In terms of rulemaking, direct democracy would be what I am in favor of. In terms of leadership positions, maybe something like a sortition system could be implemented, but I could be swayed if there are better systems.
What makes it “their” community and how are the “bad actors” separate from said community?
The bad actors do not necessarily have to come from outside the community. I do not believe I fully understand the first part of the question, though, but if I were to guess, you are asking what defines a community. If that is the case, the community would decide that on their own terms democratically.
What if you don’t have any volunteers?
Then, quite frankly, that specific community is almost certainly doomed to failure unless another nearby community chooses to defend them.
Where do you get the weapons from?
Weapons manufacturers. I’m personally in favor of the organizational structure of worker cooperatives as that is the closest implementatiom of democracy I’ve seen in the context of a business structure, but that is by no means the only valid form of organization of a business. There would also be trade amongst communities and other countries. Also see the above point about the larger federation.
Who organises the training and how?
Volunteers who are already trained (while the Bootstrap Paradox would normally apply, there are already plenty of people across the world who are more than qualified and willing to train a volunteer militia). And in terms of how? It could be as simple as posting a sign-up sheet on a public bulletin board with a meeting place and time.
What happens if a volunteer won’t participate in the training?
They are free to leave. If the organizers see them as an active hinderance, the organizers would be free to kick them out.
What if I disagree with your volunteers?
Then speak out. Maybe you have a good idea that could be implemented. If the organizers disagree but the vast majority of volunteers think it could be a good idea to implement, maybe if could be put to a vote. I’d like an example, though.
What if I, as a volunteer, disagree on the course of action?
I’m failing to distinguish this question from the last one.
You seem to be imagining some sort of situation where you have a society that’s organised well enough to be able to supply itself with arms and all other logistical needs for a prolonged conflict. Such a society is one with a remarkable industrial base, meaning it is quite large. How did that come to be at that point?
Time, effort, resources, trade, and hard work. There’s no secret magic.
How are the materials passed around, who decides what goes where and why does everyone go along with it?
Trade would still exist amongst and within communities, and even amongst countries. We currently live in a global society, and I don’t see that changing. As for why people would go along with it, because it benefits everyone involved (same reason people trade today). It’s not like society would be starting from scratch.
What happens when needs change or there is not sufficient material?
It depends on what those specific needs are or what those specific materials are and who has the availability of those materials. Different situations call for different solutions.
You also seem to imagine everyone just agreeing on a course of action. How is said course organised?
When did I say everyone would unanimously agree on anything? I am in favor of direct democracy on small scales wherever possible, and on larger scales when needed. Humans rarely unanimously agree on anything.
You seem to imagine that this volunteer corps springs into action with unilateral support against some vague “bad actor”. How does this “bad actor” manage to come to a position where they can “coup” (and what is it they are “couping”?) yet also one where everyone agrees that this bad actor is an outsider that must be fought and not just a political reformer?
I’ve already answered some of these questions, so I will just touch on the points that I haven’t answered yet. Unilateral support for basically anything is damn near impossible, and political reformers are welcome, even if they are outsiders. The key is democratic consent amongst the community.
Now, there is a more difficult question that, while you didn’t directly ask, I feel was implied, and that is how does a community determine who wishes to cause harm on a mass scale enough to coup the community before it happens? I can’t say I have the perfect answer to that, as there is no one specific type of person or group who can be identified, and many times, they blend in very well.
Hell, sometimes, they could even gain actual support and cause real harm completely democratically using good ol’ tried-and-true divide and conquer strategies. My hope to avoid that specific scenario is that if people are living good, comfortable lives that they feel they have a direct say in that divide and conquer (whether that be the introduction of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia or whatever other “ism” or “phobia” you want to throw in there) would be much less likely to work.
Not to mention the very vague definitions going on.
Who decides what a “bad actor” is?
What makes it a “coup” compared to just a change in leadership?
What makes it “their” community where it is also not the “bad actors” community?
What if you don’t have any volunteers?
Where do you get the weapons from?
Who organises the training and how?
What happens if a volunteer won’t participate in the training?
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.
“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.
“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”.
“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?”
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”.
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.
Why are you writing like that? I looked at your profile; you’ve shown in other places you can write a coherent sentence. So is this some kind of affectation? What are you trying to convey by pretending to be illiterate?
Ussr can do good thing. Can also do bad thing.
