If something is a propaganda it does not automatically mean it’s false.
propaganda n 1: information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
Yep, correct. Propaganda can be for a good cause, like for climate activism.
Or promoting socialism
Yep!
Sure. But the meme still holds.
Yes yes but the truth is always in the middle. (I am so smart)
Far-Right: Donald Trump and Xi Jinping
Far-Left: DSA
The Middle: ducking Amy Klobacher throwing a stapler
Took me a moment to realize this is rhetorical device to illustrate the point.
Anyone says anything against their worldview
Libs: HURR DURR .ML HURR DURR TANKIE
Yeah, kinda. But, it’s far righties that jizz over capitalism the most. Trump’s such a good businessman. He will run the country great, it’s a business after all.
Does it happen a lot around here though? Most of the time I think we’re mostly just critical of Capitalists and Authoritarians. Usually Socialism, real Communism, and Anarchism are not really critisized except by some .world users.
Edit: Except during a round of good ol’ Leftist Infighting.
Authoritarianism is just yet another word made up by the west to label communists
I mean, it’s definitely a deliberately ill-defined term that’s used to conflate dictatorships of the bourgeoisie and dictatorships of proletariat. Also, mysteriously, never seems to describe friendly oligarchies like MBS’s Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu’s Israel, Milei’s Argentina, or Bukele’s El Salvador.
But its language that’s very intentionally borrowed from Anarcho-Capitalism, intended to defame any kind of public governing structure. The end goal of describing every governing body we don’t like as “authoritarian” is to venerate “free markets” as a utopian alternative to popular governance.
It’s not just about communism. It’s a term intended to denigrate any kind of popular government.
Wouldn’t you consider Hitler’s ideology authoritarian? Or Mussolini’s?
It’s not about if an ideology uses authority to entrench itself. Every state and organization with any power in the world does that. It’s about who wields that authority against who, and for what purpose. We generally consider Hitler and Mussolini to be exceptionally “authoritarian”, but in reality the only thing exceptional about them was that they directed that authority inward instead of just outward, the latter of which we in the west are all more accustomed to. They took the full-spectrum colonial violence typically reserved for non-white people outside their borders, and directed it also towards white people within their borders. This (and only this) is what we have been taught to view as an unacceptable aberration.
TLDR Authority itself is not “good” or “evil”. Authority is just a weapon like any other, and what makes it heroic or repugnant is who wields it against who.
I agree with you and don’t feel it contradicts the opinion that “authoritarian” is more than a mere tool against communists
Either way, and as I’ve said in another comment, this feels mostly like discussing semantics, but I’m enjoying the civilised conversation
It’s less that “authoritarian” is made up, and more that it’s useless. Hitler and Mussolini represented the capitalist class and oppressed workers and other social groups. Socialist states represent workers, and oppress capitalists and fascists through land reform and collectivization. Both wield authority, but some for good and some for bad.
I don’t agree with equating the behaviour of fascist states and AES.
Yes both wield authority, but one’s authority is backed by a small number of people with access to great power and resources, while other’s authority is legitimised by the will of the majority
I believe that difference is critical in differentiating the two
The importance is in equating what is equal, while showing that the term alone says nothing about how the power is spread or whose interests it upholds. Liberals often decry the “authoritarianism” of, say, Cuba, which wielded its authority in the favor of policies like comprehensive land reform for the good of the people.
I’ll be honest, I don’t know enough about Cuba to know whether or not it deserves the label. I’ve seen first accounts of events supporting both views, that Cuba is on path to a society exempt from exploitation and that it’s ruled by an oppressive elite that uses the aesthetic of Marxism to fool the population.
If you have any suggestions on how to learn more I’d appreciate it.
And yes “authoritarianism” is reductive of all interactions in a political system, we agree on that
The Republic of Cuba page on Prolewiki is a pretty good starter. Usually people that claim such and such state is only adopting Marxism aesthetically to “fool” the population just fundamentally misunderstand how ideology works and how cultural hegemony works. For that, I recommend the essay Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing.”
