For the libs - read 'On Authority' by Engels. Its very short.
For the libs - read 'On Authority' by Engels. Its very short.
You're viewing a single thread.
I kinda had an epiphany today. Liberals use the word "authoritarian" to mean "lack of representation from a plurality of interests, instead all representation is done by a single interest"
That would mean every single socialist country by default, since communist parties represent working class interests and disenfranchise capitalist interests. Since liberals dismiss a Marxist understanding of economic class, they can only see administration by a communist party as needlessly strict and dictatorial, since they literally do not see a difference between capitalist and worker. They can only surmise a communist party takes power for no reason at all except to be evil. Authoritarian might as well just mean "bad." It's when bad things happen.
Yeah, they can't even actually describe what they mean by authoritarian. They name countries, but not describe what it means. It is just bad to them, that's how they're encouraged to use it and understand it by propaganda
I'm coming to understand what they mean by authoritarian is "unfair." There are unfair circumstances that don't allow liberals to take power through their preferred democratic theater mechanisms. There are restrictions on things like large business interests involving themselves within the political sphere. There's only a single party, meaning a liberal/capitalist party can't gain representation. There are restrictions on media that prevent a liberal viewpoint from dominating. And since they're liberals they can't just say they want to overthrow socialism because it's contrary to their interests. Instead they have to invent this complex mythology about authoritarian abuses of power that would justify the advocacy of overthrowing a foreign country.
I think you're really onto something with this. "Unfair" really does seem to sum up their objections to single party states, and not allowing reactionaries voices.
In the US for example free soeech brainworms are drummed into young peoples heads with the idea of fairness. KKK member has to have free speech too or maybe you wouldn't. It has to be fair. The content if the speech doesn't matter.
That example isnt hyperbole for anyone who doesn't know, thats the literal court case they use to talk about free speech. A KKK member had a show on local access cable and sued when he was kicked off air. Got to be fair. It would be authoritarian to not let reactionaries speak
Yeah, the ACLU sued on the behalf of the KKK to march through a majority black neighborhood where kids could see them. Just all around lack of empathy from free speech warriors.
Yeah, another foundational case was allowing Nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie Illinois, where some of the people living there were Holocaust survivors.
Interestingly, finding that out helped me shake out some of my
back in collegeYeah the ACLU loves to defend the KKK.
meanwhile, near-total media dominance by bourgeois interests is "fair" because you too could buy a cable network for 10 billion dollars
I'm coming to understand what they mean by authoritarian is "unfair."
it's more nuanced than that for example the fact America only has two parties with any chance of success is unfair, the fact the UK has a heritary monarch who is above the law and a place for heritary aristocrats within the legislature is unfair
neither of these countries are called authoritarian
what I mean is unfair for liberals. If liberals see that a country has mechanisms in place to curtail or dismiss ideological liberals, then it's authoritarian. You're right that it's nuanced too, because it's a term almost exclusively used for countries that aren't white.
They don't undersrand comradery.