Problem with bad things, like bad arguments, lack thought or think about self. Also call self reflection.
Ask self, apartments good, yes. Ask self, stalin good, on whole probably not. Ask self, authoritarianism good, on whole no is bad. Ask self, shit posting on lemmy good, depends.
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.
I honestly think we should have a bot where anytime someone says the word authoritarian it just spits this out at them.
Seriously, I find there are just a handful of tropes libs regurgitate like trained parrots. You really can just have a templated response to them.
Every government is authoritarian, so the logical solution would be to abolish government altogether.
Signed,
An anarchist
How are you gonna defend your country from fascism if you won’t express authority on hostile invasions? You think Hitler was defeated by just chillin and giving up authority? I gotta stop taking the bait.
Going to copy paste my previous response:
With weapons, voluntary training programs (both in terms of participation and guidance), and organization.
If some group of bad actors try to coup your community, you don’t just lie back and take it.
That’s authoritarian
Edit: if you abolish the government already before this theoretical invasion there is no voluntary training, there is no organization because you need authority to back those systems up otherwise some Nazis are just going to act cool until you train them and then they’ll take all your shit. Or just come in and kill you while your random decentralized groups are training and organizing.
So now your back @ square one, no government, everything is decentralized (no one group of organizers because those who organize into hierarchy are authoritarian) Nazis took all your weapons, and I ask again, how are you going to defend your country which has now been violently invaded and destroyed by fascists?
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?
Straw man
noun
Specify how what I described is different than what you’d do then. What mechanisms or institutions would you put in place to prevent step 3?
With weapons, voluntary training programs (both in terms of participation and guidance), and organization.
If some group of bad actors try to coup your community, you don’t just lie back and take it.
I have a feeling youre going to take this as disingenuous because it challenges your notions and people typically get defensive when pushed on something that does not have the most solid of foundations, which it seems to me to be whats going on with you, but these questions are genuine.
An organization of armed vigilantes fighting against whomever they decide is a “bad actor” wanting to “coup” “their” community? Sounds authoritarian.
Also, try to be less vague.
Who decides what a “bad actor” is?
What makes it a “coup” compared to just a change in leadership?
What makes it “their” community and how are the “bad actors” separate from said community?
What if you don’t have any volunteers?
Where do you get the weapons from?
Who organises the training and how?
What happens if a volunteer won’t participate in the training?
What if I disagree with your volunteers?
What if I, as a volunteer, disagree on the course of action?
You seem to be imagining some sort of situation where you have a society that’s organised well enough to be able to supply itself with arms and all other logistical needs for a prolonged conflict. Such a society is one with a remarkable industrial base, meaning it is quite large. How did that come to be at that point?
How are the materials passed around, who decides what goes where and why does everyone go along with it? What happens when needs change or there is not sufficient material?
You also seem to imagine everyone just agreeing on a course of action. How is said course organised?
You seem to imagine that this volunteer corps springs into action with unilateral support against some vague “bad actor”. How does this “bad actor” manage to come to a position where they can “coup” (and what is it they are “couping”?) yet also one where everyone agrees that this bad actor is an outsider that must be fought and not just a political reformer?
I take it comments as disingenuous when I sense the commenter wants to argue in bad faith. You’re clearly trying to argue in good faith, so I don’t understand the assumption. I enjoy getting pushed on my political beliefs because if challenges me to think about them more deeply.
Please explain. To me, that sounds more authoritative rather than authoritarian. While they might sound like near synonyms, I am considering colloquial usage of the words when I use them, especially in the way that western propaganda outlets have defined the word “authoritarian.”
I am being vague on purpose because there is no single example of a bad actor who would seek control. A bad actor could be someone or a group of people who have power-seeking behavior who specifically seek to control a populace. A bad actor could also be a foreign state attempting to seize land to make it a part of their empire and/or to use the populace for slave labor.
A coup is involuntary. A change in leadership in an anarchist society (assuming a leadership position or positions are absolutely necessary and there could be no reasonable substitute) would be purely democratic in nature, and more importantly be kept on very small scales.