I would consider authoritarian a useless word for describing them. Sure, you could call them that and it would fit, but it says very little about them and fails to distinguish them from other states.
All states are authoritarian. Holding and exerting authority is the point of a state. The state exists as a tool for a class to express its authority over the other.
This same issue applies to the term dictatorship as well. When we hear the term authoritarian we must ask authority for whom. When we hear the word dictatorship we must ask what group is dictating and to what end.
Until the state is abolished every society is authoritarian and a dictatorship. So what’s the point of the descriptor?
Edit: if I have been too vague I’m happy to elaborate further
I find it interesting the way you put it
What would a stateless society look like in your opinion? Are there any practical examples?
In addition to what @sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml said, statelessness in the context of communism refers to one that has collectivized production and distribution, and in so doing has eliminated class society. Administration remains, but oppressive tools like police fade away as there no longer is a basis for class struggle. The origin of the state, after all, is class society and a need for a ruling class to win class struggles.
I feel like the definition I use for state might be somewhat different than most around here, as I would consider an administration as a state.
Even without class struggle, crimes and abused would still occur how can a copless society (with millions of members) resolve this issues? Local militias? Wouldn’t those be the “police”?
Curious to hear from you
The basis of crime is nearly always economic. In a society where needs are addressed, including mental health, there really isn’t a basis for crime. Administration isn’t really a class, just like managers aren’t a distinct class from any other worker.
Trying to give an actual image of what stateless society will look like is missing the forest for the trees, though, we won’t know exactly what it will look like until we get there. What we do know is the basis of the state is class struggle, and without class struggle there ceases to be a basis for it.
Honestly, it’s very difficult to imagine and while there is plenty of literature on the subject I don’t think any of us can truly say. I personally have not read the literature and for me to speculate on it would do more harm than good I think. The reality of a stateless society seems so far off from my lifetime that discussing how it might look feels like fantasizing to me. My focus has always been on getting to a point where one is possible and studying how to do so as this is far more relevant to my conditions.
Stateless societies absolutely have existed. The state had to arise at some point. Foraging and horticultural groups are examples of this but neither can sustain our current human population so no they are not practical in the way you are asking. There were also attempts at utopian communism that were internally stateless but ultimately subject to the whims of whatever state they resided in so their status as stateless is debatable. You won’t find a largescale stateless society in the modern era primarily because it would make them incredibly vulnerable. Proposing, hypothetically, you eliminate class within a large industrialized society and therefore internally remove the requirement for a state, that society is still beholden to the global dynamic of imperialism. The state is still required to protect the interests of their society from the contradicting interests of capital abroad. This is why communism must be an international struggle.
What they are saying is that “Authoritarian” is not a precise term that distinguishes anything and was just made up as a way to try to accuse AES states of being just as bad as fascist ones. It’s a horseshoe theory term because any actually accurate term you would use to describe Hitler’s or Mussolini’s ideology would exclude the ideology of socialist states.
Pardon my ignorance but I don’t know the term “AES state”
If I see it through that perspective I get it, still sounds odd to me to label authoritarianism only as a western tool to criticise communists
“AES” meaning “actually existing socialism.” The debate over this word goes all the way back to Engels at least.
Someone else may help me find a link, because I remember reading a different article about this specifically, but these three definitely touch on it:
https://redsails.org/brainwashing/
https://redsails.org/losurdo-on-totalitarianism/ (this one is about “totalitarianism” and the “horseshoe” theory I referenced above)
Thank you for the references
Authoritarian is to hold power, in the basic sense. It is to have a state, and to enact that state power. Anarchist comrades will call any state or ideology authoritarian if it does not go against the state. I am not as well read on this as other, but this is the gist.
Right that’s why I don’t understand @bubblybubbles’s point.
All terms are made up, but it makes sense to have a definition for authoritarianism. It feels like we are just discussing semantics
Hitler’s government qualifies as “authoritarian” in the same way that FDR’s government does. It can describe Starmer’s UK. Or Sheinbaum’s Mexico. It can be applied as easily to Lai Ching-te’s Taiwan as Xi’s China. It’s a nothingburger of a word, mostly implying you don’t like the policies of the person in charge.