A quick aside, I’m in favor of a form of governance where there is a larger federation of small communities who all have independence, but all work together towards common goals, and I am keeping that vague on purpose since I am not the decider of what those common goals are. I guess vague terms like “peace” and “prosperity” would come to mind. The small communities would be where the actual people live, and would be where they have direct control over how their lives are run via direct democratic rule. The larger federation would be involved with guaranteeing that necessities are able to be provided based on a taxation system. One of these necessities would include arms. Now since this federation would have a lot of power, avoiding corruption would be difficult, espcially since people have to be involved. In terms of rulemaking, direct democracy would be what I am in favor of. In terms of leadership positions, maybe something like a sortition system could be implemented, but I could be swayed if there are better systems.
The bad actors do not necessarily have to come from outside the community. I do not believe I fully understand the first part of the question, though, but if I were to guess, you are asking what defines a community. If that is the case, the community would decide that on their own terms democratically.
Then, quite frankly, that specific community is almost certainly doomed to failure unless another nearby community chooses to defend them.
Weapons manufacturers. I’m personally in favor of the organizational structure of worker cooperatives as that is the closest implementatiom of democracy I’ve seen in the context of a business structure, but that is by no means the only valid form of organization of a business. There would also be trade amongst communities and other countries. Also see the above point about the larger federation.
Volunteers who are already trained (while the Bootstrap Paradox would normally apply, there are already plenty of people across the world who are more than qualified and willing to train a volunteer militia). And in terms of how? It could be as simple as posting a sign-up sheet on a public bulletin board with a meeting place and time.
They are free to leave. If the organizers see them as an active hinderance, the organizers would be free to kick them out.
Then speak out. Maybe you have a good idea that could be implemented. If the organizers disagree but the vast majority of volunteers think it could be a good idea to implement, maybe if could be put to a vote. I’d like an example, though.
I’m failing to distinguish this question from the last one.
Time, effort, resources, trade, and hard work. There’s no secret magic.
Trade would still exist amongst and within communities, and even amongst countries. We currently live in a global society, and I don’t see that changing. As for why people would go along with it, because it benefits everyone involved (same reason people trade today). It’s not like society would be starting from scratch.
It depends on what those specific needs are or what those specific materials are and who has the availability of those materials. Different situations call for different solutions.
When did I say everyone would unanimously agree on anything? I am in favor of direct democracy on small scales wherever possible, and on larger scales when needed. Humans rarely unanimously agree on anything.
I’ve already answered some of these questions, so I will just touch on the points that I haven’t answered yet. Unilateral support for basically anything is damn near impossible, and political reformers are welcome, even if they are outsiders. The key is democratic consent amongst the community.
Now, there is a more difficult question that, while you didn’t directly ask, I feel was implied, and that is how does a community determine who wishes to cause harm on a mass scale enough to coup the community before it happens? I can’t say I have the perfect answer to that, as there is no one specific type of person or group who can be identified, and many times, they blend in very well.
Hell, sometimes, they could even gain actual support and cause real harm completely democratically using good ol’ tried-and-true divide and conquer strategies. My hope to avoid that specific scenario is that if people are living good, comfortable lives that they feel they have a direct say in that divide and conquer (whether that be the introduction of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia or whatever other “ism” or “phobia” you want to throw in there) would be much less likely to work.
Say’s who? The community is supposed to just organically resist this? There’s no organizational structure? Because that would be a government.
Not to mention the very vague definitions going on.
Who decides what a “bad actor” is?
What makes it a “coup” compared to just a change in leadership?
What makes it “their” community where it is also not the “bad actors” community?
What if you don’t have any volunteers?
Where do you get the weapons from?
Who organises the training and how?
What happens if a volunteer won’t participate in the training?
Which the government’s supporters will promptly call you authoritarian for doing.
Capitalists aren’t going to let you abolish their rule without an organized violence that they will tell others is “authoritarian”.
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.
So all governments
That’s just every government. The word is completely meaningless using your definition, you can just say “state” or “government” or “regime”.
“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
Is there a real world example of the bourgeois specifically calling revolutionairies authoritarian, or is that limited to theory?
Yes, see basically every revolution, but look at Cuba for a prime example
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”.
Western media regularly calls China and DPRK authoritarian.
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.
Abolishing the government with a hostile world order that seeks to overthrow you is equally moronic as it is suicidal.
ohh, how cute, 5 year old learnt to use the internet.
How’s that working out for y’all?
Why are you writing like that? I looked at your profile; you’ve shown in other places you can write a coherent sentence. So is this some kind of affectation? What are you trying to convey by pretending to be illiterate?
name a non-authoritarian country
This reads like this was written by a toddler.
What would the absence of ‘authoritarianism’ be called?