I’m not sure I agree with your view.
Words are commonly misused but they still have meanings. In a society where the will of the majority is ignored in favour of the will of the few I think most people would agree it’s an authoritarian society, it’s usually not that black and white but every society is closer or further from authoritarian
deleted by creator
Are you… being sarcastic?
If so: Good one!
If not: I would not like to enguage in the infighting atm, so I bid you a lovely day,No, go break free of the western “media” and look it up, it was a YACACO (Yet Another CIA Anti-Commie Op)
sighs, Ok, fine, if you want to do this rn, I guess we can.
Though I have no doubt it was probobly originally a word meant to slander real communism as the western world has done countless times (few ppl on lemmy would/should deny that the west has produced a shitton of bad anti-commie propoganda), I also fully agree that Authoritarianism does actually exist as much as Capitalism, Communism, and Anarchism exists based off of the actual agreed upon definition. If you take the definition of the system itself, there is no reason to conflate it with Communism. It IS a different system than real Communism, hence why that word was used as Anti-Communist Propaganda. It associates communism with a different (and very real) malignant system to make communism look bad. Sorry if this became too much of a rant, but I really just think that denying the existance of “Authoritarian” states is not a good idea. Let’s explain to people that Communism ≠ Authoritarianism instead of trying to claim that Authoritarianism doesn’t exist.
Edit: I also fully beleive that ANY government/social system can devolve into Authoritarianism if implemented incorrectly or not vigilant enough about making sure not to centralize power in a problematic way.
It’s less that “authoritarian” is made up, and more that it’s useless as a descriptor. Hitler and Mussolini represented the capitalist class and oppressed workers and other social groups. Socialist states represent workers, and oppress capitalists and fascists through land reform and collectivization. Both wield authority, but some for good and some for bad.
“Authoritarianism” is not a distinct mode of production, nor does it actually describe structures. It’s like saying “bad” or “mean,” it has a negative connotation but means almost anything.
Ok so, I have a question. You say “I also fully beleive that ANY government/social system can devolve into Authoritarianism if implemented incorrectly or not vigilant enough about making sure not to centralize power in a problematic way.”
So where is the line for you? What is “problematic power” vs “non-problematic power”.
Like what countries do you think are authoritarian now vs ones that arent?
At what point does a government that enforces laws on the people who live in it through a monopoly on state violence stop being “Not-Authoritarian” and start being “Authoritarian” in your view? I am legit asking because I don’t get why you see some countries as “Authoritarian” and others as not.
(Idk if that persons instance can see my question. If not oops I forget which of them blocks grad.)
Ah dang. It’s so confusing talking on .ml because half of the time the people can’t see what I say.
Who is liberals???
Liberals are generally those who support the capitalist status quo, or think it only needs tweaks.
The liberals were never extreme enough for the communists and Marxist. Although they were made to feel like the group, they were never actually accepted. And for some reason now its being revealed that “liberals” are not extreme enough and part of the problem.
11·1 day agoIt’s not about being “extreme” (and liberalism is plenty extreme, see books like The Jakarta Method, Killing Hope, and Liberalism: A Counter-History), it’s about liberalism being pro-capitalism and therefore Liberals not leftists.
Definitely interesting, thanks for sharing, im gonna look into some of that
Marxists have always opposed liberalism, liberalism is pro-capitalism and anti-socialist and Marxism is anti-capitalist and pro-socialist. Liberalism is extreme though, as Edie pointed out, just in a horrible direction.
Capitalism is shit. Fascism is shit.
The fuck is a “counter source”? That’s just not how the burden of proof works.
Lately it’s been seeming the opposite to me, whenever a criticism is made against soviets / ex Soviets
Depends on the criticism. The Red Scare is well-documented, and the soviet archives are (somewhat) open, we can begin to really dig through history and verify or deny allegations. Soviet historians have been doing just that, actually.
